home

The Legacy Of 9/11

On the 7th Anniversary of the heinous attack on the United States by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, what is the legacy of that awful, fateful day? It seems clear - Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida succeeded in severely weakening the United States due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration and Republicans like John McCain. Instead of fighting the War On Terror to its conclusion in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration, at the strong urging of John McCain, embarked in the strategically disastrous Iraq Debacle, diverting important resources from the War on Terror to fight a war of choice, and a very poor choice it was.

In 2002, Barack Obama said:

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

. . . That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

. . . You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

If you need a reason to support Barack Obama over John McCain, the legacy of 9/11 should be all you need.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama: Bill Clinton Will Campaign For Me | Stevens' Dismissal Motions Denied >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kempis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:28:02 AM EST
    This speech was a prime reason that I was an Obama-supporter back when there was a lot of room on the bandwagon. I became disillusioned with him, even before the primaries began, and even more so afterward. But the fact remains that Obama delivered the most clear-eyed and accurate assessment of the choice facing us in 2002 and what we should choose.

    It truly is reason enough to support him over McCain. I continue to be disappointed and to feel that I was once personally bamboozled by Obama--and am irritated by those who continue to place him on a pedestal. (Or pedal stool, if you're one of my students. :) ) But I believe that I have to put my country ahead of my own personal resentments and ahead of politics, and, because I live in PA, I have to vote for Obama--even though it won't be fun.

    Remembering this speech helps.

    Thank you.

    I'm a dissenter. . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    on the relative awfulness of Saddam Hussein.  I know this view is politically anathema, but for that particular State, and seen through liberal eyes, I think he wasn't such a bad ruler.

    It's true he was a dictator and profoundly anti-democratic.  But it remains to be seen whether Iraq will emerge with any kind of true democracy after this is all over, but I don't think the odds particularly favor it.

    Hussein tortured and killed people, but by any count the number was well below the number of people who are being tortured and killed now -- even Administration figures are 500 civilian murders per month.  And there's no reasonable end in sight.

    But I know people who were in Iraq both before the first Gulf War and during the sanctions.  And Hussein was creating a modern, secular, egalitarian state (not withstanding the fact that yes, his family was always a good bit more equal).  Women attended school, were able to pursue professional careers, and had jobs in which they supervised male workers.  This was unique throughout the Arab Middle East.  Religious minorities had rights (although yes, the aspirations of the Shiite majority for a Shiite state were suppressed).

    The US has a long history of coddling dictators -- Hussein was one it probably would have been worth coddling.  The path to a modern, secular, and even eventually democratic state was probably a good deal shorter starting in Hussein's Iraq than in present day Iraq.

    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    Have you read, for example, Imperial Life in the Emerald City?  One reason we've had such trouble with the reconstruction is that Iraq really didn't have the foundations for a modern economy.  So many institutions had to be built from scratch, and I don't just mean because we bombed them.

    As far as I'm concerned, the sanctions wrecked that country.  By the time of the invasion, what passed for an "economy" was basically Saddam using oil money to pay people salaries, and keep them happy, for showing up to work at some outmoded factory that didn't have the capability of producing marketable goods any more, because it had fallen into disrepair under the sanctions regime.  It was a stable society, it was fine for most people as long as they weren't on Saddam's enemies list, but it wasn't going anywhere.

    Of course, if you want to talk about where the sanctions came from in the first place, you have to go back in time and talk about Saddam's real atrocities, the war with Iran that killed so many people, the invasion of Kuwait that caused the US to decide he had to be contained.  With the sanctions, we managed to put him in a place where he was more focused on preserving the country he had than anything else, and I guess that was the intent.  But for my money, in no way shape or form were they headed towards a modern economy.  Iraq was a mess, held together solely by one man, and we've been seeing the results of that for a while now.

    Parent

    Women and Religious Minorities (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:11:51 AM EST
    The difference in their lives under Hussein and post Hussein--this is one of the things I mourn when I think of what we've enacted in Iraq.

    Parent
    Hussein's problem was he tried to (none / 0) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:59:58 AM EST
    be a secular capitalist in the middle east while simultaneously be a loose-cannon so close to Israel.  Once he invaded Kuwait to take over their oil, any objectivity by Western style democracies was lost.  Problem is w/o that objectivity, we can't reconcile that while folks in the ME may want a form of democracy, they have plenty of folks who are really serious about maintaining existing theocracies.  The only way to prevent them from mucking things up is to have strong, somewhat less ethical leaders who are willing to do the things necessary to keep them in line.

    Parent
    Yep, Hussein was the excuse for the war. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    The war was for "oil".   Nuff said.

    Parent
    It is my opinion that a ruler of the Saddam sort (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    was sadly what was required to hold the Iraq of his time together.  All sides of the fights in Iraq are alright with bloodshed to get their way, so it came down to who was the most feared.  Can Iraq have a different future now?  I don't know. I have read that due to so much death some of Iraq's younger people consider allowing religion to reign and rule and ultimately destroy is now being considered the ultimate stupidity and that religious extremism is frowned on by Iraqi youth.  Did turning over Saddam to Dawa bring me any joy and having hung bring me any sort of satisfaction?  Absolutely disgustingly not!  Dawa always wanted Saddam's power and killed plenty of people attempting to get it.  They were no better, they were just the enemy of Dubya's enemy.

