Southpaw

Bush's Political Survival Depends on Terror Threats

By William Greider, TheNation.com. Posted August 14, 2006.

The president is trying for the third time to make terrorism his big campaign issue -- are Americans going to finally snap out of it?

An evil symbiosis does exist between Muslim terrorists and American politicians, but it is not the one Republicans describe. The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. His bloody crusade in the Middle East bolsters their accusation that America is out to destroy Islam. The president has unwittingly made himself the lead recruiter of willing young martyrs.

More to the point, it is equally true that Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The "news" of terror -- whether real or fantasized -- reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best.

So, once again in the run-up to a national election, we are visited with alarming news. A monstrous plot, red alert, high drama playing on all channels and extreme measures taken to tighten security.

The White House men wear grave faces, but they cannot hide their delight. It's another chance for Bush to protect us from those aliens with funny names, another opportunity to accuse Democrats of aiding and abetting the enemy.

This has worked twice before. It could work again this fall unless gullible Americans snap out of it. Wake up, folks, and recognize how stupid and wimpish you look. I wrote the following two years ago during a similar episode of red alerts: "Bush's 'war on terrorism' is a political slogan -- not a coherent strategy for national defense -- and it succeeds brillantly only as politics. For everything else, it is quite illogical."

Where is the famous American skepticism? The loose-jointed ability to laugh at ourselves in anxious moments? Can't people see the campy joke in this docudrama called "Terror in the Sky"? The joke is on them. I have a suspicion that a lot of Americans actually enjoy the occasional fright since they know the alarm bell does actually not toll for them. It's a good, scary movie, but it's a slapstick war.

The other day at the airport in Burlington, Vermont, security guards confiscated liquid containers from two adolescent sisters returning home from vacation. The substance was labeled "Pure Maple Syrup." I am reminded of the Amish pretzel factory that was put on Pennsylvania's list of targets. Mothers with babes in arms are now told they must take a swiq of their baby formula before they can board the plane. I already feel safer.

The latest plot uncovered by British authorities may be real. Or maybe not. We do not yet know enough to be certain. The early reporting does not reassure or settle anything (though the Brits do sound more convincing than former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who gave "terror alerts" such a bad reputation). Tony Blair is no more trustworthy on these matters than Bush and Cheney. British investigators are as anxious as their American counterparts to prove their vigilance (and support their leaders). The close collaboration with Pakistani authorities doesn't exactly add credibility.

One question to ask is: Why now? The police have had a "mole" inside this operation since late 2005, but have yet to explain why they felt the need to swoop down and arest alleged plotters at this moment (two days after the Connecticut primary produced a triumph for anti-war politics).

The early claim that a massive takedown of a dozen airliners was set for August 16 is "rubbish," according to London authorities. So who decided this case was ripe for its public rollout? Blair consulted Cheney: What did they decide? American economist Jamie Galbraith was on a ten-hour flight from Manchester, England, to Boston on the day the story broke, and has wittily reflected on other weak points in the official story line.

The point is, Americans are not entirely defenseless pawns. They can keep their wits and reserve judgment. They can voice loudly the skepticism that Bush and company have earned by politicizing of the so-called "war" from the very start. Leading Democrats are toughening up. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid uses plain English to explain what the Republicans up to -- using genuine concerns of national security "as a political wedge issue. It is disgusting, but not surprising."

Instead of cowering in silence, the opposition party should start explaining this sick joke. Political confusion starts with the ill-conceived definition of a "war" that's best fought by police work, not heavy brigades on a battlefield. Forget the hype, call for common sense and stout hearts.

All we know, for sure, is that Bush and his handlers are not going to back off the fear-and-smear strategy until it loses an election for them. Maybe this will be the year.

William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).

__________________
"I read the news today, oh boy"

Divide Et Impera

I would really like to see a line graph that compares terror alerts against campaign/political activity. I'm sure there would be a correlation....

82CardsGrad

Hey, W masterminded 9/11th, so why wouldn't he coordinate terror threats in the most expedient manner!! Damm he's good!!

Divide Et Impera

Avoid and deflect....

82CardsGrad

Thought you might say that... But I understand. Looking into a mirror can be disturbing at times...

Divide Et Impera

Oooh. You really burned me with that 2nd grade comeback, Pee Wee Herman....

82CardsGrad

You guys continue to toss out these juvenile attacks, asserting yet another great conspiracy - and you call me Pee Wee Herman??

KloD

Great Conspiracy? It has been so obvious that each time the republicans need a boost in the polls, they raise the terror threat. Nothing brilliant about it, especially those who buy into this fear tactic.

82CardsGrad

No doubt... Anyone who is against W and his administration can very easily, and expediantly "connect the dots", and carelessly toss out these sort of accusations... Never providing even a shread of credible evidence, but all the while coming off as the unhinged hate mongers that has come to define the radical left...

Give it a rest already... You've got a few more months and then, according to all of you, you will take back congress. Then, later in 2008, you will take back the White House, right? And then, we can all look forward to a peaceful middle east, no more terror threats and attacks, oil back below $50 a barrel, no more problems with our borders and immigration, and the US will once again become loved by the rest of the world, and most importantly, the UN!!
Isn't that enough for you guys??

KloD

Sorry friend, the majority of Americans agree with me that this war is and was not worth it. The majority do not support this President any longer and feel this country has been taken in the wrong direction. Since this is the majority and I agree with them, that would make your position that of the radical right. You're not mainstream as you seem to believe.

82CardsGrad

Well ok then... you should be sleeping very easily at night, knowing that "your" party will soon regain control of US politics, right? Why then the continued bashing of W, and the incessant offering of these lame, juvenile and completely unhinged conspiracy plots?? If America is fed up, and no longer buys into W his positions on terror, take comfort in knowing that conservative reign is soon to end...
Otherwise, you come off as one scared mutha!

Divide Et Impera

Actually, it's the conservatives who act like scared mutha's. they are the ones that want surveillance, restrictions of liberties and rights and other infringements on US civilians en masse as a way to protect themselves. You ever heard the phrase, "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"? Well, conservatives should learn to have the balls it takes to be socially liberal. It takes no courage to hole up behind legislation. It takes greater courage to say, "You know what? If I die today in a terrorist attack, I'd rather go that way than live restricted and surveiled." I would rather go about my normal routine than surrender my rights (AND yours) for the illusion of a bit of safety....

82CardsGrad

Oh man... where to start with this tired, crappy rhetoric...
Please tell me how YOU have been inconvenienced? How has YOUR life been disrupted, changed, altered, infringed upon??
And if you don't think that the most crucial job of the POTUS is to protect the citizens, then we really shouldn't continue this debate... I know, I know... the terror and all the threats are really real, right? W and his boyz have cooked up all of the plots, the attacks, the threats to aide their cause of world domination!!!
Man o man... you guys never cease to amaze me...

KloD

Typical conservative attitude..me me me. If it don't effect me, than I don't care and what's the problem. Go back and hide in your foxhole if you want, but don't run around trying to make everyone else believe the world is doomed and ranting on about evil and good.

82CardsGrad

Too funny... the ironic thing about this is that to a person, it's the conservatives that remain much more optimistic about the world and the future, versus libs!! lol!!!
No - I am definitely not about ranting on about doom & gloom.. Doing what is necessary to protect yourself against a vicious and evil enemy is most certainly not about doom and gloom.