Bill O’Reilly, the conservative pundit who puts the bully in bully pulpit, is alleging today that “the bad guys in Iraq, Iran and North Korea [are] all causing trouble trying to influence the American election.â€? O’Reilly’s claim, for which he offers no evidence, echoes one made a few days previously by his brother-in-harms, Rush Limbaugh, who went even farther and said, “the key voters in this year’s election are the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists….They are trying to create as much havoc as possible, raise the level of violence in order to affect the midterm elections. Sounds to me like they’re voting Democrat.â€? Again, no real evidence is offered to substantiate this claim. But the basis for such appears to be comments recently made by high-level members of the Bush administration, as noted in a recent article by Pamela Hess of UPI:
Analysis: Insurgents target U.S. will
Senior U.S. government officials and military officers have suggested that Iraqi insurgents are trying to influence the U.S. midterm elections.
A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote.
His comments Thursday echoed those made by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney two days earlier on conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, which is carried on the Armed Force Radio network in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad and head of the U.S. forces information operations branch as well as its public affairs unit, Thursday described several reasons why violence in Iraq is up despite a four-month offensive called Operation Together Forward meant to bring Baghdad under control. One of those, he said, was the American political calendar.
“We also realize that there is a midterm election that’s taking place in the United States and that the extremist elements understand the power of the media; that if they can in fact produce additional casualties, that in fact is recognized and discussed in the press because everybody would like not to see anybody get killed in these operations, but that does occur,” Caldwell said.
On Oct. 17, Cheney told Limbaugh: “I was reading something today that a writer — I don’t remember who — was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election. And when I read that, it made sense to me. And I interpreted this as that the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change.” [full text]
A great many folks want a change, both here and abroad. Does that make us all terrorists or their lackeys? I think not. Clearly, such innuendo is little more than the inflammatory ramblings of warmongering jackals. The claims are not credible, as the article goes on to report:
By Friday, the story had changed. According to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician, Multi-National Forces Iraq reported that Caldwell based his comments on insurgent Web sites which say they need to attack “during this period.”
That period may be interpreted as the run up to U.S. elections, but now is also Ramadan, Islam’s holy month — a time when violence has increased in Iraq in each of the last three years.
Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., told UPI he doubts there is a correlation between the U.S. election and the increase in violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
“I hope they are right, but I see no basis for it in the previous three-and-a-half years of experience in Iraq,” O’Hanlon said. “We did not see a spike before the November 2004 (presidential) election. We have not seen big spikes before other major political milestones. Sure, you can see slight increases in violence due to such things, but the big increases are generally due to changed American and Iraqi army tactics. Increased engagements with the enemy lead to greater casualties on all sides.
“Political events do not in my experience appear to be big drivers. I’d love to be proven wrong this time, because that would imply a reduced level of violence after Nov. 7, but I’d be very surprised if that happened on a major scale,” O’Hanlon said.
In a new report published by the Johns Hopkins University and Brookings, researcher Victor Tanner and his Iraqi colleague — who uses a pen name to protect his identity — analyze the complex nature of the sectarian violence that now grips Baghdad. More than 5,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the city since May, most of them execution style.
The report describes factions motivated as much or more by their own quest for power, the evening of scores on a neighborhood level, and sheer thuggery, than it does a central strategy driven by geopolitics or the American election cycle. [full text]
The irony, of course, is that those who nonetheless ascribe such a “central strategy� to the terrorists—and, in so doing, knowingly distort the truth and fan the flames of public fear—are themselves attempting to influence the coming election and are “motivated as much or more by their own quest for power.� In their shameless use of such divisive tactics, these bad guys make abundantly clear that not only are they undeserving of power but also poorly suited to possess it.
Kmareka.com 
David! Surely you jest!
Evidence? O’Reilly? HA! There’s two words that don’t belong in the same sentence. When was the last time O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, or any of vile crew ever produced a whit of evidence to support their truly disgusting and abominable claims?
(Hint: the next time will be their first…)
It’s all about raw emotion with these clowns–no, “clowns” is too benign a word, and the one thing these guys are not is “benign.” These guys are actively malignant. The last thing they want is their audience actually thinking.
Sorry, but it’s getting harder and harder for me to remain civil when discussing these loathsome individuals. They are truly revolting, and they are the real threat to our way of life. It’s not the terrorists, it’s those who pretend they would protect us. O’Rielly and his ilk, and those he supports remind me of a certain failed artist who insisted persons of a certain religious affiliation were a problem that needed to be ‘eliminated’ to protect the Fatherland….
David prefers to call conservative talk show hosts the “bad guys” as opposed to the terrorists/jihadists. Klaus claims these conservative talk show hosts are the “real threat to our way of life.” Your hatred for President Bush and the conservatives has left you blind.
