Exploiting Terror, Degrading America

  • Thomas Friedman: Addicted to 9/11. The president has exploited the terrorism issue for political ends – trying to make it into another wedge issue like abortion, guns or gay rights – to rally the Republican base and push his own political agenda. But it is precisely this exploitation of 9/11 that has gotten him and the country off-track, because it has not only created a wedge between Republicans and Democrats, it’s also created a wedge between America and the rest of the world, between America and its own historical identity, and between the president and common sense.

  • Comments


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 05:56 AM

    Query couldn’t make it so I’m subbing.

    “Kerry attitude towards terrorism is DANGEROUS and WILL DESTROY US ALL! If you can’t understand that, then you’re a shrill, fringe, hack, partisan LUNATIC!”

    Ah, who am I kidding? I just can’t do hyperbole and hysteria quite the same way as our favorite baby-snacking troll. Sorry, Query.


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 07:07 AM

    The man who voted — at the height of the Cold War — to cancel the B-1B, the B-2, the Apache, the Patriot Missile, SDI research, the Aegis Missile Defense System, and the “dangerously provocative” equipping of our troops with countermeasures for chemical and biological weaspons, CANNOT be criticized as a poor potential commander-in-chief!

    So says Dan Gillmor.

    Why not?

    Just because. Hate Bush!


    Posted by: Andrew on October 14, 2004 07:34 AM

    I don’t think it’s just terrorism, and I don’t think it’s just Bush.

    The third-party folks would argue that there’s so little difference between the GOP and the Democrats that candidates *must* drive wedges between each other in order to seem different.

    But I suspect it’s not that. It’s simply a matter of playing to your strong suit. Bush can’t point to the economy (he’s wrecked that). He can’t point to the war in Iraq (it’s going terribly). He can’t point to healthcare, or civil liberties, or a host of other things.

    Bush’s big positive, such as it is, is that he was in charge on 9/11. He did well for a few weeks then, and he wants people to think of him as *that* Bush, not the one we’ve seen since.

    Hence, “9/11, 9/11, 9/11!”


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 07:46 AM

    9/11 delivered the equivalent of a tactical nuclear warhead detonation in the heart of the NYC Financial District.

    Very little discussion of the economic impact has occurred, in part out of respect for the dead, and partly (unfortunately) out of a partisan creed that you can’t highlight facts favorable to Bush.

    9/11 was the worst attack on our economy in the history of the United States of America. We lost 1,000,000 jobs over the ensuing three months. That on top of nearly equivalent job losses resulting directly from the dot com bubble which burst on the Clinton/Gore 9 months before Bush came into office.

    Bush’s record of turning what could have been a decade long, catastrophic depression into the shortest recession in U.S. history is a harrowing achievement. But it cannot be, and won’t be, discussed, just as Kerry’s true record of selling out the interests of the United States to a radical internationalist agenda can’t be discussed.

    Hate Bush!


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 08:00 AM

    If someone could explain to me what the B-1B, the B-2, the Apache, the Patriot Missile, SDI research, the Aegis Missile Defense System have to do with stopping terrorists I’d be grateful. As far as I understand it, the B1-B is a billion dollar aircraft who job could be done a lot cheaper by firing missiles at the enemy from submarines, the Apache has been crap in the desert and keeps getting shot down, the Patriot missile system doesn’t work (during the Gulf war not one missile was shot down by the Patriot system, see union of concerned scientists for a report), SDI, well, less said the better as it doesn’t work after billions of dollars of investment, Aegis Missile Defense System may stand a chance of working but doesn’t really help against the real threat: terrorists. I think the President’s attitude towards terrorists can be summed up as believing states are the problem, while Kerry beleives (if I’ve understood correctly) that it is non-state actors such as Al Qaeda that are the main threat. In either case, its boots on the ground that matter, not billion dollar weapons systems that even Cheney wanted to cancel. If we had spent all this money on the troops, and on equipment the troops needed to secure Iraq after the invasion, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.


