July 08, 2004
fear and exceptionalism
7/8/04
This morning before she checked the internet, I said to Tessa, "Okay, so there's been lots of positive press surrounding Kerry's pick of Edwards. So what do you think the Bush administration pulls today?"
"Um, Coach K back to the Lakers?"
"No - but that's a good one."
"I dunno," she said, "maybe a horrible new Al-Qaeda threat?"
And by God, she was right. I know it's been oft-said, but the Bush administration is so nakedly cynical, so irretrievably mean, so transparently OBVIOUS, that today's news should be taken to mean "We, Your Government, Think You Are a Nation of Utter Morons."
So we go with another round of vague threats of terrible shit on the horizon, and yet no specifics, not even a shred of new information. Oh sure, they'll file the Democrats into a meeting with the CIA and disclose something that might happen - I mean, they had to do SOMETHING other than trot out Tom Ridge - but this is both ridiculous and shameful.
You know why? Because my stomach still hurts when I see Bin Laden on the front page of CNN. I still have to ward off waves of apocalyptic nuclear fear every time this kind of crap filters onto the airwaves. So Al-Qaeda remains intent on pulling off a large-scale attack against America? No fucking DUH, you assholes - I was there. I saw the second tower come down in front of my eyes, half a mile away, and I helped ash-covered mothers find their children. My wife and sister spent the next two days helping out at Ground Zero.
It took me a year of therapy and two years of Celexa to be able to function normally again, and every time the Republican bastards blurt out their dire predictions, it takes me hours to wipe the taste out of my mouth, to rid myself of that godawful smell of burning metal. The Bush administration does it for political gain and to cover their asses, but they don't give a shit that it actually hurts many of us.
grundle taint perineum baunch
The problem is obvious: the American public will learn the wrong things from the next big terrorist attack. They will re-elect Bush in a landslide, even though it is people like him that have worked the Muslim world into a furious froth. Al Qaeda wants to kill Americans regardless of their party affiliation, I'll grant you that, but you can't tell me there won't be some hell to pay - for either me or the next generation - for what we've done to the Arab world.
And while he's scaring the shit out of Americans, Bush has the unfathomable temerity to cut funding for local teams whose sole job it is to protect American cities. Not only that, but he has let New York City dangle, while frickin' Wyoming got more terrorist-prevention dollars per capita. I have been to Wyoming many times, my friends, and there is NOTHING worth bombing in Cheyenne (except the crappy Holiday Inn that smells like pee).
Do any of you in the "red states" wonder why the three places that have been the victims - or almost the victims - of a terror attack vote overwhelmingly Democratic? California, New York and D.C. know the fear. I am on the B and Q train every day, and go over the Manhattan Bridge with alarming frequency. My friends (and sister-in-law) work right in the middle of Times Square and Wall Street. When they say a terrorist attack is coming, we feel it on the bridges and in the tunnels, we sense it in the crowds and in the skyscrapers.
My friends in the Red States, you have to come to grips with this; you just don't understand what it's like. Terrorism is an idea to you. And don't give me that shit about "you think New York is the center of the world," because it fucking is. There is no place better to get more bang for your buck; we're all here, crowded together and stacked on top of each other. Those of you in Charleston, Mobile, Amarillo, Nashville and Des Moines can put away your duct tape.
No, the places most affected by terror vote Democratic because they know where the blowback is coming. They want to elect leaders who take the rest of the world into consideration. They want a president and vice-president who have something more than a ham-fisted policy about Us and Them. They want nuance and intelligence. Because they believe their lives ultimately depend on it.
So do me a favor, Red States: when the government gives us another sky-is-falling news flash, please don't listen. And if there is another terrorist attack, please don't vote.
Posted by irw at July 8, 2004 11:48 PMHere's what I don't get (well, besides your odd assertion that Blue state people vote blue because of their more sophisticated thoughts about terrorism, when in fact they were voting blue years before 9/11): Bush ought to be getting *hammered* by the fact that bin Laden and many of his top buddies are still out there. I mean, Bush and his gang completely took their eyes off the only ball that all of America agrees matters, and he gets more or less a free pass, and a bump in his numbers every time his staff mentions the guy, as if the country all agrees that Bush is the best guy to handle bin Laden, when Bush's actions clearly indicate otherwise. Where is the drumbeat on this issue? Bush is a total loser on the one issue that people perceive as his strength. This is absurd. Ian, can't you do something about this?
