Ten years after the 9-11 attacks on America a question remains. What else can be done by civilized countries all around the world to confront the worldwide threat of radical Islam?After the terrible problem of radical Islam landed in President Obama's lap in January of 2009, the discourse on this most pressing problem finally moved a bit beyond the partisan-obsessed “hatred” of warring domestic political opponents.
But some political residue remains. Clearly the personal and political hatred for George W. Bush retarded the process of problem-solving for years. Often it had been suggested by high profile Bush-haters that the nasty problem with radical Islam was simply overblown. Some even suggested (former Obama Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and actor Charlie Sheen) that President Bush actually knew in advance about the attacks and did nothing about his advance knowledge for "political gain."
The history of evidence of the ongoing threat of radical Islam spans decades. There were mass murders at the Olympics at Munich in 1972, hostage taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, the murder of 250 peace-keeping U.S. Marines in Beirut during the 1980’s, mass murder over Lockerbie, Scotland, countless hijack killings, the deadly World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the deadly nightclub explosion in Bali, train bombings in London and then again in Spain in 2005, the most recent murder plot foiled by Scotland Yard on August 10, 2006 (which hoped to blow up as many as ten loaded passenger jets leaving London with liquid explosives), and of course the nearly 3,000 murders on 9-11. In recent years there have been many more attacks including an attack at Fort Hood, Texas that killed 13 and wounded 29. Still, until President Obama replaced George Bush in the White House, many Bush haters remained relatively comfortable in denying that there actually was an overwhelming threat to world peace posed by radical Islam.
Throughout history acknowledging the reality of an “external threat” has always had a strengthening effect on incumbent political leaders. And politically speaking, it is an undeniable truth that in a philosophically divided nation, George W. Bush derived virtually all of his resurgence of political support amongst independents immediately AFTER radical Islam attacked America on 9-11. There can be little doubt that this horrible “external threat” posed by radical Islam helped Bush more than any other single factor, to become a two-term president.
With this psychological backdrop in mind, it is easier to understand why for the Bush-hating partisans, 9-11 was particularly painful “political event.” And accordingly, for Bush-haters, to actually admit that 9-11 is still the defining moment of 21st century history requires a concession that America actually had a real enemy that Bush had to fight. Reluctantly one must conclude that even the basic “premise” that radical Islam is a threat, created an reality pathway that no Bush-hating partisan wanted to start down. Denial became the preferred path for many.
Fast-forwarding to the present, with President Obama as Commander and Chief, the “communications interception tactics,” (like those used by Scotland Yard to thwart the plane bombings in London several years ago) have continued. And these preventive actions have continued with far fewer objections from the partisan ACLU and other Bush-haters. This has been good news for national security. Reality has jolted President Obama. And he is on the record now of saying he admired President Bush for reminding people of who America’s real “enemy is (al Queada - radical Islam). Earlier this week, former Vice President Dick Cheney gave great credit to President Obama for following through on the effort to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. At some point, and regardless of political leanings, all citizens must face the reality that radical Islam is like an inoperable cancer that still grows on the body we call the human race. There is no question that the acts of organized hatred that radical Islam is sworn to perpetuate, are dangerous to the freedoms of all civilized societies.
And so it is on the 10th anniversary of 9-11 that we reach the inescapable conclusion that the very process of engaging in “hatred,” whether it is partisan, religious, or some other form, will always cloud the judgments of any human being. Citizens who swear allegiance to best practices and never support dumb ideas or engage in illogical denials of basic facts based on political party considerations, are a far too precious commodity.
Today we will again see the chilling images of the towers collapse. We will also see images from Shanksville, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon. Finally we will see images of Presidents Bush and Obama and the First Ladies as they overlook Ground Zero. And as we do so we should all know that the 9-11 attacks should have never been about politics. However, like everything else, if we as a people allow moments in history to be about politics, they will be about politics.
The Politics of 9-11
From the Santa Fe New Mexican - Gov. Susana Martinez, who has been working to trim the number of Cabinet-level agencies in state government, already has fewer people on the state payroll writing news releases and serving as spokesmen. As of last week, 27 public-information officers were working for the state, compared with 51 at one point in former Gov. Bill Richardson's administration. In addition to fewer such employees, their salaries are lower, drawing cheers from fiscal conservatives. "It's not atypical of what we have seen from her," said Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation think tank. Gessing said Martinez has cut back on spending compared to Richardson but "hasn't gone as far back" as the tight-fisted spending levels under the last Republican governor, Gary Johnson. "On one hand, I applaud her for cutting back and reducing pay in tough public times," Gessing said. "Is there more to go? Quite possibly." Read more
Posts
