PLANK SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It’s rare to see an op-ed column set off a furor like the one lit by Kurt Eichenwald's piece in Tuesday's New York Times making the case that George W. Bush’s White House had gotten even more warnings about Al Qaeda’s plans for a major attack than we had previously thought. Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesman at the time of 9/11, lashed out on Twitter at Eichenwald, a former Times reporter, calling him a "truther" (the tag for conspiracy theorists who believe Bush knew the attacks were coming.) Joe Klein called the piece “maddening” because it did not flesh out its explosive accusation that Pentagon neo-conservatives thought the Al Qaeda noise was a plot to distract from Saddam Hussein. Still others found the piece lacking in new information, noting that the 9/11 Commission Report had already referred to multiple warnings to the White House.
I am no expert on national security or counter-intelligence. But the benefit of the piece to the average reader seems plain to me: as a protection against creeping national amnesia. It’s simply remarkable how much fogginess we’ve allowed to spread around the months leading up to the attacks. This is partly a function of understandable psychological self-defense -- it is deeply painful to contemplate all the opportunities that the administration, the FBI, CIA and others had to head off the attacks, as I was reminded a couple years ago when I finally got around to reading Lawrence Wright’s wrenching account of the rising threat of Al Qaeda, The Looming Tower. (I will never forget—spoiler alert—the devastating scene near the end of the book in which Ali Soufan, the FBI agent investigating the USS Cole attack in Yemen, is presented, after the planes have hit, with the file the CIA had been withholding from the FBI with the crucial leads it was sitting on, including the knowledge that two of the 9/11 bombers were inside the U.S. Soufan is so distraught at the discovery that he rushes to the bathroom and vomits.)
But some of the amnesia has not been merely reflexive, but deliberate and political. As the years went on, it became central to the Bush Administration’s case for its success that it had “kept us safe.” Sure, it was understood that they were referring to the period after 9/11, except that sometimes...that distinction slipped away. The classic example is Rudy Giuliani, the politician who should be least likely to forget 9/11. Here’s what he said in March 2010, referring to the Fort Hood shootings: “We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we’ve had one under Obama.” The amnesia was evident again last month at the Republican National Convention, where the huzzahs for Condi Rice’s speech, and the subsequent speculation about her political future, barely stopped to note the rather significant mark on her record as national security adviser.
Just as the amnesia had a partly partisan motivation, seeking to puncture it will seem partisan in its own right. It shouldn’t. We’re talking about the historical record of what happened leading up to that awful day, as documented exhaustively in a bipartisan report. The record should stand as clear as we can bear, without willful clouding.
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
9 comments
We have been told to blame former President Bush for nothing and to blame President Obama for everything. Aside from evaluating the success or failure of the particulars, if former President Bush can identify the effort he made to keep us safe before 9/11, I would like to hear about it. I can cite the efforts President Obama took to try to restore the economy, not to mention taking out Bin Laden and other terrorists.
- Nusholtz
September 11, 2012 at 6:04pm
I've already commented on Eichenwald's op/ed, which is far more important than a discourse on Romney's religion in predicting how the neocons, who gave us both 9/11 and the Iraq War, would likely affect a Romney administration and America's and the world's future, but here I mention the coincidence of the Eichenwald op/ed and Gaeton Fonzi's obituary appearing on the same day in the NYT. Fonzi's wife is quoted as saying that Fonzi believed JFK's murder was a turning point in history, "the point when the American people stopped trusting their government".
- rayward
September 11, 2012 at 6:46pm
I have remained stunned by how little accountability there was after the 9/11 report. Hell, it was practically used as a PR tool to go into Iraq when it was clearly the opposite. If the US wants to survive through the next century we as a nation need to take a cold hard look at the failures that led up to 9/11, as well as how people were hoodwinked into invading Iraq. The decisions we made as a nation in the areas of foreign policy and intelligence were absolutely indefensible, and we cannot forget that.
- Attrill
September 11, 2012 at 8:35pm
Let the games begin. It seems that the only effective way to reopen this case is to have a trial in the press. We can thank the conservative-packed Supreme Court for staging the judicial coup in 2000 that gave us 8 years of the inept Bush II. Another unfortunate aspect of the 9/11 amnesia is the unwillingness of liberal political and cultural elites to discuss the role of Islam in motivating the Saudi and Egyptian perpetrators of 9/11. Bush II ("Islam is a religion of peace."), Obama and the Clintons must take responsibility for much of our excessive deference to Muslim sensitivities.