    Posted by: Craig on October 14, 2004 08:01 AM

    Query seems to be masturbating all over this blog, but I’m going to repost part of what I said on my blog:

    The real hijackers of the American people are the neocons who saw (or created) an opportunity and grabbed it. They have managed to scare some ordinary, often decent, people into fearful animals who cry for blood and vengence. It saddens me to see my country transformed this way. If we don’t get back to our roots soon, I think the terrorists – intent on striking fear into our collective hearts – and the neocons – intent on destroying American democracy – will have won.


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 08:28 AM

    All these weapons systems were used to destroy Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq, and to destroy a number of sites that were thought to contain WMD related materials.

    (Clinton said he thought that his assault on Iraq *without* UN approval during his impeachment hearings in 1998 (with the same systems Kerry wanted to cancel) destroyed Saddam’s WMD. Why does he get away with this claim, unchallenged by the mainstream media? Or are you willing to concede that Bush’s aerial assault on Saddam in 2003 preceding the invasion may have destroyed the WMD?)

    As his fellow Senate Democrat said, Kerry is not only one of the least accomplished, most liberal Senators in America, he would have reduced our offensive capability to spitballs.


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 08:30 AM

    Wow. To Craig, the “real” hijackers were the so-called “neocons”, not the Al Qaeda terrorists who killed so many Americans on 9/11.

    Craig, how do you live with yourself? Or do you hide your true beliefs from your friends and neighbors?


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 08:39 AM

    President Bush has used 9/11 as a political stratagem. He has used the “War on Terror” to paint himself as a hawkish politician, and mentions 9/11 in every one of his speeches to rouse his Republican base.


    Posted by: on Octo
    ber 14, 2004 08:44 AM

    Riiiiight, Jay. Because there *is* no War on Terror. It’s made up. It’s an international Jewish conspiracy.

    We’ve heard your style of vapid, anti-semetic internationalist pacifism before.

    Hopefully, the rallying cry “never again” still holds meaning to the latest generations dumbed down and brainwashed by the far Left extremist public education system.


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 09:36 AM

    Query said “All these weapons systems were used to destroy Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq, and to destroy a number of sites that were thought to contain WMD related materials.”

    Which indicates he wasn’t following what I said correctly (plus how can a non-exsistent weapon system such as SDI, be used in a real war. Bizarre). Read what I said above. The B1 and B2 were used on some missions, but Tomahawk cruise missiles could have (and on some occasions, actually did) done the job that these billion dollar planes did for a lot cheaper cost. In fact, 50-year-old B-52’s dropped more munition that the B1 and B2 bombers. Why do you need a billion dollar stealth aircraft for a country that had no effective (or in Afghanistan’s case, a non-existent) anti-aircraft system?

    I can use a jewel encrusted fork to put food in my mouth, but a plain metal spoon would do the job just as well. On one mission that 32 Apache helicopters went out on, 27 of them were either seriously damaged or shot down from simple AK-47’s and RPG’s. A tank would have been more effective (or an A-10, which is cheaper, and just as accurate as a helicopter). My point is that these expensive dinosaurs are not the cheapest, most effective tools for winning this war, and in some cases, actually hinder them. THe US hasn’t the luxery of being able to spend a ton of money on crappy systems anymore. We need to spend our money on what works. Boots on the ground work better at stopping terrorists and winning wars than a billion dollar aircraft that becomes visible when it rains. I would have thought that you neocons wcould have worked this out now that you’ve screwed up the peace in Iraq.


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 09:45 AM

    “So says Dan Gillmor.”

    Actually, Dan was linking to, and quoting from, a column by someone else. But don’t let reality stand in your way…

    “Very little discussion of the economic impact has occurred, in part out of respect for the dead, and partly (unfortunately) out of a partisan creed that you can’t highlight facts favorable to Bush.”

