To suggest that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were in any way blowback from U.S. actions (and inactions) in the Muslim world is to dissent, rather sharply, from the principal narrative that took root in this country, and that persists to this day, about those attacks. In the months and years following 9/11, doing so was even branded treasonous by some in the public sphere; and in April, when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright convulsed the nation with a series of public statements that were roundly criticized as racist and anti-American, some of the sharpest denunciations were spurred by the video of a sermon Wright gave less than a week after 9/11 in which he said the attacks were America’s chickens “coming home to roost.”
Regardless of how one feels about this notion of cause and effect, our failure as a nation, seven years on, to even begin to air it out is both curious and instructive. Curious because America was conceived in dissent, and the principles of free speech and a free exchange of ideas are central to our national self-image and the image we want to project to the world. Instructive because, in spite of this, meaningful dissent—dissent that is welcomed, even encouraged, as a healthy part of the democratic process; dissent that is taken seriously, debated, and considered—is effectively absent from American public discourse. Forget Jeremiah Wright. Both the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board have, in separate reports, presented essentially, if less colorfully, the same view as Wright—that the attacks were attributable in large part to anger over various U.S. policies in the Muslim world. Yet the press and the public have largely ignored the implications of this idea.
Rather than engage speech that strays too far from the dangerously narrow borders of our public discourse, the gatekeepers of that discourse—our mass media—tend to effectively shout it down, marginalize it, or ignore it. Wright, for example, was ridiculed as a fringe-dwelling albatross around Barack Obama’s neck; the pertinent aspects of the reports from the 9/11 Commission and the Defense Science Board, meanwhile, got virtually no attention from the press.
It is easy to say that the Internet allows dissent to bubble up without the mainstream media’s megaphone, and this is true as far as it goes. But another truth about the Internet is that it fosters a balkanization of tastes, and much of what is preached online is to the choir. Still another is that the anonymity afforded by the Net has elicited a degree of intolerance for honest disagreement and debate that is seriously unsettling.
Dissent needs to go mainstream. It is already clear that a wide range of new and looming realities of the twenty-first century will demand creative and even radical new ideas from America about who we are, how we live, and how we deal with the rest of the world. Even Fareed Zakaria, in his fairly optimistic new book, The Post-American World, worries that America’s sclerotic political system (the “sensationalist” press included) is too consumed with trivia and sustaining the status quo to respond effectively to a world in which, as he writes, “on every dimension—industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural—the distribution of power is…moving away from American dominance.”
If you actually listened to Reverend Wright’s entire April speech to the National Press Club (rather than the endless, selective looping of it on cable news), you would have heard, among all the so-called bombast, an explanation of how the idea of transformation is central to black liberation theology. This notion that things—laws, social orders, lives—can and do change for the better, sounded quintessentially American. It also struck us as having a whiff of journalism’s great muckraking tradition. As the nation moves toward its most important presidential election in at least thirty years, the question of how and what to change might be something we—the people and our press—should discuss.
Forget Jeremiah Wright. Both the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board have, in separate reports, presented essentially, if less colorfully, the same view as Wright—that the attacks were attributable in large part to anger over various U.S. policies in the Muslim world.
This about broke my bullshit meter. The only thing I could find in the entire 9/11 commission report that even comes close to that would be this form the preface (and I must have missed the part where Kean and Hamilton were writing all in caps “GOD DAMN AMERICA”).
We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances,but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women.
Hmm, the commission report almost makes it sound like AQ hates our freedoms. Now where have I heard that before?
I hear this whole “Dissent is Patriotic” thing so often that it seems like its turning into some kind of left wing fairy tale. Consider the following bumper sicker: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” often attributed to Jefferson. Turns out that it came from the former head of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen. Jefferson, it turns out, had a slightly less “progressive” stance on dissent:
“Political">">http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html">“Political dissension is doubtless a less evil than the lethargy of despotism: but still it is a great evil, and it would be as worthy the efforts of the patriot as of the philosopher, to exclude it’s influence if possible, from social life”
While constructive criticism has does much to improve this country, too much of what is essentially radicalism is masked as “patriotic dissent”. Julius Rosenberg, Ted Hall and Alger Hiss all considered themselves patriots (by none other than CJR’s editor in chief Victor Navasky) but we know now that their treachery to this nation knew no limits. Much of what passes for “dissent: today is nothing more than an uncritically critical view of America. This dissent, the Reverend “Whitey Gave Us AIDS” Wright kind, believes that America is comprised wholly of its sins, a foundation of Indian genocide and theft, made wealthy from the backs of slaves and imperialism.