    Parent
    Every day (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    I walk right by Ground Zero.  Every day I think about it.

    It's ironic that Ground Zero is one of the most common destinations that tourists want to see when they come to town, and yet there's nothing there.  It's a gigantic construction site.  Sometimes they look like they have no idea what to make of it.  It's an opportunity to reflect, is what it is.

    Today, for some reason, there's a lot of ceremony.  Because it's an election year I guess.  Usually it's not like that.  You pass by Ground Zero on the anniversary, there'll be some people gathered to hear the reading of the names.  Usually they have family members taking turns doing the reading.  The fences that surround the construction site get covered, for that one day a year, with flags and handmade signs of tribute.  Sometimes what people will post on the fence is simply a copy of the MISSING poster that they originally hung around town in the desperate days immediately after the tragedy, when they still hoped their loved one would make it home sometime.

    Someday they'll actually complete a memorial on the site, which has been far too long already.  But while I'm sure it will be classy and fitting, in a way they're going to corporatize the experience.  There will be big signs that tell you what to think about and when to feel sad.  Somehow, in seven years, I've grown accustomed to the big construction site.  The way people handle it, the way they choose to reflect on the events of that day, it's all so personal for everyone.  It's very human.

    It is weird... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:10:29 AM EST
    that tourists wanna see it, anytime a friend has come in from out of town to visit since 2001, they want me to take them to Ground Zero.

    Me, I have no desire to go to the site, makes me too angry.  Angry that it happened, angry that similar tragedies happen around the world far too often, angry that nothing has been rebuilt.  Angry.

    Parent

    Sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    in the paper, for whatever reason, you'll read the tearjerker story of one of the victims, and it always has the intended effect on me.  I'm a softie.

    And sometimes I think about the victims of violence around the world and how similar the stories must be.  Take some average, innocent Iraqi killed in the crossfire over there, and you'd hear the exact same stories from his family and friends about how he was a gentle man who loved dogs, or whatever.  He had such a bright future.  He was a week away from retiring from his job at that building where he got blown up.  And so forth.

    The only difference is, because it happens over there, you won't be reading their stories in the New York Post.  They're just a number in a death toll.  But to the people who knew them, it's exactly like their 9/11.  Makes you think.

    Parent

    That it does, that it does.... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:47:43 AM EST
    I remember the night of the attack, me and some friends went down to the park to talk and try to make sense of it all...my thoughts drifted from all the poor slobs who died that day to all the poor slobs all around the world who would die in response...it all felt so f*ckin' hopeless....still does.

    Parent
    My sister is a kindergarten teacher (none / 0) (#27)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:14:22 AM EST
    in northern New Jersey. Half of her students lost a parent on 9/11.

    Parent
    Ummm.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    the math doesn't quite add up if they're kindergarteners this year.

    Parent
    Gee (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    It's possible the reference was to the kids who were students at the time... but hey, nothing inappropriate about a little factchecking!

    Parent
    Good point. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    Where do you work Steve? (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    I used to work at One Liberty Plaza till about 2002.  

    Those missing posters haunt me to this day. I will never forget coming back to the city the next day and seeing all of the missing posters in the PATH station.

    Parent

    I work (none / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    on Broadway just a few blocks down from there.  I started this job in spring of 2003 and the downtown area has been making steady progress ever since, although I can't claim all the credit.

    You must have had a pretty important job if you came back downtown on 9/12.  Or maybe you were helping with the rescue effort, in which case I hope your lungs are okay.  I really can't imagine what it would have been like if I had worked downtown on 9/11, such a disruption on every level.

    One of my colleagues was actually supposed to be in a meeting at the WTC on the morning of 9/11, but it got cancelled at the last minute.  Even better, another one of my colleagues was booked on United Flight 93 on 9/11, but over the weekend he made a snap decision to rebook his trip for Monday instead of Tuesday, and it saved his life.  Amazing stuff.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    the next day I had to go in and work in midtown, which was our D.R. site.  I did have to go back into One Liberty Plaza 4 days later.  My office was on the 13th floor and over looked ground zero.  The fires were smouldering still when we were there.

    I was working about 18-20 hour days after 9/11 so I didn't have a lot of free time for volunteering.

    Someone that worked for me at the time had nearly taken a job to work for Cantor Fitzgerald about 2 months before 9/11.  

    Parent

    As a NYer ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:45:45 AM EST
    I'm surprised that 7 years later we still haven't built a new skyscraper there.

    Oh, and that whole "the age of irony is over" thing.  That didn't last long in NYC.

    You can't survive in NYC long without irony.

    I'm not, as there's simply too many (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:04:22 AM EST
    folks who want their time at the trough.  Our mayor lays it out in an opinion piece here.

