The Terrorist Sting and the Southern Drawl--They're Closer than You Think
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published April 28, 2007, 12:22 pm in Military / Foreign policy, Rhetoric.
Today, I want to talk about two things, one international and one national.
The Saudi Terrorist Operation
First, there is the Saudi anti-terrorist operation that led to the arrest of "172 men who planned to blow up oil installations, attack public officials and military posts, and storm a prison to free terrorist suspects," according to the Houston Chronicle. This seven-month investigation also led the seizure of a large number of weapons and over $5.3 million in cash. It's a big deal to say the least. What is really great about it is that Saudi Arabia is cooperating to help stop terrorists. After all, one of bin Laden's main gripes was against his country's league with the West, especially America. And also about why the price of oil should go up. Yes, it's based on some strange capitalistic system where Islam should gouge everyone for oil. After this plot was uncovered, of course, the price of oil went up. Doesn't make sense, does it? Shouldn't the price of oil go down if they discover and stop a plot to destroy oil fields?
Anyway, I don't want to say anything for certain, but the statements from the Saudi Interior Ministry make me wonder what's going on. Let's listen to a bit of what he said: "This gives you the idea that terrorists are still trying to re-establish the activities within the kingdom. It is still a war going on."
Now I understand that this is actually about Saudi Arabia, but this story is also being reported all over the West. Doesn't it play into Bush's problems in the West right now? Reiterating that this a war against terrorism will renew the public's fight against terror. But the quotes continue to play into supporting Bush's war against terror:
"Officials said that the suspects had trained abroad, in Somalia, Afghanistan and especially Iraq.
"The chaos in Iraq has fueled radical ideology among the region's youth, while providing an environment for militants to train, officials and analysts here said.
"'It is the beginning of jihadi operations leaking out of Iraq,' said Abdul Aziz al-Qassim, a retired Saudi judge and moderate Islamic activist. 'It is clear that this is some of the effects of what is happening in Iraq, in terms of training and in terms of learning from the Iraqi experience.'"
I apologize for quoting so much of an article any of you can read, but I think the way this story is constructed makes it even more suspicious. Let's start at the end of the quote. al-Qassim is a "moderate Islamic activist," and I admit that I have no idea what that means. It almost sounds like he's bordering on the dreaded "Islamic fundamentalist" category, although it could mean that he is a human rights activist who happens to be Muslim, or that he fights for Islamic human rights. How we read his title determines how we should read his statement, though.
For the statement itself is filled with multiple meanings. Ok, these things are coming out of Iraq, but what does "'It is clear that this is some of the effects of what is happening in Iraq, in terms of training and in terms of learning from the Iraqi experience'" mean? Is he talking about the Saudi security forces? That they learned and trained how to deal with terrorists from Iraq? No, I don't think so, but the vague pronoun "this" makes me wonder. Is he saying that the Iraqi terrorists have trained and learned from Iraq? If so, then what is the implication? It could mean that we screwed up by going into Iraq and now it's spilling over everywhere. So we need to get out of there right away so that Islamic fundamentalism won't take a foothold. Or it could mean that Iraq is really screwed up, so we need to tighten our security and step up our efforts to win control of Iraq and the Middle East. That's the only thing that will save it.
How should we read his statements? Well, the statements themselves don't really let us know. If all we have is al-Qassim's words, we wouldn't know what the implication was. But the Chronicle writers let us know by leading into it with the statements from the Interior Minister and then the commentary about what officials say is happening in Iraq. Clearly, this artilce and the Saudi terrorist sting are meant to make us think that Iraq is important and we need to win there, that the entire Middle East will go up in flames if we don't.
And that idea plays right into George Bush's hands. The guy is struggling to keep his Iraq fight alive. The Congress already passed a bill trying to bring the troops home. I can't say anything for sure about whether the Saudi terrorist sting was fabricated as a means to help Bush's cause, but it's a darn good coincidence.
The Democratic Debate and the Southern Accent
Second on the list is the Democratic debate. Yep, the first full presidential debate took place yesterday in my home state of South Carolina. It's a strange place to hold a Democratic debate, especially in mostly rural Orangeburg. South Carolina is definitely not progressive, and they generally shun everything Democrat. Yes, they used to be Democrat, but then Strom Thurmond (the long-term Senator from South Carolina, who is now deceased) used to be a Democrat, too. Everything changed in the 1960s with the fight over civil rights. That's when South Carolina turned Republican. You may remember Strom Thurmond as the Senator who gave one of the longest filibusters ever. Remember what it was over? Civil rights. Yep, definitely not a progressive state, and one of the most "red" states you will ever find. But nevermind all that. The fact is that one of the earliest primaries takes place in South Carolina, and therefore, it is important, even for liberals.
All of the Democrats were there--Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe Biden, as well as the lesser candidates Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd. Read or watch some of the debate and you get to see the lesser candidates hurl insults. My favorite is Mike Gravel, who is a former Senator from Alaska. This guy just seems crazy, and I have no idea what he's seriously doing with a campaign.
But enough: let's talk about Clinton. Several people have commented that Clinton tends to adopt a southern drawl when talking to southern groups. The Houston Chronicle notes that some crtics have observed that she adopts her southern accent only when talking to black groups. I'm not sure if that's true. Whether it's true or not, though, it's still funny. Me, I understand her problems. I'm a bit of a copycat, and I'm especially susceptible to the southern accent. Growing up in small-town South Carolina, I definitely know what a southern accent is, and I'm here to say that Clinton doesn't really have one. I don't either, or at least most people tell me I don't. But get me back to South Carolina, and I'll be saying "close the winder" within a week. Or "dars a cat on da ruf." It happens. But then again, when I get around my very "urban" cousins and friends in Houston, you will find me using words like "playa" that I don't generally use.
So I understand Clinton's problem, and I hope she doesn't just adopt the accent opportunistically. If she does, then I can't stand it. Anyway, I can imagine a Pace Piquante Sauce advertisement about her. She's a southern girl who now claims New York City.
What would the Pace guys say?
"Get a rope..."
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment