It’s still a Republican talking point that Bush kept us safe, on the theory that “we haven’t been hit again since September 11.”
Apparently, either biological terrorism no longer counts, or on the Republican calendar, September 18, 2001 comes before September 11, 2001. Like 9/11, we think we know who attacked us; like 9/11, there is controversy over whether there are other criminals who may still be dangerous who were involved; and like 9/11, the perpetrators of 9/18 were never prosecuted.
Oh, wait. My mistake. We don’t refer to the anthrax attacks by the moniker “9/18”. Perhaps because the people who popularized “9/11” as a political rallying cry for their own Machiavellian needs didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that they, in fact, had not kept us safe.
Speaking personally, the only times I’ve personally felt terrorized—which I still think is a good definition of “terrorism”—was in the weeks following 10/2. 10/2? This would be 2002 I’m referring to, which also precedes 9/11/2001 on the GOP calendar. 10/2 was the beginning of the Beltway sniper attacks, when for several weeks many residents of DC learned to walk zigzag and in a halting gait. I was one of them. I felt silly when I was doing it. But I did it.
So, please, defenders of Mr. Bush: there are hundreds of ways in which we can argue the question as to whether Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Dick Cheney’s personal team of assassins improved or lessened our security. But even on the specific point you wish to make, that George W. Bush magically prevented domestic terrorism between September 12, 2001, and January 20, 2009, you’re either being deceitful or suffering from dementia. We were attacked, and Americans died. Just perhaps not enough to hold your attention.
Seriously? This is the argument against the statement “George W. Bush kept us safe?” That the anthrax attacks happened a week after 9/11? The Bush administration (specifically the FBI) deserves 100% of the blame for not solving that crime and for not taking significant steps to prevent it’s recurrence, but in the face of a massive onslaught of programs to increase our security, it’s laughable to suggest that they were ineffective because another attack was successful one week later.
If anything, the anthrax attacks were another argument for massive overhaul of the security procedures of the time. But even that’s a stretch, unless you presuppose that the anthrax attacks were conducted by the same Islamic facist regime that had been growing in strength and sophistication since 1979.
If we’re going to judge the effectiveness of the Bush programs, we should look at some context:
– 1979: a group of Islamic students stare down the United States by holding 52 American hostages for over a year.
– 1980: another group of Islamic facists (including one named Osama bin Laden)stare down the Soviet Union by kicking them out of Afghanistan.
– 1983: Islamic facists drive a truck bomb into U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon
– 1988: Islamic terrorists take down an American airliner (Pan Am 103) over Scottland
– 1991: Islamic terrorists bomb the American University of Beirut
– 1993: Islamic terrorists detonate a bomb in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center
– 1998: Islamic terrorists simultaneously bomb U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
– 2000: Islamic terrorists blow a hole in the side of a U.S. Aircraft Carrier
– 2001: Islamic terrorists simultaneously hijack four U.S. airliners, damaging or destroying three landmark buildings.
– 2002 – 2008: No American civilians killed or injured by Islamic terrorists.
– 2008: Islamic terrorists kill dozens (including several Americans) in coordinated attacks in Mumbai.
This is a pattern of increased complexity, coordination, and deadliness spanning more than twenty years, which stopped dead (you’ll excuse the expression) when we finally got mad enough to repsond. Until then, the closest the United States came to responding *AT ALL* was a failed helicopter rescue mission in 1980 and a failed bombing of an Al Qaeda complex in 1999. Bush went after Al Qaeda’s biggest governmental sponsor (the Taliban), cut off their ability to move money around the world, began extensive surveillance programs, arrested or killed key members of the organization, restricted their travel, and turned significant portions of the local populations against them.
Argue, if you will, that the costs (financial, human, and civil rights) were all too high. Argue, if you will, that the implementations were flawed and could have been accomplished much more quickly. And argue, if you will, that some of the programs (e.g., the war in Iraq) were superfluous, irrelavent, or even counter-productive toward achieving our goals. But please don’t compare 9/11/01 to 9/18/01 and declare our response to 9/11/01 a complete and total failure. It’s just intellectually dishonest, much like Chris Matthews has sadly become.
One more point: if they attack us and succeed, they get the blame. If they attack us and fail, we get the credit. That may not be fair, especially when the President is of a political party that you generally disagree with, but it’s true. We can blame our leaders for not preventing attacks, but it doesn’t mean our leaders caused the deaths of innocent people. We can disagree about the particulars, but Bin Laden is the asshole here, not George W. Bush.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. If you think that the point of my post was to reopen the old and unresolvable debate we’ve been having, you’re crazy. It’s still my contention that your argument is a conflated jumble of results-oriented hindsight, with tinges of bloodlust and a disturbing acceptance of the mantra that security is more important than just about any other value you might care to mention. Nothing new there.