You may recall, terrorists bombed Madrid days before their national elections, and the result was exactly what was intended. The terrorists are not stupid, and they understand how our system of democracy works. While perhaps not the only cause, it is certainly reasonable to suggest the fairly dramatic increase in violence this month is timed to affect our elections.
What is unreasonable is to argue that this is impossible, that the terrorists wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing, that the terrorists couldn’t care less who wins Congress in the coming weeks. Let’s see, those who have pledged to fight until Iraqis are free from terror and truly democratic. or those who swear to pull out of Iraq and leave the country to fend for itself against the Islamofascists.
Do my comments attempt to influence the elections in some small way. Damn right they do. As do yours and those of various talk show hosts. The actions of the Islamofascists do as well.
Many Americans want change; it doesn’t make them terrorists. Such overgeneralizations are drivel (and seek to influence elections of course). But those who prefer to insist that the Islamofascists intentions are pure, and our own President and his supporters are the threats (i.e. Nazis), side with the terrorists. Does that make them terrorists?
Those who lie with dogs…
Mike: what do you call a group of people who claim any dissent is treason?
Do you get the impression that people like that really believe in democracy and free speech?
In the meantime, more and more evidence comes out that the war was a mistake; that it was planned poorly; that it was executed poorly; that the chances of victory (on anything like the terms claimed by the Admin) is a fleeting, probably futile hope. And worse, it has made us LESS safe than we were on 9/10/01. Got that? LESS safe.
In the meantime, despite all that, a group of people continues to assault the liberties we are supposedly trying to plant in Iraq, continues to lie by claiming that ‘victory is around the corner’ and shouts vehemently that anyone who suggests an alternative strategy wants to ‘cut and run.’ At the same time they wail about the dire threat to everything America stands for, even as they promote torture, suspend habeas corpus, continue to insist on the right to wiretap anyone’s phone without any oversight.
Are those people who seem to believe in democracy, and freedom of speech?
So, if the terrorists want anyone to win in Nov, I’d bet they’re pulling for the Republicans. After all, it’s the Republicans who have provided them with the recruiting tools, training ground, and equipment needed to carry out their jihad.
Because if the bad guys (I won’t use your disgusting term) are such a threat, why has the president done NOTHING to ramp up an effort to defeat them? You claimed that terrorists are as grave a threat as the Nazis in WWII. And yet, no draft, we cut taxes, which is unheard of in wartime, we are not asked to do anything except ‘support our troops’ buy going shopping. This demonstrates that the Admin is fundamentally unserious about this threat that he trumpets. If it’s so serious, why doesn’t Bush take it seriously? Can you explain that?
And yet, who is shouting about this threat, using it to distract attention from an enormous debt, an economy grossly tilted towards the already-haves, and using this ‘threat’ to continue to undermine our liberty?
The terrorists can kill some of us. They cannot kill our way of life unless we surrender to the fear and allow ourselves to be swept along in the frenzy.
Yes, the terrorists are bad guys. But they cannot invade us, occupy our cities, or impose their way of life on us. In short, they are not the real threat to our way of life.
Our president embarked on an imperialistic adventure that blew up in his face. He lied about his reasons for doing so. And now he’s too much of a bloody coward to admit that a change is necessary. He was a coward in the 60s, he’s a coward now. Bush and Rush and O’Reilly are classic bullies: they coversup their own cowardice by talking tough and accusing others of being cowards, or traitors, or whatever other vile name occurs to them. And all the while, they pursue policies that make our country LESS safe than it was on 9/10/01. (Yes, I repeat myself, because you need to hear it.)
This war, and the people who support it by using charged, bigoted words like “Islamofascist” disgust me. I am more afraid of the Christianofascists running our country– and running it into the ground while making us all LESS safe than we were on 9/10/01 (Third time’s a charm, eh?)
How do you like that word? Do you find it reprehensible? Then explain how is it any different from your disgusting term?
mike and klaus once again boil the debate down to essence, sadly repeated over and over throughout the eons.
C’mon folks,
History of Civilization 101; individual population groups (cultures) always compete over resources perceived to be required to sustain their survival. Human behavior always has been, and always will be, motivated by this most base instinct, ever since Eve took a chomp out of that famous and irresistably-juicy apple and thereby damning her prodginy to the repetitive hell that we all now have come to know as “life”.
What a coincidence! Here we have a coalesence of religion and science.
Holy Shit!
“Holy Shit” is that which motivates humans to kill each other over a disagreement over religious beliefs as oppossed to working together for each other’s best interests.