You know. . . if I keep reading your blog, I just may return to my Democratic roots this November! Call me naive, but I had not initially made the same connection that you and Tessa have made. Nonetheless, I had the same physical reaction to Tom Ridge and his "big announcement" -- an immediate sense of nausea and an unpleasant flashback to where I was on 9/11/01. I live in MD, and it was the first day of my new job, working at a company outside of the DC Metro area. I was at work for a total of 30 minutes when someone said that a plane hit one of the towers. I thought it was some kind of a hoax, and once I figured out how to make a call from my new office phone, I called my mother in New Jersey, who confirmed that yes, the plane hit, and a second one just hit, and in fact the world was coming to an end, and I BETTER GET HOME TO MY HUSBAND AND CHILD TO SAY MY LAST GOODBYES. It took me about 10 minutes and the follow-up news that the nearby Pentagon was hit to pack my briefcase and hit the Beltway in a state of abject fear and paranoia. You get the picture. It was the worst feeling I have ever had, and seeing Ridge make his vague announcement brought it all flooding back, despite my daily dose of Lexapro and positive meditations.
To think that we are all being manipulated as part of a political ploy sickens me. As I said, I had not made the connection, but it makes sense. So. . . keep on spreading your message on your blog, and you may end up swaying a few voters. Every bit helps!
And I think you are right about people who do not live in the strike zone not understanding the fear that terrorism causes. I have talked with friends in the midwest, Southwest and other Red areas who JUST DON'T GET IT. Many of them do not know anyone who lost their lives that day, and they do not understand the fear of thinking you will die in your car on the DC Beltway in your smart new business suit on your first day of work without being able to hug your little girl one last time before she perishes in her little preschool outside of the Annapolis Naval Base. I am not trying to wear my experience as a badge of honor or anything like that. . . I just believe that watching the events on TV that are occurring 100's of miles away do not have the same effect as experiencing it first hand. Living it and seeing the smoke rise from across the skyline strikes down deep to the core of a person.
And I agree with Jon -- why can't Bush find bin Laden?????? And what about the idiot who sent the anthrax mail all over NJ and DC??? Why can't they figure out who did that????? My parents' mailman delivered their mail with latex gloves on for 4 months after the anthrax scare broke out.
I'm not as certain that this is a great boon to Bush, and also not certain that Ridge's announcements are politically motivated.
1st, I think that it is still important to keep reminding people to be vigilant at home, that the next potential attack might yet be averted by the actions of some average Joe that reports something suspicious rather than just ignore it. It seems that primary defense mechanism people have developed for dealing with issues so vast and scary (as the threat of another attack) is to focus on normal daily activities and hope for the best. Reminding people regularly that there is a real and eminent threat is important. Ridge is still a tool, but his job is still important.
I also don't quite see how Bush is gettting a bump from this other than to infringe on the John-John honeymoon with the press. Manufacturing positive news from Iraq might serve the dark lord's interests, but reminding us to be vigilant serves everyone. Since I'm taking out of my ass anyway, I'll go ahead and contradict myself by saying that the one place Bush benefits is by trying to get people to avoid changing the government while we are at was, appealing to the need for consistency in the face of an enemy.
I think it's even more importatnt now for Kerry to show decisiveness and strength by identifying what he would do right now if he were Bush. Right now the actions of Bush look favorable (to the electorate as a whole, not to me) when compared to the vaguaries of the Kerry camp. With more and more people coming around to the concept that Bush took us into an unnecessary war, it is importatnt that the primary challenger make it clear what he would have done and will do differently. My 2 biggest fears are that 1) Kerry will lose because he waits too long to define himself in the areas critical for this election (and therefore lets Bush define him,) and 2) Kerry turns out to not disagree with Bush all that much. I think the Democrats are trying to avoid creating target issues for Bush to rally his troops around, but in the meanwhile they (the Dems) are making it hard for the rest of us to rally around Kerry.
I don't know that it's quite fair to lump Charlotte in with the other cities you mention.
While NOTHING can compare to the experience of being anywhere near NYC or DC on 9/11, I think we had our own valid worries about terrorism that day, too. Charlotte at the time (and as far as I know, still is - so hard to keep up with all the mergers) was the #2 financial center in the US and many were afraid that it presented an attractive target to the terrorists. The two big boys, BofA and First Union (now Wachovia), emptied their headquarters immediately.The parking deck under First Union's tower was such a chaotic mess that my husband had to leave his car and walk several miles home. I was worried sick until I knew he was safely out of the tower.
