One Matter Settled

Jack Bauer has said that we shouldn't torture.

Can we all go back to acting sanely now?

2002 all over again?

Watching the current presidential campaign makes me feel like I have traveled back in time as I have the sinking feeling that we are headed to same type of disaster which led us to war in Iraq. However, this time we run the risk of electing John McCain. Back then, every time I watched, listened to or read the news it seemed that we could never have an honest discussion of the issues because certain rhetorical tricks were being employed by those who wanted us to march to war. Unfortunately, a lot of those same tricks are being used right now to push for McCain's candidacy. Here is what I see so far:

Back in 2002, the rationale for going to war was incredibly flimsy. If you looked at the case that was presented by the Bush administration and weighed the evidence thoughtfully, there was very little reason to support the war. There was no terrorist connection, there was no link to 9-11 and the existence of stockpiles of WMDs was doubtful. Similarly, McCain is an exceptionally weak candidate. If you look at what he offers, it becomes abundantly clear that he is simply not a good fit for this country. Many of the policies that he embraces are ill conceived (e.g. gas tax moratorium), downright destructive (e.g. harsh stance towards Russia) or unpopular (e.g. support for Bush Tax cut).

However, just like in 2002, it is nearly impossible to get at the meat of the issue. One thing that the McCain campaign does is exploit personal tragedy to avoid criticism. Case in point, when asked whether McCain was in the 'cone of silence' during the forum at Saddleback, the campaign response was:

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,”

This is not the first time that the McCain has used this tactic during the campaign (see here), and it brings to mind the tragedy of 9-11 to thwart criticism of the war. We were constantly reminded of the 3,000 deaths suffered on that day, especially when anyone would point out that the rationale for the war was not as strong as it should have been.

Another tactic is the impugning of motives for those that oppose McCain's candidacy. As noted by Josh Marshall, McCain has repeatedly stated that Obama is committing treason so that he can win an election- which is eerily similar to the tactic commonly used by war supporters in 2002. While now it has become a joke (i.e. "Why do you hate America?"), many commentators would ask why 'opponents would want to undermine the troops' or 'let the terrorists win'.

Lastly, there is the suggestion that questioning McCain's credentials means that you are unpatriotic. As we all learned from the Wes Clark dust-up, asking whether McCain's military background matters is strictly forbidden. We have also had no mainstream coverage of the Solzhenitsyn issue which, as I noted yesterday, is to be expected since asking about it would mean that you are unpatriotic. This matches perfectly with what happened to many critics of the war in 2002 (e.g. Phil Donahue, Dixie Chicks), as they were vilified for opposing the war and speaking their mind.

My hope is that this trend can be reversed, but in all likelihood, public discourse will remain unchanged. I see no evidence that the traditional media will change their ways and fight through the BS. I only hope that voters are wise enough to see the difference.

American Untouchables

Digby touches on something that has bothered me for a while:

This is really starting to annoy me. Saying "San Francisco mentality" and derisively calling someone "a French-speaking socialist from Boston, Massaschusetts," and refering to Hawaii as "foreign" is considered completely appropriate for public discourse in this country. They issue these little bon mots in a derisive tone, suggesting that anyplace that votes in a somewhat liberal fashion (even though they often vote Republican too) is somehow unAmerican. And yes, I realize that there are liberals who are rude and dismissive of Southerners, but you don't hear it coming from politicians or media figures. They wouldn't dare say anything like this about Mississippi or South Carolina in public.

She is absolutely right about this, for quite some time it has been absolutely unthinkable in popular discourse to cast the same sort of derision on these areas of the country or cultural type. I am not saying that it should be welcome on either side, but what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. For every pundit that calls liberals unAmerican, there should be some mention made of the large group of Americans that believe in the Rapture or deny global warming.

I know that makes me an elitist, but for those people who purposefully shut themselves off from reason I think it is deserved.

An elaboration on the theme

In furtherance of my post below, this item from ThinkProgress perfectly illustrates what has been bothering me. Here is the text of the post:

Last Friday, police in Des Moines, Iowa arrested four people who attempted to make a citizens’ arrest of former top White House aide Karl Rove, who was in town to speak at a GOP fundraiser. A retired minister and three members of the Des Moines Catholic Workers community were cited for trespassing. However, according to a press release, the judge presiding over the case praised their efforts:

[Mona] Shaw was the first called before Polk County Fifth Judicial District Associate Judge William Price.

