Bush
& Co.: Desperate Desperados
By Bernard Weiner
16 August, 2006
Crisis
Papers
Let's
go behind the news and try to figure out what the Bushevik reactions
to Lamont's victory and the liquid-bomb terror plot tell us about the
current political situation in the U.S.
From where I sit, those reactions
by Administration officials and their mass-media lapdogs make Bush&Co.
look positively desperate, as if they are beginning, at last, to appreciate
that they could lose big in November. They're firing the huge guns now
in hopes of frightening away their enemies -- and making themselves
feel less scared as well.
By suggesting that Ned Lamont
and those who voted for him are somehow in the same league with al-Qaida
-- as Cheney and Lieberman and Mehlman and others did -- clearly indicates
that they're frightened enough to pull out all the stops, legit or not,
no distinctions made. Karl Rove at his most Rovian.
Many of those who voted against
Lieberman in Connecticut were moderates, some of whom even supported
Bush in previous elections. A national poll the other day showed that
nearly one
in five of those who voted for Bush in 2004 now say they'll
vote for a Democrat in November.
Nearly two-thirds of the
American public now believes that the Bush Administration made a big
mistake by invading and occupying Iraq. Those are the people who voted
for Lamont. In effect, Bush and his fellow desperados are telling the
majority of the American people that voting for an anti-war, pro-democracy
candidate is akin to supporting terrorists.
HIGHLIGHT THEIR WORDS
If the Democrats possess
any wisdom and cajones, they will leap on the fact that the Bush Administration
thinks most Americans are treasonous, aiding and abetting the enemy.
Let the GOP pay for that gross political miscalculation, with no letup.
The Busheviks charge that anyone who disagrees with them is a witting
or unwitting traitor. Let's see how the American people will like biting
that big one.
MoveOn and the DNC should
take those words from Cheney and Lieberman and Limbaugh and O'Reilly
and the others and play them back in TV spots from now until November.
As for what Lieberman is
really up to, if I were a gambler I'd place a small wager that Joe is
a made man. He might well have been promised a Cabinet post or major
judicial or diplomatic appointment by Rove and Bush as long as he stays
in the race; reportedly, Rove said "the boss," meaning Bush,
will do everything he can to make Lieberman's independent campaign a
winning one. Of course, Lieberman also has been humiliated and wants
his revenge so badly that he's willing to take down Lamont and the party
and the country with him. Nice guy, Sore Loserman.
Lieberman has been carrying
Bush&Co.'s water for years, and on many more issues than just the
war. But it's the war that Rove and Cheney and Mehlman are focusing
on. Why? The Republicans have little positive to run on, since virtually
every thing they touch turns into either a disaster or a catastrophe
-- and they've got that 800-lb. Iraqi negative that stands out just
a tad to American voters. (As I write this, Bush, with a 33% approval
rating, remains trapped with little more than the support of his fundamentalist
base.)
ROVE'S NON-STOP BARRAGE
That Iraq negative has to
be flipped into something positive. Despite the fact that there is no
evidence that Bush&Co. have made Americans any more safe under their
tenure (more likely, we're less safe), more citizens give higher marks
to the Republicans on the terrorism issue than they do on the Iraq issue,
where Democrats get the nod. Ergo, Iraq has to be folded into the war-on-terror,
even though there were precious few, if any, terrorists in secular Iraq
prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and most of the ones there
now come from the home-grown resistance.
So, from now until Election
Day, it's going to be a non-stop barrage of "stop-'em-in-Baghdad-rather-than-in-America,"
as if that makes any sense whatsoever. The framing set-up: The terrorists
who hit us on 9/11 and who wanted to hit us again five years later with
their liquid-bombs on airplanes are part of the same army of "Islamic
fascists" that we're battling in Iraq. That's it. That's the sole
message.
Doesn't matter that it's
not true, that nationalist insurgencies have lives and motivations all
their own. The GOP will keep on pounding and pounding that message home,
along with "stay the course." Their hope is that yet again
they can bamboozle just enough former-Bush voters to stick with the
Republicans. Then they will claim yet another victory, aided as usual
by Rove's patented dirty tricks and likely felonious fraud at the polling
machines. That's why it's absolutely vital that all those who value
electoral integrity take their election officials to court, if necessary,
to get a fair and honest vote count in November.
A RUSHED ANNOUNCEMENT
Now we come to the U.K. terror
plot. We don't know all the facts yet, but this alleged conspiracy seems
to be genuine, possibly the "Big One" that has been expected
since 2001. It's possible that the attack on the 10 or so airlines could
have been activated relatively quickly -- perhaps to take place in a
few weeks, on September 11.
