The attacks brought Americans together briefly, but the aftermath is still sowing division--as the decision of Attorney General Eric Holder to try five of the 9/11 terrorists in lower Manhattan brings conflict and confusion.
On the surface, it's hard to argue with Holder's logic: "After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York--to New York--to answer for their alleged crimes, in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood."
A New York Times editorial calls the decision "an enormous victory for the rule of law, a major milestone in Mr. Obama’s efforts to close the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and an important departure from Mr. Bush’s disregard for American courts and their proven ability to competently handle high-profile terror cases."
But the Wall Street Journal focuses on the fear of terrorist reprisal: "Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers."
Beyond this conflict of idealistic symbolism and realistic fears, there are other uneasy questions:
How can such a trial possibly find an impartial jury?
How can it not be fairly called "a show trial" when the verdict is predetermined or, in the extremely unlikely event of acquittal, the defendants will face a backlog of other charges?
In an event designed to show American fairness and rule of law, how can it not also be a huge media showcase for the defendants' countercharges of torture and brutality?
In its way, the uproar over this trial may be a reflection of the larger conflict between Obama's hopes and his political antagonists' fears, but there is a case to be made for both sides.
In this instance, it's hard not to feel that there is something robotically correct about Eric Holder's decision that overrides legitimate doubts and fears.
He may feel he is using the Nuremberg trials of Nazis after World War II as a model, but there is a difference. They were held in a defeated country under secure military rule, and even then there was some American and Allied criticism of them as show trials.
The forthright Attorney General acknowledges he was influenced by his wife and "my brother, who's a retired Port Authority police officer...who lost friends and colleagues on 9/11 in the towers" and talked to survivors "about the symbolic significance of it."
Eric Holder wants to show the world that the rule of law can deal with those who kill innocent people for ideology, but he may be inviting another kind of symbolism--how the 9/11 attacks are still causing conflict and fear in America.
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Bush's Luck
Whatever else he is, George W. Bush has not been a lucky president. Here he is, after eight disastrous years in office, in the TV spotlight to make his case for history in a sentimental setting, and millions of viewers can't wait to see the last of him and get back to watching a miracle in Manhattan--a crippled airliner with 155 people landing without loss of life on a strip of river between the crowded shores of New York and New Jersey.
As the President was praising himself, Americans were impatient to learn about a man his age named Chesley B. Sullenberger III, who piloted a twin-jet Airbus safely into the water and then walked the aisles twice to make sure everyone was safe before finally leaving his craft.
An attentive mind and heart could not fail to be moved by the contrast between that airline captain and the man in the White House who steered America into a bloodbath in Iraq after 9/11 and who responded feebly to Katrina, telling us how he kept the nation safe
"I have followed my conscience," Bush said, "and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."
Like ditching a damaged plane, steering a nation in distress is not an activity that allows for being graded on good intentions. George W. Bush has been unlucky in the challenges he faced that were beyond his control, but he met them with arrogance and ineptitude that resulted in needless loss of life time and again.
Americans can only hope there is no need for an emergency response in the next five days.
As the President was praising himself, Americans were impatient to learn about a man his age named Chesley B. Sullenberger III, who piloted a twin-jet Airbus safely into the water and then walked the aisles twice to make sure everyone was safe before finally leaving his craft.
An attentive mind and heart could not fail to be moved by the contrast between that airline captain and the man in the White House who steered America into a bloodbath in Iraq after 9/11 and who responded feebly to Katrina, telling us how he kept the nation safe
"I have followed my conscience," Bush said, "and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."
Like ditching a damaged plane, steering a nation in distress is not an activity that allows for being graded on good intentions. George W. Bush has been unlucky in the challenges he faced that were beyond his control, but he met them with arrogance and ineptitude that resulted in needless loss of life time and again.
Americans can only hope there is no need for an emergency response in the next five days.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
The Math of Mass Murder
They are at the counting stage in Mumbai. As of now, the toll is that ten men killed almost 200 innocent people, but the numbers are only tentative until the fate of hundreds of wounded is clear.
These murderers were not as cost-efficient as the nineteen who caused almost 3000 deaths on 9/11. They didn't have airliners as weapons, although they did use such high-tech help as mobile phones, GPS and satellite phones in what an Indian official says was their objective of killing 5000 at random.
But the evidence is that they were less skilled than the 9/11 killers, some of whom took flying lessons while preparing to do their work. The one surviving Mumbai attacker is a 21-year-old Pakistani laborer with a fourth-grade education.
The human balance sheet is lopsided as it always is--among the victims, an American art professor and his 13-year-old daughter, a local bank chairman, the sister of a Bollywood actor, a young Brooklyn rabbi and his wife, and the head of an Indian antiterrorism squad.
Bullets and bombs outweigh all civilized accomplishments in such situations, and that is exactly the point the attackers want to make. In past times, a lone loser like Lee Harvey Oswald could deprive the world of a John F. Kennedy, but now the triumph of darkness comes in numbers.
The shock and horror are already starting to fade from TV screens and internet sites but, in days to come, it will become clearer to what extent Mumbai was intended to derail any political detente between India and Pakistan, just as terror attacks have so often sabotaged impending progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians and have stalled sectarian reconciliation in Iraq..
In the Middle East, mass murder is political, the larger the numbers the better.