    Parent
    Without radical humility and generosity... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    ...the real legacy of 9/11 will simply be the anniversary of our collective destruction's commercial debut.  I

    The history of Afhghanistan suggests no matter how badly we kicked the Taliban's asses, that we could not occupy a country like that -- with largely inaccesible terrain and a population divided among a myriad of ancient tribes -- without a reconstruction plan that made the Marshall Plan look like a bake sale (and even then there was no guarantee).  Instead, we invaded like the bull in the china shop, without ANY of the necessary patience or imagination it would've required (far more than additional troops) to do the job.  We invaded with the Marines and occupied with the Army -- two branches of the military, I have learned from my Marine officer brother, who essentially distrust and despise each other.  This, it would seem obvious, is another ingrediant in the awful recipe we have cooked up.    

    The more and more I ponder it, the more I have come to believe we failed, first and foremost, to evolve oursevles in order to help others effect their own positive evolution.  Hell, we were TOLD by Bush to not evolve at all, to just keep consuming as we were, that the unpleasantrrie of reality would be dealt with by proxy, far away, in someone else's home.  

    To Afghanistan (and Iraq) we sent, mostly, culturally and historically ignorant kids to do a job that would have required informed and educated grown-ups.  Who remembers how many language and culture experts we kicked to the street because they were gay?  And we were going to defeat the Taliban with this mentality???   The simple makeup of our military largely precluded any success beyond the bomb.  As has been mentioned many times before, wars against Nazis and fascists in uniform on battlefields are obviously one thing, and one familiar thing in history.  Wars against terrorist cells and governments like the Taliban, who can esstentially disappear into the population at will, cannot be fought with the same tactics nor, I would argue, with the same kind of military.  The language and cultural knowledge that military would've needed for this incomparable job, the paitience and humiility required, could never have been found in a volunteer army of teenagers and young adults.  It was never possible.  

    We were dealing with populations that bore no colletive guilt like the Germans or Japanese post WWII, we were simply dealing with traumatized and neglected people who had been invaded, bombed, you name it, many times before.  But we treated them no differently, acted as if who they were, in their particular times and places, meant nothing.  A larger act of inexcusable stupidity can hardly be imagined.  We did not care to learn about the places we were going to kill and occupy.  We did not care to learn.  We simply believed in our superhero status, reason be damned.  With Iraq, apparently, we were too dumb to realize any overthrow of Saddam would automatically ally Iran and Iraq as never before -- or perhaps, more likely, we didn't care and figured that would allow us to occupy Iraq and more easily make war (overt or covert) on Iran.  But that is what Iraq's real "freedom" would mean, that she would make choices we did not approve of.  But we weren't about that kind of freedom, any more than we were in Afghanistan.  Because, at our core, in these two places (and many others) we do not really believe in freedom for the people, we don't believe they have the right to be wrong, only that they have "right" to do as we tell them.

    Fear is a powerful emotion, and on 9/11 fear became a national epidemic.  It was exploited, maniplated, re-manufactured.  Today the epidemic continues, plodding along, but waiting and ready to spread much more virulently, as it certainly willl when/if another large criminal act like 9/11 occurs here.  And it will do so precisely because we have not faced, as a nation, what the implications of 9/11 really are, what they have done to us, and what they will do again as long as we refuse to face them.

    And, sadly, unfortunately, infuriatingly, untold numbers of innocent people, far away and foreign to us, will continue to suffer and die because of our refusal to face that unsavory diagnosis.

    Part of the reason (2.66 / 3) (#3)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:21:30 AM EST
    is because Democrats have not won the semantics war.  Republicans have successfully categorized this (and BTD uses it too) as "The War on Terror".  Terror is a tactic - you cannot have a war on a tactic. There will never be a completion to "the War on Terror" because terrorists have been around since the beginning of time.

    This involvement in the Middle East is permanent. We are never leaving, no matter who wins this election or the next or the next.

    Problem is.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    we've killed god knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of poor working slobs like you and me in our efforts to kill bad guys.  That makes us no different than the bastards who flew the planes into the towers.  We're both willing to kill untold numbers of innocents to achieve our ends.

    That's no way to win a peace. It's not righteous.

    Parent

    False Cause fallacy (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    You know I have not eaten watermelon since 9/11 and we haven't been attacked. I am certain this is the reason and so I have stopped eating water melon. It is a sacrifice I am prepared to make.

    Snark alert.  

    You are making an elementary logic error.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc or in this case after Bush and therefore because of Bush.

    How does killing some of them over there, keep some of them from coming over here?

    We fought a war against the Germans in Europe in WWII. Some of them came over here via submarine to conduct commando raids.  The story of their failure is not important. The fact is, fighting in Europe did not prevent them from attempting to attack us here.

    Taking the war to the South, did not prevent General Lee from invading the North and attacking Gettysburg.

    At least you didn't use that asinine phrase Islamofascist.

    Parent

    well watermelon is a stretch (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    he's simply wrong however because Americans have been attacked all over the world and terror attacks on allies have increased.

    Parent
    Excuse me (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    Democrats like you, that want to battle over the semantics of the "war on terror" are the problem.

    Ridiculous people like you are the political problem.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    Joe Biden agrees with me:

    At the first Democratic debate held in 2007, Biden said this:

    "Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we can't even identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win."

