Bush may invent another "threat" to win re-election

[kalazh]

Leading linguist and commentator Noam Chomsky has said President George Bush will have to "manufacture" another threat to American security to win re-election in 2004 after US failure in occupying Iraq.
Chomsky, attending a Latin American social sciences conference in the Cuban capital Havana, said that since the September 11 attacks the Bush administration had redefined US national security policy to include the use of force abroad, with or without United Nations approval.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/75106B9F-1FDB-4D2A-8484-992CBF7C51A3.htm

[Alpharetta]

1. I think he has to do it before March

He needs a huge threat or tragedy to justify keeping the current force in Iraq even longer than the year they're currently stuck with.

[kalazh]

3. Well

I think something is going to happen

[liberalmuse]

4. I agree.

In order to justify a draft, because all hell would break lose if they tried to re-implement it, they would have to have something on a bigger scale than 9-11, either in the ME near our troops, or in the U.S. again. I wouldn't put it past them. So now we have two reasons the Bushies would allow another attack--more forces to fight the 6 more oil wars outlined in PNAC, and re-election.


Possible scenario: A terrorist attack in another prominent U.S. city next spring or early summer. They could get a draft bill rushed through Congress, and start sending troops into basic training for deployment in late 2004 or early 2005. Iran would likely be the target, or Syria AND Iran. Americans would be so terrified (this was a truly horrific attack, with close to 10,000 dead), they would vote him back in.

[Faygo Kid]

8. Can wait till summer

March is too soon; time for too much to go wrong. I think May or June is more likely; and September is not too late for him, given the state of the media in this country.

[ComerPerro]

9. The middle of May would be perfect

Right before Memorial Day. It would get the country all fired up in a patriotic fury, make him look like a great leader (who in three years led us into two wars and presided over two major terror attacks on US soil, not to mention a rash of unemployment). Plus, he would have already passed his tax cut.
Moreover, it will make whatever Dem is running look like a complete ass, and just might even justify declaring a state of emergency and cancelling the eleciton. At the very least it will give him an excuse not to debate.

And finally, the most important point: It will allow him to take yet another monthlong vacation in August.

[liberalmuse]

2. I'm glad Chomsky has put this 'out there'.

If the Bushies manufacture another 'attack', they aren't going to get off so easy this time around.

On edit: I disagree with my own post--if the attack were truly devastating, more so than the 9-11 attacks, then they might get what they want.

[kalazh]

13. I think

they just might

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. I really fear that he is going to "miraculously" find and capture

Saddam/Osama/both...sometime before the elections. I really think we need to put this out into the open, so people will doubt a "capture"

Just my opinion.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. That would be to win re-selection!

[EdGy]

7. absolutely

I'd bet money on it.

Remember all of the "October surprises" that the republicans have pulled in the past.

Reagan did a deal with the Ayatollah to prevent the hostages from being released in 1980.

Republicans have shown they are willing to stop at nothing to maintain their grip on power. And the Bushies are not at all shy about doing this.

There'll be another attack if it looks like Bush is losing in July-August-September 2004.

Remember, the ONLY way the extremists who control the GOP can stay in power is through fear.

[leftofthedial]

10. gee, ya think?

It's not like he had to manufacture a threat to define his presidency or anything.

I'm not visiting any major Dem cities or non-fascist national landmarks between now and next year. I'll tell you that!

[bryant69]

11. Invent?

What do you mean invent? Are you under the illusion that organizations like al-Queda are not a threat? They did kill 3,000 on September 11th.

But i'm not a big fan of Noam Chomsky anyway.

But, let me say that we despretly need to get President Bush out of the White House.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kalazh]

12. I didn't

say "invent" I just quoted Chomsky

[TomNickell]

14. Capturing binLaden might be worth something....

But I don't think another 'threat' or a big incident will help them.

They've tried that one too many times already.

[pinballer]

21. ........

I think that you are VASTLY overestimating the intelligence of the Average Amuuuurican voter.

Bush and his cabal can pull a --- "hey, we just happened to have captured Ossama/Hussein, and whuddaya know, we did it right before the elections!....but it's just a coincidence, honest!" -- and the gullible sheep will eat it up.

[newyawker99]

34. Hi pinballer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kalazh]

29. May

be

[Justice]

40. As Time Goes By Capturing Bin Laden Becomes

more problematic. His followers and other sympathezers become more organized, more entrenched.

Bin Laden/Hussein were not colloborating pre 9/11 for their own reasons (which were significant). Now, Al Queda and other terrorists are likely to be in Iraq - fostering the attacks on Americans - the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of attitude.

If you believe we are not safer - that we are in fact more at risk - today than before 9/11 (which I do), then you must consider that capturing Bin Laden will have no real effect on safety. There are many many hardened entrenched people to step into his place. They may not love Bin Laden, but they hate us.

[charlie]

44. Won't be a problem if Bin Laden

is playing pinochle with Saddam in Cheney's basement.

