Today on Blogcritics
Home » Is Bush working for bin Laden?

Is Bush working for bin Laden?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Is President George W. Bush secretly an agent working for Osama bin Laden?

There is no direct evidence of this. There isn’t even, to my knowledge, any professionally faked evidence–no aluminum tubes, Niger connections or model-airplane WMDs.

I admit, I don’t have as much to work with in proving this hypothesis as Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld had in “proving” theirs.

However, just as the Pentagon (wisely) “games out” the unthinkable as a mind-stretching exercise, it’s worth exploring this fantasy Bush/Osama-alliance premise to see what the process yields.

The game: You are President Bush. You are secretly allied with Osama bin Laden, and his goals are your goals. Your immediate aim for your first term in office is this: Secretly help Osama bin Laden as much as you can, while still retaining the support of the Amercan people.

It’s a tough task–you need to help the world’s leading terrorist, but at the same time, you need to make it look like all that help you are giving him comes from “good intentions.” You need to make it to at least Nov 2004 before anyone catches on.

I would suggest that, inevitably, in order to secretly help Osama while still maintaining U.S popular support, you would do the following:

1. START A HOLY WAR, BUT DON’T CALL IT THAT. One of the highest priorities of your boss Osama is to start a holy war that spans the globe. The trick for you, Mr. President, is to start a war that is perceived in the Muslim world as a Christian war on Islam, but not to make too many people in the U.S. think of it that way. So pay some lip service to Islam as a “religion of peace,” but fire up that Christian rhetoric, too. Become the most fundamentalist-Christian-sounding President in decades. Say words like “crusade” (oops! I made a “mistake”). Mention God a lot. Term this conflict as a fight between “good” and “evil”–the Muslims of the world will have no problem determining what camp you put them in. For Allah’s sake, don’t tone down the religious rhetoric. Crank it up to 11. The result will be an inflamed Muslim world and a rah-rah response at home.

2. MAKE THE UNITED STATES LESS FREE. Intimidate the media into supporting your war. Reduce civil rights at home. A nervous nation is an easy-to-manipulate nation. Oh, and be sure to hold any Arab you wish in jail for as long as you wish–Osama loves it when the Muslim world hears that the U.S. is doing exactly those things for which it condemns Arab leaders. It gives him iron-clad evidence of hypocrisy and strips the United States of the moral high ground–historically, one of its most valuable assets in world opinion. Torture would help, too–have your intelligence and military people leak information about specific torture methods the U.S. is using. This will help the right wing of your party feel you are being “tough” while outraging Osama’s soldiers (and converting non-soldiers). Secret trials and executions would also help–brag about them. In other words…

3. ACT AS BELLIGERENT AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. It not only matters what you do, it matters how you do it. For example, sending your gunships to the Gulf while acting as if you only plan to use them as a last resort would be statesman-like. Instead, look eager to go to war. Don’t just be eager, look eager. With your own comments and those of your Cabinet members, just flat-out insult everyone at the U.N. Act like you are trying to destroy the process, not use it. Don’t take a dump on Kofi Annan’s head or anything–but do come close. Tell the Security Council your goal is disarmament. Then, when they set up a tough new inspections process that gets unconditional access–announce war. That’ll show ‘em. You’re so tough you’ll look the U.N. in the eye and lie to them. Oh yeah, and tell them lots of additional lies on the way to that big one. Present forged evidence of Niger connections. Present fake evidence of a nuclear program. Present doctored photos as real. The whole world will notice, but who cares? That’s partly the point. Show them who’s boss. Show them who doesn’t need actual “evidence” to launch a war. Oh, and then, when you defy them, claim what you’re really doing is “enforcing a Security Council resolution.” As a favor! Hee-hee! That’ll get ‘em plenty steamed. This attitude is part of a larger goal, which is to…

4. ALIENATE AS MUCH OF THE FREE WORLD AS YOU CAN. You’ve heard of “divide and conquer”? Well, so has Osama. What Osama wants you to do is alienate your country from its longtime allies (you can keep one big one and a bunch of little ones if you want–the main thing is to create a huge division in general) while at the same time uniting the Muslim world. That way you can make your side weaker while making his side stronger. Also, it will be far easier for Osama to carry out his terrorist attacks on your people if your side in this struggle isn’t tightly held together by bonds of mutual trust. Nothing like distrust to make intelligence agencies stop cooperating. Osama hates intelligence agencies, especially international networks of them, so weaken that network as much as you can. The more you do #4, the more Osama can attack, which will let you do more of #2. It’s a nice cycle, for Osama. He likes it.

You could try going farther, but you might risk revealing yourself as an Osama-helper. So don’t go too far. Yet. Wait until 2004. Then we can really get this Holy War started.

That’s what I have so far. Any other ideas on what George W. Bush would do if he were secretly working for Osama?

Powered by

About Brian Flemming

  • Craig Diehls

    This exact point needs to be made over and over. In the end this all will look so obvious. Such is the difference between hindsight and foresight.

  • InMarin

    Brian, I assume you are aware of Greg Palast’s investigations into the Bush/bin Laden connections:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

    GREG PALAST:
    The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?

  • sean

    really funny. you know what’s even funnier? if bush illegally gave weapons to iraq for oil, then tried to cover it up by announcing that he definitly would veto any resolution in the UN that had any possiblity of ending saddams regime, (which would cause him to lose his oil scheme and reveal his illegal actions) thereby making the UN a joke and completely useless. then, blackmail turkey with the idea that they won’t get into the european union if they allow troops in their country, causing the deaths of many men and women because of poor positioning. and then offer to sneak saddam out of the country, while demanding to be in on the rebuilding of iraq so he could get a piece of the oil and hopefully do damage control. then it would sure be clear who’s side bush was on. wait, this sounds familiar… oh yeah, france already did all that.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    sean,

    Damn relativism. I hate that. It lacks moral clarity.

    Anyway, let’s say France did do all that. What should happen now? Should they apologize? Some kind of a punishment?

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    InMarin,

    No. I didn’t know about that one. Thanks.

    I’m looking forward to Michael Moore’s next film, which will also be partly about the Bush-bin Laden connection. I like Michael Moore’s fair, balanced approach. It reminds me of Fox, in a way. He reports, I decide.

    Truthfully, I don’t know if anything will come of his family’s known ties to the bin Laden family. But I do wonder why particular FBI investigations were halted. Maybe this has something to do with Bush’s opposition to an independent inquiry into 9-11.

  • Yo mama

    That is bullshit and you can lick my pussy.

  • Chris Kent

    A nice plethoria of orifices covered there in one single sentence. Nice job!

  • anonymous

    OHHHHHHH,I get it. Another one of those
    lesbian trapped in a mans body jokes…

  • T

    This would certainly go with Nostradamus’s third anti-christ named “MABUS” (osaMA BUSh)

  • Floyd Blue

    I have suspected this connection between them for some time, I am inclined to believe that the two words osaMABUSh is what Nostradamus wrote about. I can no way prove this connection yet my intuition tells me this is true, I learned a long time ago to trust my intuition.