That isn’t any kind of dissent I would be associate with. In fact, this kind of dissent reminds me of another one of Jefferson’s quotes, something about trees, liberty, tyrants, and blood.
Not surprisingly, your effort to disregard Wright's valid criticisms of American policy rests entirely on a fixation with a single inflammatory phrase that CNN burned onto his forehead. If you actually engaged with the substance of his critique (which, as the editorial notes, is not all that different than the critiques aired by scores of academics, analysts and thinkers who are less fiery in their oratory) you would find it far harder to disregard.
At any rate, the issue here is not about Wright. We are a nation that has failed to take any serious lessons from recent history. We have not made our country any safer, we have not improved our reputation amongst anyone else in the world, we have not halted or slowed the remorseless killing of innocents in the name of some ersatz ideology. You focus on tarring one man who peppers his criticism of the above with sometimes excessive statements, while ignoring the larger injustice.
Not surprisingly, your effort to disregard Wright's valid criticisms of American policy rests entirely on a fixation with a single inflammatory phrase that CNN burned onto his forehead.
I don’t prescribe to liberation theology in any form (be it Black or any other kind), so naturally anything that comes out of Wrights’ mouth is going to be suspect. But then again, as a white man, I have murdered so many of his people by concocting AIDS and releasing it on the black and brown people of the world. That and the biological race weapon that the US and Israel are working on (according to Rev Wright) and are soon to release on the black, brown and yellow of this world.
If you actually engaged with the substance of his critique (which, as the editorial notes, is not all that different than the critiques aired by scores of academics, analysts and thinkers who are less fiery in their oratory) you would find it far harder to disregard.We have not made our country any safer
Nothing since 9/11 and that means we are less safe … gothca.
we have not improved our reputation amongst anyone else in the world
And that means what to me?
we have not halted or slowed the remorseless killing of innocents in the name of some ersatz ideology.
Says who? Oh that’s right, the whole AIDS thing … sorry.
You focus on tarring one man who peppers his criticism of the above with sometimes excessive statements, while ignoring the larger injustice.
AMEN BROTHER, GOD DAMN AMERICA!
Since the formatting got botched, I repost my Fisking of you.
If you actually engaged with the substance of his critique (which, as the editorial notes, is not all that different than the critiques aired by scores of academics, analysts and thinkers who are less fiery in their oratory) you would find it far harder to disregard.
Actually the editor tried to say that Wrights views were shared by the 9/11 commission and the Science Board, which as I documented out is pure unadulterated bullshit.
We have not made our country any safer
Nothing since 9/11 and that means we are less safe … gothca.
we have not improved our reputation amongst anyone else in the world
And that means what to me?
we have not halted or slowed the remorseless killing of innocents in the name of some ersatz ideology.
Says who? Oh that’s right, the whole AIDS thing … sorry.
You focus on tarring one man who peppers his criticism of the above with sometimes excessive statements, while ignoring the larger injustice.
AMEN BROTHER, GOD DAMN AMERICA!
The remorseless killing I refer to are the thousands killed in Iraq since 2003. Perhaps you recall them.
The remorseless killing I refer to are the thousands killed in Iraq since 2003. Perhaps you recall them.
Thousands! I thought it was BILLIONS. According to the good rev Wright, we are seeling the blood and organs of the children to Israel. GOD DAMN AMERICA
Thank you editors! You are right on.
For more on this, read Chalmers Johnson's excellent book Blowback: http://tinyurl.com/53h2q7
Afghanistan rarely makes headlines these days, but last month, U.S. air strikes killed 47 innocent civilians traveling to a wedding, including the bride. A week later, an ambush on a NATO led base killed nine American soldiers, yet none of the articles I've read make any connections.
Just wait for the blowback from Guantanamo.
Good point “Right On” about Guantanamo. I was just thinking about Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, the former Guantanamo detainee who went back to the fight after winning his release and blowing himself up, taken a dozen innocent people with him.
I tell ya, if I were the ACLU, NLG, CCR or if I was part of Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi’s legal team like Marc Falkoff, I wouldn’t sleep to well at night knowing that my actions freed a man I knew was guilty who went on to murder more.
Again, you don't address the larger issue of Guantanamo's illegality or the offense it constitutes in the eyes of many muslims.
Thousands of defense lawyers have worked to free clients who go on to commit further crimes. This doesn't invalidate the rule of law.
Your argument, as frequently seems to be the case, is selective and incoherent.
Again, you don't address the larger issue of Guantanamo's illegality or the offense it constitutes in the eyes of many muslims.