After entering her plea, the judge asked Shaw, “Mamn, what were you doing at the Wakonda Country Club?”

“I was attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of Karl Rove, your honor,” Shaw answered.

“Well,” the judge looked up and said, “it’s about time.”

Here is what bothers me, the American people are entirely sick of the Bush Administration and of the Republican party. They know how badly the policies and politics of this party have hurt the country. Unfortunately, we have a modern press discourse which wants to completely ignore this. They want this election to be about the petty issues or about how the completely fictitious "Real Americans" (as conceived of by David Broder and the rest of the pundit class thinks) are looking at this election. It is this power of the media, their ability to set the agenda for the election, that matters and how it might ultimately doom us all.

Funny

Turns out that Barack Obama is much more liked than Joe Lieberman by...wait for it...American Jews (60% to 37%).

What I think is the funniest part about all of this is that over the years, the press has made Lieberman the official Jew of Washington and the man that represents all American Jewish thought in this country. Half the reason why Obama was assumed to have a 'Jewish problem' was not because Jewish voters didn't like him- rather, it was assumed he had a 'Jewish problem' because Joe Lieberman didn't like him.

Obama is teh black

I don't have much more to add to this, in regards to the New Yorker cover:

I certainly don't think that the New Yorker cover is the biggest deal in the world, but the basic reason I find it problematic is that I look at it and I think, "Yes, well, that's what the Right says about the Obamas pretty much daily." It channels what they say, but they forgot to add the funny. Hamas loves Obama, he hates the flag and America, he's a Muslim, Michelle Obama is a black militant, etc. It isn't funny to me because I read this crap every day all day. This crap isn't just on obscure wingnut blogs, it's everywhere. G. Gordon Liddy is thrilled.

If in 2000 they'd ran a cover which expressed in various ways things like "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet," "Al Gore claims he discovered Love Canal," "Al Gore grew up in a fancy DC hotel," "Al Gore is such pandering politician that he's wearing 3 button suits and EARTH TONES" (no I've never understood this one either), it wouldn't have been a parody, it would have been channeling the media zeitgeist. The Obama thing? Not so different.

Here's the thing, it is an absolute embarrassment that people believe these things, and I know from personal experience that there is a sizable group of people who do. The New Yorker would have been better served if they mocked these people directly. Unfortunately, what is going to happen now is that conservative commentators (like Gordon Liddy) will point to this cover as clear evidence that Obama is un-American.

Bad Science

I was actually thinking about this very topic last night and was going to write about it. In general, I am not a fan of evolutionary psych, at least as it is commonly understood, as it makes gross generalizations based on very small differences. I will concede that there are differences among men and women in ways that either group thinks, but the idea that they are worlds apart is very, very, very silly. I think Amanda is right, at its root- this branch of inquiry is based upon the notion that women are less than men and completely ignores the social roots for those differences.

Well put

The idea that Obama is an elitist and that McCain is a regular guy really amazes/angers me.

I think part of what bothers me is that it hits pretty close to home. I grew up in a working class family with parents that never saw schooling past high school. I was the third person on my mother's side, and the fourth person on my father's side to go to college. My wife, has a similar background.

Yet, because both of us are soon to be graduates of ivy league schools we would fall into the supposed category of elitist.

Forgive me if I am wrong but, I used to think that we were pulling ourselves up from our bootstraps. I mean, if all that conservative crap is to be believed- we are the embodiment of the American dream.

But in this new social calculus, Obama and I are the ones that are out of touch with real America. If you want to know what real Americans are like, you need to talk to a guy that was born into the aristocracy, married an heiress and owns a million homes.

Going to the Red States

I have long thought that the whole Red State/Blue State idea was just the work of a feeble mind. Unfortunately, however, it has become a fixture in the public discourse and has come to be THE way that modern punditry sees political life in the US. Most importantly, Red America has become the authentic America, while Blue America is the fake America. Blue America is the home effete, out of touch liberals and Red America is beer drinkin', hard workin' America.

This is why the news out of Montana is so great. If Obama can win in this 'conceptually' deep red state then many of the pundit claims that he is out-of-touch with regular Americans is, potentially, mortally wounded.

Who did what to who?

From the write up for 60 Minutes tonight-

For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking. But you are going to hear more than has ever been revealed before.

