Politics and the 9/11 Attacks

If the Democrats weren't afraid of sounding like an opposition party, a whole lot of them would sound like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

His latest column, "Exploiting the Atrocity," is right on target. Bush and his crew missed an incredible opportunity to unify the nation behind a meaningful fight against terrorism. Instead, they played bitterly divisive partisan politics with it. And now they have to ride that tiger:

In the first months after 9/11, the administration's ruthless exploitation of the atrocity was a choice, not a necessity. The natural instinct of the nation to rally around its leader in times of crisis had pushed Mr. Bush into the polling stratosphere, and his re-election seemed secure. He could have governed as the uniter he claimed to be, and would probably still be wildly popular.

But Mr. Bush's advisers were greedy; they saw 9/11 as an opportunity to get everything they wanted, from another round of tax cuts, to a major weakening of the Clean Air Act, to an invasion of Iraq. And so they wrapped as much as they could in the flag.

Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels.

And, as Krugman describes, Rummy's endorsement earlier this week of the stab-in-the-back theory to try to bludgeon war critics into silence is just a sign of ugliness that's likely to get much much as we go into the Presidential campaign year.
It's going to be a bumpy ride.

- Bruce Miller

Hearing: Lorrie Morgan, "I Threw Away the Rose" (Merle Haggard)

Tags: 9/11, global war on terror, war on terror