These murderers were not as cost-efficient as the nineteen who caused almost 3000 deaths on 9/11. They didn't have airliners as weapons, although they did use such high-tech help as mobile phones, GPS and satellite phones in what an Indian official says was their objective of killing 5000 at random.
But the evidence is that they were less skilled than the 9/11 killers, some of whom took flying lessons while preparing to do their work. The one surviving Mumbai attacker is a 21-year-old Pakistani laborer with a fourth-grade education.
The human balance sheet is lopsided as it always is--among the victims, an American art professor and his 13-year-old daughter, a local bank chairman, the sister of a Bollywood actor, a young Brooklyn rabbi and his wife, and the head of an Indian antiterrorism squad.
Bullets and bombs outweigh all civilized accomplishments in such situations, and that is exactly the point the attackers want to make. In past times, a lone loser like Lee Harvey Oswald could deprive the world of a John F. Kennedy, but now the triumph of darkness comes in numbers.
The shock and horror are already starting to fade from TV screens and internet sites but, in days to come, it will become clearer to what extent Mumbai was intended to derail any political detente between India and Pakistan, just as terror attacks have so often sabotaged impending progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians and have stalled sectarian reconciliation in Iraq..
In the Middle East, mass murder is political, the larger the numbers the better.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11
When the planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that morning, I said to someone, "This is the worst day of my life."
I didn't know then what I meant, but it was as if the crust of the earth had suddenly cracked and we would never again feel safe going about our daily lives. Over time, that feeling has receded, but the world has not been the same since.
What we lost that day seven years ago is social trust--the sense of not having to be constantly on guard against the malice of unknown people who want to hurt or kill us for no personal reason whatsoever.
Before 9/11, we took for granted unspoken rules that protect us: We could walk safely in front of cars that would stop for red lights, eat food that had passed through the hands of countless unseen people, hand over our children every day to strangers who would protect and nurture them.
We still do all that and more every day, but we can’t board a plane, go to a stadium or walk a crowded street with the same sense of security we had before 9/11/01.
Our public life has become meaner, coarser and, in this political season, we are not the people we were in the last century--fiercely opinionated, intensely competitive but optimistic and generous underneath it all.
When Barack Obama and John McCain come to New York for a forum after the Ground Zero memorial today, we can only hope that some of that spirit is still there to inspire them.
I didn't know then what I meant, but it was as if the crust of the earth had suddenly cracked and we would never again feel safe going about our daily lives. Over time, that feeling has receded, but the world has not been the same since.
What we lost that day seven years ago is social trust--the sense of not having to be constantly on guard against the malice of unknown people who want to hurt or kill us for no personal reason whatsoever.
Before 9/11, we took for granted unspoken rules that protect us: We could walk safely in front of cars that would stop for red lights, eat food that had passed through the hands of countless unseen people, hand over our children every day to strangers who would protect and nurture them.
We still do all that and more every day, but we can’t board a plane, go to a stadium or walk a crowded street with the same sense of security we had before 9/11/01.
Our public life has become meaner, coarser and, in this political season, we are not the people we were in the last century--fiercely opinionated, intensely competitive but optimistic and generous underneath it all.
When Barack Obama and John McCain come to New York for a forum after the Ground Zero memorial today, we can only hope that some of that spirit is still there to inspire them.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Noun, a Verb and POW
In the Democratic debates, Joe Biden famously dismissed Rudy Giuliani with: “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11...there’s nothing else."
Now, Biden may have the chance to do the same for his Senate friend as John McCain's campaign reflexively parrots POW to any questions raised--about how many homes McCain owns, about whether or not he was in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Forum, even the gaffe of suggesting his wife Cindy enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest.
As Maureen Dowd puts it, "His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength--and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his POW experience--by flashing the POW card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements."
Giuliani abruptly discovered a voter expiration date for cashing in on 9/11. Will McCain's campaign discover that it is, in the World War II term, "a bridge too far" from the Hanoi Hilton to the White House?
"While McCain’s experience was heroic," Dowd asks, "did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to US military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, 'We are all Georgians,' mentality?"
McCain has opened the door to such questions by putting his POW experience so close to the center of his campaign. He suffered for his country three decades ago, but does that qualify him to end its pain here and abroad in 2009?
Now, Biden may have the chance to do the same for his Senate friend as John McCain's campaign reflexively parrots POW to any questions raised--about how many homes McCain owns, about whether or not he was in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Forum, even the gaffe of suggesting his wife Cindy enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest.
As Maureen Dowd puts it, "His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength--and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his POW experience--by flashing the POW card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements."
Giuliani abruptly discovered a voter expiration date for cashing in on 9/11. Will McCain's campaign discover that it is, in the World War II term, "a bridge too far" from the Hanoi Hilton to the White House?
"While McCain’s experience was heroic," Dowd asks, "did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to US military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, 'We are all Georgians,' mentality?"
McCain has opened the door to such questions by putting his POW experience so close to the center of his campaign. He suffered for his country three decades ago, but does that qualify him to end its pain here and abroad in 2009?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Iraq in the Rear-View Mirror
Barack Obama and John McCain are squaring off on foreign policy this week, but there is an oddly retrospective quality to the debate over Iraq. Both promise to end the war, albeit on differing timelines, but the main issue is whether we should have fought it at all.
In his foreign policy speech today, Obama's answer was a resounding no, claiming the effort should have gone into hunting down Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban and terrorists responsible for the attacks, and that the billions spent on the war could have been invested in alternative sources of energy to "end the tyranny of oil" and strengthening our position in the world.
