8.14.2006
Hoping for Fear (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 14, 2006
Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that “politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots.”
The response from readers was furious — fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. “How can I say that to my young son?” demanded one angry correspondent.
I wonder what he says to his son these days.
We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.
Fecklessness: the administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to actually defending America against terrorist attacks. Now we learn that terrorism experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that the Bush administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. “As the British terror plot was unfolding,” reports The Associated Press, “the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.”
Cynicism: Republicans have consistently portrayed their opponents as weak on terrorism, if not actually in sympathy with the terrorists. Remember the 2002 TV ad in which Senator Max Cleland of Georgia was pictured with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Now we have Dick Cheney suggesting that voters in the Democratic primary in Connecticut were lending aid and comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” There they go again.
More fecklessness, and maybe more cynicism, too: NBC reports that there was a dispute between the British and the Americans over when to make arrests in the latest plot. Since the alleged plotters weren’t ready to go — they hadn’t purchased airline tickets, and some didn’t even have passports yet — British officials wanted to watch and wait, hoping to gather more evidence. But according to NBC, the Americans insisted on early arrests.
Suspicions that the Bush administration might have had political motives in wanting the arrests made prematurely are fed by memories of events two years ago: the Department of Homeland Security declared a terror alert just after the Democratic National Convention, shifting the spotlight away from John Kerry — and, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, blowing the cover of a mole inside Al Qaeda.
(More ... Hoping for Fear - New York Times) ¶ 22:01
Published: August 14, 2006
Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that “politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots.”
The response from readers was furious — fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. “How can I say that to my young son?” demanded one angry correspondent.
I wonder what he says to his son these days.
We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.
Fecklessness: the administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to actually defending America against terrorist attacks. Now we learn that terrorism experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that the Bush administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. “As the British terror plot was unfolding,” reports The Associated Press, “the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.”
Cynicism: Republicans have consistently portrayed their opponents as weak on terrorism, if not actually in sympathy with the terrorists. Remember the 2002 TV ad in which Senator Max Cleland of Georgia was pictured with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Now we have Dick Cheney suggesting that voters in the Democratic primary in Connecticut were lending aid and comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” There they go again.
More fecklessness, and maybe more cynicism, too: NBC reports that there was a dispute between the British and the Americans over when to make arrests in the latest plot. Since the alleged plotters weren’t ready to go — they hadn’t purchased airline tickets, and some didn’t even have passports yet — British officials wanted to watch and wait, hoping to gather more evidence. But according to NBC, the Americans insisted on early arrests.
Suspicions that the Bush administration might have had political motives in wanting the arrests made prematurely are fed by memories of events two years ago: the Department of Homeland Security declared a terror alert just after the Democratic National Convention, shifting the spotlight away from John Kerry — and, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, blowing the cover of a mole inside Al Qaeda.
(More ... Hoping for Fear - New York Times) ¶ 22:01
Comments:
<< Home
While I wish Mr. Krugman would examine the real problem; what actually happened 9/11, he hit some important nails on their heads. Belief that the incumbant has protected America is right up there with putting creationism into the science classroom. The best evidence contradicts the position - the position can only be supported by fanatical adherence to ignorance.
Please consider this metaphor in opposition to the rediculous adherence to the red idea that a man who fails once (actually twice) will do better next time:
You hire a security company. Shortly after hiring the company, your home is robbed and a child is killed, how would you react?
You discover in your limited investigation that the security company had turned off the existing security systems that would have prevented the robbery and the murder in the first place and that senior executives of the company actually watched the breakin happen, doing nothing.
The president of the company destroys the evidence needed to determine how it really happened, who did it and to catch those who did it. This act was a violation of the contract, incidentally. The president tells you you can't have any other evidence because then your house would be robbed again and maybe more children killed. We can't have that.
The president does tell you who he, the president, claims did it, but never catches the person - actually never makes any attempt to catch the person.
On top of that, the president uses your money to try to secure a different neighbor's house rather than catch, try and punish the guy he says did it. And, surprise, that neighbor doesn't want him.
Would you keep that security company? Would you sing phrases such as "we ain't been broken into since then!" ignoring, of course, we were - the mailed anthrax that everyone seems to have forgotten.
Not in a million years.
Please help your readers, your fans, demand a full, impartial investigation of 911?
The reds are like reconstruction (the US South after the Civil War) lych mobs; the real criminal is above the law, so let's go out and hang a minority guy so we feel better.
Is any bad guy enough to satisfy the lust for vengeance? Worse, are innocent lives worth the quest?