    The notion of a "war on terror" dates back in American politics at least to a 1986 speech  by Ronald Reagan, but it was President Bush who formalized it soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks, turning the Global War on Terror -- or GWOT, as its known in military and White House circles -- into a technical term referring to American operations around the globe.

    Critics, including foreign policy "realists" with a more nuanced, case-by-case view of foreign policy, like former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, objected, as did some senior military officials, but the phrase spilled over into both common speech and congressional language.

    Senate Republicans "used to put in stuff like 'a resolution complimenting so and so and helping us in the Global War on Terror,'" Biden said. "It's a dangerous notion -- it allows them under that rubric to include everything and it allows them to ignore other things."

    So Biden instructed his staff to fight to take the language out of bills coming through the Foreign Relations Committee, something congressional staffers on both sides of the aisle said he did with some success, though the phrase still sometimes slipped through.

    Guess Biden is a ridiculous person who is part of the political problem as well.

    Parent

    Here's the link (none / 0) (#19)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    Remind me again. . . (none / 0) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    of how many votes Biden got?

    From Democrats?

    Parent

    Does it matter? (none / 0) (#26)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    According to today's Washington Post, terrorism has faded as an issue in 2008 campaign.

    Link

    "The whole issue has not gotten anywhere near the attention most people would have predicted four years ago," said Paul R. Pillar, a leading authority on terrorism and a retired CIA analyst. "It is kind of striking that this set of issues that became such a huge national preoccupation in the years after 9/11 has faded so much."

    Pillar and other experts say concern over terrorism has traditionally waxed following dramatic incidents such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the wave of attacks by Hezbollah in the 1980s, only to wane as public attention drifts. In the current political climate, analysts said, the absence of a subsequent al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has left the electorate with a mistaken view that the terrorist threat has diminished.



    Parent
    Makes sense to me.... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM EST
    who can be bothered worrying about some madman blowing something up when the gas tank is hovering on E and the cupboard is nearly bare and you're two months behind on your mortgage.

    When your sitting fat and pretty, then you might have time to worry about that million to one shot of a madman blowing somethuing up near you, but not now for most folks.

    Parent

    So why reopen. . . (none / 0) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    the issue with a fight over semantics?  If it's not an issue, the semantics don't really matter, do they?  

    Parent
    Semantic battles can be kinda ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:54:25 AM EST
    silly.  But ...

    Do you think we'd look at the Department of Defense differently if it was still called the Department of War?

    Parent

    Actually, yes (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    which is why Dennis Kucinich has taken an FDR idea to have a "Department of Peace"

    Parent
    Alas, that is too 1984 for me (none / 0) (#100)
    by Coral on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    Just reread the book this summer, by the way. Spot on. Especially the "two-minutes hate". Reminds me a lot of GOP campaign tactics and some of their convention speeches, especially Giuliani's (and Palin's, too, for that matter).

    I felt from the beginning, almost from the moment I first turned on the TV and saw the towers falling, that this would unleash the worst rather than the best in us.

    Parent

    Department of Defense ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    is also very 1984.

    Parent
    Semantics got the Repubs in power.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    Framing and word choice is everything in persuading the public.

    Propaganda.  Propaganda.  Propaganda.  It works.

    Parent

    "Framing" is right ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    up there with "meme" in the list of words that make me want to put my head through a plate glass window.

    Parent
    The word is becoming trite.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    however,   the concept is vitally important to winning elections.

    Advertising is based on it.

    And, Democrats are just beginning to understand the significance of how they tell their story to get the most impact and support of voters.

    Parent

    ya (none / 0) (#16)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:00:49 AM EST
    I'm not sure if the term is the problem. But an un-informed, nationalistic American people certainly are the problem. Who could say with a straight face that Saddam was a greater terror-export threat to us than Pakistan?   It's simply far too easy to gin up a war in this country and get support.  Whatever the complaints now, a majority of americans supported Iraq when it began. If George Bush had been sent a clear no, he wouldnt have gone.  Americans rubber stamp every conflict at the outset.

    But we all know they wanted Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.

    Parent

    It Would Be Interesting to Know (none / 0) (#1)
    by bob h on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:15:33 AM EST
    what McCain's posture re terrorism was pre- 9/11.  Like Rumsfeld and other Republicans, he presumably was more into missile defense, Iraq, etc.  One wonders if he really took it seriously.

    Thank you for posting this. n/t (none / 0) (#2)
    by independent voter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:17:06 AM EST


    Today it is what was on my mind (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    This to me, is the legacy of 9/11.

    Parent
    Right now (none / 0) (#31)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    there is a great discussion on WAMU's Diane Rehm show about the 911 Commission's follow up report on how well we have done preventing nuclear proliferation.
    You can listen live online now or to the archived broadcast later.
    This is an important issue that is yet again being ignored by the media. Most Americans do not know that Bill Clinton had a non partison commission do an in depth study of airport security. The members included highly qualified experts and was chaired by Gore. The media all but ignored the Gore Commission's final report and the public was not informed of how vulnerable we really were. The FAA kept watering down it's recommendations to please the industry which later paid a huge price for their unwillingness to increase security before 911.

    Parent
    Was a good discussion (none / 0) (#74)
    by dead dancer on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    But unfortunately i had to leave to leave the car and go to work.

