Bush Vs. bin-Laden
Friday, June 20, 2008
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
The so-called "Bush Farewell Tour" of Europe has brought Osama bin-Laden to the front pages under headlines like "Bush: Get Me Osama" [Melbourne Sun] and "Bush Tries to Save Presidential Legacy" [Scopical AU]
The Jerusalem Post's headine reads: "Bush has Last Go At Nabbing bin-Laden" while Israel's Ynetnews' headline reads: Report: Bush Wants bin-Laden Captured Before Leaving Office."
And on they went, headline after headline, all playing variations of the same theme: this is between George Bush and Osama bin-Laden -- and its personal.
The media paints a picture of a clash not unlike that of David and Goliath, with the president of the United States playing the role of the Philistine giant, Goliath, with Osama bin-Laden filling in for David.
Osama's allies must feel a sense of enormous pride to know that their chieftain is viewed by his enemies as such an heroic figure. It is their leader who has reduced the leader of the world's most powerful nation to little more than an aging bounty hunter.
It is something right out of Arab literary mythology -- the cultural image could not be more powerful than this.
It evokes a mental image not unlike that presented by the Apostle John: "Who is like unto bin-Laden? Who is able to make war with him?"
Osama's latest propaganda coup emanated from a story in the London Sunday Times, but it's been picked up, reworked and re-edited the world over to create the proper effect, as the headlines I mentioned earlier attest.
Opined the JPost staff writers in their piece: "Bush has enlisted British special forces in the renewed search for the elusive arch-terrorist. The paper was quoting defense and intelligence sources in Washington and London.
"If [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place," an American intelligence source said."
And there you have it in a nutshell: it's Bush vs. bin-Laden. The media could not have done more to boost bin-Laden's stock in the region if it reported that Bush was paying bin-Laden a state visit.
It's the Gunfight at the OK Corral, and bin-Laden is Wyatt Earp; Bush, the sniveling coward Ike Clanton getting his cohorts to do his dirty work.
And that is the way America's friends are framing it! Al-Bayan, the United Arab Emirates daily, highlighted the Times' contention that Bush needs to 'get' Osama bin-Laden to keep his presidency from being a failure.
The subliminal message behind the theme is simple: Osama bin Laden holds the key to the Bush legacy. If Bush leaves office with Osama still at large, Osama wins and George Bush loses. And, from the tone of the reports abroad, Osama bin-Laden is the odds-on favorite.
How did this happen? This is, by my count, the third popularity contest George Bush has lost to a guy that even Satan could have beaten hands-down.
Saddam Hussein murdered uncounted hundreds of thousands of his countrymen; George Bush took the word of the world's intelligence services, which turned out to be wrong.
Yet the demonstration marches the world over were festooned with anti-Bush slogans, not anti-Saddam.
The global cry of 'war criminal' was never once leveled at Saddam Hussein by the global media -- that is a title set aside exclusively for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the United States Armed Forces.
Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has more mainstream media allies than does the current President of the United States.
It has now evolved to the point that the benchmark for Bush's presidential success or failure has been placed squarely in the hands of a 6th century tribal warlord living in a cave somewhere in northern Pakistan.
George Bush has been demonized by the media since the day the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional Electoral College system gave Election 2000 to Bush, rather than Al Gore.
The demonization began even before the election had been settled. Gore conceded, then took back his concession before launching a legal campaign to disqualify any votes that didn't break for him, while insisting any vote that was ambiguous should be counted FOR him.
Gore's quest to overturn the election threw the presidential transition into turmoil, and dragged the nation through one of the most contentious legal battles in history.
His efforts to overturn the election made him a media darling whose love affair with the press continues undiminished to this day.
Bush, who won according to every single official count, every official recount, and even every unofficial recount later conducted by an unfriendly media, was characterized as 'selected, not elected', 'the usurper' who 'stole the election', etc..
Gore, who didn't even win his home state of Tennessee, was cast in the same heroic role of David to Bush's Goliath now enjoyed by Osama bin Laden.
