Ten years on, the non-reality-based kabuki continues
Yesterday Paul Krugman published a brief column decrying the shameful way 9/11 was hijacked and exploited. That the tragedy was, indeed, hijacked to serve a prior agenda is simply a fact, which all reasonable people understand. For example, here’s an excerpt from Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, describing the conversations happening in the White House on September 12, 2001:
I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq…
By the afternoon on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and “getting Iraq.” Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell and his deputy, Rich Armitage. “I thought I was missing something here,” I vented. “Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.”
Powell shook his head. “It’s not over yet.”
Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets.
I note with amusement that former Secretary Rumsfeld cancelled his subscription to the Times this morning in protest against Krugman’s column.
22 Responses to “Ten years on, the non-reality-based kabuki continues”
-
votermom says:
I really like Dandy Tiger’s reaction to Krugman’s post,
http://crayfisher.wordpress.co.....ment-26439To me, Krugman saying 9/11 is an occasion for shame isn’t just about how certainly political leaders have done bad things since 9/11, but also implies, though perhaps not intentionally, that we don’t deserve the luxury of simply morning our losses.
To me, that’s no different than those crazy fundies who protest military funerals because the wars and 9/11 itself are all the fault of us being tolerant of gays.
People are hurting. Perhaps this isn’t the best time for that.September 13th, 2011 at 11:36 am EST -
Violet Socks says:
That isn’t what Krugman was saying at all.
Wow, that link. You have some real wingnuts over there.
-
scott says:
To me, the pushback on Krugman perfectly illustrates the problem he was trying to describe. In the aftermath of 9/11, if anyone attempted to understand why we were attacked and whether any of it could be linked to things our government was doing or not doing, charges of enabling, excusing, and justifying the attacks were routine. The attacks themselves and the understandable emotions they generated were used as a reason not to think critically or analytically about them. That kind of political atmosphere, high on emotion and low on critical thought, allowed our leaders to justify things like Iraq that would never have passed the laugh test otherwise. I took Krugman to be saying that we should remember 9/11, but we should also remember how as a country we were suckered by folks using 9/11 to do things that ultimtaely hurt us as a country. If we’re not going to learn that lesson and instead argue that thinking hard about 9/11 and its aftermath is somehow an affront to the victims (10 years later), we’re in deep trouble.
-
votermom says:
It’s a free speech area.
In fact I’ll probably register GOP sometime this month to vote in our primary. Bill Clinton turned me into a Democrat; Obama is about to turn me into a GOPer. It’s funny though, I don’t think my positions changed – it’s just the lines that got redrawn around me. Kind of like a virtual redistricting. -
Violet Socks says:
votermom, if your positions haven’t changed, and yet now you find yourself a comfortable fit within the GOP, then I daresay you were never really a Democrat, or at least never a liberal. You were just mistaken about where you belonged.
scott, I agree. I personally don’t share Krugman’s feeling that 9/11 is impossibly poisoned (although I share his opinion of everything that was done to exploit and hijack that event), but it’s a matter of personal feeling and experience. My own ability to keep the actual tragedy separate probably has a lot to do with the fact that I don’t watch TV. I deliberately spare myself all that jingoistic crap, all the cant, all the fakery. Krugman, however, lives in pundit land, and cannot escape it. I suspect that his disgust—his feeling that 9/11 has been irretrievably contaminated—stems from his very real anguish about the actual events of that day. If he didn’t care about the tragedy, he wouldn’t be so bitter about how it was hijacked.
-
votermom says:
Actually we were discussing that on the blog recently – remember that political compass test from pre 2008? I still fall in the same spot – lower left quadrant.
http://crayfisher.wordpress.co.....ian-lefty/
For example, I still think the Patriot Act is a bad idea, as I have since it first passed, but now Democratic appointee Janet Napolitano have it so I will get either xrayed or groped if I fly (or both), and that’s worse than what it was under a GOP admin.