    Thanks for reminding me it is online. Would like to hear the end of the discussion.

    Parent

    Yes. but How can we Bush proof the next president (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:24:36 AM EST
    Of course it was a terrible decision to hit Iraq.  However,I am now more interested on how the next congress can pass some legislation that would guarantee that whoever is the next president can never do this again.  I do not know what that legislation would say but maybe since congress is the only one that can give approval of a war maybe by raising the approval bar so high (like you would need 90 percent approval from congress )before any invasion could be possible that could be a starter.

    No legislation can guarantee. . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:39:06 AM EST
    that a determined Commander in Chief will not take us to war.

    For that you need a new citizenry.

    Parent

    I am not so sure of that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    There's got to be a way

    Parent
    There is a way.... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:02:33 AM EST
    if not a new citizenry, a newly concerned one willing to sacrifice life and limb to prevent unnecessary war for profit.

    Pick up some pitchforks and surround the White House...that'll keep the president from going to war, provided you have the numbers.  100 won't do it, 10,000 probably not, 100,000 maybe, 500,000 definitely.

    Parent

    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    Look up the anti-war demonstrations of the 60s and 70s.

    There IS no way to prevent a president from taking us to war.

    Keeping us at war is another matter.

    Bankruptcy and lack of military capacity might end this one.

    Parent

    They forgot the pitchforks in the 60's... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    they tried to levitate the Pentagon instead.

    I stand by the comment...500,000 Americans with pitchforks surrounding the White House could prevent the president from going to war.

    Parent

    Sigh.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    500,000 Americans don't OWN pitchforks.

    They DO own guns, however.

    Parent

    Well...and there is the private Army to protect (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    the administration.   Blackwater turns our civil liberties upside down.

    Parent
    I own a pitchfork... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    and Home Depot probably has an end of summer sale coming up:)

    I prefer pitchforks to guns because its hard to accidentally kill someone with a pitchfork...fairly easy with a gun.  Pitchforks imply the threat of violent overthrow without actually getting violent...good symbolism.

    Parent

    Symbols (none / 0) (#94)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    aren't my thing but of course I recognize their value and power in politics...not to mention, religion.

    Symbols are major tools in propaganda...which is why the Rs are so good at it and the Dems are not.

    Either way, though, pitchforks at the White House will get you arrested as quickly as buring a flag there...and have just about as much effect.

    Parent

    Hence the 500k body count requirement.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    without the numbers you get a cage, no doubt.

    Parent
    With those numbers you get (none / 0) (#102)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    the National Guard.  Or the Army.

    The only acceptable threat to the federal government in this country is an election.

    Parent

    Elections?.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    You mean the pointless excercise we hold every 4 years?

    If that's the only threat, that's no threat at all and we are powerless to stop a war we don't want.

    Parent

    Bingo. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    Iraq war protests in 2002 and early 2003 (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    marshaled at least 500,000 people, to no avail. Maybe pitchforks would have made the difference, but I do know.

    Parent
    Pitchforks are key.... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    as well as surrounding the White House.

    500k in Times Square is not close enough to make 'em sweat.  No motivator like emminent danger.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    Current laws are sufficient to stop it, with a strong congress backed up by an educated citizenry.  We have neither.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:04:42 AM EST
    The problem goes beyond that enormous issue to other concerns--how we deal with global warming, energy issues (particularly our transition away from such a heavy dependence on oil), trade and federal deficits, etc.

    This is something I wrestle with constantly over on my own site, which is focused on energy and environmental issues, and in the real world.  I see a very small, highly self-educated and engaged group of people surrounded by a vast number of people who know shockingly little about these issues that now and in the future so dramatically affect them and their children.  But we've reached a level of polarization regarding a broad range of issues in the US that makes it almost impossible to talk to newcomers; almost anything you say is treated as just another highly partisan and selective (and therefore questionable) point of view.

    Try to tell people that Bush committed acts that are legitimate grounds for impeachment, global warming is a deadly threat to humanity, or oil scarcity will very likely become a crushing issue within just a few years, and you're treated like just another one of the talking heads on TV who scream at each other 24/7.

    This willful ignorance coupled with an assumption that every detail of every topic is open to debate and interpretation, that there are no settled facts or absolute truths, is the biggest single thing in America that scares me right now, because it has a huge effect on all of public policy and private actions.

    Parent

    Ever hear Obama talk about (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:01:57 AM EST
    science?  Not much.

    Bill and Hillary did...and do.

    Willful ignorance is only a description of people who don't know the difference between facts and opinions and have concluded that one opinion is 'just as good as another!'

    Doomed.

    And most of these people have SEEN "Planet of the Apes."

    They didn't draw the right conclusions because they think it's only a movie.

    The average American doesn't do complexity or nuance or science.  They do religion instead.  Much easier.

    Parent

    I object...... (none / 0) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    to the term "willful ignorance." It smacks of elitism. The great majority of the American public has enough on their plates to worry about: taxes, fuel prices, mortgages, food inflation, etc. They can't be expected to also be experts on geopolitical matters when they're struggling with everyday pressures to stay afloat. They have every right to expect that the people responsible for addressing these issues, their elected officials, are doing their jobs.
    If you're playing poker, and the dealer is a "mechanic" who's dealing from the bottom of the deck, it's not the innocent player's "willful ignorance" that causes him to lose all his money.
    I know what you meant, but words and terms matter. Holding people who are doing their best to meet their family responsibilities guilty isn't too helpful.


