 |
The
Political Capital of 9/11
By Norman Solomon
The Bush administration
never hesitated to exploit the general publics anxieties that
arose after the traumatic events of September 11, 2001.
Testifying on Capitol Hill exactly 53 weeks later, Donald Rumsfeld
did not miss a beat when a member of the Senate Armed Services committee
questioned the need for the United States to attack Iraq.
Senator Mark Dayton: What is it compelling us now to make
a precipitous decision and take precipitous actions?
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld: Whats different? Whats
different is 3,000 people were killed.
As a practical matter, it was almost beside the point that allegations
linking Baghdad with the September 11 attacks lacked credible evidence.
The key factor was political manipulation, not real documentation.
Former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack got enormous media exposure in
late 2002 for his book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading
Iraq. Pollacks book promotion tour often seemed more like
a war promotion tour. During a typical CNN appearance, Pollack explained
why he had come to see a massive invasion of Iraq as
both desirable and practical: The real difference was the
change from September 11. The sense that after September 11, the
American people were now willing to make sacrifices to prevent threats
from abroad from coming home to visit us here made it possible to
think about a big invasion force.
Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk, with the London-based Independent
newspaper, was on the mark when he wrote: Iraq had absolutely
nothing to do with 11 September. If the United States< invades Iraq,
we should remember that.
But at psychological levels, the Bush team was able to manipulate
post-9/11 emotions well beyond the phantom of Iraqi involvement
in that crime against humanity. The dramatic changes in political
climate after 9/11 included a drastic upward spike in an attitude
fervently stoked by the likes of Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the presidentthat
our military should be willing to attack potential enemies before
they might try to attack us. Few politicians or pundits were willing
to confront the reality that this was a formula for perpetual war,
and for the creation of vast new numbers of new foes who would see
a reciprocal logic in embracing such a credo themselves.
One of the great media clichés of the last two years is that
9/11 changed everything. The portentous idea soon became
a truism for news outlets< nationwide. But the shock of 9/11 could
not endure. And the events of that horrific daywhile abruptly
tilting the political landscape and media discourse did not
transform the lives of most Americans. Despite all the genuine anguish
and the overwhelming news coverage, daily life gradually went back
to an approximation of normal.
Some changes are obvious. Worries about terrorism have become routine.
Out of necessity, stepped-up security measures are in effect at
airports. Unnecessarily, and ominously, the USA PATRIOT Act is chipping
away at civil liberties. Yet the basic concerns of September 10,
2001, remain with us today.
The nations current economic picture includes the familiar
scourges of unemployment, job insecurity, eroding pension benefits
and a wildly exorbitant healthcare system that endangers huge numbers
of people who are uninsured or underinsured. Two years after 9/11,
the power of money is undiminished notwithstanding every platitude
that bounced around the media echo chamber in the wake of 9/11.
During the last months of 2001, many media powerhouses heralded
the arrival of humanistic values for the country. Typically, the
December issue of O The Oprah Magazinewas
largely devoted to the cover story We Are Family. In
the lead-off essay, Oprah Winfrey served up a heaping portion of
sweet pabulum. Our vision of family has been expanded,
she wrote. From the ashes of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon,
and that field in Pennsylvania arose a new spirit of unity. We realize
that we are all part of the family of America. Later in the
glossy, ad-filled magazine, the We Are Family headline
reappeared under Old Glory and over another message from Oprah,
who declared: America is a vast and complicated family, butas
the smoke clears and the dust settlesa family nonetheless.
From the vantage point of the present day, the late-2001 claims
about a new national altruism invite disbelief if not derision.
No amount of media spin about the family of America
can negate the fact that gaps between wealth and poverty have never
been wider. What kind of affluent family would leave so many of
its members in desperate need?
In a cauldron
of media alchemy, the human suffering of 9/11 became propaganda
gold. Sorrow turned into political capital.
As measured by poll numbers, President Bushs fall from popular
grace this year has brought him back to about where he was just before
9/11. That decline runs parallel with slumping myths about the transcendent
aftermath of 9/11. Subsequent events have brought sobering realities
into focus.
Recent news about Halliburton and Bechtel cashing in on the occupation
of Iraq is a counterpoint to revelations that the White House strongly
pressured the Environmental Protection Agency in the days after 9/11
to mislead the public about dangers of airborne toxic particles from
the World Trade Center debris. The EPAs Office of the Inspector
General reported last month that the desire to reopen Wall Street
was a major factor in the Bush administrations misleading assurances.
Although the public was told that everything had changed, powerful
elites gave the highest priority to resuming business as usual.
After 9/11, while many thousands of people grieved the sudden loss
of their loved ones, a steady downpour of politically driven sentimentality
kept blurring the U.S. medias window on the world. Politicians
in high office, from President Bush on down, rushed to identify themselves
with the dead and their relatives. Cataclysmic individual losses were
swiftly appropriated for mass dissemination.
In a cauldron of media alchemy, the human suffering of 9/11 became
propaganda gold. Sorrow turned into political capital.
The human process of mourning is intimate and often at a loss for
words; journalists and politicians tend to be neither. Grief borders
on the ineffable. News coverage gravitates toward clichés and
facile images.
In tandem with the message that 9/11 changed everything
came an emboldened insistence on the U.S. prerogative to attack other
countries at will. In a baitand- switch operation that took hold in
autumn 2001, emblems of 9/11 soon underwent double exposure with prevailing
political agendas.
Displayed by many as an expression of sorrow and solidarity with 9/11
victims, the American flag was promptly overlaid on the missiles bound
for Afghanistan. In TV studios, like angelic symbols dancing on the
heads of pins, the Stars and Stripes got stuck on the lapels of many
newscasters.
Network correspondents routinely joined in upbeat assessments of the
U.S.- led assault on Afghanistan that took the lives of at least as
many blameless citizens as 9/11 did. Later, the U.S.-led invasion
of Iraq, which overthrew a regime in Baghdad with no links to the
9/11 hijackings or Al Qaeda, took more civilian lives than 9/11 did.
For the United States, moral reflection could not hold a candle to
the righteous adrenaline of war.
Two years ago, W.H. Audens mournful poem September 1,
1939 suddenly drew wide media attention. Set amid the blind
skyscrapers of Manhattan, where buildings grope the sky,
the poem seemed to eerily echo the World Trade Center calamity with
words that closed the first stanza: The unmentionable odor of
death/ Offends the September night.
The concluding lines of the next verse received less notice during
the terrible autumn of 2001. But we now have more reason to consider
their meaning: Those to whom evil is done/ Do evil in return.
Norman Solomon
is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy based
in San Francisco. He is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of Target
Iraq: What the News Media Didnt Tell You. For an excerpt
of the book, go to: www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target
.
|
 |