Latest horror could destroy President of divided nation

[cal04]

Is this the horror that will finally undo George Bush's presidency? First Nicholas Berg, now Paul Johnson: in two months and in two different countries, two US civilians have been kidnapped and beheaded by their al-Qa'ida-affiliated captors, becoming not only pawns in a deadly geopolitical game but also symbols of the complicated feelings of revulsion unleashed by the Bush administration's "war on terror".

It is hard not to think back to earlier acts of defiance against the might of the United States and wonder if we are not seeing a parallel erosion of presidential authority: the steady drip-drip of casualty figures from Vietnam that proved the undoing of Lyndon Johnson's presidency in 1968, or the corrosive effect of the Iran hostage crisis on Jimmy Carter 12 years later.

We have now witnessed four similar killings of Western civilians in the conflicts unleashed by the attacks of 11 September 2001, starting with Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in January 2002 and including the Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi in Iraq in April. Even in our jaded, news-saturated age there is something about these cases that bespeaks almost bottomless horror, in a way that the deaths of more than 800 US servicemen in Iraq or the violence and death visited upon thousands of Iraqi civilians have not.

The fact that the images of ritual slaughter have been posted on the internet has only made the brutality more vivid, more palpable - even to those who have not had the stomach or the inclination to watch. This is a propaganda war, fought with images as much as with guns and knives. With each new beheading, the political mood has shifted. When the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted in Karachi two-and-a-half years ago, it gave rise to a sense of national, even international solidarity. There was nothing divisive or controversial about the mourning that greeted news of his death. Indeed, his family has gone on to set up a foundation in his name to promote cross-cultural understanding that enjoys universal admiration.

Yesterday, a Washington Post article was headlined: "Is al-Qa'ida winning in Saudi Arabia?" It was just such questions about America's enemies that led President Johnson to his "Cronkite moment" in 1968 - his realisation that he could no longer count on the support of the country's favourite television news anchor, Walter Cronkite, and that he had therefore lost the sympathy of the electorate as a whole.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=533087

[Mika]

1. The Independent didn't get the memo - support for W* is up & the war too

n/t

[Eric J in MN]

2. another quote from the article

"And it remains to be seen whether Mr Johnson's death provokes anger against the administration or rather cries for revenge against his butchers."

The rightwing talk-show hosts will say the murder of Paul Johnson shows what terrible people we're fighting, and that the Iraq War is wonderful.

[July]

3. Let's remind the RW that beheadings of Westerners started

during Bush's regime.

[Stew225]

4. Also, the RW are undisputed masters

of marketing and spin. I hate that fact but, imho, it is fact.

[TexasSissy]

5. Nope. Things like this give * & Cheney

the opportunity to go on TV and reassure everyone. Like 9/11, they are at their finest after a horrendous event (except when WE are the perpetrators).

I think this'll boost *. Unfortunately. Esp. since Kerry did nothing but post a wimpy statement in response ("our fight against Al Qaeda is our top priority"? Duh.)

[seabeyond]

6. Are we safer now than we were a couple years ago???

ya right

[Cat Atomic]

7. Murders like this are incredibly damaging to Bush, and here's why:

The only rationale the administration has left for invading Iraq is "liberation". No WMD's, no terrorist ties... nothing.

Now the racial hatred the Republicans worked so hard to stir up is working against them. Why should Joe Sixpack care about liberating a bunch of "animals" and "savages"? The Republicans I know are starting to ask this question out loud.

Sure, he may get some short-term 'panic boost' out of it, but in the long run it can only erode his support.

[cliss]

8. I agree.

His little ploy might have worked in the 1200's, but even then I have my doubts.

Notice how Bush is using a reverse-protection agenda. We declare war on Al-Qaida. They retaliate. We will protect Americans. The world is safer because of us.

His little scheme might have worked, except for the fact that government officials, former diplomats, military people are coming out to say that we are LESS SAFE than before.

You're right. It makes him look like an ass. The more killings, the more it will damage him because his ONLY premise right now (he doesn't have anything else) is that he's worked to make America safer. Which he hasn't.