I wouldn't be surprised if missiles, plutonium pellets, and drums of anthrax began erupting out of the ground next October either.

[ILeft]

16. Bush has killed far more human beings than "al-Queda"...

...so who are you more concerned with???

[J. Hill]

15. What Election?

I'm not absolutely sure we're going to have an election in 2004. I halfway expect Bush to issue an executive order cancelling elections "until further notice."

[ScreamingMeemie]

18. Ha! Or declare the Presidency by divine right.

Welcome to DU J.Hill!!:toast:

[J. Hill]

37. Thanks

The Current Affairs forum at my local newspaper's site filled-up with rightwingers. It's good to be here.

[bywho4who]

31. Elections Thats a good one.

Do ya think stealing them has lost it's flar?:eyes:

[J. Hill]

38. No challenge

Maybe stealing elections was becoming too easy and took-up too much time.

[andym]

17. Bush won't need another threat.

No matter how bad the economy, or the war in Iraq,
Bush's team will character assassinate our candidate.
Our candidate will be made out to be the most
untrustworthy presidential candidate ever.

By the time the campaign is finished we won't recognize
our candidate. They'll even use our candidate's strengths against them.
Remember Mike Dukakis-- he was a squeaky clean progressive Governor
of Massachusetts ("the Massachusetts miracle").
He was leading by a large margin over Bush I, but by the time
Atwater was done, he was painted as an "ineffectual, unhuman
liberal loser.

The trouble is that our candidates are really
"unknown" in American culture, unlike a "celebrity". It's
much harder to paint a known quantity. Being unknown means
our candidate can be painted to be anything Karl Rove wants.

Unless we can convince a large group of Americans that
Bush is dishonest, we will probably lose on character.

Therefore, this is the major goal to win: help the apolitical realize that Bush is not honest.

[andym]

19. And Rove will attack our candidate's patriotism.

And Rove will attack our candidate's patriotism
(even if we have Clark, though he will be most
resistant to this slander)

Think of the Repub convention in NY on 9/11 anniversary.

[pinballer]

22. .....

""I don't think another 'threat' or a big incident will help them...They've tried that one too many times already.""______TomNickell

I think that you are VASTLY overestimating the intelligence of the Average Amuuuurican voter.

Bush and his cabal can pull a --- "hey, we just happened to have captured Ossama/Hussein, and whuddaya know, we did it right before the elections!....but it's just a coincidence, honest!" -- and the gullible sheep will eat it up.

[Kanary]

24. Welcome to D.U., pinballer!

Sorry, haven't figured out how to get that "toast" emoticon here.

Kanary

[maggrwaggr]

32. that's why I'm starting to think that Clark's gotta be the guy

I love Dean and have given him money, but I'm starting to think that this country isn't ready for Dean yet.

This country has been severaly brainwashed and we need a transitional leader to take us back to normalcy.

I think Clark's the only one who can pull this off. Because people will see him as a republican who switched over to the Democrats. They'll see him as someone who is doing the right thing, rather than someone trying to win for "their side".

I think Clark can actually beat these guys at their own game and remain above the fray at the same time.

Maybe Dean in 2008?

[Cat Atomic]

20. I get the impression that Chomsky's talking about an "invented"

threat like the fictitious imminent Iraqi WMD threat- not necessarily a manufactured terrorist attack.

You don't have to actually DO anything to scare the American public- they're already frightened. Bush just has to start talking up the "threat" of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela... whatever.

[kalazh]

25. I like

the picture

[Cat Atomic]

27. Heh- thanks. It's from this:

http://www.pixelred.com/wmd/

[shockingelk]

43. Excellent

Thanks for http://www.pixelred.com/wmd/

[maggrwaggr]

33. what he'll do is invent a threat and then heroically save us all

when in fact it will all be a fiction. No danger to anybody.

But boy o boy it'll sure get everyone's attention. They're gonna find a nuke somewhere, they'll catch it in the nick of time all will be saved.

You just watch.

[seventhson]

23. If you read this stuff and do not believe that the Bushes were involved

in everything from the Reichstag Fire to 9-11

then you are deluding yoursleves.

Chomsky is right. He is foreshadowing.

But here you will find the Bush M.O. throughout history:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=664290


read the articles linked on this thread and see if you can still say that the BFEE would not do ANYTHING to hold power.

[mrgorth]

26. May?(nt)

.

[Resistance Is Futile]

28. You don't say...

Every Republican campaign is based on hyped-up or invented threats. All of these examples have been used in one form or other:

"Vote Republican or the niggers will steal your jobs."

"Vote Republican or your wives will abort your babies."

"Vote Republican or Iraq will nuke you."

"Vote Republican because the democRAT party will surrender to the USSR/al Qaida/Iraq/other threat of the month."

"Vote Republican because there's an al Qaida terrorist behind every tree just waiting to kill you."