- amidut
September 12, 2012 at 7:09am
Excuse me amidut - I agree with you that the judicial coup in 2000 should never be forgotten since it's brought us nothing but woe. But your comment about the Clintons and Obama gives me pause. So I agree and disagree with you. The war in Iraq should also be dissected from a financial standpoint as well as its human cost and immorality. Lives lost among Iraqi civilians is probably more than 100,000 with many estimates ranging far higher. When I remember Wolfowitz claiming that Iraq was "the thinking man's war" I almost threw my shoe at the tube. If you consult The Tinfoil Hat Department they'd say the wars were a means to transfer a huge amount of the people's money to certain private pockets like Haliburton, part of the process of strangling us in the tub which is a stated goal of the Right - and that's sinister in itself. So attacks on America from within - politically, judicially and economically - are of concern. The use of war - is that a mechanism in itself? Certainly war profiteering in itself is nothing new - Iraq reminds me of Catch-22 - Milo Minderminder in particular. One wonders what the right wing SCOTUS justices are thinking - that they made a huge, gigantic mistake? Or if they're "true believers" and think they're right in aiding and abetting our downfall? Or if they themselves have remorse for Bush v Gore and Citizens United, seeing how they've laid waste to the people and our country? But - Amidut - really! - blaming Obama and the Clintons for "excessive deference to Muslim sensibilities," excuse me? First place both Clinton and Obama have been effective at fighting terrorism in a way that the Republicans and "realists" have not - whilst avoiding slandering one of the world's greatest and most powerful religions in toto. Also - and this is important: Islam has over 1.5 billion followers and I see them doing how much mayhem vis a vis the "Christian world" including Russia? Do you really want to get into that math? How far back do you want to go in history? The 20th century alone should be sufficient as an example but if not, there's plenty more in case you're forgotten. Also - importantly - doesn't it make sense to try and get along with people and understand them rather than try and demonize them, stereotype 1.5 billion people as violent extremists, attack them, and exploit their resources? That there are Muslim extremists is indubitable. Some are violent - we have a situation now provoked by a film that is just plain outrageous in its attacks on Islam and its prophet Mohammed - people are outraged. Our ambassador to Libya and several security guards have been killed. About that Americans and people around the world are outraged. So - should the people in Libya and Egypt have reacted violently? In my world no - absolutely not - this film in my opinion is the work of a crackpot and a provocateur - with 1st Amendment rights, in this case unfortunately. To make matters even worse, if possible, he claims to be an Israeli Jew! So - as to the violence - I understand the outrage and the sense of helplessness. A film like that about Jews - well slanders against Jews are common are they not? And the results have been horrendous. People believe them! And we've murdered, segregated, expelled, demonized, decimated. Now - regarding violence in general: the US doesn't have riots because we're offended, we get out the aircraft carrier. We don't storm embassies, lest you've forgotten we've taken out entire countries! Or maybe you've forgotten the attacks on Baghdad, they simply didn't register on your mind? Did you ever put yourself in the shoes of people on the ground there or for that matter in Afghanistan in the 1980's? We were involved in that and don't forget it. Our foreign policy "realists" have a great deal to answer for. Entire countries sacrificed to provoke the Soviets? No biggie. Right?
- Sophia
September 12, 2012 at 12:07pm
Meant to say about Jews - we've BEEN murdered, etc. Sorry. So don't you understand that film about Muslims and how people might be angry? Not to mention the aforementioned military and imperialist attacks and exploitation of Muslim people and countries including all out wars. Nevertheless there will be wholesale blame against Islam and Muslims as a whole for the riots in Benghazi and Cairo. This is stereotyping of the worst kind.
- Sophia
September 12, 2012 at 12:16pm
Sophia, I make a big distinction between Islam and Muslims. Islam is a clearly defined religious political system. As for Muslims, all kinds of people identify as Muslims, whether because of heritage, for social respectability's sake where they live, or out of true conviction. Many are religious conservatives. Some are true liberal democrats, even heroic liberal democrats, which puts them in conflict with Islam. I have met a few of each kind. Islam espouses values contrary to our liberal perspective. It preaches intolerance, hatred of non-believers, the subjugation of women and non-believers. This is baked into Islamic law, called Shariah. Under Shariah, the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a Muslim man. Likewise for Jews and Christians. So I suppose, with this kind of Islamic legal arithmetic, that testimony by Jewish woman in Shariah court is worth only one quarter that of a Muslim man. Liberals have good reason to be concerned about Islam, just as they were concerned about Fascism and Communism. Islam looks powerful, but evidently conservative Muslims are not so sure. They are afraid of any books or movies that question Islam or their prophet. They use controversial books, movies, and cartoons published in foreign countries as pretexts to go on violent rampages. Some scholars question whether Muhammad (which means "praised one") ever lived and conquered Arabia as portrayed . Islam may have been promulgated many years later to provide a unifying ideology for a newly created Arab empire. There is plenty of materials criticizing Judaism, Jews, and Israel, a lot of it untrue or even racist. But Jews don't have riots. They don't murder some people for offenses by other people. Nor are they likely to murder their defamers. But I'll stand by the First Amendment any day. It protects me as well as the people who promote anti-semitism. It is not even found in some of our sister democracies in western Europe. I am glad that American society is strong enough to withstand the worst excesses of free speech. We need to hold Muslims morally and legally accountable for their actions, including the attack on America in September 2001 and Major Nidal Hassan's murder of 13 fellow Americans at Fort Hood. We must not pretend that something other than Islam prompted their murderous behavior. Major Hassan's professional business card announced that he was "soldier of Allah". He publicly ruminated about his Islamic motives for anger towards the United States; nobody stopped him because of political correctness. His professional education was paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. Now, the taxpayers also pay for his incarceration and trial.
- amidut
September 12, 2012 at 4:11pm
Alec seems surprised by the national amnesia regarding 9/11 and certainly the selective amnesia as practiced by the Bush Administration and their still breathing apparatchiks. The amnesia doesn't surprise me. People seem to regard / remember / believe that Pearl Harbor was simply a surprise attack that the US never knew was coming or even considered would happen. Subsequent re-interpretations of that episode paint a selective picture about what happened post-Pearl Harbor. Having read Gordon Prange's 'At Dawn We Slept' as well as a few other accounts on Pearl Harbot, the sheer ineptitude, parochial bickering and turf wars that existed between the then nascent intelligence departments within the Army and Navy, it doesn't surprise me at all that some would choose to forget. If anything this episode regarding 9/11 only illustrates how much more quickly history seems to repeat itself. In this case, it appears to be lacksidasical attitude to learning from our mistakes by adopting the typical American posture - immediate over-reaction to eventual apathy to amnesia.
- singlspeed
September 12, 2012 at 6:16pm
"History is always written by the winners." Blame is usually assigned by the survivors.
- skahn
September 12, 2012 at 8:14pm