Burning Down The White House
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Wednesday, August 20 2003, 10:00AM
Yesterday's deadly terrorist attacks at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and on a crowded bus in Jerusalem reveal just how vulnerable we still are to attack. The two bombs, which killed almost 100 people, not only destroyed concrete and steel. They also ripped apart the argument that Bush is strong on national security.
When the lights went out last week in New York, almost everyone immediately suspected terrorism. Whenever a plane crashes anywhere with Americans on board, we instantly suspect terrorism. Whenever any mass tragedy occurs, we can't help thinking about terror.
We are a nation united in jitters. That's not necessarily unreasonable, but it wasn't supposed to be this way.
Remember after 9/11, when Bush promised he would hunt down the terrorists and make them pay? Remember when he pushed for an office of homeland security to make us more secure? Remember when he told us the world would be safer once we enacted regime change in Iraq?
Well, it's almost two years since 9/11 now, and what do we have to show for it? Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, is still on the loose. The office of homeland security has avoided issuing new color-coded warnings out of fear that Americans have become desensitized to them. Afghanistan has blown up into violence again. And although Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen in Iraq, American soldiers and U.N. workers are being killed by the dozens there.
Wait, I thought foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit. With the economic indicators down, the federal deficit at a new high, and the loss of millions of jobs, Bush surely can't campaign for reelection on his record on the economy. He needs national security issues to keep us afraid, but not too afraid that we think he's not doing his job.
So tell me again why Bush is such a strong leader. Is it because he sticks to his guns? Yeah, maybe, but remember "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." What's the virtue in stubbornness when your policies aren't working?
When Bush's first tax cut failed to stimulate the economy, he had a quick and ready answer. He simply offered a second tax cut. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. When the war against Afghanistan didn't rout the terrorists, Bush came with up another solution. He led us to another war in Iraq. And now that his second war seems a failure, he's probably busy drawing up plans for a new villain to attack.
Someone once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That seems to be a good definition of George W. Bush. But if Americans continue to support this president, maybe we're just as crazy.
Comments conceal
Kenneth Winfrey
August 20 2003, 2:44PM
Perhaps it has taken this insanity to motivate votors. Low voter turnout among democrats who might have voted him out, (and the slight weakness of his contender), as well as the empty wagons that ran to the polls after shoveling ths man tons of dollars to "dumb down" the nation have put us in this peculiar position.
Never before since McCarthy have so many been accused of being something other than American just for asking questions and having a difference of opinion. We have given up our civil liberties and our civil rights are skating on thin ice. Like Natalie from the Dixie Chicks, I too am ashamed of my fellow stateman Mr. Ashcroft. I guess I can't be surprised, the southwester Missourians are quite racist...
Having said all that, perhaps some sense of outrage will replace the apathy that got us here. Candidates like Dean and Sharpton promise to remind us of what freedom and peace look like for real--not this police state, neo-colonialism masked as security and foriegn policy that push the definitions of diplomacy well-beyond its limits.
Roger Pollard
August 20 2003, 4:05PM
And why did this "fearless leader," Mr. George W. Bush, ignore the nuclear issue with the North Koreans? The answer is plain and simple, fear. Someone there might actually shoot back!
Kola Boof
August 20 2003, 4:55PM
Keith,
I'm voting for Howard Dean this year.
But as someone who is from that part of the world (my parents were murdered in front of me--I know what TERRORISM is first hand)...and on behalf of millions of other black Africans...I am glad that Bush attacked Arab Muslim Imperialism and I am glad that the Arabs are being reminded that their inhumanity and evil practices against women and blacks will not continue to be kept in the dark...a secret from the world.
And let me tell you something about terror...there is NO ONE anywhere in the world who can "predict" or protect people from this kind of terrorism...anymore than you can predict or prevent someone from pulling a prank on you (which is what it us).
Unless Americans GET REAL and stop all this politically correct b.s. and let those Arab regimes and fundamentalist groups know that you are not going to tolerate "chemical rain" being dropped on your children of bombs going off in movie theatures....then it's going to happen when we least expect, and it will be the places you least expect...like Silver Bed, Idaho or somewhere.
Again, I will be voting for Howard Dean, but I reiterate that regardless of WHY Bush did something in the Arab world...I'm glad he did.
Keith Boykin
August 21 2003, 1:26PM
Clarence,
I'm afraid your messages are too long for the comment section. They have been moved to the message board.
Travis
August 21 2003, 8:35PM
Kola,
I truly appreciate the your posts to this web site because they expose me to a voice that I rarely get in my group of friends and in law school.
My only direct experience with terrorism as it is traditionally understood is having been in lower Manhattan on 9/11, so I know very little about what it must be like to live under a reign of constant and unfettered terrorism. I do believe a sustained military reponse against organizations that commit terrorists acts was very necessary and just...In addition, I have long been troubled by the human rights attrocities committed by Arab/Muslim fundamentalists against various groups including women, Blacks, homosexuals and others. My concern with the current U.S.-led war on terror is based, however, on my doubt that these human rights violations are the motivation for the war. In fact, I think they barely amount to an afterthought used to gain fringe support for military actions. Nor do I believe that the message being sent to the "evil doers" is one in which their brutality against women, blacks, or homoseuxals will no longer be tolerated.
At times when it has suited our needs, the government of our country has funded, trained, and covertly supported some of the very individuals and organizations we are now waging a war against. Had we not been the victim of an attack, would the violence occurring against disfavored groups in Arab countries prompt U.S. intervention? I doubt it. Moreover, should a point come when Americans feel that a threat of such another attack is less imminent, further protection of these groups from abuse and violence will be even less existent than it is currently. And sadly, Americans (read: the U.S. government) probably won't care.
I am the last person who would argue for political correctness over practicality and true justice. The question that I am struggling with is: Are the actions of my government truly making the world a safer place for all people OR are we taking actions with little actual impact and whose only purpose is to make middle-America sleep better at night under an illusion of safety?
I am really interested in what you think, Kola.
Travis
Ron
August 22 2003, 4:42AM
The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders . . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce their opponents for lack of patriotism!
Hermann Goering...Hitler's Deputy and Luftwaffe Commander (During Nuremberg Trial of Nazi War Criminals).