Debunking the fearmongers

The pollsters have been curiously remiss in their lack of polling recently of just how well the Republican fearmongering campaign is working. I realize they're busy trying to cement the nomination of Hillary Clinton, but with every one of the Republicans trying to turn Iran into the Second Coming of the Soviet Union, you'd think that a measurement of how well the fearmongering is working might be in order.

It's working in some circles; antiwar marchers over the George Washington Bridge on their way to the rally in the city were told that they're "Communists" -- the favorite catch-all slur of the ignorati. And of course Faux Noise can always be relied upon to fan the flames of fear.

On Friday night, Bill Maher did his part to put the so-called "war on terror" into perspective:

Today Paul Krugman weighs in:

Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”

Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”

Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

In the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks, you probably could have convinced Americans that Liechtenstein was a grave threat -- and you'd understand why Americans would jump if Suriname had so much as said "Boo!" But today, with the Taliban regaining control of Afghanistan; Iraq, a country that represented no threat to us, in ruins; Osama bin Laden still out there and submitting VHS tapes every time George W. Bush thinks he needs one to keep people afraid; and people being arrested at airports for no good reason, Americans are skeptical of the hysterical claims coming from Republicans that Islamic terrorists are a bigger threat to us than, oh, say, the British were in the 1700s, or Japan was when it attacked Pearl Harbor. And if they aren't, they should be.

We were told by Paul Wolfowitz that the Iraq War would pay for itself with oil revenues, and now the war has already cost us a half-trillion dollars, and oil is above $93/barrel in early trading today. We have yet to see a huge impact at the pumps, given the price spike; here in northern New Jersey, gasoline is at $2.65. I suspect that we'll see the impact in home heating oil prices, where it's not as easy to just go out and switch the way we heat our homes. Those who make their living brokering petroleum stocks make money based on dollar volume, and so they have no reason to try to keep prices low. I suspect that as the Iran rhetoric ratchets up, there will be lip service given to the need to keep the oil supply line out of Iran open -- and a corresponding hike in fuel prices. After all, if fearmongering about safety isn't working, hitting people in the tank of their Expeditions might.

One of the reasons we're given for the Democrats' lack of will to rein in this pack of wild dogs currently running the country is that this Administration will be over in just over a year anyway and then the Democrats will have the White House. But anyone who lived through the last two elections knows that what looks like a good bet a year out can look very different when Ohio and Florida -- and if the Republicans have their way, California -- figure into the mix on Election night. And with every one of the Republican candidates promising endless, escalated war -- and the Democratic frontrummer promising the same, not with her words but with her votes in the Senate -- the time to stop the madness is NOW.