Bad enough when terrorists bluff about their intent to obtain nuclear weapons to frighten the general populace - now we have Republican politicians doing the terrorists' work for them. From TPM:
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) was troubled by what might happen when waterboarding and the American right to a fair trial met in a U.S. courtroom. She worried what might happen if terror suspects argued they'd been given "cruel and unusual" punishment at Gitmo.
"This is what scares me because they're in a U.S. court now and the rights are different," she said. "What will they say [about their detention] and what could happen and could they be out among the people again? It's very frightening."
How frightening? Mushroom cloud frightening, according to [Rep. Trent] Franks [R-AZ]. He said that a federal trial would give the suspects "a megaphone to speak to the planet," which he said "only hastens the danger" of, literally, a nuclear terrorist attack.
Yes, we certainly don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, do we? The only thing we need to fear are the fearmongers themselves. Better to dig a nice deep hole at Gitmo, and throw all these Republicans terrorists into it and forget about them. Also present at the Dec 10 event were Rep. Michelle "Kill the Socialists" Bachman (R-MN) and Frank "Crazy Eyes" Gaffney (Center for Security Policy).
I'm going to create a new variant of Godwin's Law.
- Sigger's Law: "As any discussion on terrorism grows longer, the probability of attributing terrorists with nuclear weapons (or similar destructive capabilities) approaches 1."
- Corollary to Sigger's Law: "Once such an observation is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned terrorist possession of nuclear weapons has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
NVH's law: As any blog continues to flog the notion that all Republican's and politicians attribute terrorism with having, needing, receiving, and giving nuclear weapons, the more irrelevant that blog post becomes.....OOHHH dammitt, that's beating a dead horse
Hey, at least Republican's are taking a stance, it may be wrong, but better to fear monger than monger fear I always say.
"Happiness is a mushroom cloud" J, Get the t-shirt here...
<http://www.7point62design.com/product_info.php?cPath=80_87&products_id=1131>
Posted by: NVH | 14 December 2009 at 10:05 PM
Sweet t-shirt design. Makes up for your lame "law" statement.
Posted by: J. | 14 December 2009 at 10:08 PM
Could you please post a link to someplace that actually puts the words "nuclear terrorist attack" in Rep. Frank's mouth during this press conference?
Cuz all I'm finding is very poorly executed allusions by "creative" bloggers, and mysteriously jumping quotation marks.
When you can't find it, the responsible thing would be to remove it. And then apologize for misleading people (I'll be holding my breath).
Hint: It won't be found at Talking Points Memo.
Posted by: John | 14 December 2009 at 11:29 PM
Like this one?
"When you have…gangs and they have loose ties with al Qaeda and then you have Iran not too far away from building a nuclear capability, nuclear terrorism may not be far off,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R- Ariz.), a member of the House Armed Services committee."
Rep. Frank is a big missile defense supporter due to his concern about Iranian and N. Korean nukes (that have yet to manifest themselves as a credible threat) as well as nuclear terrorism. Google "Trent Frank nuclear" - it's all there.
Posted by: J. | 15 December 2009 at 06:06 AM
From March 7, 2009.
Low and outside, that would be strike 1.
Google "Journalism ethics and standards" - it's all there.
Posted by: John | 15 December 2009 at 06:59 AM
Dude - it's not like I took a quote from 1980 and twisted it. That's his current position. Just because there wasn't a stenographer at the December event doesn't make the TMP journalist a liar. I don't understand your irritation - this isn't a new phenonema for either Dems or Repubs. I just noted Frank's abuse of the issue.
I keep looking for responsible politicians - there weren't any at the above-mentioned event. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: J. | 15 December 2009 at 07:54 AM
He's a effin' Nazi J....kick 'em out....
Posted by: NVH | 15 December 2009 at 08:37 AM
J,
Really? You're using stuff from all the way back in March? Where'd you find that quote? On a clay tablet somewhere? You know once it leaves your short term memory it can't be attributed to the speaker any more. This blog is supposed to be about current policy, if I want ancient history I'll take a class. Next you'll be trying to quote figures from pre-history like Bush or Clinton (if they even existed).
On a more serious note...
Yeesh, we're back to the 'Gang-terrorist alliance'. Perhaps this is a nice way to get your district's hands on gobs of federal money while maintaining your fiscal conservative street cred (Hey, it's not pork! I'm defending the Fatherland!) but, at its heart, it's nothing but simple scare-mongering.
Shiloh's law: The more law makers and law enforcement read Tom Clancy and watch '24' as briefing papers, the more outlandish their threat assessments as their ability to distinguish fact from fiction diminishes.
Corollary: The presence of federal grant money will speed this process exponentially.
And finally, a request. A while ago you mentioned that you were going to riff off of Jenkins book and give your take on 'American fear of all things'. I'd be interested in what you've got to say on the issue and this might be a good jumping off point...
Posted by: Belphagor1527 | 15 December 2009 at 08:40 AM
"Just because there wasn't a stenographer at the December event doesn't make the TMP journalist a liar."
I suppose you meant TPM, but your accuracy is no longer an issue here, it's already gone.
You don't think it makes him a liar, maybe not, but it sure fails every responsible journalism sniff test I know.
I'm not really into guilt by association, but you fail the journalistic sniff test also.
Posted by: John | 15 December 2009 at 09:37 AM
So apparently there isn't any evidence he said it, yet it remains here.
You're approaching the Ortmannian Standard for blog incredulity, and that's not a honor anyone should ever hope to achieve.
Posted by: John | 15 December 2009 at 05:00 PM
John, this isn't the NY Times, and you're wearing out your welcome. You made your point, go away now.
Posted by: J. | 15 December 2009 at 05:14 PM
Ortmannian? Isn't that a cloud out in the universe somewhere where we live? Did he spell that right?
Posted by: NVH | 15 December 2009 at 05:17 PM