An American tragedy made into a political commodity: top political commentator Keith Olbermann is distinctly unimpressed at the cynicism of the invocation of 9/11 at the Republican National Convention.
9/11 (TM) has made possible the greatest sleight-of-hand in our nation’s history.
The political party in office at the time of the attacks, at the local, state and national levels, the party which uniformly ignored the warnings and the presidential administration already through twenty percent of its first term and no longer wet behind the ears, have not only thus far escaped any blame for the malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur, but that presidency and that party, have managed to make it seem as if the other political party would be solely and irredeemably responsible for any similar catastrophe in the future.
The misrepresentations and manipulations of the terror of seven years ago are laid out clearly in Olberman’s analysis, starting with his contempt for the choice of Giuliani, who has no other bandwagon to ride other than 9/11, as a keynote speaker at the convention.
his childish, squealing, braying, Tourette’s-like repetition of 9/11 (TM), was greeted not as conclusive evidence that he is consumed by massive guilt - hard-earned guilt, in fact but rather as some kind of political tour-de-force, an endorsement of your Vice Presidential nominee, a rookie governor , a facile and slick con artist.
The blind endorsing the bland, to a chorus of 9/11 (TM), 9/11 (TM), 9/11 (TM.)
Your ringing mindless cheer of “We’ve Kept You Safe Since Then.” While nobody asks “doesn’t then count?”
All of this, sadistically disrespecting the dead of New York, and Washington, and Shanksville. Endorsed, Sen. McCain. Exploited, Sen. McCain. Trademarked, Sen. McCain by you.
Olbermann was further outraged at how the RNC arranged for graphic imagery of the destruction and death of 9/11 to be shown on TV (by telling broadcasters that there would be a 9/11 tribute) when there has been an agreement for the last seven years not to show those images without warning.
What we got was not a tribute to the dead of 9/11, nor even a tribute to the responders, or the singularity of purpose we all felt. The Republicans gave us sociological pornography, a virtual snuff film.
[…] It was terrifying. After all its object was to terrify. Not to commemorate, not to call for unity, not to remember the dead. But to terrify.
To open again the horrible wounds, to brand the skin of this nation with the message — as hateful as the terrorists’ own, that you must vote Republican or this will happen again and you will die.
Olbermann also challenges McCain on his claims to have a unique knowledge and ability to find and capture Bin Laden.
We heard it last week in Minnesota, we’ve heard it off and on since January but Senator McCain said it most concisely in June.
“Look,” he said. “I know the area, I’ve been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden — or put it this way, bring him to justice. We will do it. I know how to do it.”
So, is McCain calculatedly withholding information in the interest of national security unless he can have the glory of presiding over the capture of Bin Laden? It would be awfully rude to accuse him of simply lying about having this special knowledge, so Olbermann gives him the respect of treating McCain as if he means what he says.
I’d rather win an election than catch bin Laden! No more cynical calculation has ever been made in this nation’s history, Sir. If you lose the election, Senator, are you not going to tell the President-Elect?
Are you intending to keep this a secret until the next election and your party’s next nominee? Senator, as you and your Republicans shed your phony, crocodile, opportunistic tears tomorrow on 9/11 TM, in front of the utterly disingenuous banner “Country First,” the fact is, you have shown that it is John McCain first, and the country last.
The fact is, Sir, by holding out on your secret plan to catch bin Laden by searing those images into our collective wounded American psyche at your nomination last week, terrorists are not what you, John McCain, fight. Terrorists are what you, John McCain, use.
KO’s a bit of a blowhard but I can’t help but heart. Can I also quickly recommend MSNBC stablemate Rachael Maddow who has a new show. She was a new name to me a couple of weeks ago, but I’m really enjoying the vids:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26667261#26667261
Great post, tigtog, but shit I spleen the use of nouns as verbs.
Noice illustrative example there, adrian. If I wasn’t almost certain sure that you equally despise adjectiving nouns, I’d call that impactful.
well, the good news is Palin’s a complete dud when unscripted.
Though I’m probably misthreading.
We urgently need a new thread on Sarah Palin, because she has repeatedly put her foot in her mouth in her first interview.