After his capture, Saddam met every day with one man, an American he knew as "Mr. George." George is FBI agent George Piro, who was the front man for a team of FBI and CIA analysts who were trying to answer some of the great mysteries of recent history. What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Was Saddam in league with al Qaeda? Why did he choose war with the United States?

There is no doubting Saddam's general horribleness, but did he really draw us into war the second time? I thought there was a general consensus that this was a war of choice for the Bush administration. It kind of scares me to see this framed as Saddam's choice.

Different day, same...

Here is what I don't understand, if I am considered anti-war why aren't those that march to support the invasion of Iraq labeled pro-war? I have always found it so strange that the public discourse places the pro-war folks as resolutely pro-troop. If someone could explain this to me, I would be really grateful.

Been a while

I haven't posted anything for quite some time, mostly for the reason that things have been really busy. Partially, however, I stopped writing out of absolute frustration. I have been enormously frustrated by the following:

• The media- case in point, in looking at the news this evening MSNBC and AP have reported that Bush is reducing the number of troops in Iraq. He isn't. He is just putting them at pre-surge levels. Also, he has just acknowledged that our troops will be there forever. Yet, the media parrots the line that Bush is removing troops.
  
• The White House- I shouldn't even have to explain this.
  
• Congress- I understand that things cannot be changed overnight. But really, have some sort of damn backbone. The American people want a change, if the Republicans stand in your way, let the American people know.
  

Fatigue

Back in May, I noted that there was very little mention about Bush Fatigue in the mainstream media, while back when Clinton was President, it seemed like every other story was about how the public was growing tired of him.

Atrios has a similar post today, and while I relied on my intuition, he has actually done some research. Here is what he found:

Number of times the term "Clinton fatigue" appeared, according to a Nexis search, in major papers during July of 1999: 27.

Clinton Gallup poll approval rating in July of 1999: 64

Number of times the term "Bush fatigue" has appeared, so far, in July of 2007: 1, courtesy of Byron York's hair.

Bush Gallup poll approval rating in July of 2007: 31.

This really just makes you want to put your head in a microwave oven. Clinton was TWICE as popular as Bush is, at the same point in his presidency, yet the thought that the public is sick of Bush barely enters the press discourse. The only time it did, it came from the right.

When Character Matters

Marc Ambinder (who I wrote about here and here) has a follow-up post that attempts to answer his critics. He tries to make the argument that the story was important because it shows us something about Edward's character and his ability to advocate for the poor. However, this is just silly. I cannot see how his decision to get an expensive haircut will inform his policies regarding poverty or how it says anything about who Edwards is as a person.

Even if Ambinder is correct, this is not a standard which is applied uniformly (if at all). For example, look at the coverage of Bush back in 1999-2000. At that time, there was evidence to suggest that he was an absolutely horrible person who had little concern for how others felt. Perhaps the most horrid example comes from an interview Tucker Carlson did with Bush in 1999 where Bush mocked the pleas of a condemned prisoner:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

Yet if Ambinder is right, and that political journalists are just trying to highlight possible character flaws in candidates, why didn't this story get some serious coverage? In 2000, Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative and committed Christian- if anything, the Karla Faye Tucker story shows that Bush was full of it. However, this story is relatively unknown and I only came across it a couple years ago while reading a blog entry on Atrios.

Compare the relative silence on this story with the hubbub surrounding Al Gore's mythic pronouncement that he invented the Internet in 2000. Gore was mocked endlessly by the political press for saying that he invented the internet, when he actually said nothing of the sort. The story was supposed to show that Gore was someone who exaggerated a little too much and suggested that he had some serious honesty problems.

Seen in this light, Ambinder's original assertion that this is all about revealing important character flaws is ridiculous. The political press chooses to cover certain stories because they are just very petty people with an inflated sense of importance. They aren't wisely presiding over our public discourse because they want to inform the American people, they are playing the same type of game silly teenagers play.

The Beltway Clique

Onto Ambinder's other ridiculous statements in his post. He offers another reason why the press latched onto the Edwards story and not the Romney story:

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.

I am really too pissed off to offer anything thoughtful here, so I will let Digby say it for me:

Now, I am not especially surprised that the press corps doesn't like John Edwards. Many of these people probably didn't like guys like him in high school either and one thing we know about the political press corps is that they have never matured beyond the 11th grade. (See: chilean bass stupidity.) But I have to ask, once again, just who in the hell these people think they are and why they think they are allowed to pick our candidates for us based upon their own "feelings" about them? I don't recall electing them to anything. (But, hey, maybe we should just poll the kewl kidz and find out which candidate they "like, totally, like" and we can cancel the election and save a lot of time and money.)