    Parent
    Let me clarify (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    The willfully ignorant I'm talking about are the people who [1] vote based on trivialities or simply refuse to vote, [2] know that they don't know enough about important issues, and [3] actively refuse to make even the slightest effort to educate themselves on those issues, even though they have the time and resources available.

    I deal with people who fall into this category constantly.  I never have understood them, and I've grown weary of being diplomatic when I see them line up to vote for some buffoon they'd "like to have a beer with" or vote against a candidate because they believe the garbage that some idiot e-mailed them.

    Yes, there are people in America who are so overwhelmed by trying to care for their loved ones and keep a household together that they barely have time to breathe, let alone educate themselves on such topics.  But those are not the people I'm talking about; if anything, they're the ones I want to help the most.

    Parent

    I agree in some way (none / 0) (#30)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    We will survive Iraq, the question is whether we survive the next one.  The basic attitudes that permitted Iraq are still there. Men like war, citizens like proof of strength, people are busy and can't fact-check the government easily, nobody likes the "other" and we elect leaders who we really don't know much about.

    I don't think you can legislate your way out of it. Would a president sign a bill to limit his powers?  Maybe, but not likely.

    Parent

    I agree with you, BTD (none / 0) (#10)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    It was terrorists, for lack of a better word, who were responsible for 9/11. Not an entire country. So many innocent people were killed. I can't tell you how many times I heard Republicans say, "I'd rather have the war over there than here in the United States. Like the lives of all those innocent people who were killed in Iraq didn't matter. Our enemy terrorists were individual people spread all over the world. We needed to infiltrate their network and stop their nonsense. Nobody seemed to get this but me. Rather than inspire strength and courage in Americans, Republicans chose to instill fear in the masses, not only with this very expensive war against the wrong enemy, but with Homeland Security and Airline checkpoints. How many times did you hear Bush and Cheney say Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and therefore, the war was justified? And now they're talking about the "surge" like it's working, like it's some kind of victory. Who's left to fight in Iraq? They've killed them all.

    Why wasn't it treated as a crime rather than an (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:53:10 AM EST
    invasion?  The nationality of the attackers were all from Arabia not Afghanistan.  So why did we attack Afghanistan.  If a bunch  of terrorist who hit the US  are hiding in Canada or Mexico do you attack Canada or Mexico.  I doubt it very seriously that Bush would have attacked Canada or Mexico if the terrorist were hiding in caves in those countries. Afghanistan did not attack us just a bunch of terrorist who were using Afghanistan caves as their hiding places.

    If I am not mistake I believe Obama asked the same question that 911 should have been handled as a crime vs an invasion of another country.  

    Parent

    Oh, I Was So Naive (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:17:49 AM EST
    On 9/11, I was living about 150 miles north of 'Ground Zero', writing a paper on the Palmer Raids and discussing with my teacher how unbelievable the wholesale suspension of constitutional protections were in that era.

    And I remember feeling a sense of patriotism related to the attacks, thinking: You can attack us all you want, but you will not defeat us in that we will find you, we will jail you and you will have every freedom and protection we give our own people--including effective counsel and a fair trial. Because that's something your attacks can't touch.

    Ha! Boy, has the joke ever been on me. On all of us, really.

    Parent

    It is true that the 9/11 terrorists were (none / 0) (#36)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:35:55 AM EST
    almost all Saudis. But the Taliban regime in Afghanistan did give state support to Al-Qaida, and we were not wrong to remove it militarily.

    The governments of Iraq and Iran, on the other hand, had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Parent

    What if the terroists were Canadian or Mexican (none / 0) (#41)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    and Mexico and Canada knew of their existence but did nothing.  Would we have invaded Mexico or Canada?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    It is simply inconceivable that Mexico or Canada, or any other country we have friendly relations with, would do nothing to help apprehend the culprits.

    Parent
    What if the terroists were Canadian or Mexican (none / 0) (#50)
    by AvianoTeamB1 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53:06 AM EST
    As quiet as it kept Mexico is our next Pakistan. At some point in the next 1-5 years I can see the US Military and Law Enforcement crossing into Mexico to hunt down all the bad actors, which threaten the United States Security.

    Parent
    not my position (none / 0) (#39)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    I disagree. We were 100% right to take out the taliban.  Those camps had been there for some time and the Taliban was playing games with us after 9/11.  They got the boot right where they needed it.  If we leave Afghanistan like it was, it will break my heart.

    That's another thing I like about Obama. The focus on Afghanistan.  

    Parent

    If the WTC wasn't bad enough, the Pentagon made it (none / 0) (#48)
    by jccleaver on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    Our National military headquarters building was attacked. That makes it a military issue.

    When you blow up something like that, that's as close to a declaration of War from the other side as you need. Period.

    Bush's edict that any nation that refuses to hand over the believed purpetrators will be considered complicit in them. The vast majority of Americans (at the time) agreed with that philosophy.