There are certainly a lot of things about the GOP I don’t like, but at the moment, it’s the Dems who are out of control with the rhetoric, authoritarianism, and corruption.
-
Violet Socks says:
…but now Democratic appointee Janet Napolitano have it so I will get either xrayed or groped if I fly (or both), and that’s worse than what it was under a GOP admin.
There are certainly a lot of things about the GOP I don’t like, but at the moment, it’s the Dems who are out of control with the rhetoric, authoritarianism, and corruption.
That’s because the Democrats are the ones in power. The parties have not switched sides. Good lord, you cannot possibly be this confused. The rightward shift is ongoing, and the problem with the current Democrats is that instead of reversing the trend they have continued to ride it. It doesn’t mean the GOP is any better. In fact, the GOP is quite a bit worse. They are far more rightwing and radical now than they were even under Bush.
You cannot possibly be this confused.
-
votermom says:
I don’t think I am confused. For one thing, I never said they switched sides – when did I say that? They redrew the lines.
The Dems have proved to be as evil as the GOP, that simple.Since the GOP is the opposition party, they are my only hope for the end this current nightmare. But only if the only honest candidate gets in, which I hope she will soon.
The GOP is not worse than the Dems. They are equally evil (the GOP being more open about it in some ways). What I’ve learned is that within each evil party, sometimes a good leader arises. Bill Clinton. was one. Hillary would have been another. Palin could be another.
The party doesn’t matter. It’s the record and the character.
-
Violet Socks says:
Sarah Palin is your hope for a return to liberal values?
-
votermom says:
No, she’s my hope for sudden and relentless reform. Get the lobbyists and the cronies out and reboot. A limited government is not ideal, but it’s better than a totalitarian one. Liberal values will have to wait.
Unless the Dems draft Hillary, that is. I would rather vote for Hillary. But since she’s not available, I hope that the Palin, as the anti-Obama, gets the WH. -
Violet Socks says:
I’m sorry. I think you have a bad case of whatever it was that afflicted the Obamabots in 2008.
-
Violet Socks says:
And let me just add, to be perfectly clear: I’m not saying that to insult you. I’m being totally honest. I believe you’re caught up in what you want to believe and ignoring what you don’t want to believe. If you respect my opinion on anything, I’d urge you to give it some thought.
-
Toonces says:
Get the lobbyists and the cronies out and reboot.
Through deregulation? I am not being snarky, I genuinely don’t understand how this would happen through limiting “government” or without some kind of law or enforcement of existing laws (more “government”). Or maybe I’m just unclear about SP’s beliefs. How does she plan to do this?
-
Sameol says:
I know this is tangential to the point of your post, but I have a hard time believing that Powell was this stalwart fighting the good fight, as he’s always portrayed. He’d spent a good chunk of his career as a Republican yes man, he’d jumped at the chance to lend his reputation to validate Bush’s “legitimacy,” but overnight he becomes a tireless profile in courage? I don’t think I buy that, despite David Hare, Clarke, and his entire PR team.
-
Carmonn says:
The Republican establishment may hate Palin, but it’s not because they’re afraid that she’s going to usher in an era of good government. I absolutely despise the double standards she’s subjected to as much as anyone, I hate the fact that she’s become the most effecive symbol of scary Republicanism when she’s no worse than any other right-wing nut as much as anyone. But, ultimately, she is very conservative, and she is a politician, and she is a proud member of the Republican Party.
I would vote for her for the symbolic value and as a wake-up call to the Democrats to abandon the the belief that sexism is the most effective political strategy they can employ.
But, personally, I don’t have any illusions about her policies, and as far as cronyism and reform, most politicians run against corruption, but few actually do anything about it, except maybe in a cynical fashion when the opportunity arises to punish their political opponents.
