For the past several days we have debated whether or not the massacre at Fort Hood was terrorism or not. Terrorism seems to differ in each person’s mind.
Tonight I looked at old footage for Veterans Day. The attack on Pearl Harbor continued to come up and it was intermingled with footage from 9-11. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor terrorism? How about the Marine Barracks attack in Lebanon in 1983?
We have no internationally agreed upon definition. In fact, within our own country there is no one defnition. Certainly there would be no question if most of those killed had been civilians.
If we use ‘terrorism’ too often does it detract from the horror? Does the sneak attack make Pearl Harbor terrorism? If troops are sleeping or doing other duties, are they non-combatants?
I think that part of the problem is that the current administration wants to get rid of the term all together… remember, there is no longer terrorism, just man made disasters? What an f’ing joke.
When a radical Muslim shoots 43 soldiers, killing 13 of them and one baby, while screaming “Allah Akbar” I think that is a clear case of ‘man made disaster’ or ‘terrorism’. To call it anything else is just asinine.
Terrorism didn’t just begin under Obama.
It shouldn’t change definition when the administration changes.
There can be man-made disasters that have nothing to do with terrorism.
It’s a shame that so many people look at this tragedy as an opportunity to criticize the President. I agree with Glenn Beck that the period of national unity after the 9/11 attacks is something to which we should aspire. In 2001, if there were those who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to blame or condemn President Bush, their voices were marginalized and dismissed.
I wish I could say we’ve progressed since that time. In many respects we have, and yet those seeking to score political points off this tragedy are much more vocal and numerous than they were in 2001. Our country was divided then, too, and yet we put that aside.
I hate to say this, but our nation would not respond with unity if we were attacked again in such magnitude. It’s just not what we do when a Democrat is in the White House. This needs to change.
LBH, it really has been like a feeding frenzy, hasn’t it? I have been rather horrified at what I have been hearing. There are folks out there hanging on President Obama’s every word, just to criticize. I haven’t heard anything he has said wrong. He was right to say not to rush to judgement without facts.
On the contrary, LBH and Moon, rally-round-the-flag-syndrome (as described by John Mueller in War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, a book I read in freshman poli-sci class many years ago) is generally a bipartisan phenomenon. The “rally” concept explains the surge in popular support of the President during periods of crisis or war. The syndrome tends to reduce criticism of governmental policies.
WIthout going into a full-blown poli-sci lecture, here are a few examples of Rally Syndrome in recent history that have crossed the aisle (thanks to Wikipedia for the reminders):
The Cuban Missile Crisis: President John F. Kennedy’s approval rating in early October 1962 was at 61%. By November, after the crisis had passed, Kennedy’s approval rose to 73%. The spike in approval peaked in December 1962 at 75%.
Iranian Hostage Crisis: President Jimmy Carter quickly gained 26 percentage points, jumping from 32 to 58% approval following the initial seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran in November 1979. Carter’s poor handling of the crisis however, caused popular support to decrease, and a year later, in November 1980, Carter was back to his pre-crisis approval rating.
Operation Desert Storm: President George H. W. Bush was rated at 61% approval in December 1991, but following the success of Operation Desert Storm, Bush enjoyed a peak 89% approval rating in February 1991. From there, Bush’s approval rating slowly decreased, reaching the pre-crisis level of 61% in October 1991.
September 11, 2001: On September 10th, Bush had a Gallup Poll rating of 51%. By September 15, his approval rate had increased by 34% to 85%. Just a week later, Bush was at 90%, the highest presidential approval rating ever.
The nation tends toward the Rally Syndrome when an action is international to an extent, specific, dramatic, and enacted directly against the President and the United States. The symbolic nature of the presidential office gives him the advantage of a temporary boost. Popularity diminishes as the President is required to make partisan decisions in the aftermath. So since Hasan is a U.S. citizen, albeit Muslim, there is less of a sense that the office of President (and hence the USA) was being attacked by a foreign power, as in 9/11.
Emma, I wasn’t talking about approval ratings. I was talking about how critical all the talking heads have been of every word out of Presiden’t Obama’s mouth. It is simply a marathon.
I just want the man to be able to address the nation without the constant and continual criticism to stop. Criticizing policy is one thing. Criticizing what amounts to being a eulogy is another.
I got very sick of it under Bush also. It was even more disgusting because much of that criticism was not just Democrats but also Republicans also.
I agree with you 100% that there can be man-made disasters that have nothing to do with terrorism, however, this administration is calling ‘terrorism’ man-made disasters…
Approval ratings are quantifiable entities and do somewhat indicate the overall level of support a president enjoys during a national crisis. It’s no secret that I have profound disagrements with this President and his policies. But like many Americans, I feel that Obama is OUR president to criticize. I would be outraged at a shoe-throwing attack or any other real or symbolic attack against him or this country.
But to be fair, Obama just does not have the chops to be comforter-in-chief in the same way as most of his recent predecessors. He still comes off as cold and professorial, making his appearances often seem baldly opportunistic and devoid of any real feeling. He should take a page from Bill Clinton’s playbook on that score.
And to be fair, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. In my opinion, everyone should take a page from Bill Clinton’s playbook. It is truly a gift.
I don’t feel Obama is cold and professorial nor do I feel he comes across like Bill Clinton, who has that gift of making people feel like he is talking directly to them and no one else is in the room. I cannot expect that out of anyone else.
Regardless of our individual perceptions, I don’t like the talking heads and the politicos sitting aroung ghouling over every word he utters. I am not in lockstep agreement with everything Obama either…far from it.
Anyway, the point I was making is that when Rally Syndrome kicks in, dissenting opinions tend to be somewhat squelched. This is not one of those “rally” moments.
What is terrorism really? That question is meaningless semantics. The only questions that matters is, “Is this action, ideology, or group a force for progress or reaction? Am I acting on behalf of right, or wrong?”.
Labels are meaningless. Consequences are what matters.
Emma, do you think it should be a rally moment?