portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

The Arabian Candidate

'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.'
By PAUL KRUGMAN

'In 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

 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/opinion/20krug.html
exactly 20.Jul.2004 15:51

observer

In 4 short years Osama Bin Laden has seen all of his major goals from the 80's fulfilled.

1. The removal of Saddam Hussein from office.
2. The removal of military bases from Saudi Arabia.
3. The rise of anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world to fuel the holy war.

Really, has the Bush administration actually harmed Osama in any way?

Maybe that was never the point; maybe it's all just a matter of shared goals...

... 20.Jul.2004 16:58

this thing here

Bush Bin Laden '04 - A Symbiotic Relationship for a Troubled World

... if only i had photshop, i would have made a thousand such posters and bumper stickers by now!

god smiled upon them and gave the two what they so desperately wanted for so long. each other...

... and all the rest of us were left with the results. such as another 9-11 right around election time. an invasion of iran. police state mindsets here at home. the politics of fear as an excuse for anything. but in the end, really nothing but more dead human beings. and living human beings who are less free.

Instead of "The Arabian Candidate" simply "1984" 21.Jul.2004 19:54

Orwell

Come on people. This pretends that Al-Queda is something different than the CIA/Bush Family/Pakistani ISI/Saudi arrangements that it always has been and always will be. The U.S. built Al-Queda as a proxy terrorist operation under Bush/Reagan era, and it remains a Bush proxy terror operation to this day.

The entire war on terror is a sham because it is an example actually of U.S. sponsored state terror, instead of 'external' terrorism. And it is hardly religious fundamentalism. If anything it is corporate neocon fundamentalism--to fund such terror operations on our own soil to justify the creation of the destuction of the U.S. Constitution. The terrorist masterminds are in the White House and Pentagon laughing at you.

For evidence that they have done this before to dupe the American populace through reactionary fear, check out the books _Project Northwoods_ or check out _Day of Deceit_ or check out
_The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror_ by Len Bracken, or _9-11: The Big Lie_ by Theirry Meyssan.

If you value your ability to take care of the U.S. Constitution, a CIA writer--anonymous or otherwise--is hardly a source to go to to protect your freedoms. The CIA has mostly been responsible for taking them away [cite: _Virtual Government_, and _The Cultural Cold War_ for more documentation]