Invader

Mention Iraq or Terror and get 5% off Support for Kerry

I was among the many people baffled by the Gallup Poll, released earlier this week, which indicated that, in spite of the scrutiny of the 9/11 commission, the increased violence in Iraq, and a less-than-stellar performance in a nationally televised press conference, President Bush retained the support of a majority of voters.

It's hard not to contemplate how this is possible. Especially given the recent spate of setbacks faced by the President: the revelation that the present administration all-but-ignored warnings of an impending attack on the U.S. in the month preceding 9/11; the allegation that the President and his advisors planned to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11; and a national press conference that met with tepid reviews even by the President's own backers.

One would expect at least a minor dip in voter preference for the President following these events. So why didn't that occur? Another set of polls may hold the explanation:

According to surveys taken by the Washington Post and ABC News, a significant majority of Americans believe that President Bush is better suited than John Kerry to fight the war on terror, and handle the crisis in Iraq. Hence, in theory, the more prominent these two issues, the greater the support for the President and his policies. Which is why, ironically, the extensive media coverage of the 9/11 Commission hearings, and the goings-on in Iraq, may in fact be benefiting the President's chances of winning come November. As long as terror, and Iraq, remain in the forefront of the minds of American voters, Bush should remain in the forefront of the presidential race.

Of course, this notion, if correct, is very bad news for John Kerry, particularly if the situation in Iraq worsens, and America and its allies continue to fall victim to terror attacks. In fact, not to sound too grim (especially following a post in which I speculated that the assassination of Kerry was a likely objective of terrorists), but it would seem that the only way for Kerry to win come November is to either a) convince the American public that he is better suited than Bush to fight the war on terror, and resolve the mess in Iraq (with the latter, I think he has a chance; not so much with the former) or b) focus enough attention on domestic issues (on which the poll above indicates the public prefers Kerry, albeit by a slim margin) to override the electorate's concern with Iraq and/or terror.

However, public opinion is notoriously fickle, particularly in the U.S., and particularly in regard to politics. Given further catastrophe in Iraq, or another terror attack that catches America's defenses off-guard, the public may well come to associate Iraq, or the war on terror with Bush's weaknesses, rather than his strengths. But for now, forget Maverick Media - it's Iraq and terror that are doing the real advertising for this administration.

How Much Like JFK?

Apparently Rush Limbaugh thinks that the Clintons are out to assassinate John Kerry. To which I offer two words of response: Re Lapse.

However, like Rush, I too have mulled over the prospect that Kerry could be assassinated, albeit not by the Clintons. In fact, of all the possible forms that a terrorist attack could take in the United States, I would actually consider assassination one of the most likely. It only requires one operative, with a minimum of equipment, and if successful, would wreak significant havoc.

And while presumably, President Bush - or a senior member of his administration - would be the preferred target of a foreign terrorist organization, he and his cabinet appear in public so infrequently, and with a sufficient amount of security, that they are virtually invulnerable. Meanwhile, Kerry, although assigned a Secret Service detail, will, as part of his campaign, be appearing at public events with some frequency over the next six months - making him a much easier mark.

One can only imagine the chaos that would result if such an attack were successful. In fact, if it were to occur within the month leading up to the election, it could have as much impact, if not more, as another 9/11-type attack.

I guess I don't really have much of a point to make, here. Just airing a concern of mine, is all. One I hope, for the sake of the nation, is unfounded.

Why do the Terrorists support You?

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. corporations may face a growing threat from terror groups after a message purportedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden lambasted the work of foreign firms in Iraq, terrorism experts said on Thursday.

The tape, which CIA analysts said most likely was bin Laden's voice, complained the Iraqi war was earning millions of dollars for companies such as Halliburton, the Texas firm run by Vice President Dick Cheney between 1995-2000.

"This war earns millions of dollars for big companies, whether those who manufacture weapons or those involved in reconstruction such as Halliburton and its sisters and daughters," said the tape, whose main message was to offer a truce with European countries if they stop attacking Muslims.

Anyone care to bet how long it takes for the right-wing blogosphere to spin this as "Bin Laden is critical of American companies earning money from the Iraq war. Many liberals have also been critical of U.S. companies profiting from the war. Therefore, Bin Laden must support the left! Which means they must be terrorists!"?

The Revenge of the the Revenge Movie

Recently, there's been a glut of "revenge" movies - those films in which a lone protagonist is wronged by a group of villains, prompting him/her to wreak terrible vengeance upon those responsible for his/her suffering. Examples include Kill Bill, Walking Tall, The Punisher, the upcoming Man on Fire, and, as I've argued, The Passion of the Christ.

Now, if you subscribe to the notion that art somehow mirrors society, then the abundance of these films reflects some aspect of our collective national consciousness. Clearly, there is, among Americans, a sense that we've been injured, and that we now stand alone, wounded, seeking revenge against our enemies. The question is, though, who hurt us, and how?

The obvious answer, of course, is that it's al Qaeda who's the bad guy here, and that the United States is the lonely hero out for revenge. We've been beaten down, abandoned by our friends, and now we're ready for a little payback.

But I think there's another, slightly less obvious interpretation: That the hero Americans see when they're watching this movie is an emblem of their own selves, beaten down by a world in which it's increasingly hard to get ahead, and which shows little mercy to those who fail. And the villain? With consumer debt at an all-time high, how about credit card companies and other predatory lenders? With unemployment increasing and job outsourcing on the rise how about corporate CEOs? With a tax structure that bolsters the gap between rich and poor, how about the current administration?

It's likely that, only in retrospect, will we be able to tell what these revenge films "mean," if anything. But I suspect that, if economic conditions continue to worsen, in particular for the majority of Americans who are members of the working class, expect revenge to take its sweet time getting even at the box office.

Back in the Saddle

I apologize to regular readers of this blog (all three of you) for the fact that I haven't posted anything in a while. I've spent much of the past month either sick (first with the flu, then with strep throat) or busy with work, so I haven't had either the time or the energy to do much writing. Fortunately, things have settled down, so I should bestowing my genius upon the world on a more regular basis.

[ NOTE: As a bit of a sidebar, my traffic over the past month has barely waned, in spite of a lack of new posts, due largely to the popularity of The Non-Arguments Against Gay Marriage. It's been linked to more places than I can count, and probably accounts for at least 75% of the hits I've gotten recently. If Invader were a band, this would be its chart-topping single. I just hope I don't turn out to be a one-hit wonder. ]