Who will have the courage to say that the Iraqis, the
Americans, the Afghanis, the Israelis and the
Palestinians are all worse off and less safe today
than they were four years ago? Certainly, not the
propapunditgandists of the "US mainstream news media."
The lead stories, this morning, on all of the major
network news organization, even those stthat feign to
cover aspects of 9/11 or Iraq, are no more than innane
drivel...MEANWHILE the compelling testimony of Richard
Clarke, David Kay, Joe Wilson, Greg Thielman, Roger Cressey, Rand Beers and other dedicated professionals is put aside for the scapegoating of the CIA and saber-rattling about Iran, AND the haunting legend of John O'Neill,
the FBI counterterrorism expert who resigned in
frustration with the Bush cabal, went to work as World
Trade Center security director, and died, attempting
to save others, on 9/11, has never even been
acknowledged in the "US mainstream news media" -- with
the exeption of one PBS Frontline documentary two
years ago. What has the 9/11 Commission decided to do
about the serious issues of incompetence and
negligence that were raised by Richard Clarke in his
testimony? Nothing? What has the 9/11 Commission
decided to do about the issue of whether John Ashcroft
or Thomas Pickering committed perjury since their
testimony is in direct contradiction? Nothing? What
has the 9/11 Commission decided to do about Ashcroft's
savage and deceitful attack on 9/11 panel member Jaime
Gorelick? Nothing? AND these questions are only a few
of the MANY that are being left unanswered...The
botched, bungled "war on terrorism" is NOT the
strength of the Bush White House, it is the SHAME of
the Bush White House...and the SHAME of the "US
mainstream news media" AND the 9/11 Commission is that
they are going to give them a pass...What will the
9/11 Families do now?
Paul Krugman, New York Times: O.K., end of conceit.
President Bush isn't actually an Al Qaeda mole, with
Dick Cheney his controller. Mr. Bush's "war on terror" has, however, played with eerie perfection into Osama bin Laden's hands - while Mr. Bush's supporters, impressed by his tough talk, see him as America's champion against the evildoers. Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded
bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that
read, "Kerry is bin Laden's man/Bush is mine."
Administration officials haven't gone that far, but
when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free warning about
a terrorist attack timed to "disrupt our democratic
process," many people thought he was implying that Al
Qaeda wants George Bush to lose. In reality, all
infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if
they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's
record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four
more years.
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/opinion/20krug.html?hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Arabian Candidate
By PAUL KRUGMAN
n the original version of "The Manchurian Candidate,"
Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting
to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue
modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert
wrote, the plan is to "use anticommunist hysteria as a
cover for a communist takeover."
The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if
the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he
wouldn't have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would
have used his position to undermine national security,
while posing as America's staunchest defender against
communist evil.
So let's imagine an update - not the remake with
Denzel Washington, which I haven't seen, but my own
version. This time the enemies would be Islamic
fanatics, who install as their puppet president a
demagogue who poses as the nation's defender against
terrorist evildoers.
The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists.
Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending
to be their enemy.
After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist
base, a necessary action to preserve his image of
toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the
terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's
attention shifted, he would systematically squander
the military victory: committing too few soldiers,
reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords
would once again rule most of the country, the heroin
trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would
make a comeback.
Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a
country that posed no imminent threat. He would
insinuate, without saying anything literally false,
that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist
attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies
and tie down a large part of our military. At the same
time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit
of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes
that really shelter anti-American terrorists and
really are building nuclear weapons.
Again, he would take care to squander a military
victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators
would block all planning for the war's aftermath; they
would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy
much of the country's infrastructure. Then they would
disband the defeated regime's army, turning hundreds
of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled
potential insurgents.
After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied
country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend
aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power
outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would
swell the ranks of our enemies.
Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to
deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean
trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating
a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and
starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of
only petty crimes.
At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation
vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports,
chemical plants and other potential targets. He would
stonewall investigations into why the initial
terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing
vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out
unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure
public indifference if and when a real threat is
announced.
Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the
terrorist threat for personal political gain, he would
undermine the nation's unity in the face of its
enemies, sowing suspicion about the government's
motives.
O.K., end of conceit. President Bush isn't actually an
Al Qaeda mole, with Dick Cheney his controller. Mr.
Bush's "war on terror" has, however, played with eerie
perfection into Osama bin Laden's hands - while Mr.
Bush's supporters, impressed by his tough talk, see
him as America's champion against the evildoers.
Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded
bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that
read, "Kerry is bin Laden's man/Bush is mine."
Administration officials haven't gone that far, but
when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free warning about
a terrorist attack timed to "disrupt our democratic
process," many people thought he was implying that Al
Qaeda wants George Bush to lose. In reality, all
infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if
they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's
record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four
more years.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home |
Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
Back to Top