What’s wrong with a Republican adoption of 9/11 as a political data point? I mean, when you really get down to it?
In the end, the events of 9/11 were unique only in that they were particularly unexpected and totemic. Iconic memory of the victims calls strongly on one conception of the role of the State; that being a political role for victim-memory and a concern about future violent attack. I don’t share the sentiment and find it tasteless, but by the same rules any requirement that 9/11 be a unique point of bipartisan grief-solidarity is also political. Victims of violence are frequently conscripted, rightly, for political ends. I am thinking here of the victims of the Port Arthur shootings, whose memory was rightly used by the then Prime Minister to show leadership and legislate for gun control. Really, Olberman might as well show outrage that either Party uses the non-partisan national icon of the Stars and Stripes in campaigning. Remind me; isn’t the Union flag… a battle flag?
Short- and long-term historical memory is a powerful political agent in its own right. Objection to its use, more to the point, is also political. The Republicans are flying the flag of assertive victimhood. So? It’s their flag, let ‘em fly it.
‘Twere ever thus, tigtog
Ex: Josef Stalin rearranges himself as patriot and father of the nation, after being duped by Adolf and seeing Russia invaded. Err… who made the pact with Adolf, pray tell, Josef???
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Shorter Liam: it’s not cynicism. It’s honesty, just a kind of honesty non-Republicans find distasteful.
Lefty E and silkworm, as requested there is now a Palin interview thread.
That’s a highly - pragmatic - view, Liam. I still like the concluding point about McCain’s secret plans to catch Bin Laden - surely it is indeed anti-patriotic not to share them with President Bush/Joint Chiefs of Staff/CIA etc immediately?
As I’m on a dialup connection the youtube video and thus the reference is beyond me, tigtog, sorry.
Pragmatic I’ll cop to. Were I a Democratic strategist I’d make much out of the reprehensible Federal response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, as illustration of how badly a Government can fail its citizens. That kind of campaign, of course, would be no different in substance to the 9/11™ you describe.
Oh, for pity’s sake. Of course McCain is not claiming to have any amazing plan to catch OBL, and no one could possibly read his comments with that interpretation, unless they’re being wilfully obtuse.
“I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden.” Translation: I have better national security credentials than my opponent. That’s all he’s saying — and it’s a perfectly standard thing for a presidential candidate to say.
Obama’s best response would be to point out that being a decorated fighter pilot is a very different job to being commander-in-chief, and that America’s greatest commanders-in-chief (Lincoln, FDR) never served in the military.
Which wars did McCain win?
Ronnie Reagan thought that he had fought in the wars depicted in the movies he acted in.
I guess McCain also had plenty of time to fantasise about his military puissance while dossing down in the Hanoi Hilton.
It’s an old man’s disease.
I stopped reading right there.
I suspect he’s been following politics with a lot more numbers on his rolodex than you have ever had, Craig Mc.
Do you read much 9/11 stuff written by actual New Yorkers? In my experience they’re pretty consistent on resenting their dead family and neighbours being co-opted by politicians.
Fair point, with the nitpick that McCain was a bomber pilot rather than a fighter pilot, so he didn’t even get to exercise tactics let alone strategy. McCain had to deliver his payload to certain coordinates and then hope like hell that the escorting fighters would deflect attackers on the home run (which obviously didn’t work out for him when he was shot down). Bomber pilots have a very important job, but it doesn’t require much initiative.
But implicit in McCain’s statement is also “I have better security credentials than the incumbent”, particularly the comment about bin Laden - he is not suggesting just that he is better equipped than Obama to deal with new national security challenges, but that he is equipped to resolve the challenges that have not been dealt with by the Bush administration. While the “secret plan” line is a facetious one, it does get to the question of what McCain would do differently from Bush.
Wesley Clark, acting as an Obama surrogate, did exactly that not so long ago and triggered a tremendous Republican hissy fit. The Democrats needed to hold fast to Clark’s argument at the time, but they gave ground - as they have been doing again recently with all of the Republican tantrums about Palin.
Just like Howard and Gallipoli, eh?
1915 - never forget.