Bush as Manchurian Candidate

Paul Krugman, 7/20/04 NY Times:

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.

From:

Give it a rest already. Try staying on topic for a change.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

We have had a Manchurian Candidate in our government. He ran for office
using cash from the Red Chinese Army. In office he delivered American
nuclear warhead and missile guidance designs to the Red Chinese.

One guess who America's real Manchurian Candidate is!

The Pundit's Guru

end

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Paul Krugman, 7/20/04 NY Times:

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.

We have had a Manchurian Candidate in our government. He ran for office
using cash from the Red Chinese Army. In office he delivered American
nuclear warhead and missile guidance designs to the Red Chinese.

Was this Manchurian Candidate also a Rhodes scholar and some others with
Caspian roots tried to replace him with Mr.Gore using a young female (and by
doing so alerted Boston Brahmins)?