The War On Terror Is A War On Freedom (And Vice Versa)

It truly baffles me that some want to believe in the so-called "War On Terror," what it "allegedly" represents, and in what the president's "claimed" intentions are with the war.

It's not like I can tell a girlfriend four different stories about a night I was out and about with the guys in which I got into a bit of trouble by being caught with another girl.

Story 1) "We're just friends. She was down that night. She had just broken up with her boyfriend, so I was being a good friend, listening to her."

Story 2) "She was really wasted that night and I didn't want her driving home. That's the only reason she was over. I swear!"

Story 3) "We're in the same sociology class together. We have a final on Monday. You weren't around, so I thought it was good to study with someone."

Story 4) "The truth of the matter is that we're in the same play at school, so we were just practicing our lines."

Okay, by about story number two, that's when my "girlfriend" would slap me silly and call it quits.

Why wasn't that the case with Bush's story-telling? "They have weapons of mass destruction!" "They have the ability to make weapons of mass destruction!" "They have the materials to make the weapons of mass destruction!" "We're there to spread freedom and democracy!" Okay, what? Did I miss something? And that gal was wasted, had just broken up with her boyfriend, was studying with me for a sociology final, and we were practicing lines for a play. Uh-huh.

I don't care how many times an abusive husband claims that he is not abusive. It can't deny the fact that he is. I don't care how many times Bush changes his story and I don't care how many times he claims to be spreading freedom and democracy to the Middle East, that does not deny the fact that he's stripping away freedoms and liberties from this so-called "democracy."

After 9/11, security reigned supreme over liberty. Bush was the leader, so he reigned supreme overall in America's eyes. Clever wording has helped the Bush Administration ultimately hide from the majority what they are doing. The PATRIOT Act said it all. To be "patriotic," one must ultimately follow the act, right? If one reads the entire document, they may begin to think differently. The NSA wiretapping was altered to "the terrorist surveillance network." Even though thousands of non-"terrorists" are in the database, the wording makes many believe that there's no possible way they or others close to them could be filed in the database. Think again.

If one so much as utilizes their First Amendment rights and speaks out against the Bush Administration, then they are cast as "traitors," "unpatriotic," "anti-American," "terrorist sympathizers," or even "terrorists."

Bush, his administration, and his strong media supporters were quick to use the false dilemma informal fallacy just following the 9/11 attacks and in the following months. This has left quite the imprint on the very polarized America. "If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." If one is anti-war, then they're pro-terror. If one voted against the PATRIOT Act, then they don't value security. If one does not approve of the NSA Wiretapping, then they want America to get struck again. Much of the thinking and reasoning has been nothing but very simplistic, bland, black-and-white thinking that a two-year old could understand. Perhaps even two-year olds would be above that, because they're not afraid to ask, "Why" or "How come?"

Directly following the "alleged" terror plot in London, the Bush administration immediately tried to take advantage of the situation and the fear factor involved. Some even said that the U.S. should go to more of a U.K. MI5 approach to surveillance. If you don't know what that is, feel free to look it up. We might as well kiss that First Amendment goodbye if we took on that approach.

If there happens to be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, I can only imagine what might happen then. The more "alleged" attacks that occur, the more fear citizens feel and the more our leaders can take advantage of that to gain more control and power. Bush and his administration claim to be making America safer by prolonging our "efforts" in the Iraq War, but as studies have indicated (even those done in the U.K.), the Iraq War has increased the number of terrorists over in the Middle East. It's the transitive property: more attacks (a) = more fear (b), more fear (b) = more power and control (c), more attacks (a) = more power and control (c).

Do the likes of Bush and Blair necessarily want attacks on their soil? No, of course not. But, if they do occur, I'm sure the two of them wouldn't mind all that much. The "alleged" terror plot in London was the perfect scenario for the both of them. They could strike fear into the people's minds without anyone being killed. If they could kill freedom without anyone physically being killed, that'd be a heaven-like scenario for them, because with all the freedom that they kill, the more power and control they can attain. President Bush was halfway right regarding the war being about freedom. But, it's not about spreading it to the Middle East. It's about taking it away domestically.