    Um… I don’t know where you’ve been, but there’s been lots of discussion of the economic impact of 9/11. But the fact is that it pales in comparison to the impact of the failed economic and domestic policies of this administration. But you’d have to understand economics to know that, which you obviously don’t.

    “As his fellow Senate Democrat said, Kerry is not only one of the least accomplished, most liberal Senators in America, he would have reduced our offensive capability to spitballs.”

    Zel Miller is not a Democrat in any sense of the word. But more importantly, his speech was a steaming pile of B.S. Kerry’s plans for the military and homeland security will make us BETTER equipped for today’s dangers, not less. That isn’t partisan spin — it’s according to the people who are doing the work: the military and intelligence communities. As for “most liberal,” have you actually READ the National Journal’s report — the one the Bush campaign cites when they say Kerry is the “most liberal”? If you did, you’d see that they specifically say the Bush campaign is flat-out wrong.

    As with most of your statements here, there isn’t a shred of credibility to them.

    “the far Left extremist public education system.”

    ROFL! Do they pay you to make such ridiculous statements? Or are you just nuts?


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 11:33 AM

    The REAL war is no longer fought with bullets & bombs.

    It is fought with Words & Ways of Mind Deception.

    Those who are hit by its shrapnel don’t even know it.

    It is fought here, on US TV tubes, not in Iraq.

    The catch alphabet letter from the Oct. 13th debate is “L”.

    L as in Massachusetts Liberal
    L as in Leftwing Liberal
    L as in Litigation Reform (what happened to “Tort” reform?)
    L as in “Love Life”

    L as in Lying Liars who Loft Lousy Labels at opponents

    Bush’s psych ops guys are meaner & smarter –they will probably win


    Posted by: Robert Parrish on October 14, 2004 04:58 PM

    These Bush folks will say anything to push their agenda. They lied to get us into a war. For the life of me, I don’t understand why true conservatives, Christians, and military people aren’t outraged. As to the lies, please check out the ads on my website http://www.hoppervideo.net


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 06:41 PM

    Until Wee Willie Winkle gets his wondrous wanderer’s windup time machine gee-by-golly developed so that wonks with wide, watery eyes can use it to further study, wistfully, want-to-be-but-won’t, what-they-wish-were-true-but-aren’t 9/10 dream worlds, I wish to brutally interject, honey buns, that we’ve been at war with terrorism, according to the terrorists, since the 1972 Munich Olympics. Of course we, the United States, weren’t really involved in Munich–just Israel that time, we had to wait a few years for the outright murder of American citizens. But, my lovey doves, they made up for their neglect of us: in Beirut, on the Mediteranean Sea, in Saudi Arabia, in Africa, in Aden and–whoops! what happened, sweethearts? (as Bogart might’ve said)–in New York City on September eleventh, in The Year of Our Lord, 2001. On that day, 9/11/04, whether you blithering, liberal idiots remember it or not, we lost more people than we lost at Pearl Harbor on 9 December 1941. I was sixteen when I listened to the news of the Japanese attack on the radio, in the kitchen of a ten-dollar-a-month behind-the-mill walkup apartment, and I was seventy-six when I watched the planes flying into the Trade Center towers on television, and I fully remember both of them, just as I remember the news that North Korea had invaded South Korea, the news that well nigh one million Vietnamese escaped from the north after the communists took over in Hanoi, the news, and pics that recorded “Hanoi Jane Fonda” playing like she was shooting down American planes, the news that “four month wonder” Kerry declared all American soldiers who served in the Nam (some two and a half million) were murderers, rapists and worse, the news that after we backed out of South Vietnam, giving the North Vietnam Army a clear shot, the North Vietnamese rounded up a million or so people and slammed them into “reeducation” camps and a million or so of the southern Vietnamese forsook the mainland and took to pirate infested waters to escape the communist tyranny. Yeah, honey dolls, I remember all this, and I remember Iserved as an infantry GI in Europe, as an infantry platoon medic in Korea, and as a Medical Group operations sergeant in the Nam. I remember all this stuff cause I played a part, a damned small part, I acknowledge, in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. So whine and bitch all you want, pretty boys, when Bush or Cheney mentions 9/11, memories of the crashes, the flames, the bodies falling through air, the collapse of the towers, the absolute fear and
    panic on the faces of the people fleeing this mass murder site should be enough to remind you that WE didn’t declare war, the terrorists, all the terrorists did . . . on us.