Instead, I was making two alternate points, which should be obvious by now, but apparently need reiteration in light of your comment:
I’m not opposed to stopping terrorism. I’m opposed to the tactics we’ve used. And the comparison of 9/11 to OKC should make it quite clear that we have two different sets of responses, the more recent one being “kill a whole lot of people”. I think that part of this bizarre acceptance of warmongering in addition to, sometimes in lieu of effective counterterrorism, and then accruing the benefits of old-fashioned police work to our warfare, is precisely due to the false and utterly inane dichotomy you’re making between Islamic terrorism and all other threats.
It’s been reported over and over again that the elevation of radical Islam as a global threat, leading to a global holy war, was precisely the goal of al-Qaeda. You seem to be in agreement that, yes, these people are on par with Hitler or Tojo, despite their comparatively tiny numbers and miniscule resources. I think we should throw them into the dustbin with all other criminals and treat them identically. And that means, insofar as we keep track of terrorist attacks (because, IMO, you’re not any less dead in murders and car crashes), we don’t care what God you claim to pray to when we categorize your actions.
PS:
If they attack us and succeed, they get the blame. If they attack us and fail, we get the credit.
C’mon, Brian, don’t you think that that’s just a little bit bullshit? It’s been my contention for eight years that President Albert Gore would have been eviscerated by the Republicans if, in fact, he had been president, and if, in fact, 9/11 had still occurred. This is an unprovable assertion.
It is my assertion today that the Republicans are waiting for their opportunity to eviscerate Obama during the next tragedy. It is, after all, the hymnal they were singing from in unison until November 4th, that if we elect a Democrat we will all die.
Now, I hope we’re in agreement that we will both be much happier if this remains an unprovable assertion. But when the shit does hit the fan, do we both agree that one or the other of us will heartily eat crow based on Republican reaction?
I don’t see how “Bush kept us safe” and “the Anthrax attacks were horrible” are mutually exclusive statements. If you want to fault Ari Fleischer for saying we weren’t attacked again after 9/11 by pointing out that we were attacked on 9/18, then go ahead – technically, you’re right. I’m saying that Bush’s response to 9/11, however reprehensible to some, worked. That’s a provable fact, despite the numbers of people who have died of other things in the ensuing time.
Which brings me to point #2: our response to 9/11 was intended to stop a specific group of people from their continued escalation, in both complexity and intensity, of violence against America. You can continue to imply that there is no difference between Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden (or that the only difference is the color of their skin), but that doesn’t make it true. McVeigh didn’t demonstrate a 20-year history of violence, culminating in OKC. And while there are other kooks out there, there is no evidence whatsoever that he’d been organizing them, funding them, training them, recruiting them, producing false documentation for them, etc., etc. Reasonable people can certainly disagree with our response to either threat, but I, for one, don’t have a problem with differing responses to the two.
As to your assessment of Al Qaeda’s goal, I think you’re spot on. That’s why I listed Iran and Afghanistan first on my list. Their successful stand-offs with both of the world’s superpowers was their biggest recruiting tool, and led to a disturbing pattern of boldness and continued success, wherein they realized that they could kill and/or terrorize Americans without fear of reprisal from America. Until 9/11.
Yes, there are other terrorists. Yes, there are other ways to die. But what started in 1979 and grew to 2001 was the problem at hand, and that problem was contained (not solved, as the Mumbai attacks have shown us).
As to your last two (hyperbolic) points: I did not compare Al Qaeda to Hilter or Tojo – you did. Hitler was a different problem altogether, and he required (and received) a different approach. I do believe that left unchecked, Al Qaeda’s eventual goal would have been a WMD of some kind, and that the impact of that event on history would have surpassed Hitler’s (maybe not in terms of number of casualties, but certainly in terms of redefining what was possible and/or permissable).
And I, personally, think that eviscerating Al Gore for 9/11 would have been just as stupid as eviscerating George W. Bush for it. Not all Democrats believe Bush brought the towers down with missiles disguised as commercial jets, but some do. And not all Republicans are hoping for a tragedy so they can “even the score” between Obama and Bush, but some are.
So no, if the shit hits the fan, I will not eat crow – certainly not for words that you put in my mouth. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of this mythical Republican super-majority that definitionally embodies everything you hate in politics.
If Al Qaeda regroups and hits us again, I will grieve for the victims, direct my anger toward the terrorists, and pray for our President to have strength and resolve in taking the appropriate action. Not all Republicans will do the same, but some will.