Liberals accusing Republicans of "fear-mongering" is getting annoying.

I won't waste too much time with the back-and-forth debating over whether or not the Constitution is amazing. For instance my opponent has stated, "it's a document that has enabled our country to become the worldwide superpower and global economic leader." True, but it's also a document that has limited and imposed upon the rights of individuals for centuries. I also disagree that the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding fathers should be the basis of contemporary politics, but I digress. Instead I would like to concentrate my final round on the topic of debate at hand: fear-mongering. My opponent has skillfully used a blatant form of rhetoric to detail unfortunate circumstances regarding the tragic deaths of American citizens. For example, "Tell that to the family of Nick Berg who had his head sawed off as he screamed through his gargled, slashed throat. That's not fear-mongering, that's stating reality." Yes, Nick Berg's death was a heart breaking reality. But using his death in vain to promote an unjust political agenda is wrong. And it's fear-mongering. Notice my opponent failed to mention in his argument the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, who have also unfairly endured a bloody, violent and gruesome death. Actually, some sources claim that Iraqi casualties have surpassed 1 million -- either way, there have been far too many. It seems to me that Pro is dead-set on demonstrating his (Conservative) macho military prowess by belittling the "liberal" idea of finding the truth amongst the lies and exagerations, by calling it "weakness" and threatening that our quest for answers will only lead to destruction and death. That is so ignorant, and such a blatant display of fear-mongering, it's almost criminal. Fear is a paralyzing emotion that cripples our ability to see logic and reason in a truthful light, thus making it easier for politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of their own agenda. In my argument, I will discuss the facts regarding fear, fear-mongering, and its damaging effects on our society. First, what is terrorism? "The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare - political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants." -- Zbigniew Brzezinski. The strategic wording choice of "War on Terror" is effective; surely all Americans want to diminish the chances of this kind of warfare being used on American soil as demonstrated on 9/11. However rather than find ways to actually prevent terrorism (i.e. peace talks, increased emphasis on safety measures at home, etc), the government has used the attacks on 9/11 in vain to gain support for a pointless war in Iraq. Proof: "The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no 'smoking gun' after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion, and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said. 'The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had WMDs were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq. The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided 'bulletproof' evidence demonstrating 'that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq.'" (Source: CNN.com) This official report, released by the Pentagon itself, proves that the Bush adminstration blatantly LIED or provided misinformation to the American public in order to gain support for the war. My opponent's view of politics is clearly misconstrued. He sarcastically noted that this fear-mongering tactic obviously wasn't helping, because Bush approval ratings have only decreased in recent years. However that doesn't negate the fact that Bush has used scare tactics to trick people (like RC himself) into supporting this dangerous, expensive and illegal war. Although I didn't have to do much work in this debate to win (the Pentagon did it for me and proved that fear-mongering was evident and apparent), I had mentioned in my previous argument that I wanted to address several key things in terms of the damaging effects of the fear tactics implemented by the Bush Administration. Plus, my position in this debate calls for me to prove why calling Conservatives out on fear-mongering isn't annoying. I argue that it isn't annoying because it's true and needs to be heard/learned. I would like to address a point that my opponent brought up: Bush's declining approval rating. First of all, there was controversy regarding whether or not he was elected in the first place. But people have to wonder, with as many people who do not support Bush and his policies, how he was elected for another term back in 2004. The reason behind that is simple. "Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that 'a nation at war' does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being 'at war.'" (Source: WashingtonPost.com). Another annoying tactic implemented by the Bush Administration was comparing terrorist groups to Nazis in order to promote fear. However the B.A. ignored the fact that Nazi Germany was a first rate military power, unlike al-Qaeda who does not and can not achieve that same status. "We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself. That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror." (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) Some more facts: In 2003 Congress identified 160 sites as potentially targets for would-be terrorists. Within months the list had grown to 1,849. A year later the number had grown to 8,360. By 2005, it had increased yet again to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival. We are made to believe that just about every landmark in the U.S. is a potential terrorist threat. Howcome these places weren't threats before? Terrorists and terrorism have always existed. It is only now, while we continue to engage in unnecessary and unsupported warfare, that we are supposedly so at risk. Yet this risk is supposedly the reasoning behind the war... Something doesn't add up. Consider the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" to local government officials. What does this mean? Drivers in turbans? I argue that promoting Islamophobia is more annoying than pointing out the obvious fact that Republicans are fear-mongering. It doesn't end there. Some House Republicans recently described CAIR members as "terrorist apologists" who should not be allowed to use a Capitol meeting room for a panel discussion. There is also social discrimination amongst Muslim air travelers and other Arab-looking citizens merely trying to live their lives. This is unfair and "annoying." Back when America was struck not by a minority terrorist group, but by a rich and powerful enemy nation (Pearl Harbor), our President said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Today we are reminded on a daily basis that we are in danger from a far smaller and much more limited fanatical group across the ocean... with no WMDs. Now is terrorism still a threat? Obviously. But blaming every minor occurence in the U.S. (i.e. the tiny bit of ricin found in a Vegas motel - GIVE ME A BREAK) on this "War on Terror" is ludicrous. Perhaps instead we should engage in a "War on Manipulation."