[mobglob-discuss] Bush's 'Casino of Death'

[Graeme Bacque]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1059735669593&call_pageid=968256290204&col=9683501167
95
August 3, 2003 01:00 AM The Toronto Star
A callous scheme? Bet on it

LINDA MCQUAIG

At first glance, it seemed like just another ghastly, depraved idea on the
part of the Bush administration — set up an Internet gambling parlour where
members of the public could place bets on whether Middle Eastern leaders
would be assassinated.

In fact, a quick glance was really all we got of this one. So over-the-top
was this particular scheme in its ghastliness, depravity — and sheer
idiocy — that a burst of criticism from the Democrats forced its quick
withdrawal. Still, it provides a fascinating glimpse into the mentality of
the small cabal currently running the world.

This latest brainchild from the Bush White House — which also brought us the
idea of turning America's most wanted Iraqis into a deck of playing cards —
is based on the idea of using stock market principles to help find "new ways
to prevent terrorist attacks."

Under the scheme, the public could place bets on what they considered the
most likely political outcomes in the Middle East powder keg —
assassinations, government overthrows, whatever — and this betting would
somehow help the U.S. government figure out what's going on over there.

Like the playing cards, this scheme seems aimed at turning U.S.
interventions abroad into a fun, family activity — and a diversion from the
daily toll of American soldiers killed in Iraq. One can imagine stock ticker
lines on the bottom of TV screens, making it possible to catch the latest
news about the search for terrorists while checking on how that news might
be affecting one's Middle East assassination portfolio. Stop terrorism, earn
extra cash and have fun, too!

It's hard to imagine, however, how this would help prevent terrorism.

Let's say a lot of people bet that Jordan's King Abdullah would be
overthrown (one of the sample bets on the Pentagon-backed Web site). What
would that tell us? Leaving aside the possibility that those "investing" in
Abdullah's demise might simply be wrong (what if this is the same crowd that
sent Nortel's stock sky-high?), it doesn't tell us where, when, by whom —
information that would be useful.

And what about insider trading — a terrorist betting on the end of Abdullah
before offing him? Or what about someone who had over-invested in
Abdullah-death futures, realizing that killing the king would be a sure way
to cut his losses, balance his portfolio, and cash in on the generous tax
treatment of capital gains.

Wouldn't it be more effective for the White House to simply pay attention to
actual information gathered by its own intelligence agency?

The recently released Congressional investigation into 9/11 makes clear that
the CIA was aware that Osama bin Laden was contemplating flying airplanes
into targets on U.S. soil, possibly a skyscraper and possibly in New York or
Washington. One would imagine the CIA would have passed this information on
to the White House. But we'll never know exactly what the White House knew,
since the Bush administration, citing executive privilege, repeatedly
refused to hand over key information about its daily CIA briefings
(particularly the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing on bin Laden) to the bipartisan
Congressional investigators.

One can imagine why the White House is stonewalling. Bush has staked his
entire presidency on the notion that, despite skyrocketing debt and a
crumbling national infrastructure, he is the best man to protect America.
What if people came to believe that, for all his bullying talk and
swaggering walk, he failed to take adequate steps at the most crucial moment
to protect the American people?

Of course, if Bush really wanted to protect the American people (rather than
simply advancing the Republican agenda), he hardly needs to resort to
Internet gambling schemes. A simpler method would be to stop giving people
in far-off countries reasons to hate America.

There will always be a few extremists. But the idea of attacking America
gains force in places like the Middle East when people feel abused by
America — when they feel, for instance, that America always tilts toward
Israel against Arab interests, when they resent their country being occupied
and their loved ones being killed by American troops, when they feel
humiliated by Bush's taunting cowboy lines, when they see that Americans
regard the fate of their nations as little more than hot prospects for
Internet bets.

One can imagine the reaction here if we learned of an internet gambling
scheme where people in the Middle East placed bets on the number of American
soldiers to be killed in Iraq. No doubt it would be taken as evidence that
people in that part of the world are simply callous, uncivilized beings who
lack our taste for freedom and democracy.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based writer and commentator. She appears every
Sunday.