Again, absolutely nothing compares to the real horrors of 9/11, but I just felt like I had to point out that fear did stretch its cold embrace to Charlotte, even if just for a few hours or days. I think it's still there to a certain degree because of the financial operations. I know one of my other worries is our proximity to two nuclear power plants.
But sadly, the fact remains that time and distance take their toll on memories and alerts get easier to shrug away. We certainly don't have the daily reminders that New Yorkers must struggle with every day. For that, you have my prayers.
The announcement of yesterday was evil and calculated to arouse the most basic feelings of horror and fear.
However, I must gently remind you that Oklahoma has had the second largest terrorist attack in American history. Home-grown terrorism is still terrorism.
One other thing - It's rare to meet a native Charlottean; in fact, it's actually something of a local joke. Nine times out of ten, the next person you'll meet will be from NYC, Chicago or Boston. The banks and other financial entities have drawn scores of Northern transplants, especially with mergers and those who want to stay in the industry but enjoy a different lifestyle in the South. The victims of 9/11 were friends, relatives and/or business associates for many of us down here. So I think Charlotte, perhaps more than most cities, felt the loss of life very keenly.
I would love to answer your blogs, your fears specifically (since none of our enemies would risk using a nuke, and anyone who has access to a nuke can't get one to America regardless of what FoxNews and Debka would have you believe), but more I wonder; when you write blogs like this, can you hear the reaction of your audience?
It's just interesting to me that, as a playwright or actor, you know when you've said that thing that pisses people off because the sound of the room changes. If you're good, the sound of the room changes in the way you wanted it to. I'm just wondering if, when you are sitting there writing your blog, you start to edit something out and then decide not to because you can *feel* your audience either get mad or laugh or whatever.
It gets worse. Have you seen this from the New Republic? Strong evidence that the White House is trying to time capture of Osama Bin Laden to correspond with the Democratic National Convention. [HVT's=high value targets, ie Osama bin Laden. ISI=Pakistan's security agency]
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904
A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
Jon - I think my relatively meat-fisted point about NY, DC and CA is that those are the places that easily COULD be firmly in the Bush camp because they want revenge on the people that did this to us. They could easily vote out of fear. But they don't, and in fact, are more Democratic than ever.
Jennifer - I agree with you and changed Charlotte to Charleston.
Laurie - If you change your mind about Bush, my entire three years of writing this thing will have been worth it.
Sean - Yeah, often I write the blog, then go to sleep - only to wake up an hour later thinking "Holy fuck, I can't write that in public" and then rewrite a lot of it to soften it. Journalism is no longer the "first draft of history," blogging is. And so you find yourself just putting words out there and seeing what happens.
By the way, I am totally into being wrong. These comments keep a body honest.
Jennifer beat me to it concerning the attractiveness of Charlotte as a target. Both the FBI and Secret Service have since significantly beefed up their presence. As my husband, who's from Pelham/Westchester, and I work for one of those banks, we got the hell out of downtown Charlotte 9/11 and spent that afternoon trying to account for our family and friends in NYC. We waited up that night for our Best Man (who finally got a rental car in Miami after flying in from Boston) to stop in for R&R on the way up to NYC to search, ultimately in vain, for his firefighter uncle and as well as the brother of another of our groomsmen.
But after the stretch of telethons and candlelight vigils, Charlotte was business as usual, as there were no constant reminders of the loss and destruction. I’m sure that’s how it worked most places. Though we all live with the fact that the next attack can be right inour backyard, you can bet I have an extra cocktail everytime I go in or out of La Guardia.
Anyway, ...what's frustrating for me concerning this election is we now live in Atlanta. Its relatively progressive here, but step a few miles outside of the city and you've hit the 1950's. Neither John-John nor the Oilmen Mafia have set up campaign HQ's in GA, as its wrapped up for Bush. I thought the same thing when the terror report came out...they issue an empty warning about an attack: they don't know when, where, who...but it could be around election time 4 months from now??? Not sure what purpose that serves. I am chomping at the bit to get these guys out of office and it seems there's nothing I can do. At least if we still lived in NC, its going to be a close race. I guess I can transfer my energy and disdain to a local race and try and help out there. But it sucks to feel like my vote doesn't count!