The Brits, using solid police
work and counter-terrorism intel -- as opposed to the Bush method of
bombing and torture -- reportedly had these alleged terrorists under
surveillance for more than a year.
How did it happen that they
waited to pounce, and announce, one day after Lamont's breakthrough
victory in Connecticut revealed for all to see that maybe the emperor
didn't have any clothes on at all? It's too fishy by half, especially
because the plot apparently was not operational yet.
Blair and Bush were in communication
on this plot for days, perhaps much longer, before the arrests were
announced. In other words, Bush and thus the GOP leadership had been
given a heads-up by the Brits, which allowed them time to prepare their
public position. On the day before the London announcement, Cheney (who
rarely talks to the press) had a rare teleconference with select reporters
to lay the foundations for the GOP spin that will be the party's main
strategy in the run-up to November: be afraid, our muscular policies
will protect you, stay with us. Ken Mehlman, the GOP chief, made similar
comments, along with various rightwing pundits and columnists.
The whole operation has got
Karl Rove written all over it: an onslaught of carefully rolled-out
denunciations of Democrats who they can suggest are allied with "Islamic
fascists" because they don't support the President and his war-on-terrorism
policies. ("You're either with us or with the terrorists,"
remember that one?)
NBC News has reported that
British police and intelligence officials felt rushed by Bush Administration
insistence on making the arrests sooner
than they wanted to. Since those under surveillance had
not yet purchased airline tickets, and some hadn't even obtained their
passports, the police and counter-terrorism honchos wanted more opportunity
to gather evidence and track down possible contacts with other unknown
conspirators.
But the Bush Administration
-- ostensibly worried about a possible "dry run," they claimed
-- leaned on Blair to move immediately. And, wouldn't you know it, the
result was that the news cycle for days afterward was dominated by liquid-bombs
24/7, while the disaster that is happening in Iraq and Lebanon, the
behind-the-scenes planning for an
attack on Iran, and Lieberman's momentous defeat in Connecticut
virtually disappeared from the news.
IRAQ CONFLATED WITH G.W.O.T.
The Bush Administration invented
a non-existent Iraq/terror connection to manipulate the Congress and
American public in the rollup to the war in 2003 -- that Saddam Hussein
was somehow tied in to the mass murders of 9/11. They are still doing
it by conflating the war in Iraq with the "global war on terror."
(Lest we forget, there were no terrorists to speak of in Iraq until
the U.S. bombed and occupied that unfortunate country; Saddam's one
major pro-terrorist sin, so far as I can determine, was to give $25K
to Palestinian families whose children blew themselves up in Israel,
an action that certainly was not a threat by Iraq to invade its neighbors,
and certainly was in no way a threat to the U.S.)
When 9/11 happened, Condoleezza
Rice described the 3000 deaths as an "opportunity" for the
Administration to mobilize its forces to push its domestic and foreign
agenda. Rice also views the destruction in Lebanon not as a tragedy
but as an "opportunity" to shape a new Middle East order;
it's just "birth pangs," she said. Now, the London plot provides
the Busheviks with yet another "opportunity" to try to hang
the "soft-on-terrorism" albatross around the necks of the
Democrats, to keep them from taking back the House in November.
A White House official, who
spoke on condition of not being named, was quoted about the liquid-bomb
plot by Agence
France Press: "Weeks before September 11th, this is
going to play big," said the official, adding that some Democratic
candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.
IT'S BARE-KNUCKLES
TIME FOR DEMS
So how should the Democrats
respond? And respond they must, or risk being "framed," in
all uses of that term, as "weak on national security," or,
worse yet, as apologists and aiders & abetters of terrorists, in
short as traitors to America.
This is political hardball,
and the Dems had better get their heavy hitters out there swinging away
at the Republicans' desperate tactics. No whining, no complaining how
unfair Cheney and the rest of the gang are. Just hit back hard, using
the Busheviks' own words to demonstrate how the Bush Administration
is harming our national security by flailing around the world in reckless
military adventures (incompetently carried out as well) and by not doing
what needs to be done to beef up security around our ports (most containers
go unexamined), airlines (freight still mostly unscreened), nuclear
power facilities and chemical plants.
Believe it or not, the Bush
Administration even took $6,000,000 away from new
bomb-detection programs!
It's time for Democrats,
progressives, Independents, Libertarians, moderate Republicans and others
to unite openly to defeat this Republican crew in November. This may
be the last good chance we get to take them down -- before they take
us all down with them.
Copyright 2006, by Bernard
Weiner
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D.
in government & international relations, has taught at universities
in Washington and California, worked as a writer/editor with the San
Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
To comment: >> [email protected]
<<