Were it anyone other than George Bush, say, Bill Clinton, who were in office over the last seven years, his presidential legacy would be secure.
Were it Bill Clinton, the media would note that he kept the economy together, even after 9/11. He took bold, decisive action in the wake of the attacks, taking the war to the enemy on the enemy's own turf.
Thanks to Clinton's strong leadership, America has not suffered another attack on her soil since September 11.
Although Clinton's intelligence services may have failed him, he acted in good faith, and in the process, rid the world of a depraved, murderous dictator in Iraq, and freed Afghanistan from Taliban's iron grip on the Afghani people.
While President Clinton may not (as yet) captured Osama bin Laden, it is because he refused to violate the territorial integrity of Pakistan's sovereign borders.
Clinton understands that bin-Laden is only a figurehead, and that turning it into a contest between himself and the terrorist would only bolster bin-Laden's reputation.
So that's why he didn't make Osama his top public priority. It wasn't because he dropped the ball -- it was because he was in control of the whole ball game from the start. What a guy!
If anything, President Clinton's policies kept bin-Laden in a cave, where he lives a miserable existence while unable to mount any significant counter-attacks.
Same bin-Laden, same US anti-terror policies, same Afghan war, same US-Iraq policy (Bill Clinton declared regime change in Iraq official US policy in 1998 to the huzzahs of the global mainstream media) -- the only difference is the name of the official occupying the Big Chair in the Oval Office.
Had the media taken that approach to the Bush White House, the US would now enjoy the popular support of the Western world, who would by now have recognized that this is a war between civilizations, and not just a grudge match between the White House and a bearded terrorist living in a cave somewhere.
When one counts up the actual, verifiable scandals of the Bush administration, one comes up with Valerie Plame, and, uh . . . well, (somebody help me, I'm stuck).
On the other hand, the actual, verifiable Clinton scandals are too numerous to mention. How can this be? Behold, the power of propaganda!
According to Bible prophecy, the most evil and depraved individual to walk the earth since Judas Iscariot will one day capture the world's affection and will be ushered into office as the leader of the free world by global acclamation.
That used to baffle me. Growing up in the post-war era, I knew about 'propaganda'. It was his control of the propaganda machine that enabled Adolf Hitler to prosecute his mad plan to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jewish race.
Throughout my youth, I learned that the citizens of the Soviet Union were kept in chains, not by the force of arms, but by the incessant repetition of Soviet propaganda. Americans willingly contributed to keep "Radio Free Europe" broadcasting the truth to those stuck "behind the Iron Curtain."
It was through their control of the propaganda machine that the most depraved dictatorships of the 20th century operated, and the secret to American freedom was a free press unfettered by government control.
Nobody ever took into consideration what would happen when the 'free press' unified around its own private agenda. Indeed, they didn't consider it because prior to this generation of instant communications and a global press corps, it wasn't possible.
Following the Election 2000 debacle, the mainstream media had an agenda -- get George Bush. It soon became a global agenda -- a 'cause' to rally around. The rest, as they say, is history. (Or prophecy, depending on one's perspective)
Bible prophecy forecasts a media-driven world wherein the press can create a reality in which an American president is more depraved than an Islamic fanatical terrorist dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.
It pictures the kind of world where Jesus Christ would get booed off the stage as a 'right wing nut'. But Satan would be swept into office by popular acclamation.
We live in a world where George Bush's biggest political mistake was in acknowledging Jesus Christ in 2000 as the 'most important person in history' -- while TIME Magazine considered naming Osama bin-Laden "Person of the Year" in its December, 2001 edition.
You can bet that when the time comes for the antichrist to make his appearance, his propaganda machine will be there, oiled and ready -- just as the Bible prophesied it would be.
"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" (Revelation 13:4)
|Current Article Ranking:
|Rank This Article: ||
It's an article.|
I liked it.
It's a home run!
If you have already Registered, then
Login and start a discussion.