"Vote Republican because the democRAT party supports al Qaida."

Fear mongering based on appeals to gross ignorance are the only reason the Republican party gets any votes outside of the top 1% income bracket.

[kalazh]

30. yep

he will

[JM]

35. We may be looking the wrong way

We have now seen two incidents regarding Anthrax over the past 2 weeks. SC and the WH mail facility. Call these "probes". I call this an odd coincidence.

A military incident is too obvious and too easy to figure out. Far easier to piggyback on something that succeeded and/or wasn't unraveled in the past, like Anthrax.

Later,
JM

[Guaranteed]

36. You know the numbers for and against the Iraq war

were pretty even before the war actually started. Especially since we're already involved in Iraq, people are going to be awful skeptical about starting another war. He's not going to get the moderates' support, because he fooled them last time, and even some of those who were staunch supporters wouldn't be on-board again because they blew their wad on Iraq.

I think he could manufacture a terrorist attack, but I don't think he'll be able to demonize another country and invade.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

41. "manufacture a terrorist attack"

That's the ticket.
Just imagine the effect of a bio-attack (like what's been paraded out on shows like 24 or Threat Matrix) in some
small city in the US.

Then picture * placing the blame on Syria (another country on the "target list").
After all isn't that where the WMD's "went", hell maybe Saddam himself is there, and they also "sponsor terrorists".

And gee whiz, how hard would it be to leave Iraq, just like * left Afghanistan and just move the action next door?

Just picture the scene if some "white powder" of some nefarious description just happened to pop up in say half
a dozen polling places in just a few states in the week before election day.

What effect would that have on turn-out?

[dusty64]

39. You know he will.

Like a broken record "terra" and "taxcuts" are all our regime have to offer.

[shindig]

42. This election, as was the 2002 election, will be about terrorism!

If I may say so, I think anyone who thinks Bush is toast isn't really following events closely enough. Either our guy or, heaven forbid, Bush will squeak out a victory. Or Bush will, again, heaven forbid, win in a landslide. That is reality! And I hate to say it, but all the deanies running around talking about how Bush is toast, and can't wait till inauguration day, blah blah blah, are, I'm really afraid, going to be in for a rude awakening if they don't calm down.

Yes, I'm for Clark, so delete me if you must. But, I really think Clark is the one to beat Bush. Remember everyone, it does not matter what we think Bush is. What matters is what other people think Bush is. Bush has 50% approval ratings. A man with that kind of record, having approvals ratings that high, shows us how close this is, if WE are really that close at all!

Only if we are in na-na land will we think that Bush will lose in a landslide because of his record. Most people don't know anything about his record, sadly. Because of his record he should have 0% approval rating, not 50%. I do not think Dean can beat Bush. If Dean wins, I'll get over it and work my butt off for him, as I did for Bill Clinton in 1992, the last time a Bush needed to be removed from office. Please consider voting for General Clark.

Please consider voting for General Clark. I respect the Dean supporters. I admire their organization and their pride in Dean. I know they don't give a shit whether I do or don't. But remember also, that there is a snooker job taking place in the corporate media right now. Remember there is that corporate media script.

Right now the script says Dean Dean Dean. It's partially legitimate, since Dean leads big in New Hampshire. And New Hampshire is the big kahuna. But, remember, the media loves it when it's Dean, Dean, Dean. When the media talks about how Dean is unstoppable, Dean is on his way, Dean, Dean, Dean, that's when Karl Rove takes a sigh of relief. Maybe Karl Rove will get his ass whipped next time, nonetheless. Maybe it is time for them to go. Maybe Karl Rove can't pull off his deception once again. But he's going to be trying very hard.

If Dean is our nominee, I hope Karl Rove is wrong about being happy that Dean is the nominee. (And yes, it would be soooooo awesome a celebration if Dean beats Bush. WOW!) I get goosebumps thinking about it. I swear, I do! But, again, back to reality.

I think we have a better chance for real goosebumps next November, and then in January, with the general and his staff (all of us americans) working at deflecting karl rove's smear tactics, when the shit really hits the fire, as the general campaign officially begins.

Talk to Al Gore! Talk to John McCain! Talk to Max Cleland! Ask them to tell you how to beat George Bush? They couldn't tell you?? We need the general, NOW, to laugh at George Bush, face to face, when George Bush reminds the country of his grand role in fighting terrorism.

That's what the election will be all about again, people. Putting someone forth who looks like he is better at fighting terror than Bush is. That's the the way we can win. 2002, we did not do that and we lost. The same thing will happen again if we don't put someone forth who looks like he can fight terrorism better than George Bush. Wake up people! ...That is my humble opinion....

Now delete this rant, moderator, if you must. i promise in my next post to write much shorter and more "normal" and less like William S. Burroughs (without the swear words,) Or maybe i was more like Jackie Mason. You decide! Thank you veddy much!