The elections are 12 days away — and terrorists are glued to their TVs

Following up on an earlier post, reader R.M. suggested I missed the really interesting part of Dick Cheney’s interview with WDAY’s Scott Hennen. In retrospect, R.M. is probably right.

Q: Are the terrorists trying to influence our election in your view?

Cheney: I think they’re very much aware of our political calendar here, I really do. And when you see the kinds of things that happened this year, for example, when the Democratic Party in Connecticut purged Joe Lieberman, in effect, drummed him out of the party on the grounds that he had supported the President in the global war on terror, that sends a message to the terrorists overseas that their basic strategy of trying to break the will of the American people may, in fact, work. [..]

Q: I have a Pentagon source that tells me there are websites out there that they’ve just recently translated that actually refer to the election and ask for an up-tick in violence to try and influence the election, is that accurate?

Cheney: I wouldn’t be surprised. It sounds right to me.

Do you ever get the impression that these guys just aren’t well?

Right, terrorists are monitoring Joe Lieberman’s race in Connecticut, and despite the fact that al Qaeda believes that “prolonging the war is in [their] interest,” they’re somehow looking forward to Ned Lamont’s victory. And, of course, it’s entirely believable that Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has intercepted recently-intercepted communiqués suggesting a connection between terrorism and the midterm elections — but Defense Department officials only leaked word to a talk show host in North Dakota.

I feel sorry for parody writers who have to try and exaggerate this nonsense into something farcical.

For what it’s worth, Cheney’s argument seems to be the Bush gang’s favorite — terrorists are practically Charlie Cooks in the Middle East. From just the last week:

Cheney: “[T]he terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change.”

Bush: “There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”

Tony Snow: “[I]t is possible that [terrorists] are trying to use violence right now as a way of influencing the elections.”

Rumsfeld: “Here they are, getting up every day saying, ‘We’ve got an election in two weeks in America, gang, and we want to change horses over there because we don’t like the folks we’re having to deal with now; they’re a little tough on us. So let’s get out there and let’s make some noise.'”

How painfully ridiculous. First, Bush has already admitted that there’s no intelligence to suggest that terrorists are trying to influence the elections.

And second, if terrorists were intent on affecting our campaign cycle, who, exactly, would they want to help? Al Qaeda wants the war in Iraq to continue, the RNC is paying considerable amounts of money to publicize enemy propaganda film, and the CIA has intelligence showing that bin Laden has timed messages to help Bush politically, for fear that a Democrat might undermine al Qaeda’s gameplan.

Maybe we should just start calling the GOP the Manchurian Party?

“I wouldn’t be surprised. It sounds right to me.”

In other words, I have no knowledge or information of this whatsoever, but since it sounds like it will perpetuate “terror” [see Olbermann’s Special Comment], then I will agree with you.

Look up evil in the dictionary and Cheney’s face is right there.

  • Maybe we should just start calling the GOP the Manchurian Party?

    Yeah, I like that. Or the Anti-Christ. Maybe the terrorists are dumb enough to think that by attacking and proving that the Bush team is incompetent itwould make people vote AGAINST Bush. We all know that’s not the case. Incompetence has gotten him to where he is today with his base and the MSM.

  • Rumsfeld: “Here they are, getting up every day saying, ‘We’ve got an election in two weeks in America, gang, and we want to change horses over there because we don’t like the folks we’re having to deal with now; they’re a little tough on us. So let’s get out there and let’s make some noise.'”

    Oh, it’s true. I met some of them at Camp Wellstone a few years back. Nice beards. They’re total animals when it comes to canvassing and GOTV. Anything for jihad.

  • The elections are 12 days away — and terrorists are glued to their TVs

    I’m laughing, visualizing the Jihad equivalents of Rush Limbaugh or Mehlman in action-planning meetings debating the meaning of meaning of words like “stay the course”, reading polls and I fully expect to get telephone push polls (telephone poles?) from Al Quada any day now.

  • This is all pretty amazing, considering Baghdad averages only 2.5 hours of electricity per day.

  • When you think of all the money, from both U.S. and Iraqi treasuries, that has “disappeared” in Iraq, I’ll bet millions, at least, have wound up in the hands of the very people we’re so terrified of. Al Quaeda in Iraq probably does watch this race intently. If the Dems win, Al Quaeda in Iraq’s salad days of mooching off of US taxpayers may be drawing to a close.

  • Come on, guys, we’re wrong on this one, and we have to admit it. You honestly don’t think the terrorists realize the importance of getting their candidates in office in Washington? You’re all blind, just completely blind.

    Picture it: Osama sits, stone-serious, in front of the camera at Taliban TV One Studios, and delivers the climactic ending of his latest public service announcement: “My fellow terrorists, we are gaining ground back in this war on the evil pigs of America. It is imperative that we continue to spread our message of terror, hate freedom, further the cause of our allies in Iran… and take back the 39th district in Idaho! Death to America. Peace, I’m out.”

  • “[T]he terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change.”

    Well, I guess that proves we’ve brought the democratic system to the Arab world after all.

  • “…we want to change horses over there because we don’t like the folks we’re having to deal with now; they’re a little tough on us.”

    Oh yes, big bad Bush and his merrie meanies gave them an entire oil-rich country to romp about in and their bumbling also means Al-Q can hide out in Pakistan while reaping the profits from Afghanistan’s poppy fields. I can just hear Osama now: Oo, arrgh! Thank you father may I have another?

    I’m sure terrorists are watching too but they probably get out of bed and laugh themselves sick at the latest idiocy from the [b]Admin.