Not for me! I neither want the guilty to go free nor the innocent to be condemned. I want the guys who did it to be caught and punished.
Blaming the innocent creates hatred. Think of the continuing fallout in our own country of the innocents murdered after the Civil War. The guilty that died free.
Neither the 911 commision, in its report, nor the FBI, in its publicly available statements, believes that OBL did it. The guy the 911 commission says did it has been in Guatanamo bay for a long time, been subjected to torture and has not confessed.
And, yeh, the facts confirm that a 757 carrying passengers and hijackers hit the pentagon (see 8/13 NYT editorial - "Our Porous Air Defenses on 9/11") and there was no missile involved...but, gosh, the frames released by the FBI (or whoever released them) clearly show two frames (before the hit and at the hit) with contrails streaming from whatever flying object is headed toward the pentagon wall.
But, no commercial flying passenger object of any kind produces contrails at 5 feet off the ground in Washington, DC; watch commercial jets taking off and landing.
Oh, but the 911 commission says it was flight 77. Yeh. Um hum, sure. We don't need no thorough investigation. We know who the bad guys are and we are going to get even - we don't need no trial! I see reconstruction Georgia in comments like that.
I believe that those of us who are victims of 911 deserve closure, especially for my brothers and sisters who have lost their lives or become permanently disabled in a war absolutely unrelated to the crime of 911. Closure means we get to see the suspects caught, tried, found guilty and, for my taste, hung.
Mr. Krugman, go after the source of the president's power - help find the real culprits; the criminals of september 11, 2001.
Post a Comment
Please consider this metaphor in opposition to the rediculous adherence to the red idea that a man who fails once (actually twice) will do better next time:
You hire a security company. Shortly after hiring the company, your home is robbed and a child is killed, how would you react?
You discover in your limited investigation that the security company had turned off the existing security systems that would have prevented the robbery and the murder in the first place and that senior executives of the company actually watched the breakin happen, doing nothing.
The president of the company destroys the evidence needed to determine how it really happened, who did it and to catch those who did it. This act was a violation of the contract, incidentally. The president tells you you can't have any other evidence because then your house would be robbed again and maybe more children killed. We can't have that.
The president does tell you who he, the president, claims did it, but never catches the person - actually never makes any attempt to catch the person.
On top of that, the president uses your money to try to secure a different neighbor's house rather than catch, try and punish the guy he says did it. And, surprise, that neighbor doesn't want him.
Would you keep that security company? Would you sing phrases such as "we ain't been broken into since then!" ignoring, of course, we were - the mailed anthrax that everyone seems to have forgotten.
Not in a million years.
Please help your readers, your fans, demand a full, impartial investigation of 911?
The reds are like reconstruction (the US South after the Civil War) lych mobs; the real criminal is above the law, so let's go out and hang a minority guy so we feel better.
Is any bad guy enough to satisfy the lust for vengeance? Worse, are innocent lives worth the quest?
Not for me! I neither want the guilty to go free nor the innocent to be condemned. I want the guys who did it to be caught and punished.
Blaming the innocent creates hatred. Think of the continuing fallout in our own country of the innocents murdered after the Civil War. The guilty that died free.
Neither the 911 commision, in its report, nor the FBI, in its publicly available statements, believes that OBL did it. The guy the 911 commission says did it has been in Guatanamo bay for a long time, been subjected to torture and has not confessed.
And, yeh, the facts confirm that a 757 carrying passengers and hijackers hit the pentagon (see 8/13 NYT editorial - "Our Porous Air Defenses on 9/11") and there was no missile involved...but, gosh, the frames released by the FBI (or whoever released them) clearly show two frames (before the hit and at the hit) with contrails streaming from whatever flying object is headed toward the pentagon wall.
But, no commercial flying passenger object of any kind produces contrails at 5 feet off the ground in Washington, DC; watch commercial jets taking off and landing.
Oh, but the 911 commission says it was flight 77. Yeh. Um hum, sure. We don't need no thorough investigation. We know who the bad guys are and we are going to get even - we don't need no trial! I see reconstruction Georgia in comments like that.
I believe that those of us who are victims of 911 deserve closure, especially for my brothers and sisters who have lost their lives or become permanently disabled in a war absolutely unrelated to the crime of 911. Closure means we get to see the suspects caught, tried, found guilty and, for my taste, hung.
Mr. Krugman, go after the source of the president's power - help find the real culprits; the criminals of september 11, 2001.
# posted by 
: 2:00 pm
: 2:00 pm<< Home
