David Bell writes an Op-Ed in the LA Times claiming that 9/11 wasn't that bad, historically speaking, that is.
IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.
It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight? [...] But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.
His piece is quite interesting. Many people are really pissed about his op-ed, I guess you can say that some are overreacting. It's an Op-Ed, it's nothing more than some guy expressing his thoughts like we bloggers and commenters do everyday.
Sure some people will froth over the fact that this guy analyzed our own personal tragedy but does that go to his point? Are we not allowed to discuss 9/11 without the requisite flag waving and patriotic anthems?
HT: Dave Schuler
Update: John Donovan has a counterpoint that is equally interesting.
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Dig this: the president says that we are fighting the climactic battle of western civilization and what does he propose? A troop escalation of 21 thousand men.
No joke.
And ... no draft and a boatload of tax cuts.
Future generations will probably look back and wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?"
That Bells sees that same war as an “overreaction” to 9/11 totally ignores who wanted it, why they wanted it and how they sold it to the public – in other words, everything important about the reaction. Iraq is not a reaction to 9/11; it’s a strategic war of (breathtakingly stupid) choice in search of a justification.
But, as a general proposition, yes, after 9/11 we lost our f*cking minds (in our defense, we were led by Republicans). We have the 2004 election to prove it.
I've been looking forward to the promised comprehensive coverage of the Scooter Libby trial on Dean's World. Haven't seen much in the way of coverage, though. Could that be because the revelations aren't too favorable to the administration? I'm sure Dean, as the fair-minded person we all know him to be, would print the coverage no matter how the trial went, right?
I would ask Dean directly on his site, but I'm not allowed to comment there.
He gave the "reporter bloggers" carte blanche and login IDs they post when they what, what they want. Not sure why we aren't getting a lot of posts frm them. It could be that the bloggers in attendance are biased themselves but I don't know them, so I can't say.
I'll ask Dean but he doesn't have blog access from work, so it will be 5 or 6 hours before he can look at his blog or mine.
Apparently, Tbogg doesn't think Dean's day job (or his blogging) is challenging enough.
By the way, I have only ONE person covering the Libby witch hunt. It's part of an ongoing team distributed through Media Bloggers via RSS.
No one but a loyal member of the cult of Bush could possibly imagine that Libby could be “innocent”. He was part of an admitted conspiracy, orchestrated from the Vice President’s office, attempting to impugn the credibility of Joe Wilson. He and other administration officials purposely leaked information about a covert CIA operative and then Libby lied about being part of that conspiracy, claiming he had learned the information from journalists.
Perjury and obstruction of justice would be getting off light for what Libby has done but I’m actually satisfied that the veil is being peeled off this entire administration’s conduct, exposing its shocking mendacity, hypocrisy and traitorousness, for all the world to see.
The best part was using characters to represent the figures involved:
Bush: Alfred E. Newman
Cheney: Darth Vader
Karl Rove: Giant-headed alien from "Star Trek"
Scooter Libby: a Vespa
Joe Wilson: the soccer ball from "Cast Away"
Bob Novak: a flesh-eating zombie
With the ongoing, deception-based, disastrous war, kidnapping, torturing and imprisoning people without due process, felonious spying on American citizens, bankrupting the government for a generation, regular assaults on the social compact, undermining the liberty rights of all women and dismantling regulatory government, I’m not sure I can blame the public too much for missing the significance of this little conspiracy (especially when considering the way it has been portrayed by the mainstream media).
I dunno, I wouldn't be insulted if someone said that I kept on blogging like an unstoppable zombie. Says something about output and persistence anyway. But yeah, given previous TBogg mentions of Dean's World, I'd think that the intent was to insult.
I guess I understand why people have outrage fatigue. I know I've felt it countless times over the last five years.
But at this point, I have to say that we have the government we richly deserve in this country. We've had many opportunities to say "this far and no further," and have ignored them all. The November elections were like using a bandaid to repair an amputation. And I have no doubt that the American people will tolerate much more, especially if they are goosed by a little fresh application of fear.
Classy.
I share your disappointment with the general public’s apathy toward politics and, especially, their sheeplike behavior when they are frightened. Obviously, you and I share different priorities but since I don’t see myself as better than anyone else, I’m forced to look for understandable (“there but for the grace of God…”) explanations for why that is.
According to George Will (words I never though I’d write) our (relative) shared peace and prosperity has made us politically complacent. Although, to hear the people Will is talking about tell it, the “complacency” is actually resignation that nothing they do will make any difference – partly a result of Republican efforts to taint government and obscure the important differences between the two parties.
Then there’s our presumption that the mainstream press will act as an adequate watchdog, no less refuse to pass off political propaganda as reporting. Then there’s an education system that doesn’t give people much (or any) interest in or understanding of politics and political rhetoric.
Finally, many people feel overwhelmed by the demands of work and family and won’t commit a lot of spare time to learning a bunch of facts they feel don’t affect them (again, they assume that the smart kewl kids on the nightly news are there to tell them if there’s something to get exercised about) and that they can’t do anything about.
To look at it in another way, you and I have the luxury of having an interest in the subject, the feeling we can make participating in politics a priority, and the analytical skills to understand it. OTOH, there’s a lot of extreme un-enjoyment in knowing what’s going on so, another argument for sticking your head in a NASCAR race.
One correction: ”we” didn’t pick the Bush government (at least until we were scared stupid by 9/11), it was picked in spite of us. And I’m pretty sure I’ve heard something like "this far and no further," from you (and many others) on more than one occasion. Do we richly deserve this government? Do those who were simply fooled by Republican lies and media failures (how about their kids)?
Look at it as a compliment. Dean is the archetypical angry white politico who counts partisan effectiveness as the gold standard of achievement. Michael Moore’s obit should be a hoot.
Thanks for the link. I needed that laugh today.
Classy.
No, he did not. Read it again. It was not a nasty piece by any means. Considering that he didn't like her anymore than you like Ann Coulter, he was nicer than many will be when Ann passes.
C’mon Rosemary:
While that would be a good reason to decide that someone was a “faux liberal”, the fact that Dean sees it that way means it’s pretty much the exact opposite. For example, some of his own political commentary makes Ivins look like Ghandi, on the shallow and spiteful scale.
I don't think I'll feel the need to blog about Ann Coulter's death. What would be the point? Oh, and Dean: disliking Ann Coulter? Brave move, buddy. Really sticking your neck out there. You're a *renegade*.
The whole thing is sickening. Dean should be ashamed - that is, if he was capable of feeling shame.