| http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=231 'George W. Bush's insurance policy" Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 @ 04:33:45 EDT By Andre Achong YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – Four years ago a film came out titled "Wag the Dog." Acclaimed by film critics, but largely unappreciated by the movie-going public at large, "Wag the Dog" tells the story of a scandal that pops up two weeks before election day that threatens to derail the re-election plans of the U.S. President. Spin-doctors and Hollywood types are brought in, and they conspire to manufacture something even more distracting than the scandal – a war. The film demonstrates how a toxic blend of politics, media manipulation, and glossy Hollywood publicity can be foisted on a public who is not informed enough to question their leaders. "Wag the Dog" was more than just a tongue-in-cheek celluloid exposé of the politico-media underbelly; it was a testament to the hypnotic powers of the media and the political establishment. And those of us who never laid down like sheep and never accepted the party line knew that it would only be a matter of time before a real American president took the faux Machiavellian machinations of "Wag the Dog" to heart and put them to work when the optimum opportunity presented itself. Well, the optimum opportunity is here and now. George W. Bush’s poll numbers are hovering at a sweet 80 percent (March Gallup poll), and even the cynics who are skeptical of the validity of polls will concede that the majority of Americans would approve of Mr. Bush’s job performance if asked. Mr. Bush is, after all, the cowboy-president who talks plainly and in the simplistic absolutes people take comfort in. Mr. Bush’s handlers have taken every opportunity to tout these attributes and the high numbers, and turn the public into Pavlov dogs by equating "high poll numbers" with "the president is doing a heck of a job!" But veterans of the political landscape also know that poll numbers as artificially high as those of Mr. Bush can fall faster than a soufflé during an earthquake, and missteps in the international arena today can bleed onto the domestic consciousness and carry over to the re-election cycle of 2003-2004. George W. Bush is loath to join his father in the history books as a single term president, and that alone is incentive enough for him to pull out the stops to ensure he remains a fixture in the Oval Office through 2008. And even though Mr. Bush might still be riding high on the stature the punditocracy gave him after September 11, recent events in the Middle East and Venezuela threaten to tarnish this new image Coming into the presidency, Mr. Bush instinctively knew that the Middle East was a morass that had the potential to derail and distract him, like it did to his predecessor Bill Clinton. Determined not to suffer the same fate, Mr. Bush ignored the Middle East for the first fifteen months of his term, and of course the Israelis and the Palestinians took that opportunity to act out their ongoing Greek tragedy. Then September 11 transpired and forced Mr. Bush to acknowledge that active American participation in the Middle East is a huge part of being president. The problems Mr. Bush must face are formidable. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has not shown the proclivity for listening to U.S. demands like former Prime Ministers Netanyahu and Barak have. Mr. Sharon chose to keep the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in the West Bank even after repeated requests by the Bush Administration to pull out "immediately." Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in the region only to face hostile Middle Eastern leaders, and ended up leaving empty-handed and deflated. Pictures of the demolished the West Bank city of Jenin permeate CNN; Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has refused to call a halt to further Palestinian attacks as long as Israeli forces occupy the West Bank. The rub is Chairman Arafat isn't saying what Mr. Bush wants him to say, and Mr. Sharon is not doing what Mr. Bush wants him to do. In addition, pro-Arab and pro-Israeli lobbies have taken to the streets at home in raucous well-publicized rallies to show solidarity with their overseas brethren. The Bush Administration has been very careful to say the right things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has advocated a Palestinian state, and it has gone on record saying the Israeli occupation should end, and soon. The Administration has also called on Mr. Arafat to denounce attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, and Mr. Bush has condemned Palestinian "homicide bombings" in the "most strongest of terms." By speaking reasonably, Mr. Bush hopes to curry favor with the Arab nations he will surely need to support him in any offensive on Iraq. The fact that Mr. Bush wants a change in Iraqi leadership is not lost on Saddam Hussein. Mr. Hussein has injected himself into the Palestinian cause by promising $25,000 to each family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. Twenty-five