Tags for This Article:

Bush Admin (1970)  Fear (999)  Fear As Policy (319)  Political Values (158)  Political Opportunism GOP (139)  US Politics-Government (126)  Political Parties (122)  Political Elite (115)  Political Strategists (112)  Political Mudslinging (79)  US Govt Executive Branch (55)  US Govt Judicial Branch (39)  US Govt Legislative Branch (28)  US National Intelligence Estimate (20)  Political Asylum (16) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
July 18, 2007 at 12:44:17

How The Bush Administration Uses Fear As A Political Tool

by Randolph T. Holhut     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

    DUMMERSTON, Vt. — With public support for the Iraq war hovering around 30 percent,  the Bush administration is falling back on a familiar strategy it loves to use when it find itself in trouble — scaring the American people.

    On Tuesday, the National Intelligence Estimate, which reflects the consensus view of the 16 U.S. spy agencies, was released to the press. It states that al-Qaida is stepping up efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here.

    President Bush immediately seized upon the report's findings as justification for the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. Bush still believes that al-Qaida is responsible for the violence in Iraq, something that has been repeatedly proven false.

    And, for good measure, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff chimed in last week, saying he had a "gut feeling" that another major terrorist attack was going to happen — even though he admitted that there was no specific threat to justify that statement.

    The NIE was released the same day that the Senate planned an all-night session to force a vote on the Iraq war. Coincidence? Definitely not, especially when one remembers all the other times when terrorist threats conveniently materialized exactly when the administration needed a little distraction.

    A couple of years ago, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann assembled a list of 10 instances when the timing of the government's terrorist alerts appeared to be more than a little suspicious. Let's take a walk down memory lane and examine them.

    1. On May 18, 2002, we first learned that President Bush had been warned in August 2001 that some sort of terror attack on the U.S. was imminent. The warnings weren't acted upon, bringing into question intelligence failures prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. On May 22, President Bush went on the record opposing the formation of an independent 9/11 commission. Later that day, FBI Director Robert Mueller declared that another terrorist attack was "inevitable" and the following day, the Department of Homeland Security issued a terror alert.

    2. On June 6, 2002, FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. She said she tried to warn her superiors about the specialized flight training taken by some of the men who eventually were part of  the 9/11 attacks, but she was ignored. On June 10, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that a major terrorist plot was disrupted with the arrest of Jose Padilla, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack. However, Padilla had been in custody for more than a month before Ashcroft's announcement.

    3. On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations Security Council and detailed the extent of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — information that later proved to be untrue. Two days later, as massive demonstrations against a planned U.S. attack on Iraq were building, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge raised the nation's color-coded terror alert level to orange — the second highest level — and Americans were advised to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect against a radiological or biological attack.

    4. On July 23, 2003, the White House admitted that the CIA cast doubts on its claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the congressional report on the 9/11 attacks criticized the government for its failures and stated that Iraq had no links to al-Qaida. On the 26th, American troops were accused of beating Iraqi prisoners. On the 29th, Homeland Security issued another round of warnings of terrorist attacks on the United States.

    5. On Dec. 17, 2003, the 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Keane stated that the attacks were preventable. The next day, a federal appeals court ruled that Jose Padilla cannot be detained indefinitely without charges. David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, announced that no weapons of mass destruction were found there and that he would resign his post. On Dec 21, Homeland Security raised the threat level to orange, claiming that terrorists were plotting to fly jetliners into skyscrapers.

    6. On March 30, 2004, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission. The next day, four Blackwater USA civilian contractors were murdered in Fallujah, and their burnt, mutilated bodies were dragged through the streets. On April 2, Homeland Security issued a warning that terrorists were plotting to blow up trains and buses with fertilizer bombs.

    7. On May 16, 2004, Powell appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press" and admitted the presentation he made to the U.N. Security Council the year before was "inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading." On the 21st, the first pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib were released. On the 24th, AP Television video confirmed that U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party, killing more than 40 people. On 26th, Ashcroft and Mueller announced they have credible information that al-Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. Interestingly, the color-coded alert system didn't change.

