Bush's Political Survival Depends on Terror Threats

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

http://www.alternet.org/story/40280/

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

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).

Rasta, come on, GWB can't run for office anymore. The report you posted, acts like there is no threat from Islamic terrorists. Do you remember 9-11? Oh I am sorry, but that was he fault or he was behind it. Please

Rob comeon man, this is not about Bush running for a 3rd term, its about TERRORISM. Terrorism has defined Bush's entire two terms. As for the next GOP Pres. candidate as well as the platform many incumbent Repub. Congressmen/women will attempt to get re-elected with, "It's all about TERRORISM".

Bush's future and the GOP's maintaining the majority in congress all depends on keeping the voter fearfull of ever impending terrorist attack. These guys have to play their trump card/ace in the hole; which TERRORISM for their very survival in 06 and 08.

Bush and the GOP realize that should the DEM. ever regain the majority in congress, an avalanche of congressional hearings, over sights, grand juries and articles of impeachment will more than likely dominate the last 2 years Bush has in Office.

And while the Democrats made a last term President their target, the Terrorists would be making US their target. Talk about phucked up priorities.

__________________

Liberal-a person who has his cake, eats his cake, and complains that other people don't have cake, and believes that you should donate your cake to them

Rasta I have just one question for you
Do you believe Terrorism exists?
Ok actually two
If you do believe it exists
What in your opinion should be done about it?

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

okay, I will take the propagandist apart directly.
I notice no one has remarked on other links I inserted.
How come?
tools?..
wait let's parse this.. the president is not running for re election. It is not a
"campaign issue" ( to parse that: a derogatory label attempting to minimize and dismiss a real or imagined controversial issue's remarks made by an elected official.). So it must be something the President is trying to communicate to the citizens of America. ( perhaps even the world)
What IS that issue the President is trying to tell us about?
He has used a slogan ( a campaign slogan if-you-wish ) to describe what is the real threat to an open society.
An open society may not be a term we agree on.
Let's see if this suits you:
Terrorism is the use of NON-state organizations to effect
political change by destroying the citizens of that target ability to act "normally" i.e. without violence . These actions are designed to sow distrust, fear, and violent reaction.
The end result is a violent and destructive conflict where factions can rely on fear( of death!) to enlist support for one group that will "save" the society from chaos..
thereby seizing the reins of power and reinstituting a totalitarian thuggery.
But then again, I don't think Herr Greider assumes THAT as an operating definition. It doesn't fit into his "worldview"
[ See Mr Greider's resume'.. He is quite the ECONOMIST.. and a not very appreciative westerner one at that. In fact beside attacking and misanalysing ( therby misleading foolish americans )
capitalism, free markets, and the very essence of HIS career,
Mr Greider has had little reason to apply his "towering "intellect towards foreign policy before. do a google search and read some of his excerpts..
.. this guy is NOT playing with a full deck.
But Greider insists we must "snap out Of"..
what Mr. Greider?
he doesn't really say.. he depends on his like-minded readers-
( after all, this is a solid and frequent commentator for "The Nation" [an admitted leftist "rag'])- to understand HIS definition of terrorism.
.. I get the impression that Greider doesn't think that
1. The Islamic citizens of dozens of nations who are listening to angry and violent rhetoric ( and are members of miltant and trained espionage organizations) and ACTING to demoralize their hosts,
ARE REAL.
2.
That islamic people who ACT this way are a problem to anyone but jews( and therefore if we just abandoned the jews we would be okay ).
and
3. If a republican ( especially one in office) points to ANY action .. It must be opposed.
Apparently either there was NO violence in the mideast.. Iranian.. extremist-islamic, or mutated arabic socialist..before G W Bush assumed office-
( do you get the idea Greider "feels" that Bush stole the election twice?)
or Bush wasn't clever enough to covertly and diplomatically act .. AND counter violent espionage cells..
[quote=RASTAMAN;21371]
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. ...
QUOTE]