"Instead," he said, "we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats--all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,"
Meanwhile, McCain's foreign policy adviser is harrumphing that his candidate "would rather lose an election than lose a war and see the nation lose a war. Senator Obama seems to think losing a war will help him win an election."
New polls are reflecting uncertainty among voters on how to react to all this. In the coming weeks, after he travels to the Mideast, Obama is going to have to make an effort to persuade the public to sign on to his five foreign policy goals:
"(E)nding the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
In his foreign policy speech today, Obama's answer was a resounding no, claiming the effort should have gone into hunting down Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban and terrorists responsible for the attacks, and that the billions spent on the war could have been invested in alternative sources of energy to "end the tyranny of oil" and strengthening our position in the world.
"Instead," he said, "we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats--all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,"
Meanwhile, McCain's foreign policy adviser is harrumphing that his candidate "would rather lose an election than lose a war and see the nation lose a war. Senator Obama seems to think losing a war will help him win an election."
New polls are reflecting uncertainty among voters on how to react to all this. In the coming weeks, after he travels to the Mideast, Obama is going to have to make an effort to persuade the public to sign on to his five foreign policy goals:
"(E)nding the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Bush's Last Crack at bin Laden?
Unredeemable as his tenure may seem, George W. Bush could leave office on a high note with, to borrow his cowboy terminology, Osama bin Laden's scalp.
After 9/11, Bush said of the al Qaeda mastermind, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
Now, according to an Arabic TV network, "in the past few days US security and military officials had a top-level summit at a military base in the Qatari capital, Doha, to plan an operation to hunt for the al-Qaeda leader.
"General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq and the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Petersen, were reported to have attended the summit...
"Reports say that the CIA has located the Saudi terrorist in so-called 'rooftop of the world.' the area of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan to the west, in particular the chain of mountains of Nurestan and China to the north."
We have heard all this before and from more reliable sources, but what could salvage Bush's legacy more--and bolster McCain's chances to succeed him--than finally "getting" bin Laden?
Earlier this month, after the President's Middle East tour, the al Qaeda leader was shifting his emphasis away from Iraq and Saudi Arabia by proclaiming, "We will continue, God permitting, the fight against the Israelis and their allies...and will not give up a single inch of Palestine as long as there is one true Muslim on earth."
In the past seven years, our Commander-in-Chief has failed to silence that taunting voice. Will we be seeing a last-ditch effort to do that now?
After 9/11, Bush said of the al Qaeda mastermind, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
Now, according to an Arabic TV network, "in the past few days US security and military officials had a top-level summit at a military base in the Qatari capital, Doha, to plan an operation to hunt for the al-Qaeda leader.
"General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq and the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Petersen, were reported to have attended the summit...
"Reports say that the CIA has located the Saudi terrorist in so-called 'rooftop of the world.' the area of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan to the west, in particular the chain of mountains of Nurestan and China to the north."
We have heard all this before and from more reliable sources, but what could salvage Bush's legacy more--and bolster McCain's chances to succeed him--than finally "getting" bin Laden?
Earlier this month, after the President's Middle East tour, the al Qaeda leader was shifting his emphasis away from Iraq and Saudi Arabia by proclaiming, "We will continue, God permitting, the fight against the Israelis and their allies...and will not give up a single inch of Palestine as long as there is one true Muslim on earth."
In the past seven years, our Commander-in-Chief has failed to silence that taunting voice. Will we be seeing a last-ditch effort to do that now?
Monday, February 25, 2008
What's Wrong With Obama
Now we know the worst. Behind all the electoral enthusiasm for the Democratic front runner is a treasonous self-regard.
In today's New York Times, William Kristol explains it in his inimitable style. In declining to wear an American flag lapel pin as "a substitute...for true patriotism," which he defines as "speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security," Barack Obama is guilty of...moral vanity!
"What’s striking," Kristol instructs us, "is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good--too patriotic!--to wear a flag pin on his chest."
A surge of unity after 9/11 inspired Americans to display the flag--on their lapels and their lawns--after the trauma of an unthinkable attack. But Kristol's heroes--Bush, Cheney and Rove--converted that heartfelt feeling into a Neo-Con tool for waging preemptive war, trampling on civil liberties and winning elections by attacking their opponents' love of country.
In rejecting that definition of patriotism, Obama is embracing "the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry."
As a member of that fraternity, Obama can't expect to be pinned by William Kristol, who has belatedly pledged John McCain into the circle of true believers who wear their American hearts on their sleeves and their chests.
In today's New York Times, William Kristol explains it in his inimitable style. In declining to wear an American flag lapel pin as "a substitute...for true patriotism," which he defines as "speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security," Barack Obama is guilty of...moral vanity!
"What’s striking," Kristol instructs us, "is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good--too patriotic!--to wear a flag pin on his chest."
A surge of unity after 9/11 inspired Americans to display the flag--on their lapels and their lawns--after the trauma of an unthinkable attack. But Kristol's heroes--Bush, Cheney and Rove--converted that heartfelt feeling into a Neo-Con tool for waging preemptive war, trampling on civil liberties and winning elections by attacking their opponents' love of country.
In rejecting that definition of patriotism, Obama is embracing "the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry."