    Also note the persistent refusal to draw a distinction between foreign terrorists who kill people in Iraq and Iraqis doing the same thing for any number of reasons. But subtlety is a dirty word down 1600 Penn. Ave way (especially since Shrub can’t pronounce it). If a person plants and IED he must be a terrorist. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact he’s pissed off that his country was invaded by the US for no reason, US soldiers demolished his house for no reason, US soldiers dragged a relative off to Abu Gharib to model women’s underwear because they’re bastards, US soldiers raped and killed his neighbor’s daughter because they’re filthy dogs. It certainly couldn’t have anything to do with deep, long established religious differences that Shrub couldn’t understand if you nailed a book on the subject to his forehead. And it has absolutely nothing to do with their hatred of the smirking chimp who started this whole disaster. Oh no, when a brown person kills someone he must be a terrorist. Quick, catch him, beat him up and when he can’t give you Osama’s address, beat him up some more!

    Biggest. Arsewipes. Ever.

    tAiO

    p.s. And the fact there are so many IEDs to go around has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the US allowed a warehouse containing enough HEX to knock down a mountain to be stripped to the walls. Nope. Not our fault.

  • Who are the terrorists here? Who’s working for whom? I’m kind of amazed Olbermann came out and said that a few days ago. Nevertheless, it’s true.

    Supposedly it would be in bad taste to mention this in public. Do we have to wait until the adminstration kills some Americans? Then could we engage in full-blown statements of equivalency.

  • “…the Democratic Party in Connecticut purged Joe Lieberman, in effect, drummed him out of the party.” – Dick (Dick) Cheney
    Um, didn’t the Connecticut VOTERS reject him as Senate candidate, and then Lieberman left to run as an independant?
    Heck, next Cheney will still claim he knows that Sadaam had WMDs right after shooting a friend in the face. I know, that would NEVER happen since Cheney is such a respectable statesman.

  • #14 – Who are the terrorists here?

    Good question. Howard Zinn attempts to answer your question in his latest column:

    “The repeated excuse for war, and its toll on civilians-and this has been uttered by Pentagon spokespersons as well as by Israeli officials-is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is “accidental” whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (9/11, Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.

    This is a false distinction. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the ground that a “suspected terrorist” is inside (note the frequent use of the word “suspected” as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), it is argued that the resulting deaths of women and children is not intended, therefore “accidental.” The deaths of innocent people in bombing may not be intentional. Neither are they accidental. The proper description is “inevitable.”

    So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a “deliberate” attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of people dying inevitably in “accidental” events has been far greater than all the deaths of innocent people deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reconsider the morality of war, any war in our time. “

  • WOW I cant get Comcast to come to my house at all ….but OBL got them to hook up cable in his cave in a third world country….

  • terrorists hide among civilians.

    This is also a sick blame the victim strategy often used by this Admin. which allows it to further erase the lines between civilian/rebels/terrorists/
    guys throwing rocks. The “logic” runs: The civilians must or should know they’ve got terrorists in their midst or at least people the US might think are terrorists, which is now the same thing thanks to Der Decider (suspects are guilty until he decides otherwise). Therefore, when civilians fail to tie up the terrorists (or anyone the US might think is a terrorist) and hand them over to the soldiers they’re helping the terrorists and that makes them what? Terrorists! Gosh, they get every where, those sneaky devils.

    So not only is it entirely the fault of the so-called civilians when they and their house catch several mortar rounds, it’s a good thing they got wiped out because we know see they aren’t really civilians, they’re terrorists (see above). And if it turns out the house was full of sick, elderly adults and babies? Meh, accidents happen. And they probably knew some terrorists (or possible terrorists) or might have grown up to become terrorists, so once again they are responsible for what happened. Really, if the Iraqi people want to avoid this sort of thing they should shoot themselves in the heads as soon as they’re born.

  • “This is all pretty amazing, considering Baghdad averages only 2.5 hours of electricity per day. ” – Bubba

    And considering that Osama is supposed to be hiding deep in a cave somewhere which is why we can’t find him.

    But to be fair, there are jihadi-wanabees on jihadi web sites talking about our election. Is this some big surprise?

    What the Dickster and Boy George II don’t get (or won’t tell the truth about) is that al Qaeda want them to stay in power because of their blatent incompetence, which has lead to the vast recruitment of more terrorists.

  • ***Bush has already admitted that there’s no intelligence to suggest that terrorists are trying to influence the elections***

    Have the presidential speech-writers stopped to consider that this statement, taken in a reality-based context, effectively says that “there’s only UNINTELLIGENT PEOPLE suggesting that terrorists are trying to influence the elections?”

    and as for the “terrorists glued to televisions” bit—it made me think of something I might see on an SNL episode; something that only John Belushi could’ve pulled off. Imagine coming home from work, sitting down to watch the television, and you can’t see the damned thing—for all the “terrorists” who are glued to the set. LITERALLY GLUED to it, by the way. He’d have to hack his way through to the remote, and slice his way through to the screen itself. Sort of a “Samurai Couch Potato” kind of thing….

  • Well, I guess that proves we’ve brought the democratic system to the Arab world after all.

    Comment by Mike —

    Ha, funny. This actually might be Bush’s excuse for getting out of Iraq. Mission Accomplished.

  • “[T]he terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change.”

    Well, I guess that proves we’ve brought the democratic system to the Arab world after all. — Mike, @12

    I was thinking of posting something along the same lines, but I can’t beat this one. And, as Dale (@21) says: Mission accomplished.

    Now, can we please bring them all home and re-invest in something more sensible?

  • Comments are closed.