Senator Ted Cruz’s latest statement on the recent attack on a Bangladesh cafe, as reported on by The Hill, is in keeping with a trend wherein politicians make statements following a tragic event for their constituents, and Ted Cruz’s lot are certainly interested in what he wants to say.
But since Ted Cruz dropped out of the presidential race, he’s been less popular in Washington as a senator, and his recent statement is a sign of not only how irritated he is with these attacks but also a way for him to use the words the president won’t, which are the words radical Islamic terrorism.
Ted Cruz seems to tag his statement with the phrase as if he were writing SEO for the first time, because it seems forced, perhaps aware of the penalties Google would put on him for keyword stuffing.
He starts it off by acknowledging the Fourth of July weekend as the birth of our nation, but he also tags it with “our freedoms,” which is a term touted by Republicans around the clock in order to defy liberals and make the claim that only Republicans fight for freedom, as if only they know what freedom is.
He continues, however, by acknowledging the attacks in a Bangladesh cafe over the weekend as an example of how radical Islamic terrorists seek to destroy us.
This is, of course, nothing new, as with every incident that has taken place in America — most recently the mass shooting in Orlando, for which he released another statement — he and fellow Republicans continue trying to make a connection with terrorism by saying that the nation is currently at war.
But he doesn’t acknowledge the US-led coalition battle taking place in Syria and Iraq as we speak or the recent attack on an ISIS convoy, which decimated a large group of ISIS fighters who were trying to escape Fallujah after the same forces forced them out.
In fact, Ted Cruz made it clear in the statement that he wants to take America back to the days of George W. Bush and send troops in overseas to “unleash the full force and fury of the American military to utterly destroy ISIS and its affiliates.”
In regards to his recent statement however, he provides details of the attack on the Bangladesh cafe, making sure he adds value to it by saying the it was a restaurant frequented by diplomats and students, while adding graphic detail of the killings in order to stir up emotion and upset enough people to buy into his idea saying that radical Islamic terrorists were killing those who “could not recite verses from the Koran.”
This recalls the comparison between Ted Cruz’s dominionism and his determination to live in a world where everyone bows in prayer, which his father already does very successfully in his own little world in Houston, Texas, striking fear into the vulnerability of his congregation in order to indoctrinate them.
But Ted Cruz continues in his statement to point out how “the authorities in Bangladesh have insisted that terrorist incidents in their country were somehow isolated from the global scourge of radical Islamic terrorism, the product of homegrown militants responding to domestic grievances” before he continues to say that “this attack, however, appears designed by ISIS to prove otherwise, and that the Islamic State is functioning.”
Rather than attack those same Bangladesh authorities for their denial — which clearly he saves for attacking the president, who has not denied that the United States is isolated — it is in this case that he puts the blame entirely on radical Islamic terrorism over putting it on those authorities.
Again, weighing one ideology against his as the one that is more dangerous is interesting as they’re both fiction and forced on others by a similar determination through guilt rather than guns.
At the end of his statement, Ted Cruz points out what we already know and the administration is already acting on, which is to take the threat seriously and with urgency.
The difference is the way he wants it acted upon, which is again what Ted Cruz and all Republicans want, which is to act in the same way that George Bush did, which is bold and ham-fisted.
During the transition between Bush and the Obama administration, timid Republicans tried to reject the notion that they supported two wars during the previous administration, while others accepted it as a failure before President Obama came into office. Then they moved as soon as they could to blame a Democratic president and not have to “take the hit” all of the time.
Since then, the rhetoric transformed into the argument that the president was not doing enough, and now we see their demands come full circle – that we do it the same way George Bush did.
What people like Ted Cruz want Americans to believe is that rather than the president buckling under the pressure of American people, forcing him to not go to war in Syria in 2013, he pins it on the president as the one who “waffled” right after he made the threat.
Despite the attacks here and elsewhere since then, there is every indication that the American people do not want to send a large number of troops to go fight ISIS in the Middle East, and they see these mass shootings as less of an ISIS problem and more of a gun problem, which Republicans have not been pragmatic about, refusing to do anything at all, which has only (and gladly) isolated them more.
At the end of his statement, he talks about friends and allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia and how we should do everything we can to partner with them to struggle against generic “violent extremism,” which is already taking place with the coalition airstrikes happening in Iraq and Syria. That coalition includes Kurdish forces, the Free Syrian Army, UN-supported forces in Libya, and not to mention the more than 50 countries who are reportedly fighting ISIS with airstrikes, according to an article published by Daily Mail last year.
The difference between this coalition and what Ted Cruz wants to do is that he wants the United States to be what it used to be, where warmongers took the lead and shoved the rest of the world out of the way in order to seize, conquer, and control large populations with everything they could muster.
Last week, Ralph Peters, who is a now retired sergeant and FOX News contributor, described the kind of scenario Senator Ted Cruz and all Republicans in power are guaranteed to use.
Ted Cruz continues to not only ignore the coalition in the Middle East, but he also acts as if places like Bangladesh are treating violent extremism generically, or that there is a difference between approaching generic “violent extremism” as opposed to radical Islamic terrorists.
The difference would be that Ted Cruz’s radical Islamic terrorism project would impose a crackdown on all Muslims and put the United States into another war in the Middle East, and we can be sure from his recent statement that Ted Cruz is fully supportive of that.
[Image by Gustavo Ferrari/AP Photo]