Oh dear. DB's comments are making my head spin. This is all very "Wag the Dog"! I have heard similar rumblings about Bush timing the capture of Osama for election purposes. How twisted is that??? I am feeling really petty for mocking John Edwards' "we have better hair" comment a few days ago! It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.
Ian, I have been spreading the word about your blog to my friends, some of whom remember you from back in the DTH day at Carolina. Of course, many of these folks are still Democrats, so there is not much coaxing needed to get some votes, but you have managed to change the minds of some of the Bush-supporters I know from law school. Keep up the good work!
In case your head spun with the July Surprise, check out this very funny series of spoofs of the NY Post's "Scoop" on Kerry's VP nom. (They said it was Gephardt, for those of you not in NY or not news junkies like me.)
I'm not convinced, as many have claimed, that the Bush White House cynically raises the fear level when it suits their political purposes. I think something far more sinister is at work: They believe the bullshit they're trying to get us to believe. Think back to Nixon and his Enemies List; The right wing believe they're doing battle daily with malevolent forces, and if none actually exists, they have no trouble inventing them.
I have no doubt that there are people who would like to do the US harm. Some of them might actually be related somehow to Al Qaeda. But for fuck's sake, Al Qaeda isn't any better organized than Phish fans -- anyone who think Bin Laden is a hero and has fantasies about blowing shit up is 'Al Qaeda' at this point.
It really isn't that hard to protect yourself from Terrorism -- Europe dealt with frequent terrorist actions from many fronts, and they FIGURED OUT HOW TO BE MORE SECURE and went on with life. Bush needs evil doers to justify his world view, which only takes 2 crayons to color in. Terrorism is the new Commie Threat.
The fact is that the federal, state, and local governments haven't done shit to make us actually safer from terrorism. They do absurd bullshit like spend MILLIONS of dollars rearranging the government, while failing to put money into police and emergency response. They make me take my fucking shoes off in the Moline, Illinois airport.
They even prevented a musician called Osunlade from entering the US from Puerto Rico, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS BORN IN St. Louis AND CARRIES A US PASSPORT.The reason we haven't had another major terrorist attack is that there really isn't that many people ready to die harming the US. They had YEARS and millions of dollars to place operatives in the US and dream up bad shit to do at us. If I was Al Qaeda, I'd have knocked down the Pentagon and the WTC, then next weekend I would have blown up the St. Louis Arch, and the week after that I would have blown up a college dorm somewhere, and the week after that I would have spread anthrax over Chicago.
We're not better protected; it's just that there aren't enough real bogeymen to go around.
Not only is this the first time I am going to vote for a Democrat that I do not know personally, but it is going to be the first Presidential race that I conciously try to ignore. Since I have made my decision and chose not to become a political activist, I am going to protect my sanity and limit my exposure to two debates. It doesn't matter which pundits you endure, they all make me angry. Ivy league degrees, the best and the brightest from the DNC and RNC, yet it feels just like watching Rick Flair sneak up behing Mr. Wrestling #1 and bash him over the head with a folding chair. (Charlotte, N.C. circa 1978 Courtesy of Crocket Promotions and Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling)
The US gov't has, not unreasonably, settled on a policy of denying or, when that's impossible, minimizing terrorist attacks. This policy has continued from the Clinton administration. It helps to reduce the amount of publicity the terrorists get. Bit it also, interestingly, adds the monopoly of information that the gov't has about terrorist incidents.
Bush has already shown that he's willing to play information hardball. During the 2000 elections, the Gore team started making a particularly dangerous attack on him. (I don't remember the specifics - sorry) Bush, as commander of the Texas Rangers (the police force, not the baseball team), obliquely threatened to release the Waco evidence in thier possession. Gore backed off.
Kerry, too, has played the information game. When Gore was thinking about running again, Kerry appeared on Meet the Press talking about terrrorism, and he mentioned that TWA flight 800 had been bombed. If he was questioned about it today, I'm sure he'd say he mis-spoke. But Gore headed the panel that made safety reccomendations for airlines, and, under pressure from the airlines, the panel didn't recommend explosives screening for luggage.
But Kerry ought to be very careful in attacking Bush on any terrorism/Iraq connection. If Bush is in a tight spot, he might release an awful lot of information that has been kept quiet.