    I hold only contempt for the left-socialist, neo-communist liberals who agree with the “oil-for-food” scavengers, the perfidious, “let’s not depose Saddam” France and Germany and their ilk. And if the shoe fits, baby dolls, so be it.

    James O. Dirden
    CSM, U. S. Army
    ’44-’49/’50-’73


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 07:45 PM

    This is a “Whoops” remark on my part. In my previous comment (October 14, 2004 06:41 PM), while referring to the 9/11 attack, I goofed and entered “9/11/04”. Suffice it to say, I should have entered it as “9/11/01”. I guess I’m just too caught in the present. Sorry, all you out there.

    James O. Dirden
    CSM, U. S. Army
    ’44-’49/’50-’73


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 07:46 PM

    This is a “Whoops” remark on my part. In my previous comment (October 14, 2004 06:41 PM), while referring to the 9/11 attack, I goofed and entered “9/11/04”. Suffice it to say, I should have entered it as “9/11/01”. I guess I’m just too caught up in the present. Sorry, all you out there.

    James O. Dirden
    CSM, U. S. Army
    ’44-’49/’50-’73


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 07:58 PM

    The wedge was there before 9/11. Each party has their scare tactics. The Dem’s have been scaring seniors with Social Security threats (that Republicans would kill it) for decades. (And they never even try to fix it.) Abortion is an issue with both sides. The Republicans are doing it with terrorists – oh, except we’ve lost 3,000 (4,000+ if you count troop deaths). I live in Chicago and every time I go by Sears Tower, I look around. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    The reality is these militant Islamists are being arrested all the time in various countries because they want to kill people.

    Friedman is entitled to his opinion, but it’s exacty because we’re on the offensive that there haven’t been more attacks here.

    It reminds me of a headline a few years ago that was something like this “Crime Drops And Yet The Prisons Are More Full Than Ever.” Duh, it’s exactly because the prisons are full. The prisons are full of people with recidivistic behavior.

    Specifically to the point about the wedge between Amerca and the rest of the World, excuse me, your missing something important. At least two of our so-called closest friends took big bribes to thwart attempts to enforce the UN resolutions on Iraq.

    Dan, you, Kerry and the Democrats who love to put the blame for the differences totally on us are blind to some of these other issues. A few are:
    – the bribes (a very big dynamic),
    – EU internal politics (another huge dynamic that goes unreported in the US – one thing is France and Germany are trying to maintain power as the former Soviet-block countries get stronger),
    – the fact that the US is pulling even further ahead of them (our per-capita GDP is $10,000 per year more than most of Europe’s),
    – our employment numbers are so much better (Kerry can complain about Bush, but we’re in the fives and Europe is in the 9’s and 10+’s),
    – and last, but not least, there is just plain old fashioned jealosy.
    I would venture to say that this dislike for the US is mostly about jealosy. Bush is an easy target for the leftists running many of these countries. It’s far easier to blame Bush for their problems than to try to solve them – so they do.

    Democrats don’t even think about these other issues. The seething hatred for Bush is blinding them from the above issues.

    So, from what I can see, Friedman is confused.


    Posted by: on October 14, 2004 08:43 PM

    Friedman isn’t just confused. He has an agenda, one that will be furthered by the policies of John Kerry, which will make America — our domestic and foreign policy, and our economy and defensive posture — more like Europe.

