I hope I've made it clear that I'm as distraught as anyone (more than most, I'd imagine) at how our freedoms have been eroded and how the government's power has increased in the past eight years.
Having said that, I am willing to concede the extraordinary fact that later this year we'll see the 8th anniversary of 9/11 having suffered no terrorist attacks in the United States. On 9/12/01 I would not have believed this was possible for Bush to leave office with no further attacks. It's a real accomplishment and one I think Bush is not credited enough for.
I will document here that I will be annoyed when, after the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we will find out ow George Bush is to blame. This will another in the series of annoyances I have when we blame Bush for stuff that isn't his fault: we have so much to blame him for, it's strange to make things up.
The reason I bring this up now is that Eugene Robinson's column in the WaPo today sort of set the stage for this retro-blaming argument we're sure to see. It started to make me frustrated. We need to address the very real erosion of our freedoms, but on the basis of right and wrong, not on the basis that they are ineffective as deterrants to terrorists. For better or for worse, and metaphysical (unknowable) Truth laid aside, Bush and Cheney get to use the effectiveness argument. It may not be fair, but that's the way it works, we'll need to find other bases on which to take back ground on freedoms--I think they are solid enough on their own; "Those who are willing to give up essential liberty..." and what-not.
Having said that, I am willing to concede the extraordinary fact that later this year we'll see the 8th anniversary of 9/11 having suffered no terrorist attacks in the United States. On 9/12/01 I would not have believed this was possible for Bush to leave office with no further attacks. It's a real accomplishment and one I think Bush is not credited enough for.
I will document here that I will be annoyed when, after the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we will find out ow George Bush is to blame. This will another in the series of annoyances I have when we blame Bush for stuff that isn't his fault: we have so much to blame him for, it's strange to make things up.
The reason I bring this up now is that Eugene Robinson's column in the WaPo today sort of set the stage for this retro-blaming argument we're sure to see. It started to make me frustrated. We need to address the very real erosion of our freedoms, but on the basis of right and wrong, not on the basis that they are ineffective as deterrants to terrorists. For better or for worse, and metaphysical (unknowable) Truth laid aside, Bush and Cheney get to use the effectiveness argument. It may not be fair, but that's the way it works, we'll need to find other bases on which to take back ground on freedoms--I think they are solid enough on their own; "Those who are willing to give up essential liberty..." and what-not.
2 comments:
You are right that there's a lot of anticipatory positioning going on here. Cheney is the instigator in this instance, though the right-wingers in general are also saying the same things. The argument that they are making in advance is that Obama's putting us at risk with his policies, so that when there is another attack, they can claim vindication. "See, we told you that being weak on terrorism would only lead to another attack!"
(All of this assumes that, someday, there will be another attack on US soil.)
This positioning is what is prompting counter-arguments like Robinson's -- preemptively calling bullshit on that tactic.
FWIW, I didn't see a retro-blame-Bush tone so much as an anti-Cheney-vindication tone in this article. There's an argument to be made that Bush/Cheney made things worse, but I didn't read that. There was no "the next attack will be Bush's fault" sentiment expressed. Contra your point, there's no consensus that "Bush and Cheney get to use the effectiveness argument," and Robinson was directly disputing that contention.
I couldn't agree with you more that, "We need to address the very real erosion of our freedoms, but on the basis of right and wrong." But I think it's also important to counter the assumption that the more aggressive, less legal techniques are always more effective. If people are scared, they are more open to whatever they think will work best, and there's value in pointing out fact like that the FBI got more information out of Zubayda (sp?) with legal techniques than the CIA did with torture (etc etc etc).
How long was it in between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second?
In between 9/11 and today, were there attacks on our allies in an effort to weaken support for the war in Iraq? How many resources are available launch these attacks?
It is a giant leap to say that Bill Clinton or George Bush get "credit" for the seven years without subsequent attacks on U.S. soil during their watches. (BTW, they both had attacks on U.S. soldiers and sailors, what do those count for?)
I'm pissed W alienated our allies and failed to bring the world together to find the people who attacked our country, because he could of. That is separate from how pissed I am that he shreaded the constitution.
Post a Comment