"We live in a dangerous world."

[madfloridian]

"We live in a dangerous world."

I have heard those words too much lately from both parties.

We live in a dangerous world...Evan Bayh.

"Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took pains not to be seen exploiting the killing for unseemly political gain, expressing horror and anguish about Bhutto’s death.
But their surrogates were not so reticent.

“We live in a dangerous world, and tragedies like this just remind us that we need someone with the seasoning, the experience and the strength to be commander-in-chief during uncertain times,” Clinton supporter Senator Evan Bayh was quoted as saying yesterday in New Hampshire by NBC News.

Clinton has contrasted what she says is her experience on the international stage, and Obama’s single term in the US Senate, saying that she would be ready to lead on “Day One”.

But Obama strategist David Axelrod told reporters that Al Qaeda had been emboldened by the Iraq war, which Clinton initially supported.

“That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration,” Time’s website quoted Axelrod as saying."

We'll have to see if they do that, David Axelrod. The fear thing still seems to work.

We live in a dangerous world...McCain

"On expanding the troops: “ I want to expand and will expand the United States Army and Marine Corp from 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. We live in a dangerous world, and I will give you some straight talk. We’re going to be in Afghanistan for a while; we’re going to be in Iraq for a while.”

Both parties playing the fear card.

We live in a dangerous world...the ad and the story behind it

Video.
Osama, Dean...we live in a very dangerous world.



The very worst part was the C-Span 3 hour segment where the Democratic strategist openly admitted their ads, including the Osama ad, were intended to "take Dean down." Here is David Jones talking about it.

David Jones is saying --
"Our main objective was taking down Howard Dean... he was so far ahead... our concern was that maybe we couldn't fulfill our goal, but could take him down a notch... Gore, Carter all seemed to think he was the winner, so it looked like a cake walk for Dean - but we decided Xmas would be too over the top - but when he was taking a dive even before the scream, it seemed too dangerous to disclose the donors..."

C-Span was on today live with dem pacs and rep pacs on at separate times describing what they did in the 2004 race for president. DAVID JONES, remember that name until the day you die, formed a pac called Americans for Jobs, Heathcare, and Progressive Values. This pac was formed with 22 undisclosed donors and $600000 dollars for the express purpose of taking Gov Dean down. David Jones used this phrase many times and bragged about what he did. He had previously worked for Clinton and Gore campaigns. He bragged about this. This is the first time a PAC was used to take another democrat down in this manner. His own words. This guy is bragging about the bin laden ads.

Those notes were taken from the video at C-Span. It is linked in the first paragraph from a post at Daily Kos. Just before the 3 hour mark, and again at the end.

Those words "we live in a dangerous world" I have heard today on TV from Democratic strategists, and just as often from GOP candidates. Same talking points. "We live in a dangerous world."

May I contrast them with what we used to hear. No fear mongering, just truth. Don't hear it much anymore from some candidates...others are being honest.

From a Vermont Democratic dinner in 2004:

Calling out Bush for the lies about Iraq

..."BARRE, Vt. (AP) The national Democratic Party and those who don't vote must share the blame with President Bush for the state of the nation, former Gov. Howard Dean said Saturday.

''Democracy is not a spectator sport,'' Dean told the state Democratic convention where delegates greeted the one-time presidential candidate with endless waves of applause, whistles, cheers and foot-stomping..."

''You know what the biggest issue about Iraq is? It is not whether we are there or not,'' said Dean. ''It is whether we were told the truth before we went there, because the commander in chief of the United States military should never send American soldiers to foreign countries to fight without first telling the truth to the American people about why they are going.''

And then, his words lost under the roar of the crowd, Dean threw out questions for Bush:

''Mr. president, where are those weapons of mass destruction?

''Mr. president, where is the evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with al-Qaeda?

''Mr. president, where is the evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11?''

We never got an answer to those questions. But we are still hearing what a dangerous world we live in.

The fear card works well.

I called for my absentee ballot today. I am still without a candidate. Hubby and I have decided though that the use of the words "dangerous world" is a complete turn-off....and we will not be able to consider a vote for anyone who uses those words or refers to 9/11 in a fearful way.

It has gone on way too long, the fear factor, the terror stuff. Our party should be better than that.

[Captain Angry]

1. It sucks that people are so easily mislead.

There are too many irrational people that will be herded in a given direction when the right fear tactics are used. These people will vote against every one of their own needs in a heartbeat if they're afraid.

Man we got screwed when Dean was submarined.

[The Traveler]

2. Ah. Howard Dean., The Doctor, A great American.

No coward he ... nor would he ever ask any of us to cower in fear. Rather, he urged us to reason past it.

[madfloridian]

3. Sometimes keeping the fear factor going leads to confused messages...

Like this op ed by Bob Kerrey in the WSJ. He seems confused as to whether Iraq was a real threat or not, but to continue the fear theme he pretends it really was one.

Bob Kerrey said Iraq is "central to the fight against Islamic radicalism."

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

..."No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq"

When you are not telling the truth, when you are using false messages, you start giving out signals of confusion.

To the shame of our party some invoked the fear card in NH yesterday.

[kentuck]

4. We've always lived in a dangerous world, MoFo !

Tell us something we don't know. We work to make it less dangerous, not more dangerous, as some assholes want to do. :mad:

[LeftCoast]

5. So your world is all puppy dogs and rainbows?

Because the world I see out there looks pretty dangerous to me.