    8. On July 6, 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry selected John Edwards as his running mate. The Democratic campaign got a bump in the polls and in media coverage. Two days later, Ridge warned that al-Qaida was moving forward with its plans to launch a major attack on the United States. Also, about the same time, federal election official Deforest Soaries confirmed he wrote to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it was interrupted by terrorist attacks.

    9. On July 29, 2004, Kerry was formally nominated at the Democratic candidate for president. Again, he garners plenty of media attention. Three days later, Ridge raised the terror threat level to orange and warned of possible attacks on financial centers in New York and New Jersey. The evidence that prompted the warning was later found to be four years old and outdated. Oddly enough, Bush's daughters, Barbara and Jenna, visited the Citicorp Building in New York the same day as Ridge's warning.

      10. In Oct. 6, 2005, at 10 a.m., President Bush gave a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. He said the U.S. government had foiled at least 10 major terrorist plots since 9/11, but offered no evidence. At 3 p.m., the AP reported that Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor, would testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity and that there was no guarantee that Rove would not be indicted. Just after 5 p.m., New York City officials revealed details of a bomb threat to the city's subway system based on information supplied by the federal government. This information was eventually found to be bogus.

 1  |  2

 

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books). He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 comments

A one-eyed man in a world of the blind is king, but a rational man in a world of the irrational is a fool.
rabblerowzerA one-eyed man in a world of the blind is king, but a rational man in a world of the irrational is a fool.

fire and brimstone

 

Diligent service to the common good doesn’t pay well. And sometimes it provokes fire and brimstone from the high, well-off and mighty. That’s a lesson learned every day by our children, at least those who can read, write and think, anymore. Skills required to survive in even the most “civil” society.

Who decided it was a good idea to skimp on funding for our children’s education? Someone made that decision. Someone chooses how all our tax money is spent, and whoever it was that decided, decided wrong. We’ve got to start thinking in terms of the common good, and demanding support for the common good. The high, well-off and mighty don’t need support, but that’s exactly where our tax money is spent. Supporting the high, well-off and mighty has become almost a religion in America, thanks to the perpetual Media Manipulation of thought. Garbage in, garbage out.

Are we sacrificing our children for the common good, or for the high, well-off and mighty? Even hyenas teach their offspring how to survive.

.

An opportunistic infection of war profiteering warmongers, racist rabble-rousers, and corporate pimps have taken control of our government through deceit and criminal actions. If that isn’t grounds for Impeachment, what is?

Democratic Representatives (how can anyone call them LEADERS) have failed for the last six years to acknowledge and address the Republican’s covert assault of America. Some might call that criminal negligence. But then again, which is worse, premeditated criminal behavior, or flinching from intimidation?

The average republican professes to be devout believer in Law & Order, but when their party has power, that quaint notion is tossed out the window along with the constitution. Surely, there are sane republicans who can see that the abandonment of Law & Order can lead to very unpleasant consequences for all Americans.

 

.

 

by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 9:25:16 AM
 

 

1 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Representatives Were Threatened with "Martial Law" if Bailout Bill Did Not Pass by Patrick Henningsen

30 Lies Refuted about Ayers and Obama Posted by John Wilson

Those Who Call Obama A Muslim Posted by Rob Kall

Palin Debate Performance Deconstructed by Steven Leser

Albright, Clarke, 200 Diplomats Laud Obama's Willingness to Talk Directly to Adversaries Without Preconditions Posted by Stephen Fox

This is Your Nation on White Privilege Posted by Siv O'Neall

All that's missing are the uniforms! Posted by W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

The End of American Hegemony by Paul Craig Roberts

Meet The $700 Billion Bailout Czar by Rob Kall

The Real Cause of the Current Financial Crisis by Joe Reeser

Go To Top 50 Most Popular