As a member of that fraternity, Obama can't expect to be pinned by William Kristol, who has belatedly pledged John McCain into the circle of true believers who wear their American hearts on their sleeves and their chests.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Experience a President Needs
Democrats will surely nominate a senator, and if John McCain can't go all the way, Republicans will name a former governor or super-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who insists that a president needs executive experience to run the Executive branch.
History suggests otherwise. In 1960, Richard Nixon used that argument against John F. Kennedy and, in the early months of JFK's Administration, it looked like Nixon might have had a point as the new President mishandled the Bay of Pigs disaster.
But Kennedy trumped his inexperience with two crucial qualities: He took responsibility for his mistakes and learned from them, in contrast to George W. Bush, whose resume as an executive did not help him do either, and Nixon who... But you know the rest of that story.
Instinctively Kennedy surrounded himself with the best people ("You can't beat brains," he would say) and insisted on hearing all sides of an argument before he made a decision, as he did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Those qualities would satisfy even Giuliani, who wrote a book about leadership but has had trouble practicing his own principles, as his Bernard Kerik albatross and the bitter 9/11 complaints of New York fire fighters suggest.
For a President Obama or McCain, the first days in the Oval would not be a test of management skills. What will count is their vision for America and determination to translate it into political reality. Voters are instinctively doing the right thing by focusing on that.
History suggests otherwise. In 1960, Richard Nixon used that argument against John F. Kennedy and, in the early months of JFK's Administration, it looked like Nixon might have had a point as the new President mishandled the Bay of Pigs disaster.
But Kennedy trumped his inexperience with two crucial qualities: He took responsibility for his mistakes and learned from them, in contrast to George W. Bush, whose resume as an executive did not help him do either, and Nixon who... But you know the rest of that story.
Instinctively Kennedy surrounded himself with the best people ("You can't beat brains," he would say) and insisted on hearing all sides of an argument before he made a decision, as he did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Those qualities would satisfy even Giuliani, who wrote a book about leadership but has had trouble practicing his own principles, as his Bernard Kerik albatross and the bitter 9/11 complaints of New York fire fighters suggest.
For a President Obama or McCain, the first days in the Oval would not be a test of management skills. What will count is their vision for America and determination to translate it into political reality. Voters are instinctively doing the right thing by focusing on that.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
9/11 and Other American Plots
When fire breaks out in a mental hospital, the paranoids are the first to respond--they always expect someone to do terrible things.
That bit of apocryphal folklore comes to mind with news today that almost two-thirds of Americans think federal officials knew in advance of 9/11 but chose to ignore the warnings.
A similar survey last year showed one out of three thinks our government assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so the US could go to war in the Middle East.
These conspiracy beliefs come, not from residents of a mental hospital, but a study of Americans normal enough to answer their own phones.
In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter wrote "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," a book widely read because its thesis was then so new and startling: that a "sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy" was spreading from the lunatic fringes into the mainstream of our national life.
The political paranoid, he wrote, "does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician...Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated."
From then on, starting with President Kennedy's assassination, more and more Americans believed everything that happened had to be part of some evil design, rather than the result of human randomness. No one could be trusted and, during its tenure, the Bush Administration has provided much evidence to support such suspicions.
But, in large part, distrust goes back to changes in perception as well as politics. Before TV, news was what people in power said it was, and there was no way to see behind the official version of truth. But with events coming into our living rooms, we could start to make our own judgments about what was really going on.
Now, with 24/7 news everywhere, everyone is "in the know," and there is no reason to accept the official version of anything. As any blogger can tell you, the more devious the explanation for events, the more attention and, for some, credence it receives.
We are now free from getting only a whitewashed picture of the world, but are we closer to any truths by getting a flood of blackwashed analyses of everyone's actions and motives? Little wonder that some Americans now see everything as a conspiracy,
That bit of apocryphal folklore comes to mind with news today that almost two-thirds of Americans think federal officials knew in advance of 9/11 but chose to ignore the warnings.
A similar survey last year showed one out of three thinks our government assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so the US could go to war in the Middle East.
These conspiracy beliefs come, not from residents of a mental hospital, but a study of Americans normal enough to answer their own phones.
In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter wrote "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," a book widely read because its thesis was then so new and startling: that a "sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy" was spreading from the lunatic fringes into the mainstream of our national life.
The political paranoid, he wrote, "does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician...Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated."
From then on, starting with President Kennedy's assassination, more and more Americans believed everything that happened had to be part of some evil design, rather than the result of human randomness. No one could be trusted and, during its tenure, the Bush Administration has provided much evidence to support such suspicions.
But, in large part, distrust goes back to changes in perception as well as politics. Before TV, news was what people in power said it was, and there was no way to see behind the official version of truth. But with events coming into our living rooms, we could start to make our own judgments about what was really going on.
Now, with 24/7 news everywhere, everyone is "in the know," and there is no reason to accept the official version of anything. As any blogger can tell you, the more devious the explanation for events, the more attention and, for some, credence it receives.
We are now free from getting only a whitewashed picture of the world, but are we closer to any truths by getting a flood of blackwashed analyses of everyone's actions and motives? Little wonder that some Americans now see everything as a conspiracy,
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
No Whitewater for Giuliani
Is the 9/11 sainthood of America's Mayor too radioactive for opponents to attack?
A headline in today's Washington Post says, "Giuliani Campaign Tries to Minimize Fallout From Kerik Indictment" but so far other Republican Presidential candidates have tiptoed around the subject. As contrast, imagine the reaction if Kerik had been one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates.