[madfloridian]

6. I could get killed tomorrow.

I could get hit by a car, struck by lightning, be blown away by a tornado.

Iraq and Saddam were the least of my fears...ever.

[madfloridian]

7. "puppy dogs and rainbows"?

Not exactly.

I was lied to about a country that my country invaded. It was not a threat.

Things are less safe now because of that invasion, and the people who voted for it are still telling me the world is dangerous.

[LeftCoast]

8. If the world is a dangerous place how come Clinton can't talk about that?

Wouldn't she be criticized as naive if she didn't address the world as it is?

[madfloridian]

9. Of course she can talk about how dangerous the world is.

If that is what she wants to do.

I am angry at any candidates who use 9/11 and fear. I talk big because my vote won't count toward the nominee anyway....but I don't think I can take anymore talk of how dangerous the world is and how so few can keep us safe.

It angers me.

We were lied to about 9/11, and now the new Democratic talking points are that it's the economy and that most people don't care about Iraq.

So they can't have it all ways, both ways. Iraq was never a danger, and if they nearly destroyed a candidate in 2004 for saying we were no safer with Saddam captured....then they should be saying that the world is dangerous. They are flip-flopping.

I am just tired of hearing about fear and threats.

[LeftCoast]

10. I didn't see anyone on the Dem side use 9/11

I see a substantive difference between Democratic discussion of the dangers of the world today vs. the rhetoric many of the republicans use. "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" seems to be a major republican talking point. I've seen nothing remotely that vacuous and fear-mongering on our side.

[madfloridian]

13. Agreed, Dems are not as bad. But Hillary used it in NH.

"Five hours after her chartered flight from Des Moines landed in New Hampshire, Clinton gave what may be the most striking speech of her campaign so far. Reeling from her surprisingly big loss in the Iowa caucuses, she is clearly reaching for a bold new way to combat winner Barack Obama -- though it doesn't appear she has settled on a consistent argument.

Clinton usually only talks about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when she speaks of her work helping Ground Zero workers cope with medical problems.

But in an airport hangar this morning, she said: "We have people who are plotting against us right now, getting ready to repeat the atrocity of Sept 11. We know it, I see the intelligence reports.""

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_reaches.html

But I agree that Democrats are not as blatant as the Republicans. But using it without making clear we attacked the wrong country is misleading as it can be.

[Hidden Stillness]

11. Different Levels, Different Meanings

I don't really understand your mixing together the two subject matters, the lying or concealing propaganda or exploitation of a situation on the one hand, and the fact that this is a violent, dangerous world and someone referred to it, on the other. It is pretty horrific, if you haven't noticed--I know that couldn't have been your point, but then I don't really know what it is completely. As someone who actually was paying close attention to the situation in Pakisatan for some months, with increasing hope and worry for this Nation with a surprising number of people who want a Western-style, modern democracy, with a real court system, no military rule, etc., to suddenly have the shattering sadness of the murder of Benazir Bhutto--Musharraf actually did it, after all--you cannot escape the neverending threat some people do live under. There are very few countries in the Middle East where you actually might feel some hope for the future, and real democracy, and Pakistan was one of them. I hope it still will be.

The dumbest remark I heard about Pakistan lately came from the Democratic debate a few days ago on CNN or whatever it was, (the dual debate thing), where Edwards referred to the assassination of Bhutto, then attacked supporters of the Iraq war for "causing" it, or whatever the fuck the connection was supposed to be. I thought, You Goddamned asshole, you don't even know or care what the actual history of Pakistan is! Your mention of several phony Clinton corporate ties, and their exploitation of the situations and remarks, etc., are very important and real. There has to be real, sweeping anti-lobbyist/anti-corporate legislation, and get all of these people out of the Government; this has been a threat for a long time--since the era of that bastard Reagan. That is all true. I do not agree, however, that all of the "dangerous world" type comments are even at all on the same level.

[madfloridian]

12. But to simple minds who are already filled with 9/11 fear

those words sound the same.

We can talk about levels of meaning, but they are still using the words "danger","terror", "keeping us safe"....as words to keep people nervous enough to affect their vote.

I see a connection to the use of the words "dangerous world" and the Iraq war. I get angry now when I hear those words because it sounds just like it did before the vote in 2002, October.

I don't have a candidate in mind right now, and I am not anti-anyone.

But those words used to cause anger here at DU...but now they don't anymore. It will go over here if a certain candidate uses it. Maybe that is what I am saying over all.....that the words cause me enough angst to affect my vote.

I will vote against those who use them in a poltical way.

Here is an example of using national security to even put down one of the stongest activist groups on our side....I have a lot mre examples.

PPI praises censure of MoveOn

PPI is the foreign policy wing of the DLC....

To their credit, most Democrats swiftly condemned MoveOn's scurrilous attempts to vilify Gen. David Petraeus, even as they kept the pressure on President Bush to change course in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, changing old stereotypes has been made more difficult of late by misguided rhetoric from some Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates on issues that are central to the perception of the party's seriousness on defense and security matters. It would be a shame if, having done so much to shore up their credentials for national-security leadership, Democrats start backsliding in the heat of a national election.

But then that is just me. Others may not be bothered at all by the national security theme. It bothers me to use it as we lost a good candidate in 04 by playing on fears in part. It means we are not dealing with the truth of it all...that we are really less safe since invaded Iraq. And it means that some of our candidates are okay with going on to Iran if it means winning the election.