oh yeah.. see.. there really were no violent organizations in the mid east BEFORE GW Bush
and since its THIS administration ..
they will just go away after Nov 2008..and america votes democrat
at least as long as americans aren't still stoopid .
After all.. the politicians should do everything and more.. as little as possible and less..
and of course.. never inconvenience an airtraveller.
It worked twice before?
wait.. the violence of anti-western insurgents will go away, or what?
When has the US acted without restraint and actually ignored these pacifists?
of course they have never acted that way... and yet who complains about the half-hearted policies against fascist revolutionaries?




wait.. is the threat real or not? Is the whole world merly a chessboard for the Bushes ( how trivial of this rube.. like the Bush's are the big fish viz Rothchild and Bilderbergers etc ) or do humans actually act on their own agendas?
Is it posssible that the English are conflicted about how to exterminate obvious threats?



Rubbish you say? Who are these London Authorities?
is it that socialist and friendly mayor of London?
Or which thinktank mouthpiece did he quote?
and Americans can keep their wits about them..
a moment here..
This clown encourages and smarmingly patronizes his readers.." they can keep their wits"..
and then he asserts what is the "correct" position to hold.. i.e. those with wits will follow fuhrer Reid.
Fuhrer Reid of course, sees the world as an arena for HIS ambitions,
at least that is how Greider portrays him.

wait.. Now, Herr Greider is lecturing the social-democrats ?
Wait.. this guy is saying that overthrowing of governments and societies and random ( albeit calculated ) violence against innocent citizens is merely a police action?
( wait.. didn't that hawk JF Kerry say that terrorism should be viewed as " an inconvenience"?)
Hmm.. apparently SOME violence shouldn't be stamped out..
Merely a law enforcement issue.. like jaywalking and panhandling.
Fear and smear..
so by dismissing an issue , this economist assures every disaffected sponge
and just what is it that you all are asured of?
That if we jettison Israel we will have no threats to our government, citizens, investments, or "prestige" in the arab world.
He didn't mention, but its safe to assume that Greider ( and his flock)
would wish ( and demand!) US withdrawal from Iraq ( time to cut loose them, too!), Qatar,( and other posts.. can't have americans too close to the gulf),
and of course South Korea( that's why Kim is so surly, right?), and we should just face it and kick off those pesky taiwanese. That would make the Chinese happy, and so they would be pacified.
.. But we could stay in Bosnia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Columbia and Diego Garcia..
for now.
Or is this just a wrong analysis?

Yes of course Terrorism exists. Why is there terrorism and terrorist? Why do they hate us? Now what should be done about it is rather complicated matter b/c terrorism by it self is not a natural reaction for a human being to do to another human being on the surface.

However, if you look at the history of Terrorism around the world (not just in the Middle East), you will find that seven conditions have existed or were involved with Terrorism and Terrorist activity.

1. Oppression
2. Occupation
3. Colonialization
4. Theocracies
5. Exploitation
6. Fascism
7. Imperialism

I'm of the opinion and belief, that you cannot erradicate, defeat, nor prevent Terrorism unless both sides address all eight conditions. The situation is not hopeless, but it is complicated at best. Some historians have said that terrorism is a poor mans weapon against a stronger enemy with modernize weaponry. On thing is for sure, unless you run out of bodies terrorism will continue. Lastly, the targets (citizens/leadership) must come to terms and be honest about what truely causes Terrorism.

I'm of the opinion and belief, that you cannot erradicate, defeat, nor prevent Terrorism unless both sides address all eight conditions. The situation is not hopeless, but it is complicated at best. Some historians have said that terrorism is a poor mans weapon against a stronger enemy with modernize weaponry. On thing is for sure, unless you run out of bodies terrorism will continue. Lastly, the targets (citizens/leadership) must come to terms and be honest about what truely causes Terrorism.[/quote]

This is great stuff and I applaud your vision in wanting to make everyone happy. Hopefully soon though, you shall awake from your coma of naievete and denial and realize the big picture.

