|
The answer to the question posed in the thread title depends on whether we're talking about what is true, or what ought to be. As for the latter, I can't answer because I'm still trying to work out what our common definition of the word is. As far as reality is concerned, yes, certain categories of people are, as a matter of fact, not subject to the label of 'terrorist'. It is a highly politicized word with a certain political function.
To more directly answer the OP: I very much agree that the 'security' card is a huge part of the overall Republican strategy and has been for the last several years. I'm not at all surprised that every terror-related incident is seized as an opportunity to remind us that we face a daunting enemy and that only the Republican party and American might can save us.
I don't think it's quite as cynical as the portrait you've painted, though. Politicians will be politicians; that doesn't mean they're always disingenuous (i.e. I'm sure many Republicans sincerely believe that their party's stance on security issues is better for America).
|