-
votermom says:
Or maybe I’m just unclear about SP’s beliefs. How does she plan to do this?
http://crayfisher.wordpress.co.....residency/
Violet, #12 – Of course that’s possible. I was planning to vote for Edwards at one point; clearly I have a weakness for populist rhetoric. But another thing I think is that I didn’t grow up here; I don’t think I see politics through the same Dem/GOP paradigm you do. I grew up in a very corrupt banana republic, where it took an ultra-conservative woman to overthrow a dictator. She didn’t have a good economic plan, but the guy who came after her, who would not have had a chance if she had not gone before, did ok.
-
votermom says:
Toonces, also, she is following the economic views of Luigi Zingales
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/fa.....2826023936
in-a nutshell interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm7cerYcgOM -
Violet Socks says:
Votermom, thanks for the link in #16. I see now where you’re coming from. And all I can say is that you’ve fallen for the entire trainload of Reaganomic propaganda. None of it’s true. None of the things you say “make sense” to you are true. Economics doesn’t work that way, government doesn’t work that way. You do not end “crony capitalism” by limiting government and reducing regulations; actually those are all moves designed to benefit crony capitalists. You do not increase general prosperity by lowering taxes on the rich and on corporations, or by limiting social programs. The problem with America is not that our tax rates are too high or that business doesn’t have a free hand or that we aren’t drilling for oil in national parks.
All of that, every single bit of it, is the propaganda that the GOP dreamed up in the late 70s/early 80s to convince average Americans to vote for them. None of it is true. All of those measures—the deregulation, the limited government, the lower taxes—are designed to do exactly what they have been doing since 1980: to enable and protect the wealth of the oligarchs, to enable and protect corporatocracy. The result is the world we have now.
The real clientele of the GOP is the oligarchs and plutocrats; that entire agenda is for them. The voters are the suckers who are fed a line of bull to trick them into voting for it.
What has happened, it seems to me, is that as an immigrant you have recapitulated exactly what happened to so many Americans in 1980. You’ve fallen for it.
-
LandOLincoln says:
Violet, I think you need to look beyond her current rhetoric and take a look at Palin’s record as governor of Alaska. It’s impressive–she governed as a moderate, kicked Big Oil’s ass, and left office with an unprecedented 89% approval rating.
That record, combined with McCain’s stated intention to restore the Depression-era HOLC (Homeowners’ Loan Corporation), not to mention his close friendship with Hillary and the clear signals from the Clintons to us PUMAs in August 2008, was more than enough to cause this lifelong liberal Democrat to vote McCain/Palin then–and if Palin runs against Obama next year I’ll vote for her again.
BTW, the late 2008 economic “crisis” was clearly ginned up by the Bankster Boyz terrified that McCain/Palin were running neck and neck with their bought and paid for shill. Nothing will convince me that this country wouldn’t have been in far, far better shape today if the Obots hadn’t managed to steal that election.
-
Violet Socks says:
Violet, I think you need to look beyond her current rhetoric and take a look at Palin’s record as governor of Alaska.
You mean I should ignore the 5 point plan she clearly enunciated and that votermom linked to? Why would I do that? Why would I ignore what she is clearly telling me she believes and plans to do?
Obama fans made a huge mistake in 2008 when they ignored what Obama said and wrote about his beliefs and instead fantasized him into something else.
-
Violet Socks says:
left office with an unprecedented 89% approval rating.
No, her approval rating when she left office was in the 50s.
the clear signals from the Clintons to us PUMAs in August 2008
What?
BTW, the late 2008 economic “crisis” was clearly ginned up by the Bankster Boyz terrified that McCain/Palin were running neck and neck with their bought and paid for shill.
WHAT?
Actually, never mind. Just never mind.
-
lambert strether says:
Wait!! The Palin permathread is over here!!!
* * *
For me, the 911 anniversary is poisoned. I hate being told what to feel — which is why I hate Xmas — and that’s what the 911 crapola is all about. Sometimes I get the, er, feeling that people, er, feel their own feelings are somehow delegitimized if others don’t visibly share them. I mourn the country that used to be, even if that’s an illusion, but that’s not on the approved list.
