Tuesday, December 20, 2005
What Changed, Exactly?
The idea that "everything changed on 9/11" seems to be the underlying justification for all manner of Bush administration malfeasance. We're told it's the reason for--well, everything: the war in Iraq, the loss of civil liberties at home, the need to drill for oil in ANWR--everything.
201k takes issue with the premise. We have never felt that "everything changed" on 9/11 in the way that the administration and its supplicants in the press have wanted Americans to believe.
Before 9/11, the United States was the target of international terrorists. It was hated across much of the Islamic world. It had enemies, both abroad and at home, that seeked to do it harm.
That had been true for decades, and the government was well aware of it.
On 9/11 the terrorists succeeded, spectacularly, horrifically, in attacking us. But the threat itself was hardly new, and to pretend otherwise is patently dishonest.
What changed on 9/11 was the American public's understanding of this long-standing threat--and that's all that changed. The people in charge of our security who were supposed to know about this threat did know--whether the Bush administration listened to them or not. It was only the citizens of this country who didn't know. That's why the the morning of 9/11 struck with both shock and horror.
There should have been horror; there should not have been shock.
The Bush administration's use of 9/11 as a justification for an increasingly fascist state--and that's what we have--is dishonest. It's a lie.
The security situation of the U.S. did not, in fact, change on 9/11. A threat that had long existed finally hit us at home. What changed was public perception; the American people learned that their leadership was inept. And they learned that their tax dollars had been squandered, lost, or stolen.
And they learned that in its drive to consolidate its power, the Republican party would go as far as misrepresenting the lessons of 9/11.
201k takes issue with the premise. We have never felt that "everything changed" on 9/11 in the way that the administration and its supplicants in the press have wanted Americans to believe.
Before 9/11, the United States was the target of international terrorists. It was hated across much of the Islamic world. It had enemies, both abroad and at home, that seeked to do it harm.
That had been true for decades, and the government was well aware of it.
On 9/11 the terrorists succeeded, spectacularly, horrifically, in attacking us. But the threat itself was hardly new, and to pretend otherwise is patently dishonest.
What changed on 9/11 was the American public's understanding of this long-standing threat--and that's all that changed. The people in charge of our security who were supposed to know about this threat did know--whether the Bush administration listened to them or not. It was only the citizens of this country who didn't know. That's why the the morning of 9/11 struck with both shock and horror.
There should have been horror; there should not have been shock.
The Bush administration's use of 9/11 as a justification for an increasingly fascist state--and that's what we have--is dishonest. It's a lie.
The security situation of the U.S. did not, in fact, change on 9/11. A threat that had long existed finally hit us at home. What changed was public perception; the American people learned that their leadership was inept. And they learned that their tax dollars had been squandered, lost, or stolen.
And they learned that in its drive to consolidate its power, the Republican party would go as far as misrepresenting the lessons of 9/11.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I agree but I offer one deviation from your primary assertion: what changed wasn't the public's understanding of the threat but our awareness of it. I contend that most people were actually not aware of the existence of Islamist terror threats against American citizens and property. An actual understanding of this threat would necessarily include knowledge of the ineptitude of unilateralist American foreign policy toward the countries of the Middle East, our support of repressive regimes such as the Shah of Iran, and the complete tone deafness of American politicians, particularly the bellicose, right-wing Bush-head types, to the realities of Islamic nationalism. What was attempted during the Clinton administration succeeded during this misbegotten Bush administration. It remains to be seen if anything, any shard of positive value, will eventually proceed from the horrible tragedy that is 9/11.
# posted by
:
8:39 AM, December 21, 2005
:
8:39 AM, December 21, 2005
Yeah--by "understanding" we meant "awareness". "Comprehension" might have been a better word. Clearly those who were supposed to "be aware" of it were--but most Americans were not. Not aware of the threat, or at least not understanding its scope or its ramifications.
Many Americans must have at least a dim awareness that our dependency on oil makes us both vulnerable and threatening to the Middle East, but the extent to which that posed a threat to our security clearly hadn't sunk in. Nothing the Bush administration has done has changed that, obviously--though reality seems to be sinking in nevetheless.
Not sure what you mean by this, though:
What was attempted during the Clinton administration succeeded during this misbegotten Bush administration.
...partisans that we are...
Many Americans must have at least a dim awareness that our dependency on oil makes us both vulnerable and threatening to the Middle East, but the extent to which that posed a threat to our security clearly hadn't sunk in. Nothing the Bush administration has done has changed that, obviously--though reality seems to be sinking in nevetheless.
Not sure what you mean by this, though:
What was attempted during the Clinton administration succeeded during this misbegotten Bush administration.
...partisans that we are...
Just stumbled across your article regarding Bush, the war in Iraq, 9/11, etc. No matter who is holding the office of President, they are going to be criticized for any/all decisions that they make and for the most part, criticisms are by and large just partisan politics. Former President Clinton knew just as much about international terrorists threats as Bush did. IÕm willing to bet (right or not) that if ClintonÕs father had been threatened by Saddam, he would have had a wild hair up his butt to finish the job from the first desert warÉ.Just my .02.
Thanks for readingÉ
Post a Comment
Thanks for readingÉ
# posted by
:
11:43 AM, December 22, 2005
:
11:43 AM, December 22, 2005
Links to this post:
<< Home