"Mitt Romney," the Post reports, "declined to comment on whether Kerik's legal woes might pose a political problem for Giuliani, but he called Kerik's indictment on tax fraud and other charges 'very sad and disappointing.'"
John McCain had former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge at his side when he alluded to Kerik. "Supposedly his mission was to help train Iraqi police. He stayed a couple of months, got up and left," McCain said. "That should have been part of anybody's judgment before they would recommend that individual to be head of the Department of Homeland Security."
Only his campaign manager went any further. "A president's judgment matters," he said in a memo, "and Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly placed personal loyalty over regard for the facts."
Even this tame criticism brought a reaction from Giuliani. “I'd be very surprised if John did that,” he said. “John is a very good friend. I probably have about 20 quotes from John since all of this became public...[describing] me as a hero.” He claimed that not vetting Kerik carefully enough was a "mistake."
Giuliani is talking about the former bodyguard and driver he appointed as Police Commissioner despite reports of mob links and over the objection of half his Mayoral Cabinet in 2000, kept at his side on 9/11 and afterward made a partner of his consulting firm with the slogan of "Integrity, Optimism, Courage, Preparedness, Communication, Accountability."
Giuliani is also the godfather of two of Kerik's children.
In "Leadership," the best-selling book the former mayor wrote in 2002, there is a chapter titled "Surround Yourself With Great People." If there is a sequel, it will have to include advice on "How to Dump and Distance Yourself From Great People Who Have Been Indicted for Corruption."
So far Giuliani has been masterful at that aspect of 21st century leadership.
A headline in today's Washington Post says, "Giuliani Campaign Tries to Minimize Fallout From Kerik Indictment" but so far other Republican Presidential candidates have tiptoed around the subject. As contrast, imagine the reaction if Kerik had been one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates.
"Mitt Romney," the Post reports, "declined to comment on whether Kerik's legal woes might pose a political problem for Giuliani, but he called Kerik's indictment on tax fraud and other charges 'very sad and disappointing.'"
John McCain had former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge at his side when he alluded to Kerik. "Supposedly his mission was to help train Iraqi police. He stayed a couple of months, got up and left," McCain said. "That should have been part of anybody's judgment before they would recommend that individual to be head of the Department of Homeland Security."
Only his campaign manager went any further. "A president's judgment matters," he said in a memo, "and Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly placed personal loyalty over regard for the facts."
Even this tame criticism brought a reaction from Giuliani. “I'd be very surprised if John did that,” he said. “John is a very good friend. I probably have about 20 quotes from John since all of this became public...[describing] me as a hero.” He claimed that not vetting Kerik carefully enough was a "mistake."
Giuliani is talking about the former bodyguard and driver he appointed as Police Commissioner despite reports of mob links and over the objection of half his Mayoral Cabinet in 2000, kept at his side on 9/11 and afterward made a partner of his consulting firm with the slogan of "Integrity, Optimism, Courage, Preparedness, Communication, Accountability."
Giuliani is also the godfather of two of Kerik's children.
In "Leadership," the best-selling book the former mayor wrote in 2002, there is a chapter titled "Surround Yourself With Great People." If there is a sequel, it will have to include advice on "How to Dump and Distance Yourself From Great People Who Have Been Indicted for Corruption."
So far Giuliani has been masterful at that aspect of 21st century leadership.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Rudy's Crusade
If he keeps moving right at this rate, Rudy Giuliani is in danger of falling off the edge of the flat earth.
The knight who drove criminals out of Manhattan, single-handedly cleaned up Ground Zero after 9/11 and kept al Qaeda from taking over New York has strapped on his armor to rid the Holy Land of Islamo-Fascism.
With an array of blood-related Neo-Con Sancho Panzas--Podhoretzes, Kagans and Kristols--Sir Rudy has been on the campaign trail tilting so hard at windmills that even the New York Times today has noticed what bloggers have been reporting for some time:
“Rudolph W. Giuliani’s approach to foreign policy shares with other Republican presidential candidates an aggressive posture toward terrorism, a commitment to strengthening the military and disdain for United Nations.
“But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers.
“Their positions have been criticized by Democrats as irresponsible and applauded by some conservatives as appropriately tough, while raising questions about how closely aligned Mr. Giuliani’s thinking is with theirs.”
Sir Rudy gave some clues to his thinking last week in a speech during “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” blasting Democrats for never using “the word ‘Islamic terrorist.’ Ever.”
In the course of saddling up for his crusade, Guiliani, who has at times been accused of being too courtly, did not hesitate to take swipes at the opposition’s Lady in Waiting:
“Honestly, in most respects, I don’t know Hillary’s experience. She’s never run a city. She’s never run a state. She’s never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.”
At this rate, Giuliani may yet win over the hearts of the Radical Right, who for some time now have been suspecting that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney may have lost their cojones for doing God’s work in the Middle East.
The knight who drove criminals out of Manhattan, single-handedly cleaned up Ground Zero after 9/11 and kept al Qaeda from taking over New York has strapped on his armor to rid the Holy Land of Islamo-Fascism.
With an array of blood-related Neo-Con Sancho Panzas--Podhoretzes, Kagans and Kristols--Sir Rudy has been on the campaign trail tilting so hard at windmills that even the New York Times today has noticed what bloggers have been reporting for some time:
“Rudolph W. Giuliani’s approach to foreign policy shares with other Republican presidential candidates an aggressive posture toward terrorism, a commitment to strengthening the military and disdain for United Nations.