This is our Beltway press corps, in a nutshell. They see themselves as divine creatures. They know what's best for the American people, and they will base those decisions on the most ridiculous of reasons. This, of course, isn't the first time its happened. The press corps fell in love with George W. Bush and hated Al Gore. They mocked John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards in 2004, while their naughty parts became engorged at the first sight of the War President.

They managed these elections like high school girls manage their own popularity. Unfortunately for us, the outcome here wasn't that Sally got to be homecoming queen, instead we ended up mired in a war that won't end, an economy that is just moments away from collapse and a Constitution that is now in the White House septic tank.

Thanks guys!

Disposable Class Awareness

The Beltway press is the most incredibly petty group of individuals to ever walk the Earth. In a post by Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, he mentions why John Edwards getting a $400 haircut should have rightly been a story, while Mitt Romney spending $300 on make-up should not be a story.

There is just so much crap here it is hard to get through without putting your head into a microwave oven. So much so, that this will be two posts. The first major problem with Ambinder is the ridiculous assertion that the hair cut matters because Edwards is essentially being a hypocrite over his stance on poverty:

Why doesn't John Edwards's hair equal Mitt Romney's face paint?

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).

First, Edwards is running for the highest office in the land and if it looked like a drunk monkey cut his hair he would be ridiculed. Second, why should someone apologize for doing well for themselves? Edwards came from working class roots but then worked hard and enjoyed enormous success. Good for him. Why is it that his spending is considered crass, but if you come from money it is okay and you can still say you understand regular folks? As Glenn Greenwald says:

Beyond that, every politician claims to understand and be devoted to the plight of the "working family." Mitt Romney and George Bush, born to great wealth, certainly make those claims, even though they haven't been anywhere near "working families" since the day they were born. Ronald Reagan was endlessly held up as the fighter for "working families" despite his personal wealth. If Edwards' wealth makes him so suspect when he claims to be devoted to the poor, why doesn't the in-born, unearned wealth of Bush and Romney -- and every other non-poor politician -- make them equally suspect as advocates for "America's working families"?

Yet, the largest problem here, is that those who represent the elite, like Ambinder, have no idea what class means in America- while Edwards has lived it. Like your racial background or your religious background, if you are coming from the working class it is not something that just magically disappears if you attain a certain status. However, for those who grow up comfortably, social class isn't something that matters. For them, it can be switched off.

This is why those that manage the public discourse can't believe that Edwards can be both wealthy and focused on class issues. Once he attained that certain financial status, he surrendered any authority on what it means to be poor in this country. But, those of us who grew up as working class know better than this. It may be harder to recognize someone who grew up needing food stamps to get by, but that doesn't mean a certain awareness about life's difficulties doesn't follow you for the rest of your days.

Beating a barely breathing horse

Rasmussen has a new poll out on impeachment and the numbers are not as strong as the ARG poll. Thirty-nine percent of those polled supported impeachment, while 49% were opposed. The numbers supporting impeachment are up 7% since December of 2005. Considering that Rasmussen is a polling outfit that tends to skew conservative, I think the actual number supporting impeachment is a few points higher than that (maybe 42-43%).

These numbers are important and they allow me the opportunity to clarify why I think having a super-majority of the people behind impeachment is essential. I am not suggesting that we need this type of broad support as some sort of political calculus (i.e. a Clintonesque sampling of the political landscape before assuming a policy position). Rather, impeachment is a revolutionary act. As such, it requires the consent and support of folks across the political spectrum. If this is only the will of a vocal minority, I don't see how it becomes any different from those behind Clinton's impeachment or the tyranny of the religious right. We, as a nation, need to say with one voice- this President needs to leave, now.

I would certainly encourage those that support impeachment to voice their concerns to their fellow citizens. I do think there needs to be a robust public debate about this president's legacy. I would also like to see some more congressional investigations into possible wrong-doing, both now and in the future.

However, I don't want this to become a distraction for our side. Our primary focus must be on why we are better able to lead this country than conservatives. We have better ideas than they do, and we need to make that case every day. We need to challenge conservatives on their opposition to increases in the minimum wage, the war in Iraq, health care, foreign engagement, trade and human/civil rights. We need to fight for these principles so that, in the end, we improve the lives of millions.