    Crime vs declaration of War has been the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats in framing the issue since then.

    Parent

    Why wasn't it treated as a crime rather than an (none / 0) (#57)
    by AvianoTeamB1 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    At some point The United States will have to adopt the MOSAD ways of fighting Terrorist. That is to assassinate every one poses a current and future threat.

    Parent
    Overheard water cooler talk this morning at work (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    "what the Democrats forget is that we haven't had another 9/11'

    Is there a cure for the stupid?  Are there enough great Obama speeches in the world to educate the public? The congress will always support a warmongering president if it thinks the public supports it. The public will support it if they are not educated by cooler heads, and, of course, the media.  

    This is the area where I truly have faith in the youth of today. They seem to have their heads on straighter about it than people I work with in their 40s and 50s.

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    By that metric Clinton successfully responded to the WTC attacks in the 90s, because they didnt strike the homeland again under his administration.

    Their plans take time. Even when they were at full strength (which they may be close to again), they took a long time to get domestic attacks together. But this took two paragraphs to say and required some thought. You can say "The Iraq war saved us all" and eat a doughnut in the same time.

    Al Qaeda seems to have pre-occupied with Europe latetly. I guess they didnt get the memo that Iraq was supposed to stop them.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:03:57 AM EST
    I keep making the point that strong and wrong beats weak and right everytime.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    This is actually my first 9/11 in New York, after spending four in Washington, D.C.

    Pentagon Memorial Dedication (none / 0) (#42)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#89)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    It looks beautiful and peaceful.

    I like it.  Do you?

    Parent

    I'm not short on reasons (none / 0) (#47)
    by nellre on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:19:18 AM EST
    I'm not short on reasons to vote against McCain. I just wonder why the polls are so close.
    Can people really be stupid enough to vote for 4 more years of Bush?
    Is there any other time in history when this (or any) country has suffered under worse management?

    Gee, why don't you insult (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    each and every Republican in an effort to get them to vote for Obama?  It's easier to convince someone that Obama is the right choice if you haven't p!ssed them off first.

    (I think that ought to be the take away lesson from the primaries.)

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    post actually shows the problem with this election. Is anyone voting FOR Obama or just AGAINST McCain? Obama running as Not McCain isn't enough to win the election hence the tied polls. Lots of voters want to vote FOR something. And Not McCain says nothing about what Obama will do in office if he's elected. What does Obama stand for? He needs to explain that kind of thing clearly and concisely.

    Parent
    I dispute that (none / 0) (#92)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    voting against McCain IS enough. It is quite clear from the polls that I have seen that McCain-Palin are doing just fine in the groups Obama needs to win. One can certainly argue that Obama hasn't made sufficient appeal to these voters. One can also argue that it hasn't been made clear that McCain is not the Maverick he claims to be.

    In a zero sum two party system voting against and voting for are functionally equivalent. It's just two different strategies to achieve the same end. A vote cast on one side or the other for whatever reason.

    I am someone who always votes against. I have never seen a politican that I am willing to vote for as much as I am interested in voting against their opponent.

    Politicians play with evil almost by definition so from my perspective I am always voting for the lesser of two evils.

    If Clinton had won, for example, I would still be voting against McCain. I'm not sure if it's possible for a candidate I would vote for to become the nominee of a major party.

    On the other hand there are plenty of people who don't think like me so it's clearly going to be best for a politican to pursue the problem from both ends. For some of us though voting against is enough. No way. No how. No McCain.

    Parent

    I'm voting FOR Obama. (none / 0) (#96)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:43:20 PM EST
    And I'm not the only one.  Isn't that one reason that McCain picked Palin -- the enthusiasm gap?  Poll after poll showed that a majority of Obama supporters were EXCITED about voting for him, while very few McCain supporters were excited about him.  That has changed after the Palin pick, but Obama still leads in that area.

    And what about the primaries.  Both Hillary and Obama had a record number of people voting FOR them.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    the thrill is gone looking at the new poll numbers.

    Yes, but Obama has failed to try to get Hillary's voters on board so it doesn't matter about what happened in the primary.

    Parent

    geez (none / 0) (#49)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    Some early reports of a serious incident in the UK-France Tunnel.  Hopefully its not related...

    Going Home to Visit my dad this weekend. (none / 0) (#56)
    by gtesta on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    Why is that relevant?  It got me to thinking about my dad and the fact that he is a WWII vet (celebrating his 83rd birthday on Monday).  WWII still astounds me.  An entire world at war.  
    An event so terrible that at its' conclusion we attempted to put institutions in place so that, never again, would we have to fight a global war.
    Institutions like the United Nations and NATO.

    I believe that morally and legally, the United States needs to utterly reject the notions of "pre-emptive" or "offensive" war.

    We need to have a national debate about our post-WWII institutions and how to secure the peace in an age of stateless terrorism.  I believe that also means challenging the framework of a "Global War on Terror".  Clearly more than just unilateral military action or intelligence/law enforcement will be required.

    Forgeting Afghanistan (none / 0) (#60)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    Four days of speeches at the 2008 GOP convetion and no one remembered to mention the war in Afghanistan.

