Cui Bono?

There has been, of late, and will no doubt continue to be, a great deal of talk about the Bush Administration using the recently-growing spectre of terrorism to their political advantage. The New York Times' recent report that the current much-publicized threat was based on dated information has just added fuel to the fire. The conspiracy-minded have even gone so far to suggest that the present administration might allow a terrorist incident to occur, to bolster their own position. And even those a bit more even-keel than the grassy-knoll types have been quick to pounce on this latest Times report as evidence that Bush & Co. are gonna milk this terror thing for all it's worth.

The thing is, that doesn't make any sense.

Does the Bush Administration really benefit from the widespread conviction that the country is a whole is still vulnerable to a terrorist attack? Does it look good that a government that declared an unbelievably vague and all-encompassing "war" on "terror" almost three years ago hasn't even gotten the fight off its own doorstep? At this point, it's far easier to believe that Bush would rather avoid the whole terror issue, as evidenced by his attempt to brush off the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission in their final report, which he might as well have tossed into the bushes in the Rose Garden for all the attention he gave it, before having it shoved back in his face by the media and the public. Of course he would want to ignore a report that presents, in no uncertain terms, a clear documentation of how vulnerable this country continues to be, three years after the biggest wake-up call in its history.

Bush does not benefit from terror. The idea that a terrorist threat, or worse, an actual attack, could help his campaign is ludicrous. Such an attack would only underscore how ineffectual he's been in his promise to protect this country, and would blow his projected ideal of safety and security right out of the water. After September 11th, Bush wasn't blamed for neglecting the country's security for two main reasons: he was relatively new to office and couldn't have been expected to drastically effect the nation's security in such a short time, and the country was collectively unaware that we were so vulnerable to attack. You couldn't blame him for being caught off guard--we ALL were. Almost three years after September 2001, he's got neither of these going for him, and were a terrorist incident to occur, he and his administration would have absolutely nothing to blame but the terrorists and themselves.

These recent announcements and terror warnings aren't the acts of a manipulative administration attempting to use fear in their favor, but of an incompetent administration desperately trying to cover its ass.