Printer-Friendly Version

The Politicization of 9/11?
By Lisa Fabrizio
March 12, 2004

For a man who labels himself as compassionate, George W. Bush is not engendering much of that sentiment from his adversaries, is he? In the past few years he's been called a thief, a traitor, a liar, a betrayer, a moron and a miserable failure to name a few. He's on the one hand a boobish cowboy, held on a short lasso by his wranglers and on the other a scheming, Ivy-League frat boy.

When he first rode into town he promised to be a uniter, not a divider and although I'm not sure it's the way he intended, he's succeeded. The ties between the political and media left have never been stronger or clearer. And as the election draws nearer, their main task is clear as well--to distance George W. Bush from his presidency's defining moment.

Up until that bright, sun-splashed morning of September 11, 2001, other than the vituperative rage regarding the manner of his election itself, the worst his critics could muster were some feeble attacks on his anti-environmental stances such as his desire to kill us all by poisoning our water with arsenic--yawn!

Then came the horrific attacks and among other images burned into the national psyche was that of the Commander In Chief, strong and resolute, standing atop a pile of rubble with a comforting arm around a retired firefighter who had journeyed downtown to aid in the recovery of his fallen brothers.

Another was that of the president returning to his pew after his moving address at the National Cathedral, being consoled by his own grieving yet proud parents. These then were some of the images that his enemies sought and seek still to erase.

The first attempt came short months after the War On Terror was commenced. The fall of Enron was just the ticket to channel the anger of the American public--not against a vicious and bloodthirsty group of Islamic fundamentalists whose handiwork was still a smoldering hole in the ground--but toward a money-hungry group of corporate thieves.

The press, already tiring of the triumphant Afghanistan campaign, jumped on the supposed connection between Enron's bosses and the Bush Administration, paying little attention to the fact that the company's success was intimately tied to the Clinton Gang but that they had been busted by the Bushies. CNN even went with a hilarious Associated Press "timeline" that politely omitted the years 1990-1999!

Then came the "Axis of Evil" speech and the groans could be heard from Paris to Turtle Bay when the president said:

Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed... Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. And many have discovered again that even in tragedy--especially in tragedy--God is near.

This was the opening salvo of the "Bush Doctrine" and the first casualty was the notion that all Americans--even Democrats, journalists, professors and Hollywood freaks--should at least support their country (if not its CIC) during times of war. From there, the 14-month long "rush to war" was spent in pillorying not Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden or even the Butcher of Baghdad, but the reckless cowboy George W. Bush.

In between, the left was delivered of another dose of shock and awe when Republicans, led by the president, retook the Senate and increased their House majority in the 2002 elections. It seemed that the American people, in rejecting the media's daily dose of Bush-bashing, showed that in their "character there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism."

The aftermath of the war has seen a ratcheting-up of hostilities, not in Iraq, but on the American airwaves. And the argument has now come full circle. The president's critics are once again wailing over the images conjured up by his association with 9/11. They were apparently not listening when he said, "And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment...We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

This was a promise made to the American people and on much less solemn promises have presidential campaigns ridden for years. And in order to fulfill that mission he must be re-elected, hence the genesis of the War on Terror is featured in his ads. Exploitative? Only, it would seem, to those who do not support the mission.

------------

Lisa Fabrizio is a freelance columnist from Stamford, Connecticut. You may write her at mailbox@lisafab.com.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.