    I whole-heartedly support the Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    represented by this speech.

    Indeed. Hellofa speech. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    Every time I see the numbers 9/11, (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    whether it's the "anniversary" date or something else, it affects me. I wonder if my father's generation has the same response to Dec 7.

    Trust in Obama's words (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    seems to be an ongoing issue.

    The speech was terrific...but what about this:

    ". . . You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil."

    He voted for the Cheney energy policy.

    FISA?  Not exactly a trustbuilder.

    Few things build cynicism and apathy like a politician who says one thing and does another.

    It's a problem...and may affect turnout of the new/young voters the Obama team was counting on.  They see it too for the dollars aren't rolling in from that demographic the way they did in the primary to take out those triangulating Clintons.

    So ironic that now they have to turn to the Clintons to try and pull it out for them.

    yeah (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    a speech is only a speech unless you back it up with actions.

    Parent
    As in.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    "Never mind what they say.  Watch what they do."

    Words.

    Deeds.

    Pretty simple.

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more with you BTD (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    I am in complete agreement with you.

    As a student of history, foreign affairs, and war I found the actions of this administration to be surreal.  They did virtually everything wrong from a strategic perspective.

    And John McCain was the cheerleader for making even bigger blunders.

    But a lot of things right ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    from the "let's make money for our buddies" perspective.

    In that they were a total success.

    And we'll probably never find out what really happened to the $12 Billion in cash that was supposedly sent to Iraq.

    Parent

    By the way (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    A book I would really recommend, if you haven't already read it, is Jack Goldsmith's "The Terror Presidency."

    He takes a historical look at prior wartime administrations and discusses how they voluntarily worked together with Congress and the opposition party and ended up strengthening their hand both politically and substantively as a result.  He sheds light on something that always puzzled me - why was the Bush Administration so determined to "go it alone" on issues like warrantless wiretapping, when they had an incredibly cooperative Congress of the same party that would have gone along with everything?  He thinks it was their biggest mistake, and remember, he comes at it from a conservative perspective that basically agrees with all of the administration's overarching goals.

    Parent

    Sounds interesting (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    I will pick it up, I see it's available for Kindle so I'll buy it right now.

    Parent
    On my reading list, (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    and now a priority.  Certainly curious about his take on the reason to by-pass even the compliant Republican Congress (and later, an almost equally compliant Democrat Congress, albeit with the mantra of we do not have the votes).  My take, sans Goldsmith, is that they did it because they could, coupled with the influence of Cheney's long-cultivated disdain for Congress.

    Parent
    For me there aren't enough words or time to (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    think all the thoughts through that will be the legacy of 9/11 plus the Bush regime plus the rubber stamping repubs.  It is likely I will spend a lifetime sorting all the thoughts, feelings, facts, and finances through.

    War on terror (none / 0) (#101)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    I lived uncomfortably close to the Trade Center, near Canal Street, when it was destroyed. I will never forget that day.
    In addition to the horror of the destruction of the Twin Towers and the unrelenting foul chemical smell and smoke that lingered for weeks is also my memory of the total incompetence of the government, local and national.

    There were absolutely no police to be seen. I assume they were all deployed around the Center, but we were on our own. Traffic signals did not function. Cell phones did not function. Pay phones or land lines were the only source of communication with loved ones.

    Subways did not function.

    People in the area who had to or wished to evacuate had to walk for miles. We did.

    Then there was the propping up of Giuliani. The great leader.
    I can tell you that he did nothing whatsoever. He couldn't have even if he wanted to - but there he was - posturing as some sort of leader - and the media picked it up.

    Then there was Bush. The economy had already begun to tank under his stewardship - and he couldn't wait to shift the focus to what he called the "war on terror". He showed up with a bullhorn, then got out of town. He did nothing for New Yorkers.
    He didn't even react to the Trade Center disaster. He was concerned with the Pentagon - until someone must have shaken him and told him what to say.

    The government did everything in its power to make it hard for people who had lost loved ones to receive any financial compensation. As usual, the government, state, city and federal were on the wrong side of things. In fact, grieving relatives because a focus of derision. Lovely memories, those.

    Then - the government told us, literally, to "be angry". No problem there. I was angry as hell. First I was angry at American Airlines for letting these fiends on the plane with box cutters and whatever else they used. The FAA and the airline industry had known for decades of the danger of hijackings and had none nothing about it. So I was also angry at the federal government for having done so little to protect us.

    But the Bush administration not only told us to be angry, they told us at whom we should direct our anger. Bin Laden. Afghanistan. That's who. Terror. That's what.

    To me, the term, "war on terror" is meaningless. If we are at war with someone, we are at war. The weapons they use are the weapons they use. Shock and Awe is as terrifying as anything else. The targeting of civilians does not measurably differ from bombing campaigns that leave thousands of civilian casualties in their wake.

    What I think we have to own up to is the fact that our foreign policy - propping up of unpopular dictators and the like - is going to make enemies for us. If we keep acting this way, what result can we expect?

    One can only hope that if Obama gets in, he will follow what one feels are his deeper instincts and reverse the bellicose and suicidal policies of the last 60 years.