Hoping for Fear - New York Times
The New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Hoping for Fear
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that
Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to
use it
to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the
subject the next day, warning that "politicians who wrap themselves in the
flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true
patriots."

The response from readers was furious - fury not at the politicians but at
me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. "How can I say
that
to my young son?" demanded one angry correspondent.

I wonder what he says to his son these days.

We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its
allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved,
but
as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror
plot makes the administration's fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism
clearer
than ever.

Fecklessness: the administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to
actually defending America against terrorist attacks. Now we learn that
terrorism
experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that
the Bush administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried
to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. "As the
British terror plot was unfolding," reports The Associated Press, "the Bush
administration
quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this
year developing new explosives detection technology."

Cynicism: Republicans have consistently portrayed their opponents as weak on
terrorism, if not actually in sympathy with the terrorists. Remember the
2002
TV ad in which Senator Max Cleland of Georgia was pictured with Osama bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein? Now we have Dick Cheney suggesting that voters in
the
Democratic primary in Connecticut were lending aid and comfort to "Al Qaeda
types." There they go again.

More fecklessness, and maybe more cynicism, too: NBC reports that there was
a dispute between the British and the Americans over when to make arrests in
the latest plot. Since the alleged plotters weren't ready to go - they hadn't
purchased airline tickets, and some didn't even have passports yet - British
officials wanted to watch and wait, hoping to gather more evidence. But
according to NBC, the Americans insisted on early arrests.

Suspicions that the Bush administration might have had political motives in
wanting the arrests made prematurely are fed by memories of events two years
ago: the Department of Homeland Security declared a terror alert just after
the Democratic National Convention, shifting the spotlight away from John
Kerry
- and, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, blowing the cover of a
mole inside Al Qaeda.

But whether or not there was something fishy about the timing of the latest
terror announcement, there's the question of whether the administration's
scare
tactics will work. If current polls are any indication, Republicans are on
the verge of losing control of at least one house of Congress. And "on every
issue other than terrorism and homeland security," says Newsweek about its
latest poll, "the Dems win." Can a last-minute effort to make a big splash
on
terror stave off electoral disaster?

Many political analysts think it will. But even on terrorism, and even after
the latest news, polls give Republicans at best a slight advantage. And
Democrats
are finally doing what they should have done long ago: calling foul on the
administration's attempt to take partisan advantage of the terrorist threat.

It was significant both that President Bush felt obliged to defend himself
against that accusation in his Saturday radio address, and that his standard
defense - attacking a straw man by declaring that "there should be no
disagreement about the dangers we face" - came off sounding so weak.

Above all, many Americans now understand the extent to which Mr. Bush abused
the trust the nation placed in him after 9/11. Americans no longer believe
that he is someone who will keep them safe, as many did even in 2004; the
pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in Iraq have seen to
that.

All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their
opposition. And my guess is that the public won't go for it, that Americans
are fed up
with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself.

Posted by Miriam V.