Democrat Defensiveness
by Bob Clasen
I watched the 9/11 movie on ABC. While it so happens that the Democrats were in charge until Bush took over, both parties were criticized. I thought the point of the movie was not to attack Democrats, but to point out the sort of policies that allowed a fairly incompetent group of arabs to take down the two towers. There were so many opportunities to catch them, all passed up. The movie did not even bring up all of the examples listed in the 9/11 commission. No one was alert to the threat at that time. That was the point. Note that Mosauwai's computer was never searched and the Justice Department did not go through the alleged procedure for allowing a legal search as it felt there was no good cause.
As for Bush's speech, he never mentioned Democrats once.
The reaction of the Democrats to Bush and the movie is an interesting one, psychologically speaking.
If the Democrats feel comfortable with their position on terrorism, why are they so amazingly defensive and sensitive about the subject? Threatening the license of ABC for showing the movie?? My goodness gracious. That is almost Stalinist.
Republicans are not so defensive, in part, because they are used to being pilloried day after day in the mainstream media, and by Hollywood. So they have developed thicker skin. The Democrats apparently have grown to expect that "their" media is always going to be attacking Republicans and defending Democrats in every situation. So the faintest criticism provokes this sort of hysterical response.
The problem I have with "remembering" 9/11 by only talking about the firemen and the victims is that it conveniently ignores why the two Towers fell down. It was not a natural catastrophe like an earthquake. It was an attack by an armed enemy. The 9/11 movie unlike the Oliver Stone movie, addressed this issue squarely. We have an international movement that seeks to destroy the United States, punish us, murder us with no feeling of guilt or compunction. We are in a world war against Islamic Fundamentalists, a war they declared. A war Democrats do not want to wage.
I watched the 9/11 movie on ABC. While it so happens that the Democrats were in charge until Bush took over, both parties were criticized. I thought the point of the movie was not to attack Democrats, but to point out the sort of policies that allowed a fairly incompetent group of arabs to take down the two towers. There were so many opportunities to catch them, all passed up. The movie did not even bring up all of the examples listed in the 9/11 commission. No one was alert to the threat at that time. That was the point. Note that Mosauwai's computer was never searched and the Justice Department did not go through the alleged procedure for allowing a legal search as it felt there was no good cause.
As for Bush's speech, he never mentioned Democrats once.
The reaction of the Democrats to Bush and the movie is an interesting one, psychologically speaking.
If the Democrats feel comfortable with their position on terrorism, why are they so amazingly defensive and sensitive about the subject? Threatening the license of ABC for showing the movie?? My goodness gracious. That is almost Stalinist.
Republicans are not so defensive, in part, because they are used to being pilloried day after day in the mainstream media, and by Hollywood. So they have developed thicker skin. The Democrats apparently have grown to expect that "their" media is always going to be attacking Republicans and defending Democrats in every situation. So the faintest criticism provokes this sort of hysterical response.
The problem I have with "remembering" 9/11 by only talking about the firemen and the victims is that it conveniently ignores why the two Towers fell down. It was not a natural catastrophe like an earthquake. It was an attack by an armed enemy. The 9/11 movie unlike the Oliver Stone movie, addressed this issue squarely. We have an international movement that seeks to destroy the United States, punish us, murder us with no feeling of guilt or compunction. We are in a world war against Islamic Fundamentalists, a war they declared. A war Democrats do not want to wage.
Comments
I think democratic defensiveness is based upon the relentless pressure placed upon the Clinton administration by the right, especially during the last three years of his administration.
Everything he did in foreign affairs was a Wag the Dog senario intended to keep the public away from impeachment issues.
I truly believe were it not for the impeachment and scandals over Monica, Clinton could have done far more than he did vis a vie terrorism.
Further, every right wing talk show host gives Bush all the credit for the war on terrorism, but that is post 9/11. The Republicans try to claim the Democrats would have treated the entire matter as a criminal matter, not becoming proactive after 9/11. There is no evidence to support that position, it's just supposition.
And remember, Richard Clark was blown off by Bush/Cheney regarding "immenient threat to attack the US" during the Bush administration.