Playing Catchup

The NY Times has an article this morning which makes the case that President Bush has zero political capital left. Republicans have abandoned him on a number of issues (e.g. Iraq, immigration) and the American people are done with him:

For a president who once boasted that he had political capital and intended to use it, the back-to-back desertions demonstrated starkly just how little of that capital is left. With the nation turning its attention to who will succeed Mr. Bush — and Republican presidential candidates increasingly distancing themselves from him — even allies say it could become increasingly difficult for the president to assert himself over his party, much less force the Democratic majority in Congress to bend to his will.

Yet, as Arianna Huffington noted months ago (October, 2005), Bush had already lost his 'mojo':

The swaggering victor who just nine months ago was ready to spin his three-percent win into a mandate now can't even get his pal Harriet's nomination out of the starting gate. And odds are very high the Miers fiasco won't be close to the worst news the White House gets this week.

Post Katrina, I think a lot of the American public realized that this guy was not up to the job. President Bush got the benefit of the doubt after 9-11, but when we all saw the failures in New Orleans, it became painfully obvious that this President was completely inept.

However, as the Times article makes clear, the press if finally catching up with the rest of us. The interesting question here is, why? I think one of the biggest reasons is that an outlet like Fox News has warped elite opinion in this country. With its unstated mission of always supporting the President, it has shifted the debate artificially. Consequently, certain positions are left as unresolved (support for Bush policies) in the press discourse, while they have been fully determined by the public.

This wouldn't be as large as a problem if Fox News did not have the ratings they did. While in overall terms their ratings are quite minuscule; in the world of cable news, their ratings are huge. Networks like CNN and MSNBC, recognize this and do their best to peel off some of Fox's viewers. The only way they can accomplish this though, is to embrace the same inflated conservative discourse that Fox does. The end result is a press that is completely out of touch with the American people as the 'elite' opinion makers skew artifically to the right.

Michael Moore hates puppies and such

I have never understood the continued animosity towards Michael Moore. In a sane world, the US media would have apologized to Moore for getting on his case when he was proven right in the end. He would be the first on the speed dial for any number of TV talk shows and celebrated for what he is. A filmmaker who makes compelling films.

However, with this new movie coming out, I think we are in store for an endless amount of hand-wringing about him as the mainstream media will continue to classify him as controversial. Conservatives will scream about how crazy he his and liberals will hem and haw about the absolute veracity of every claim he makes.

Yet in the end, he is just a guy who honestly believes in this country and is doing his best to change it. I do believe that in each of his movies he makes an overarching point that is impossible to ignore and we as film goers are better off for his movies. He is right to suggest that we should not have invaded Iraq, we are a much more violent country than we should be and it is immoral for large corporations to destroy communities that worked so hard to create their wealth. I don't see anything controversial about these claims, yet they will continued to be discussed as such.

...also, when it comes to the war in Iraq, who has a better record? Michael Moore or the Bush Administration? Jus' sayin'.

Apparently I am a magnet for this crap

Once again, I have been spammed with one of those ridiculously jingoistic faux-patriotic e-mails from a friend of mine. I am posting it here because it is always useful to see what kind of mindset we as rational people are up against. The scary thing is, the folks that eat this kind of crap up vote and can freely reproduce:

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain inf ormation, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and --you guessed it -- I don't care!!!"

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends..

Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

Should you choose the latter, and then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country!

It's terrifying what these people think is appropriate to do in retaliation for 9-11 and that millions of people agree with that view. It is also scary when you realize that they have no understanding of the Middle East and are pushing for more aggressive actions there. They have absolutely no idea that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 are not the same people who live in Iraq. To them, they are all the same. We should be able to torture a suspected insurgent in Baghdad because 19 Saudis and Yemenis attacked us.

They also have no understanding of the history or the geopolitical climate over there (not surprising). The e-mail chastises the Saudi government for their refusal to allow Bibles in the country, yet fails to recognize that the US is a major ally of the brutal regime. They fail to recognize that their own government has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in the region, for nothing more than simple vanity. Lastly, they have no idea how the desecration of the Koran plays on the Arab Street and that it plays right into the hands of the radical elements there.

By succumbing to their own ignorance, these jingoistic folks play right into the hands of the terrorists and warlords. They foment the type of aggression and fear these radicals need to survive.