9/11 As A Silencer

As loyal reader(s) of my blog know, I often read something in the NY Post that is so mindboggling nutty, I am forced to rant about it. Yesterday, I read such a thing. And thus a rant is born.

From their lead editorial yesterday-

Someone needs to remind The New York Times that 3,000 people were savagely murdered in the 9/11 terrorist attacks - and that America has both a right and a duty to protect itself from new strikes.

Because, judging from its stories and editorials, the paper seems to have no clue about any of this.

Their main point?

How else to explain its efforts to oppose - if not, undermine - almost every step taken to protect Americans?

Whether it's disclosing federal covert operations, endlessly bewailing doom in Iraq or smearing local cops assigned to public protests, the Times seems hell-bent on undermining America's will to defend itself.

They go on to blast a story the Times did on NYPD tactics during political gatherings/protests.

They call the paper's behavior "anti-American".

Perhaps they prefer the days when 'Run Amok' Judy Miller was helping the White House sell a war...

This is typical NY Post redmeat rhetoric: Anyone who questions the Bush administration's behavior is undermining the war on terror. I have written about this recurring theme of their editorials before- see here, here, and here for a few examples.

Let's round up the Post's current examples: Calling out the President's failed war? Questioning the constitutionality of spying on peaceful political protestors? Exposing the illegal, warrantless domestic wiretapping that was secretly being authorized by the President? No, that's not responsible journalism to them. It's treason.

In the end, I think NYC's favorite right-wing tabloid is jealous of their smarter older brother.

The editorial also doesn't even focus on war on terror-related programs or activities. Its focus is on police tactics in response to heated political rallies. Apparently, in the Post's world, left-wing activists are as dangerous a threat to America's security as Al Qaeda themselves. The paper describes them as 'militant' and 'itching for mayhem'. Yes, those Critical Mass protest bike guys are the next Zacarias Moussaoui. The Post has never seemed at all concerned at where Osama is (unlike Richard Cohen at the Daily News who rightfully discusses that failure) or the effect that the Iraq war has had in inflaming worldwide terrorism, but this Times report apparently is undermining the real front on the war on political activists terror.

Mainly, I am pissed off at their opening line- "Someone needs to remind The New York Times that 3,000 people were savagely murdered in the 9/11 terrorist attacks". This line, in subtle variations, have been used a lot by the right in the past few years when they are about to scold a Bush administration critic without focusing on the merits of the criticism. It's a line that's very popular on the far-right blogs (see this blog post and its comments I linked to a while back). And it has nothing to do with the topic the editorial addresses; it's there to score cheap emotional points.

The thrust of the line seems to boil down to "3,000 were murdered (by the guy we let get away)... So shut up in the name of the all-powerful, endless war on terror." It's an insulting line and childishly condescending. Nobody needs to be reminded about those attacks (least of all those in NYC) and what it told us about the world we live in. The Times has some problems over the years, but conspiring to undermine our country... umm, no I think it's safe to say that's not one of them. But the Post likes to insist that, as they do with any person/entity who questions King George's wisdom. Enter the line. It implies that the speaker is serious and tough and loves America like a man loves steak and that the party being addressed is a weak unamerican fool. Any argument that needs to resort to something that cheap as its opening line is lost before it began.

Bottom line- using the ghosts of 9/11 to silence dissent is the lowest form of political debate.

Sadly, it's something the NY Post and the President have in common.