While your are correct in stating that terrorism will never be completely defeated you are wrong in feeling that it is negotiable. It isn't. You shold read some history and if your mind is open enough, it will prove my point. It's not about an opinion, it is just factual history.

As a brief example: When Bill Clinton met with the Israeli leader whose names escapes me right now and Arafat I guess around 1997 or so and got Israel to agree to literally 97% of what Arafat wanted, Arafat refused to give in, refused to negotiate any further and literally ended the negotiations. Clinton himself has stated since then that it was then that he realized that the Palestineans (or maybe more like Arafat) didn't want peace. The problem here is that unlike the "Cold War" of yesteryear we aren't "negotiating" or "discussing" with a government or a coutry. You are proposing dealing with terrrosts and terrorist states and thinking you can actually negotiate with them. Let me save you some time and energy and tell you that it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists because that's not what they want. It's not a political debate, it is a philosophical and religious conquest on their part to rule the world and force it to bow down to their version of Islam. Sorry pal, but as long as hezzbollah and hamas and other groups are cutting the heads of Ameicans, blowing up children and women in pizza parlors and kidnapping television reporters, there is absolutely nothing to discuss. All these animals understand is warfare because that's what they do. They don't rdespect human life, themselves or you. They think they are in "Jihad" and are going to heaven with the 72 virings or whatever (no one told them that they all look like Janet Reno, not Sandra Bullock). The sooner you and the rest of the world for that matter get through your head, the better because that kind of old, aincent, Chamberlin type thinking is only making things worse.

This is great stuff and I applaud your vision in wanting to make everyone happy. Hopefully soon though, you shall awake from your coma of naievete and denial and realize the big picture.

While your are correct in stating that terrorism will never be completely defeated you are wrong in feeling that it is negotiable. It isn't. You shold read some history and if your mind is open enough, it will prove my point. It's not about an opinion, it is just factual history.

As a brief example: When Bill Clinton met with the Israeli leader whose names escapes me right now and Arafat I guess around 1997 or so and got Israel to agree to literally 97% of what Arafat wanted, Arafat refused to give in, refused to negotiate any further and literally ended the negotiations. Clinton himself has stated since then that it was then that he realized that the Palestineans (or maybe more like Arafat) didn't want peace. The problem here is that unlike the "Cold War" of yesteryear we aren't "negotiating" or "discussing" with a government or a coutry. You are proposing dealing with terrrosts and terrorist states and thinking you can actually negotiate with them. Let me save you some time and energy and tell you that it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists because that's not what they want. It's not a political debate, it is a philosophical and religious conquest on their part to rule the world and force it to bow down to their version of Islam. Sorry pal, but as long as hezzbollah and hamas and other groups are cutting the heads of Ameicans, blowing up children and women in pizza parlors and kidnapping television reporters, there is absolutely nothing to discuss. All these animals understand is warfare because that's what they do. They don't rdespect human life, themselves or you. They think they are in "Jihad" and are going to heaven with the 72 virings or whatever (no one told them that they all look like Janet Reno, not Sandra Bullock). The sooner you and the rest of the world for that matter get through your head, the better because that kind of old, aincent, Chamberlin type thinking is only making things worse.[/quote]

Steve, what you fail to realize is that the Terrorist views American Foreign Policies as Terrorist as well. Perhaps you read more on the history of terrorism from both perspectives and especially from the 7 conditions I mentioned. I do know one thing, myself and millions of other Americans lives, security and freedoms are endangered b/c of our foreing polices or rather what our elected leaders do abroad in our name.

Rasta you say that this war is wrong but then you say that terrorist can not be negotiated with well which is it? Either you fight them or you talk to them but you can not do both.
Ignoring them was what caused 9-11
How do you propose they be dealt with?

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w