thousand dollars to a West Bank family is like a million dollars to the rest of us, and is likely to induce more suicide bombings in an increasingly depressed and desperate people. A youth will gladly strap on a belt of explosives knowing he wins three ways: he gets his 72 virgins in Paradise; he kills some of his enemies; and his family gets to live a little more comfortably. Mr. Hussein has also stopped Iraqi petroleum exports citing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the reason. A review of the freeze would take place around the first week of May, or when the Israelis make an unconditional withdrawal from Palestinian areas. It is safe to speculate these jabs by Mr. Hussein have aggravated Mr. Bush, and it is also safe to speculate that Mr. Bush will use Mr. Hussein's actions as further evidence that "Saddam must go." Mr. Bush's father, as president during Operation Desert Storm eleven years ago, took Saddam Hussein on and thrashed him soundly. But there was no victory march through Baghdad with Mr. Hussein's head on a stick because Mr. Bush senior and his top advisors realized that they had no infrastructure to put in place of Saddam. Even now, those with the best ability to analyze the Iraqi political landscape maintain that any power vacuum created by Mr. Hussein's removal may initiate a civil war among the Kurdish north, Sunni Muslim middle and Shia south. But any U.S.-Iraqi war is bound to produce that very result because Mr. Bush has exhibited a reluctance to get involved in nation-building ("I don't think nation-building missions are worthwhile," Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000). In spite of these reasons, many have groused that Mr. Hussein should have been liquidated when the U.S. first had the chance, and they have blamed Bush senior for allowing Saddam Hussein's continued oppressive rule. But while Bush junior would like to take the credit for finishing what his daddy started, he has a more important use for a renewed offensive on Iraq: Saddam is going to be his "Wag the Dog." Most of the articles I have read lately maintain that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an unwelcome distraction for those whose trigger-fingers are itching for a shot at Mr. Hussein. I maintain that the opposite is true, and the distraction of Israeli-Palestinian fighting is a welcomed one, because it gives Mr. Bush and his cabal of warmongers a smokescreen to hide behind while they plot Mr. Hussein's downfall just in time for the 2004 Presidential elections. During the crucial campaign period between mid-2003 and late-2004, Mr. Bush will leave nothing to chance. His 80 percent approval rating will be a fond and distant memory, so a nifty little war with the despot the world loves to hate will do just nicely to rectify that. I would even go so far as to say it would not surprise me at all if U.S. forces captured Osama bin Laden around the same time Mr. Hussein is taking his lumps. But being a President who has been victorious in war is no guarantee of success. Sometimes it works out (see Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II) and sometimes it does not (see Bush's father sporting an 80 percent approval rating himself right after Desert Storm but losing the presidential election the next year to Bill Clinton). Mr. Bush cannot afford to go down in flames like his daddy did, however. His timing for war with Iraq will have to be better, so the destruction of "Axis of Evil" charter member Iraq can coincide with an imperative juncture of Mr. Bush's presidential campaign. Then, all he has to do is break out the red, white, and blue bunting and ride on the surge of sweet patriotic pride that victory brings. The potential is there for my whole "Wag the Dog" theory to be poked full of holes, but there is one man who is not taking any chances. Mr. Hussein has anticipated – rightly or wrongly – that some Kurdish leaders will ally themselves with the United States to facilitate his overthrow, and he is prepping terrorists to take these Kurdish leaders out. He may be acting on baseless suspicion, but then again he has not maintained rule since 1979 by being stupid. Besides, Mr. Hussein's style of governance does require an enthusiastic embrace of paranoia. Mr. Bush and his cabal of warmongers have also intimated that Mr. Hussein had something to do with September 11, when no evidence has been offered in support. While it is true Saddam Hussein is a demagogue whose moral compass has been out of whack for a long time, he should be taken out by legitimate means, not on trumped-up charges. Bush will say that he wants Saddam gone because he wants the Iraqi people to live in "freedom and democracy." Don’t buy into that. The United States just secretly supported the coup of democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and Mr. Bush's White House did not cheer for democracy when Mr. Chavez was re-installed as president later. So watch out for the jingoistic stump speeches and red-white-and-blue bunting sometime in 2003. And remember, you heard it here first. |
