IX / XI

IX / XI, Part II: Rudy and George (or, How to Polish a Turd)

Imagine this happening in any other country: the country suffers the worst foreign attack in its history, a surprise attack that kills thousands of civilians. The leadership, at every level, fails to a) forsee, preempt, guard against, or even warn of the attack which, for the citizenry, literally comes out of the blue, and b)mitigate the attack while in progress in any meaningful way.

In any other country, especially if said country claims to be a "democratic" country in which the leadership is "held to account" by the citizenry, this would seem a scandal of epic proportion. What is more unimaginable, though, and unforgivable, is not just that the leadership failed to forsee the attack or to lessen its impact after it began, but that the very same leadership has used the attack as evidence of its competence.

Think about this: President Bush was in charge on the bloodiest day in American history since Gettysburg, and since none of the dead of 9/11 were armed or knowing combatants, we can safely call in the bloodiest day in American history. Now, we all know how Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress were more concerned with sex than Salafists during the 1990's, but let's focus on the salient fact: Bush, and noone else, was president on 9/11.

Bush failed utterly to forsee, guard against, or warn of the impending attacks, despite varied and relatively specific warnings in the prior months. Once the attack began, as noted in a previous posting of mine, he a) failed to realize that it was an attack, and b)failed to act as if he had either the authority or the responsibility to do anything to counter the attack until well after it was over. Until, that is, he was back in the White House, where he asserted his strength by ordering the bombardment of the poorest corner of the Earth as righteous retribution and as evidence of his stoic and unshakable composure under pressure.

The government at every level, from Bush to the fighter pilots, failed to do anything to lessen the impact of the attack once it began. This vast edifice, erected over decades at the cost of trillions to protect the United States from the godless and the communistic, was utterly and totally ineffective. Totally. The one time since 1812 that we needed a Department of "Defense", and we were defenseless.

There was, however, one group that lessened the impact of the attack. Strategic Air Command? Central Intelligence Agency? Joint Task Force on Terrorism? No. A hastily assembled citizens' militia on Flight 93, who understood the situation, adopted a plan of action, and carried it out.

If that plane has crashed into the Capitol, while Congress was in session, a full branch of government would have been wiped out. The ensuing constitutional crisis would have trumped Watergate and the Incredibly Treasonous Blowjob by an order of great magnitude.

After this record of abject failure, President Bush proceeded to use 9/11 as his strength. What kind of morally inverted universe, what kind of Pez-dispenser seance, what kind of common-sense clusterfuck was this? The president failed utterly to forsee or to react, and he proceeded to inform his nation that, since the worst attack to ever happen to America happened on his watch, he was clearly more qualified than the rest to keep us safe. Any logical person would have drawn precisely the opposite conclusion.

Think about this. Say Bush was applying for a job in keeping us safe. Relevant experience? Mr. Bush, can you give us an example of a situation in which you kept America safe? "Well, the worst attack ever happened on my watch." I'm sold. You're hired! President Bush won re-election not in spite of 9/11, but because of it. As the French would say, what the fuck?!

Now Mr. Giuliani is playing the same card. Since he was in charge of the assaulted city, he is an "expert" on national security. He "understands" terrorism. Mr. Giuliani is rightly applauded for showing great physical courage on that day; indeed, he came very close to death because he insisted on leading from up close. This is to be applauded.

But look at the big picture. Giuliani only looks so good because, when compared with Bush's conduct on that day, who wouldn't? It's like the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib, whose torture was cast as "relatively benign", because, for God's sake, look at what Saddam had done.

Giuliani was broke on 9/11. Now he is a multi-millionaire. Why? He is payed more in an hour that what you and I make in a year speaking about 9/11. Why is he an expert? Because he was in charge when his city was attacked. If I am in a restaurant and a suicide bomber comes in and blows himself up, killing several patrons, would I, as a survivor, be accorded the status of "security expert"?

This "expert", Mr. Giuliani, took office shortly after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. Along with many others, Giuliani failed utterly to understand the magnitude of, and the implication of, that attack. During the next seven and a half years, America's mayor did nothing to promote counterterrorism as a priority for New York City. He castigates Clinton's actions in the 1990's while blithely ignoring his own inaction. And let us not forget, his first impulse after 9/11 was to, by decree, postpone elections and prolong his term as mayor. Talk about giving the terrorists what they want.

Now Mr. Giuliani informs us that we will die if we vote Democrat. 9/11 happened during the watch of a Republican president, directed at a city with a Republican mayor. The Republican president proceeded to disastrously mismanage a war which more closely resembled a criminal enterprise, while being cheered along every step of the way by the Republican mayor, who nominated his blackmail magnet of a friend of his to head the Homeland Security Department. Republican negligence from Manhattan to Mosul has cost the United States 7,000 lives and hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars since September 10, 2001. The lesson of all this, according to Mr. Giuliani, is to vote Republican.

We need to think long and hard about this. Why are we elevating the men who were in charge that day to the status of protectors? Common sense tells us that every single element of government failed to protect us that day. Is it because we are gluttons for punishment, or is it because, in retrospect, the worst thing of all about that day was what it said about the total, the total incompetence of our government? This seems to be the hardest thing of all for us to accept. But, as the shareholders in this corporation called America, we need to look after our investments. Fire the CEOs.