Posted on 09/28/2004 4:20:04 AM PDT by Ginifer
''Implicit Collusion'' is a strategic response by different stakeholders who coordinate their activities without openly declaring such cooperation to be (illegally) collusive:
While the media flood the news with reports of a few western beheadings by terrorists (thus creating a perception that the situation in Iraq is ''deteriorating'') the Democratic presidential candidate reinforces such perception with unyielding packs of lies that he repeats with the intent of ringing true to enough American voters. When the foreign policy debate takes place, Kerry expects voters will be predisposed not to believe Bush when he presents us with more credible evidence that the war effort is succeeding at keeping our homeland safe.
The beheadings by the terrorists are an implicitly coordinated effort at helping Kerry in the first debate (on foreign policy), it is terrorism's contribution to elect Kerry and oust President Bush, who is being most effective in the war on terror and has made more strides at creating a pied de terre for Democracy in the Middle East. It does not take much analysis to see who the terrorists would prefer in power in the United States: the flip-flopper instead of the steely Texan determined to fend off the animals who are trying to scare us. I have news for them, beheadings didn't help in Latin America. From Pancho Villa to Sandino, they all tried to scare us with beheadings.
The media did not extensively report on Nick Berg's beheading nor did it dwell on that loss, or any other beheading for that matter, as frequently and as aggressively as they have the most recent couple of barbaric executions by the terrorists. Moreover, the ''spin'' on the beheadings is that they are happening because of ''failures of the Bush foreign policy,'' not because the terrorists are fanatics who will do anything to prevent democracy to flourish in the Middle East.
The media knows (unconsciously so, if you believe Bernie Goldberg's assessment) that if they do not help sway American public opinion about the Iraqi stage of the War on Terror now, before the foreign policy debate, then Kerry's opportunity at defeating Bush in the foreign policy debate, on national security grounds, will be diminished if not completely over.
Kerry knows that if he does not take his cue from the media (80% of which are biased in his favor) and his staff of Clintonistas and other mercenaries and ''stay on message'' about the administration's ''failed foreign policy,'' then he will not be perceived by voters as ''winner of the debate'' and will not be able to fool enough voters into voting for him over President Bush.
Why are the terrorists beheading westerners? The terrorists know that if Kerry wins the election, they will gain time and opportunities at regaining lost ground since we took out the Taliban in Afghanistan and since we created a buffer separating Iran from Syria. For this reason, they are kidnapping western civilians in Iraq and murdering them in most atrocious ways, and if we were to respond in kind we would be viewed as barbarians while they get away with such actions.
Why does John Kerry go along with the media's assessment that the beheadings are a sign of a ''failed Bush foreign policy''? Because that is the only chance he has at winning the first debate and mounting a come-from-behind win in November. Why does the media—in their majority—want Kerry to win? Because they are—in their majority—liberals (i.e., mentally ill).
Thus, implicit collusion. It is no accident that the beheadings are occurring, that they are being reported more extensively than they have been or should have been, and that Kerry is fallaciously pointing at these events as signs of a failing foreign policy. It is the ultimate deception by a failed Democratic candidate who will meet his maker in the upcoming debates.
The Islamofascists are their only viable antagonists to fight American capitalists with them now.
Probably because they've been effectively cornered and extreme violence is the only action left for them to take. And of course, life is now and always has been "cheap" over there. No problem. Give them extreme violence ... on their turf ... in their face ... and lots of it. Their biggest error will occur when they succeed in another attack on the American homeland. I think they would soon regret that sort of "success". Now that the heat of the summer will soon be subsiding, the creeps in Fallujah etc are counting their days.
This is a very perceptive article.
Why does Kerry think he can get away with attacking the peace and reconstruction?!
The beheadings started in Iraq because the insurgents were running out of willing martyrs to supply suicide operations.
No Iraqis are willing to die for the cause, the few suicide events there lately have apparently involved foreign martyrs. In my humble opinion, THAT'S why the beheadings started, it has nothing to do with our election and everything to do with DESPERATION, the normal precursor to capitulation in any war.
The "insurgency" in Iraq is no longer domestic in composition, it is an INVASION.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.