About the red/blue thing -- Al Qaeda has struck a few times in the US since 9/11, but these have been (mostly) small scale affairs. Again, the public is being kept mostly in the dark on this.
There's also been a lot of recon activities. Al Qaeda's been sniffing around power stations and refineries. Mostly in red states, for what it's worth.Interesting that some commenters noted the anthrax attacks. The anthrax itself wasn't particularly remarkable, but the delivery method in the Daschle and Leahy envelopes was. That stuff dispersed itself so efficiently that it's hard to see how they got it in the envelope. Yes, they. I don't believe for a second in this lone ranger stuff.
There are only so many biosafety level 4 facilities in North America. By this time the FBI should have been able to interview enough people canvass them all. The method that was used to coat the anthrax has medical value as well (delivering medicine through and inhaler), but it was apparently beyond the capabilities of the most advanced pharmeceutical companies here in the US. I do not think the anthrax was of domestic origin. Furthermore, it had state support.
A few of the postal workers who got inhalational anthrax recovered after massive doses of antibiotics. This suggests that the anthrax itself was not of Russian origin. The Russians have dedicated much time and effort to genetically engineer antibiotic-resistant strains. The most likely source, then, would be Iraq or Iran. We don't know much about Iran's BW program, but we knew lots about Iraqs after UNSCOM in the '90s.
Iraq has easier terrain than Iran, though. And Iraq borders more countries. Iraq gives the US a strategic base to influence more locations. Iraq is the location of some senior Shi'ite clerics who are NOT Khomeini-ists - important for Iran. Iraq borders Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, most of the Saudi oil fields are along the Persian Gulf - in a Shi'ite area.
I think the war is over when the Mullahs fall in Iran, the Hashemites return to their traditional stoming grounds in Mecca and Medina, and some sort of republican democracy takes hold in Egypt. The Saudis and their Wahabbi cleric allies won't have the oil, and won't have the holy cities. They'll have thier traditional stomping grounds too - a patch of empty desert around Riyhadh.
I don't much care for Bush, but I think he can do and is doing what I've described in the paragraph above. If Kerry can prove to me in the next few months that he is capable and willing to do it too, I'll consider voting for him. But he's got to do better.
I guess Pete Stanley must work for the CIA or something, since he knows all this secret information. Thanks for condescending to share it with all us morons who have been kept in the dark (for our own good!) about what's going on behind the scenes in this minutely orchestrated global terrorist operation. Which, as we see through Mr. Stanley's deductive reasoning, simply MUST be based in Iraq. There's just no other explanation. There's no WAY that anthrax came from somewhere in the US because...it just didn't. It came from Iraq.
Anyway, I'm writing mainly, actually, to thank Salem for finally illuminating an ancient memory I have of watching WWWF one Saturday (why?) back in the 70s and seeing this poor chunky dude get his head split open with a folding chair. Wow! I can't believe Rick Flair dun it!
Also Salem--blessings and kisses for voting away from B**h this time! You brought TWO smiles to my face this morn! xxoxoxxoxxo
Sorry Annie, I was typing it in a hurry, but still wanted to give my err... unique? silly? take on things. I didn't mean to come across as condescending, or call anyone a moron. Sorry if I came across that way. I just thought I had something to add to the discussion.
I don't really agree that keeping terrorist attacks quiet is "for our own good" or anything like that. I'm simply observing that such a policy is in place, and it has some interesting side effects.
The source of the anthrax doesn't *have* to be Iraq. It's just that, when the attacks happened, Iraq would have been first on a short list of suspects. I'd recommend reading _Plague Wars_ by Tom Mangold & Jeff Goldberg, _Biohazard_ by Ken Alibek, and _The Demon in the Freezer_ by Richard Preston for general background on the anthrax attacks. These two sites are useful, too. The first has a lot of technical data in a small space. Very useful.
http://anthrax2001.blogspot.com/
The second one here is much more lengthy. I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he makes some good points.
Pete, I am sorry for sounding snotty in response to you. And I do appreciate your input, and your very diplomatic response to my own snottiness. The war and all suggestions that it might have been warranted make my hair stand on end. I begin screaming involuntarily. Truly, I cannot bear to hear, read, or even think the word(s) 'a' 'l' 'q' 'a' 'e' 'd' 'a' simply because of GWB using the whole situation in the way that he unrelentingly does. Even thinking about it now is making me queasy. But that isn't your fault. Please excuse my rudeness.
Thanks. No problem.