The offense it constitutes in the eyes of many Muslims, why would I care bout that? Do I care that the fact I educate my daughter, own a dog, eat pork, drink alcohol, “allow” my wife to buy makeup, take pictures, or any of the other myriad things that seems to offend Muslims to the point of violent retribution these days?
And again, you fail to address my point that the editors here simply made up, fabricated, strait pulled out their asses the idea that the 911 Commission Report and the Defense Science Board agreed with Rev Wright. The blowback argument reminds me of all the morons who jumped on the Regan was shot because of (fill in the generic leftists evil du jour), only to find out that it was really about Jody Foster.
Your argument, as always is the case, is selective and incoherent.
It's apparent that you don't care. The vigor with which you and many others claim not to care is the exact problem the editorial addresses.
You're entitled to your views, xenophobic and inhumane though they may be. The fact is, the mouthpieces that dictate the national dialogue have not been able to move beyond ideas like these, which will inevitably leave our country in a static irrelevance broken only by spasms of violence and shrill ideological self-righteousness. See you there, man.
If you were really interested in dissent, the CJR might consider allowing a conservative opinion into its pages.
Or would that be too radical for you?
The vigor with which you and many others claim not to care is the exact problem the editorial addresses.
The editorial addresses a lack of dissention in America, and based on how many people like you exist, that too is a load of horse manure.
You're entitled to your views,
Why Evan, how magnanimous of you. That you grace me with the privilege of speaking my opinion is very open minded of you.
xenophobic and inhumane though they may be.
Oh yes, its terribly small minded, inhumane and xenophobic that I own a dog, eat pork, and adorn the walls of my house with graven images of unveiled women.
The fact is, the mouthpieces that dictate the national dialogue have not been able to move beyond ideas like these, which will inevitably leave our country in a static irrelevance broken only by spasms of violence and shrill ideological self-righteousness.
I realize your powers of clairvoyance and divination are truly spectacular, but rubes like you have been selling this line for two generations now. Its amazing anyone is still listening.
See you there, man.
Something tells me you will be in Canada by then, our nation will be better without you.
There is no profit in dissent, and the major media are now entirely profit-driven.
There is money to be made from encouraging people by reinforcing their beliefs.
There is no profit in telling anyone "We were wrong about WMD" or "We were wrong when we said Bush's cabinet was an uber-competent 'dream team.'" To admit they were wrong undermines future profit potential.
TDC,
So far exactly ONE person has been released from Gitmo, among the many hundreds who have been released, and then gone on to kill.
A possibility which apparently never occurred to you was that years in a secret military-run prison could have radicalized him.
1. Arabs and Muslims had at least two excellent reasons to resent and even hate the United States at the time of al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. We had a history of propping up some of the most oppressive regimes in the region (like Saudi Arabia and Egypt) even as we claimed to care about democracy; and we were Israel's main economic and military ally.
Whether resentment and hatred justify killing innocent people is an entirely different matter; to say that the 9/11 attacks were attributable in large part to anger over various US policies in the Muslim world is not the same as to say that the attacks were justified. But to say that there is no connection between American policies and widespread anger at the US in the Arab and Muslim world is nothing less than self-delusion.
2. The US mass media is largely owned by seven media companies, per the Economist. That these companies usually have the same approach to the issues of the day, and that their ideas as to what points of view are worthy of being aired and what points of view are beyond the pale are largely the same, shouldn't surprise anyone. Since only extremely large corporations with virtually unlimited access to American finance capital can hope to have a voice in US mass media, and since such large corporations are almost identical in the patterns of their ownership and internal structure, what is surprising is that there is even as much diversity of opinion in mass media as there is.
3. The American right-wing, as represented here by TDC, has become obsessed with its own anger, with its conviction that half or more of the American people hate this country (because they aren't patriotic enough or militaristic enough or pro-authority enough or sexually prudish enough), and with its self-righteous certainly that anyone who doesn't feel that anger and that conviction is the Enemy. And when they fight the Enemy, no holds are barred, any allegation can be made no matter how false or heinous, and absolutely anything goes: John Kerry was a traitor, Barack Obama is the Antichrist, anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is a Hippie. Never mind that the urbanites they hate with such passion are responsible for most of the US Gross Domestic Product and therefore pay most of the bills for the wars they incessantly bay for; as far as the right is concerned, we hate America while they are the only ones who truly love America. For them, patriotism is like football mania; if you're not waving a plastic finger screaming "We're Number One!" then you're probably rooting for the other team.
