Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?
Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Krugman is absolutely right. But what’s really shameful is the lack of interest by the media in how we were allowed to be attacked when there were plenty of warnings. Hell, Bush knew that an attack was coming. Why else would there have been surface-to-air missiles installed on the roof of his hotel in Florida? Why wasn’t the second World Trade Center tower immediately evacuated after the first plane hit? Why did the Air Force not do anything to intercept the hijacked planes? Why would Bush and Cheney only answer questions about the attack behind closed doors — refusing to answer under oath and under the conditions that there would be no transcripts?
There are too many unanswered questions about the attack. Congress spent some $60 million dollars investigating Clinton’s personal life. Compare that to the $3 million to investigate the most deadly attack on American civilians in our history.
DRUDGE RETORT 