“But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers.
“Their positions have been criticized by Democrats as irresponsible and applauded by some conservatives as appropriately tough, while raising questions about how closely aligned Mr. Giuliani’s thinking is with theirs.”
Sir Rudy gave some clues to his thinking last week in a speech during “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” blasting Democrats for never using “the word ‘Islamic terrorist.’ Ever.”
In the course of saddling up for his crusade, Guiliani, who has at times been accused of being too courtly, did not hesitate to take swipes at the opposition’s Lady in Waiting:
“Honestly, in most respects, I don’t know Hillary’s experience. She’s never run a city. She’s never run a state. She’s never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.”
At this rate, Giuliani may yet win over the hearts of the Radical Right, who for some time now have been suspecting that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney may have lost their cojones for doing God’s work in the Middle East.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Media Mistrust: The Tipping Point
According to the latest Gallup Poll, Americans passed a milestone four years ago and have never looked back: More than half of us now have little or no confidence that mass media--newspapers, TV and radio--report the news fully, fairly and accurately.
Thirty years ago, only 26 percent felt that way. The gap then between Republicans and Democrats was only 10 percent. Today it is a chasm, with twice as many Republicans mistrustful of the news they are getting.
In the wake of Watergate, the public didn’t blame the messengers for delivering political bad news. In the post-9/11 world, they do and accuse them of distorting it.
Behind this change is the difference in the amount of news we get and how we get it. Before 24/7 cable and the Web, newspaper front pages and the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC packaged our perception of the world and, for better or worse, there were few other sources of information to challenge what they gave us.
Walter Cronkite signed off every night, saying “That’s the way it is,” and most Americans had no way to doubt it.
Today, there are millions of Walter Cronkites on cable and the Web to decide for themselves the way it is and, although they still depend on MSM for most of the hard news, they decide for themselves what it means.
Mistrust and rancor are part of the price we pay for this privilege, but after the Bush-Cheney era gives way to a likely Democratic Administration, will partisan dissatisfaction with the news shift as well? Or do Republicans have the patent on media-bashing?
Thirty years ago, only 26 percent felt that way. The gap then between Republicans and Democrats was only 10 percent. Today it is a chasm, with twice as many Republicans mistrustful of the news they are getting.
In the wake of Watergate, the public didn’t blame the messengers for delivering political bad news. In the post-9/11 world, they do and accuse them of distorting it.
Behind this change is the difference in the amount of news we get and how we get it. Before 24/7 cable and the Web, newspaper front pages and the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC packaged our perception of the world and, for better or worse, there were few other sources of information to challenge what they gave us.
Walter Cronkite signed off every night, saying “That’s the way it is,” and most Americans had no way to doubt it.
Today, there are millions of Walter Cronkites on cable and the Web to decide for themselves the way it is and, although they still depend on MSM for most of the hard news, they decide for themselves what it means.
Mistrust and rancor are part of the price we pay for this privilege, but after the Bush-Cheney era gives way to a likely Democratic Administration, will partisan dissatisfaction with the news shift as well? Or do Republicans have the patent on media-bashing?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Rudy's 9/11 Backlash
Too-muchness is beginning to catch up with America's Mayor. Initially propelled by TV images of those terrible days in 2001, the Giuliani campaign is now in danger, thanks to the candidate himself, of suffering from an excess of 9/11.
*In New Hampshire, Giuliani tells voters that only he can protect the U.S. from another attack because, if Democrats win, “we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
*In subsequent speeches, he claims, "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers.” The ensuing uproar makes him back off when it turns out he spent more time at World Series games in Yankee Stadium.
*After taking a cell-phone call from his wife during a speech to the N.R.A, he explains, “Since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other."
*Campaign supporters organize a dinner, suggesting checks for $9.11 as contributions.
*In the New York Times today, Tom Friedman quotes a satirical piece in The Onion:
“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters...Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Friedman asserts that “9/11 has made us stupid,” turning the U.S. from a country of hope to one of fear: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”
When the Republican contest goes negative, Giuliani will be on defense. At the last debate, John McCain raised doubts about whether his performance after 9/11 "translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it."
Can a “one trick pony” trot all the way to the White House?
*In New Hampshire, Giuliani tells voters that only he can protect the U.S. from another attack because, if Democrats win, “we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
*In subsequent speeches, he claims, "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers.” The ensuing uproar makes him back off when it turns out he spent more time at World Series games in Yankee Stadium.
*After taking a cell-phone call from his wife during a speech to the N.R.A, he explains, “Since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other."
*Campaign supporters organize a dinner, suggesting checks for $9.11 as contributions.
*In the New York Times today, Tom Friedman quotes a satirical piece in The Onion:
“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters...Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Friedman asserts that “9/11 has made us stupid,” turning the U.S. from a country of hope to one of fear: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”
When the Republican contest goes negative, Giuliani will be on defense. At the last debate, John McCain raised doubts about whether his performance after 9/11 "translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it."
Can a “one trick pony” trot all the way to the White House?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Our Most Serious Loss
The figures are by now familiar, a downward spiral of public faith in the President, Congress, the entire Federal government. But the latest Gallup figures show something more ominous--Americans losing trust in themselves.
