The Republicans And 9/11: The Political Exploitation Of A Tragedy

Following the international terrorist crimes against the United States and humanity on 9/11, we had the whole world with us. Even the Iranians marched in the streets in support of the victims of that unjustifiable attack.

Yet instead of building a true coalition against terror, George Bush divided up the world by announcing, "You're either for us or against us" and coining the "axis of evil," which included Iran. Bush's divisive speech immediately put Iranian reformers and democrats on the defensive and strengthened the hard-liners, those most antagonistic toward America.

That Bush and the neoconservatives used 9/11 to further their agenda is made clear by Richard A. Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror." Clarke, who served three presidents on the National Security Staff, wrote in this revelatory work, "It did not have to be this way. We did not have to go after Iraq on September 11."

But George Bush was determined to have his war. In what was for me the most memorable scene in the book, Clarke describes the president's demands in the Situation Room:

"Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all...but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but...see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred..."

"Absolutely, we will look...again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the president said testily and left us.

"It did not have to be this way" applies not only to the war in Iraq. It applies to a whole host of ways in which 9/11 was used to further the neoconservative agenda and its methods: waterboarding and other forms of torture; the evasion of constitutional rights in Guantanamo; the disgrace of Abu Ghraib; the wiretapping of Americans' calls overseas with the collusion of major phone companies and a cowardly Congress; the administration's attempts to suspend habeas corpus; the president's decision that he can declare anyone an enemy combatant and hold that individual for as long as he deems necessary; the use of extraordinary rendition (the shipping of prisoners to countries that practice torture) and other violations of the Constitution and civil liberties.

So when Sarah Palin sneered at the Republican National Convention, "Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"–I answer yes, I'm worried, and for three reasons: I want to preserve the constitutional rights that we cherish in our democracy, I believe in our legal system in which all are innocent until proven guilty, and I don't blindly trust the actions of the government, particularly this administration. I believe that these are profoundly American responses.

I find it disturbing that ever since 9/11, the Republicans have used the tragedy as a political tool to imply that only they, not the Democrats, will protect America.  Thus we have Dick Cheney suggesting in 2004 that only by electing George Bush, not John Kerry the Vietnam veteran, will we keep America safe: "“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

In his commentary above, Keith Olbermann justly takes the Republicans to task for their exploitative use of an explicit 9/11 video at their convention, as well as John McCain for his blustering claim that he "knows how" to bring bin Laden to justice. Rudy Giuliani is also criticized for his constant reference of 9/11 to build his political image. In his convention speech, Giuliani stated, "During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." How many times is acceptable according to Giuliani? What makes him the arbiter? The former mayor's performance following 9/11, after all, is the subject of some controversy, as Olbermann points out, for his use of the Twin Towers as an emergency command center after the first attack. There are also questions about the Giuliani administration's not providing firefighters with proper communications equipment and its failure to enforce federal safety requirements during Ground Zero cleanup operations, at a terrible human cost.

September 11 was a horrific tragedy for the country and the world, one that made no distinctions among the two major parties. It's time for the Republicans to stop trying to take political advantage out of it–and to reflect on the wisdom of their decisions in response to the horrific events of seven years ago.