Freedom Is Slavery, and Other Republicanisms

Civil Rights, conservatism, War on Terror

Here are the rules: Republicans own the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and all issues touched by the attacks. Therefore, when a Republican waves the bloody WTC tower, so to speak, to stir up emotional support for a GOP policy, that is not politicizing 9/11. Because they own 9/11, see. However, whenever a Democrat mentions 9/11 in any context, that is politicizing 9/11.

Further, wherever the GOP has used 9/11 as part of an emotional appeal for a GOP policy (which is not politicizing), Democrats may not criticize that policy. Because to do so “politicizes” the policy and is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11.

Further, whenever the Republicans stir up fear of terrorism to justify curbing civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, that is “resolve.” As in, we must be resolved to compromise our constitutional heritage and the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for, because of 9/11. To do otherwise is an example of “pre-9/11” thinking, as well as an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11.

Whenever someone (such as a Democrat) expresses reluctance to jettison long-established civil liberties for the sake of security, that is an example of “paralyzing self-doubt.”

In the post-9/11 world we must be resolute and decisive. We must not hesitate to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to save it.

Phrases like “Article II authority,” “separation of powers” and “right to privacy” are code words for paralyzing self-doubt. We no long stand on constitutional principles in the face of events; rather, we allow events to dictate our constitutional principles. Anyone with any resolve at all knows this.

Because our President is a man of action and resolve, he doesn’t have to bother with following laws passed by Congress regarding surveillance, nor should he be expected to ask Congress to revise regulations to make them easier to follow. He can just ignore them. Anyone who wants to make the President accountable to the law is risking the lives of American citizens.

Whenever a Republican, such as Vice President Richard Cheney, claims that a controversial Bush Administration policy would have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only we’d had it sooner, that is an example of reasoned political discussion.

Whenever anyone else brings up the myriad clues we had before 9/11 that a terrorist attack involving al Qaeda cells and hijacked airplanes crashing into major landmarks like the World Trade Center, which the Bush Administration ignored, that is not reasoned political discussion. It is irresponsible discussion; nothing but ‘connect-the-dots’ reporting.”

Real Americans don’t connect dots. Connecting dots lets the terrorists win.

I must admit that before today I didn’t understand these rules. But then I read “Our Right to Security” by Debra Burlingame.

It’s all clear to me now.

Share Button
11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. spearNmagicHelmet  •  Jan 30, 2006 @6:10 pm

    if 9/11 wouldn’t have happened this admin. would have had to create a 9/11.

    uh, wait a second….

  2. Bill  •  Jan 30, 2006 @6:12 pm

    Thank you for your work. I really liked your article. Here is another 9/11 which is a book, “After 9/11: A Korean Girl’s Sexual Jorney.” I strongly believe that you will have something to say about it, especially chapter 43, “9/11s Are Forgiveness,” which makes “9/11” a general noun for the worst disaster that could happen in one’s life. I have never seen any writer put it this way. If I bothered you, please forgive me. In case, the author’s web is http://www.youngheecha.com. Have a good day

  3. Donna  •  Jan 30, 2006 @6:46 pm

    I read your excellent piece above, then clicked on and read the writing of Debra Burlingame.

    That article’s footnote says that her brother was the pilot on American Airlines flight 77 and died when that airplane slammed into the Pentagon. So do these ‘new rules’ mean that Debra, who lost a brother, deserves a righteous forum to speak against our constitutional rights, while Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, deserves pilloring for speaking against the Bush team’s Iraq war of choice?

    Speaking of the Iraq adventure. I noticed that Debra Burlingame’s subtitle was, “Al Qaeda, not the FBI, Is the Greater Threat to America.” Wonder why she didn’t use the subtitle, “Al Qaeda, not Iraq, is the Greater Threat to America.”

    Don’t you think she would stay mad as hell that Bush diverted resources away from her brother’s murderer, Osama Bin Laden, and focused instead on Iraq?

  4. Swami  •  Jan 30, 2006 @7:10 pm

    Ms. Burlingame is just full of emotional bullshit. Could’ve beens, should’ve beens, and would’ve beens just don’t make it in a world of realities . Either does the concept of offending the dead.It’s a tough break that her brother died in the attack on the Pentagon, but her brother’s innocence was no greater than the innocence of the thousands of victims who have died by Bush’s hand..

  5. Jack  •  Jan 30, 2006 @7:46 pm

    This is not on the topic, but the article in Slate on presidential signing statements, at //www.slate.com/id/2134919/, is one that I think you will find interesting.

  6. The Heretik  •  Jan 30, 2006 @7:54 pm

    Only one side may wave the bloody shirt or the bloody flag. The rest of us refuse “to learn the lessons of September Eleventh.” Or something.

    The idea that we don’t have time to follow the law is to say breathless in its scope. The citation of one event could forever subvert our form of government. “Security,” an ever receding goal, is now our object. So we are subject to whatever those we must trust would do.

    How did we get trapped in this bad movie script? You have been linked in the roundup at “Security” vs Liberty.

    Oy.

  7. Rae Ann  •  Jan 30, 2006 @10:15 pm

    Politicizing 9/11 is what George W. Bush and company do every day.

  8. Larry Stevens  •  Jan 31, 2006 @12:02 am

    I’m promoting a response to Rove’s “pre-9/11 mentality” smear that suggests the admin’s “pre-7/4 mentality” and our “post-7/4 thinking”.

    Post-7/4 thinking involves the consent of the governed, inalienable rights, the rule of law, etc.

    Pre-7/4 mentality is the Rove State’s resurrection of the divine right of kings & the ends justifying the means.

  9. Mike Canny  •  Jan 31, 2006 @4:22 pm

    Politicizing 9/11 is indeed what Bush do every day. One way they do so is by being fearmongers. Once upon a time, we had true leaders like Franklin Roosevelt saying that the only fear we needed to fear was fear itself. Not to long ago, Colin Powell said that we were Americans–we do not walk in fear. No wonder he left the Administration.
    Now, we have a President that exploits the often irrational fears of the populace to justify spending insane amounts of money on fighting terrorism. Never mind that, for the vast majority of Americans, the common street thug is just as much of a terrorist–and much more likely to affect their lives.
    The destruction of America, and the American way of life, continues under the leadrship of George Bush.

  10. cate  •  Jan 31, 2006 @10:48 pm

    Ironic that your fearless leader, FDR, also claimed unitary executive power, the idea everyone is jumping down Bush’s throat for and what the author of this blog is irate about. Neither of them are right, or are they both? More people should think before heroizing someone just for being in their political party, or villainizing someone for not.

  11. maha  •  Feb 1, 2006 @7:11 am

    “Ironic that your fearless leader, FDR, also claimed unitary executive power.”

    No, he didn’t. The notion that the president can ignore laws of Congress at his own discretion is different from previous war power theories and is unique to the Bush administration.