    That, friends, is a sellout of a catastrophic order, all in furtherance of an extreme “one world” ideology, the birthchild of socialist propoganda from the last Millennium.

    The scary thing is that folks like Kerry, lacking utterly in moral grounding and pursuing lives of self-indulgence and aggrandizement run rampant, have nothing else to fill their empty, pathetic lives.

    Kerry didn’t just marry up *more* than the other two gentleman on stage last night. He married up more *twice*.


    Posted by: Glenn on October 14, 2004 10:11 PM

    I see, and approach, a great divide:

    Turning first to the right, I smile, wink, and ask “remember when the Republican Party used to actually try to make government smaller?”

    Turning to the left, I query, “remember when Democrats spoke out for liberal doses of personal freedom?”

    To the center I say, “remember when neither party would have supported the HUGE federal government we have today! Most importantly, can anyone remember the last time Bush or Kerry used the words ‘individual freedom’ or ‘personal liberty’?” If so, did you believe them?

    Check it out: http://badnarik.org/plans.php


    Posted by: on October 16, 2004 03:01 PM

    “Most importantly, can anyone remember the last time Bush or Kerry used the words ‘individual freedom’ or ‘personal liberty’?”

    At last week’s debate, in response to the question about the PATRIOT Act.

    Kerry kinda-sorta-indirectly acknowledged that Congress had screwed up in their mad dash to pass it, and that some of its more obnoxious provisions needed to be “fixed”.

    Bush, otoh, told some of the most outrageous lies I’ve ever heard, almost giving credibility to the conspiracy-theorists’ claims that he’s secretly planning a dictatorship.


    Posted by: on October 17, 2004 11:32 AM

    Dipstick’s bogosities aside, there actually are some issues that, mirabile visu, actually have something to do with “technology” 😉

    “the Patriot missile system doesn’t work”

    Well, it didn’t work as an ABM system, but it was originally designed as an anti-aircraft defense. It probably would be useful to protect important sites from kamikaze-style attacks. In fact, I think I’ve read that it’s doing just that in D.C. (Personally, I’d rather see them deployed around targets like nuke and chemical plants near population centers: Congresscritters are cheaper and easier to replace 😉

    Do a goooogle* search for the B-1B’s exploits in Afghanistan: it’s an interesting tale of redemption. The Air Force took what was, indeed, something of a white elephant, and modified it to handle conventional bombing missions. Among other things, they used it as a substitute for heavy artillery.

    This is important to dealing with terrorists because, contrary to the Bushies’ constant bellowing about being “at war”, most of the military action _will_ be more like police work. The targets won’t be on battlefields, trying to hold on to territory: they’ll often be among innocent civilians, more likely to retreat than to try and stand their ground. As with crime investigations, most leads wo
    n’t pan out, and the course of events when they do is not easy to predict. But a key difference is that the nature of the people they’re looking for makes it far more likely that they’ll have to be killed, rather than captured.

    Under those circumstances, cruise missiles don’t work, because they have a long delay between the time you fire them and the time they hit. And it’s very likely that the people doing the hunting won’t want to be clomping around with a howitzer or helicopter gunship in tow: it’s bad PR, and tends to take away the element of surprise.

    So, as strange as it would seem to someone who grew up on images of B-17s or B-52s, a high-altitude bomber can be the most effective and precise tool, with the lowest risk to innocent bystanders, in many of the situations terrorist-hunters are going to encounter.

    Is it the cheapest method? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But I don’t really care, because the biggest cost isn’t measured in dollars, and the are plenty of examples of what happens when the people trying to nail the bad guys are indifferent to the fate of innocent bystanders.

    But you don’t have to worry about the government going too crazy with this tool: inronically, the folks Zell Miller decide to support by castigating Kerry for, among other things, voting to “cancel” the B-1B recently retired most of the fleet…

    * For some bizarre reason Dan’s content filters are objecting to the the use of the real name.

    This entry was posted in SiliconValley.com Archives. Bookmark the permalink.