But not only is this our country as much as yours, but you'll die out before we do. People under 45 in this country favor Obama by an impossibly large margin, and aren't paying any attention when you send out your latest e-mail about the similarities between Nicolae Carpathia and Barack. You've tried to bring home the German "dolchstoss" myth, tried to turn this into a country of brownshirts, cheered even when people who turned out to be innocent were tortured and sexually humiliated, made excuses for every manner of incompetence, applauded when Bush said "they hate us for our freedom" and then applauded even louder when those freedoms were taken away or compromised, but in the end your brand of 19th century Know-Nothing philosophy has brought the country nothing but grief. Worshiping military power at the expense of economic power has lowered the standard of living for much of the population without making the country any more influential; acting like King Kong on the world stage, denigrating diplomacy, and ignoring treaty obligations has undermined the alliance system that maintained us as the most powerful nation in the world over the last 60+ years; and engaging in winner-take-all politics at home has divided us into hostile camps to such an extent that we can't even cooperate on achieving an energy independence that would do more for national security than anything we've done in the Middle East since 2001.
Call names all you like. Tell everyone who doesn't feel as you do to move to Canada. Ridicule diplomacy, even as we've reached useful deals with Libya (through the offices of London) and North Korea (through the offices of Beijing). Tear down our alliances. Spin everything relentlessly. Oversimplify everything you discuss. Beat your breast. The ugly truth is that the only way McCain can win in November is by rejecting you and embracing independents, and the right is fated to get shellacked in the Senate and House. Your kind have screwed up everything you've touched in the last 7 years, and your time is up. Sending you packing before you finish off the economy altogether in the name of brandishing your manhood abroad is the very definition of patriotism.
TDC, you seem to be misinformed. From the Defense Science Board's "Strategic Communication" report (Sep. 2004):
"Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. [...] Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility."
And, if you'll forgive me, one more quote from page 48 of that same report:
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states."
The report can be accessed at .
Sorry, that should read "The report can be accessed at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf"
So far exactly ONE person has been released from Gitmo, among the many hundreds who have been released, and then gone on to kill.
You probably fancy yourself as being “well informed” and no doubt this feeds your righteous acts of dissention, but the number of people known to have returned to the fight after being released from Gitmo is more like 20 And these are just the ones known to have returned to their former lives.
A possibility which apparently never occurred to you was that years in a secret military-run prison could have radicalized him.
I suppose that the idea that they were pieces of human shit when they got there never crossed your mind either?
But not only is this our country as much as yours, but you'll die out before we do. People under 45 in this country favor Obama by an impossibly large margin, and aren't paying any attention when you send out your latest e-mail about the similarities between Nicolae Carpathia and Barack.
McMath, ever read this phrase: “No one I know voted for Nixon”? It was said by Pauline Kael after Nixon romped McGovern in the 72 election; one of the biggest landslides in history. I have the feeling that no one you know is voting for McCain, and you will have an equally sick feeling in your gut come November. Funny thing McMath, I am young .. exactly the kind of person Obama is gathering in large #’s of. But unlike most of my contemporaries, I see through both his Chicago machine style politics and his Mao like cult of personality. And McMath, this nation belongs to those who are willing to repopulate. The nihilism of the left has nearly guaranteed that they and their offspring will die off in a generation or two. Anecdotally speaking, this nation belongs far more to people like me with large and growing families then to folks like you.
Sarah, I understand the point you are making, but you are conflagrating the generic “Muslim”, who did not attack us on 9/11 (and all those other times) and the more fanatic jihadis who did attack us on 9/11 (and all those other times).
The grievances of the generic “Muslim”, Israel the United States and its policies, are not the same as the jihadists. That’s why CJR is wrong to say (or just plane made it up) that the Rev Wright’s view that we were attacked because of “blowback” was in agreement with either the 9/11 Commission (which is the opposite) or the Defense Science Board (which did not take a positions, only noted a poll of the generic Muslim).
What guys like Wright are doing is projecting their dislikes about America onto our people like Bin Laden, when the two have nothing in common and it’s dangerously close to the “enemy of my enemy” mindset. Bin Laden doesn’t hate America because of Israel or because of tyrannical regimes in Egypt Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, he hates us because we are not Muslim, we exist, and our existence and power prevents him from creating his own Islami tyrannical regime. Aside from being my opinion on the subject, this is what Bin Laden has reiterated in his many statements and this is the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission (the Defense Science Board did not weigh in on this to the best of my knowledge).
So yes the CJR editorial board lied with the following: Both the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board have, in separate reports, presented essentially, if less colorfully, the same view as Wright—that the attacks were attributable in large part to anger over various U.S. policies in the Muslim world. Lied their asses off.