Politicians come and go, but voters have always been sure they could correct mistakes at the ballot box. But now only 70 percent of Americans trust the public's ability to perform its role in a democratic government, down from 78 percent two years ago and much lower than any other previous Gallup reading.
These figures suggest a growing crisis of confidence that won’t be resolved by a change in the White House. As leading Democratic candidates now waver over promising to have our troops out by 2013 and the President goes cheerfully along his “What? Me Worry?” way, Iraq is beginning to feel like flypaper, keeping us from moving ahead on other national issues such as health care, education, economic uncertainty and social justice.
Before 9/11, we lived in a confident, even cocky, society. How do we get back the trust we lost in ourselves and one another?
Politicians come and go, but voters have always been sure they could correct mistakes at the ballot box. But now only 70 percent of Americans trust the public's ability to perform its role in a democratic government, down from 78 percent two years ago and much lower than any other previous Gallup reading.
These figures suggest a growing crisis of confidence that won’t be resolved by a change in the White House. As leading Democratic candidates now waver over promising to have our troops out by 2013 and the President goes cheerfully along his “What? Me Worry?” way, Iraq is beginning to feel like flypaper, keeping us from moving ahead on other national issues such as health care, education, economic uncertainty and social justice.
Before 9/11, we lived in a confident, even cocky, society. How do we get back the trust we lost in ourselves and one another?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Giuliani's Glass House
As he hears Fred Thompson’s footsteps in the Republican race, America’s Mayor has gone from polishing his 9/11 halo to photo-shopping it out of all recognition, the Washington Post reports today.
At the same time, Rudy Giuliani has reverted to his prosecutorial roots by impugning the judgment and motives of every Democrat in sight from MoveOn.org back to Bill Clinton.
On terrorism, he charges, Democrats have "the same bad judgment they had in the 1990s. They don't see the threat. They don't accept the threat."
But, the Post reports, the attacks are “undercut by Giuliani's record as mayor and by his public statements about terrorism since the 1990s, which document an evolution in thinking that began with a mind-set similar to the one he criticizes today.”
Before 9/11 and even in the aftermath, Giuliani treated terrorism more as crime, akin to his Mafia experience, rather than an ongoing political crisis, reflected in his decision to locate a command center for the Office of Emergency Management across from the twin towers, which had been attacked in 1993.
John McCain has politely questioned whether Giuliani’s performance after 9/11 "translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it."
The Mayor’s level of interest in international affairs was reflected by his failure to attend meetings of the Iraq Study Group in 2006 that would have interfered with his schedule of collecting $1.4 million in speaking fees, which led to his ultimate resignation from the commission.
Now Giuliani is not only touting his toughness on terrorism and the world it has created but the softness of everybody else. John McCain may be wrong about Iraq and its context, but he knows what he’s talking about, talks straight and doesn’t demean those who disagree with him.
Giuliani is his polar opposite.
At the same time, Rudy Giuliani has reverted to his prosecutorial roots by impugning the judgment and motives of every Democrat in sight from MoveOn.org back to Bill Clinton.
On terrorism, he charges, Democrats have "the same bad judgment they had in the 1990s. They don't see the threat. They don't accept the threat."
But, the Post reports, the attacks are “undercut by Giuliani's record as mayor and by his public statements about terrorism since the 1990s, which document an evolution in thinking that began with a mind-set similar to the one he criticizes today.”
Before 9/11 and even in the aftermath, Giuliani treated terrorism more as crime, akin to his Mafia experience, rather than an ongoing political crisis, reflected in his decision to locate a command center for the Office of Emergency Management across from the twin towers, which had been attacked in 1993.
John McCain has politely questioned whether Giuliani’s performance after 9/11 "translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it."
The Mayor’s level of interest in international affairs was reflected by his failure to attend meetings of the Iraq Study Group in 2006 that would have interfered with his schedule of collecting $1.4 million in speaking fees, which led to his ultimate resignation from the commission.
Now Giuliani is not only touting his toughness on terrorism and the world it has created but the softness of everybody else. John McCain may be wrong about Iraq and its context, but he knows what he’s talking about, talks straight and doesn’t demean those who disagree with him.
Giuliani is his polar opposite.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Rudy's Iffy Invasion of the Isles
America’s Mayor is campaigning in Great Britain this week, getting the Margaret Thatcher Medal of Freedom, meeting with Churchill’s granddaughter and being condescended to at 10 Downing Street, where a spokesman stiff-upper-lipped:
"Mayor Giuliani asked to pay a call on the Prime Minister, and given his experience in New York and counter terrorism, the Prime Minister thought it would be a good idea to see him."
Rudy got more enthusiasm from the granddaughter, who called him “Churchill in a baseball cap,” providing his campaign with a link of 9/11 and our national pastime to Dunkirk.
But his hosts may not have thought it cricket as Rudy flew in and started bashing America’s version of the Iron Lady.
“I don’t think,” he said, “Margaret Thatcher would impugn the integrity of a commanding general in a time of war, as Hillary Clinton did, or require an army to give a schedule of their retreat to the enemy, as the Democrats are suggesting.”
If Giuliani is hoping for an endorsement, implied or otherwise from Thatcher, he will be disappointed. She is posing with everybody these days, including Fred Thompson who popped in a few months ago.
"Mayor Giuliani asked to pay a call on the Prime Minister, and given his experience in New York and counter terrorism, the Prime Minister thought it would be a good idea to see him."