We can do better. We can take the “TAKE” out of our relationships with other contries, (name the 3rd-world country). We must start working wih the our compatriot citizens of world.
The Net can help.
klaus, in response…
dissent is not treasonous, no one is calling it so. Aiding and abetting the enemy is treasonous, and some deserve to be called on it. Lynne Stewart, for example, offered assistance to terrorists; this is treason, not dissent as some have suggested.
I understand most Americans, both left and right, believe in free speech and other democratic principles. No one is stopping those on the left from speaking their minds. This blog is a good example.
Perhaps mistakes have been made in Iraq. That doesn’t mean we give up and go home. We should work to fulfill our promise to the Iraqis, that of freedom and democracy. Being optomistic, pointing to coalition successes in Iraq, and encouraging Iraqis to join the democratic movement and stand up to those who wish to deny their freedom is not “assault” as you call it. Demoralizing Iraqis by telling them we will pull out soon, will leave them to the wolves, that there is no hope and they are not ready for democracy should be as offensive to Americans as it is to Iraqis.
You can keep repeating we are less safe, but my response will be the same. I DON’T BELIEVE YOU. Terrorists have not attacked here since 9-11, a credit to all those working to keep us safe, including the President and his administration. Terrorist attacks have, in fact, been thwarted thanks in large part to intelligence gathering by the US and its allies.
President Bush is not an imperialist. You know it, I know it. He does, in fact, believe in spreading Democracy, allowing the most people possible to live in free societies. Calling him a coward is immature and undermines your credibility.
Sorry the term Islamofascist disgusts you. But I want you to actually think about this for a second. You said you are more afraid of Christians running our country. Are you actually saying you would rather have radical Muslims like those leading Iran and Syria running the United States? Would you feel better raising a daughter in an Islamic regime like Iran?
You see klaus, Christians are not trying to kill us in the name of Jesus. Radical Muslims are trying to kill us in the name of their god, such as the 3000 innocents killed on September 11.
Do you really believe the garbage you post?
“…You can keep repeating we are less safe, but my response will be the same. I DON’T BELIEVE YOU…”
If you choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend you’re not hearing the evidence that is all around you, then you have forfeited any claim to rational discourse.
You don’t have to believe me; but the evidence is all around you. It’s coming from the Pentagon and intelligance officers and James Baker III and, well, everyone but the Admin. Oh, right, the liberal media. Because the media are owned by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Rupert Murdoch, Patrick Rooney, and other prominent lefties. Don’t know the names? Try Google.
And the five-year hiatus is still three years short of the “record” set by the Clinton Admin. Talk to me in three years. Only 6 people died in the first WTC attack. And the people responsible are in jail.
And I don’t think that Clinton got an PDB reading “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” But Bush told us in 2003 that bin Laden just wasn’t that important.
OK, so Lynne Stewart was convicted, and sentanced. But the charge wasn’t treason. So who are these nefarious operatives that ARE committing treason? I want one name. Just one. I want one, single, concrete example of what you are calling treason. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that people are committing treason.
And, if Iraq is so important, why doesn’t the president act like it? Is he incompetent? Are you in favor of a draft? It’s way past time for you to put up or shut up on this. It will take another half- to one million soldiers deployed in Iraq for ten years to produce the sort of result that the pres has been promising since Feb 2003. Are you willing to make that commitment? And how are you going to pay for that? Answer the bloody question for once.
No, Christians are trying to kill me. “Christians” have, however, killed thousands/tens/hundreds of thousands of Muslims. We have ‘avenged’ 9/11 by a ratio of ten or a hundred or a thousand to one. How many more do you want to kill before you’re satisfied? All of them? I want a number.
But the Christians are tapping phones illegally, violating habeas corpus, torturing people, rendering others, and generally making me LESS safe. I am less secure from repression by my own gov’t, and less secure from a terrorist threat.
Yes I find “Islamofascist” disgusting. The term must have come from Goebbels text “Propaganda 101.”
It’s also inaccurate. Some Muslims would kill me if they could, but MUSLIMS are not trying to impose their way of life on me. They can’t. There is exactly zero chance of that. What? An army of terrorists in a boat sailing across the Atlantic to invade Providence? Wow, what a delusion. So enough with the straw man arguments about a Syrian-style regime here. Or I’ll ask why you haven’t enlisted.
It is funny though, that you don’t seem to mind the Syrian-style dictatorship that Bush & Cheney would like to impose. They want to be able to lock up anyone they want and dispense with all the constitutional niceties, as what’s-her-name Coulter said.
I’m done. You have already said that you’ve made up your mind, and nothing will change it. You prefer to be Wrong and Strong. Hey, it’s a free country. Sort of. At least for the time being.