Rudy got more enthusiasm from the granddaughter, who called him “Churchill in a baseball cap,” providing his campaign with a link of 9/11 and our national pastime to Dunkirk.
But his hosts may not have thought it cricket as Rudy flew in and started bashing America’s version of the Iron Lady.
“I don’t think,” he said, “Margaret Thatcher would impugn the integrity of a commanding general in a time of war, as Hillary Clinton did, or require an army to give a schedule of their retreat to the enemy, as the Democrats are suggesting.”
If Giuliani is hoping for an endorsement, implied or otherwise from Thatcher, he will be disappointed. She is posing with everybody these days, including Fred Thompson who popped in a few months ago.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Rise of Al-Qaeda Iraq
In the prolixity of Gen. Petraeus this week, there is a curious emphasis on the entity, “Al-Qaeda Iraq,” which, of course, did not exist until the U.S. invaded the country.
“We face a situation that is exceedingly complex,” he had written to his troops. “Al Qaeda, associated insurgent groups, and militia extremists, some supported by Iran, continue to carry out attacks.”
"Al-Qaeda is trying to open new fronts in certain locations," Petraeus told Senators today. "They've been run out of some areas...but remain a very dangerous foe and adapting foe."
There is an echo here of Bush’s argument that we’re fighting the people there who attacked us here, which would be convincing if there had been the slightest link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before we created the chaos that invited them to come from our great ally, Saudi Arabia, and start car-bombing our troops.
Petraeus’ emphasis on Al-Qaeda Iraq, balanced by not-quite-equal time to extremists from Iran, may be non-political, but it plays neatly into the two remaining objectives of the Bush-Cheney Administration, staying in Iraq and preparing to fight Iran.
Too bad that Congressmen didn’t ask Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about self-fulfilling prophecies.
“We face a situation that is exceedingly complex,” he had written to his troops. “Al Qaeda, associated insurgent groups, and militia extremists, some supported by Iran, continue to carry out attacks.”
"Al-Qaeda is trying to open new fronts in certain locations," Petraeus told Senators today. "They've been run out of some areas...but remain a very dangerous foe and adapting foe."
There is an echo here of Bush’s argument that we’re fighting the people there who attacked us here, which would be convincing if there had been the slightest link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before we created the chaos that invited them to come from our great ally, Saudi Arabia, and start car-bombing our troops.
Petraeus’ emphasis on Al-Qaeda Iraq, balanced by not-quite-equal time to extremists from Iran, may be non-political, but it plays neatly into the two remaining objectives of the Bush-Cheney Administration, staying in Iraq and preparing to fight Iran.
Too bad that Congressmen didn’t ask Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about self-fulfilling prophecies.
The Lasting Losses of 9/11/01
That morning, when the second airliner hit the Twin Towers, life changed for every American, starting with the inane man who was reading “The Pet Goat” to second-graders in Sarasota, Florida. None of us would ever again feel as safe as we had before, and the accidental President who emerged from the disputed 2000 election would be empowered to change our lives in ways that would have otherwise been unimaginable.
Without 9/11, we would not now be enmeshed in an endless war in Iraq against the will of a majority of our people, be subjected to unthinkable government surveillance and invasions of privacy, and facing an election year in which voters with good reason seem to have lost faith in all politicians.
What happened that day might have, as it first appeared, brought us together in a shared sense of purpose arising from shock and grief. But the President who could have nurtured that unity was surrounded by politicians who saw fear as a way to win elections and crackpots who took it as an opportunity to test their theories of dominating the world with American military power.
With any other President in the Oval Office that day, we would be living in a different post-9/11 world than the one Bush, Cheney and their crew created.
Osama bin Laden’s murderous minions had to be lucky as well as cunning and evil to cause as much devastation as they did that day and, with the help of this Administration, in the six years since. On our part, we have much more to repair in America than Ground Zero in Manhattan.
Without 9/11, we would not now be enmeshed in an endless war in Iraq against the will of a majority of our people, be subjected to unthinkable government surveillance and invasions of privacy, and facing an election year in which voters with good reason seem to have lost faith in all politicians.
What happened that day might have, as it first appeared, brought us together in a shared sense of purpose arising from shock and grief. But the President who could have nurtured that unity was surrounded by politicians who saw fear as a way to win elections and crackpots who took it as an opportunity to test their theories of dominating the world with American military power.
With any other President in the Oval Office that day, we would be living in a different post-9/11 world than the one Bush, Cheney and their crew created.
Osama bin Laden’s murderous minions had to be lucky as well as cunning and evil to cause as much devastation as they did that day and, with the help of this Administration, in the six years since. On our part, we have much more to repair in America than Ground Zero in Manhattan.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The YouTube Terrorists
Now, after Osama’s pathetic stand-up routine, the Al Qaeda video production company is announcing a special with “the last testament of one of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers, marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks.”
One of the classic American answers to TV network and cable trash is not watching and, even in our new unmediated media world, making editorial judgments about the value of enemy propaganda.
TV and cable networks, take note. We appreciate knowing about this garbage, but you are not compelled to rub our faces in it.
One of the classic American answers to TV network and cable trash is not watching and, even in our new unmediated media world, making editorial judgments about the value of enemy propaganda.
TV and cable networks, take note. We appreciate knowing about this garbage, but you are not compelled to rub our faces in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)