Was It Really Political?

So should Abraham Lincoln have been criticized for tastelessly injecting politics into what should have been a memorial event when, at Gettysburg, he concluded his remarks by declaring that the nation should “be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion” (emphasis mine – JLH)?

Judging by the reaction of leading Democrats to President Bush’s speech on the five-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks, President Lincoln should have been excoriated. After all, he was at Gettysburg to dedicate a cemetery – a place of remembrance of those who died there. Given that the war was not an extremely popular one in the first place, one can only assume that, had Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Ted Kennedy been around then, they would have jumped on Mr. Lincoln’s shameless campaigning on behalf of his war policies at a ceremony that should have been dedicated to cultivating a national sense of victimhood.

But Lincoln saw nothing inherently virtuous about being a victim of circumstance, and when the actions of the Southern States brought on the war that virtually no one in the north wanted, he elected to take action to change the circumstances under which he found himself, believing that the cause was worth whatever criticism his contemporaries, or even history, might heap upon him. And he recognized that the very reason that the memorial was being held in the first place was the fact of the war that confronted the nation. How could he not have taken note of the war, and the need to stay the course for the good of future generations?

From the time he took office, George W. Bush has demonstrated that he is not content with simply being president, as was his predecessor. He actually wanted to do something during his time in the White House. On September 11, 2001, circumstances forced him to change his emphasis. And, recognizing the need to put first things first – like protecting the nation and eliminating a clear threat to it – he took aggressive action.

From President Bush’s perspective, the war in Iraq is a part of the larger war on terror, whether you agree with him or not (I do - JLH). As he was the one giving the speech on Monday, it should come as no surprise to note that the mass murder that occurred five years ago – and the need to prevent it from happening again – was presented as the very reason that the fight continues in Iraq. And it should come as no surprise that he emphasized the need to stay the course so that the fate of those who died on that horrible September morning will not be shared by any who follow them.

Learn from the events of the past, and take motivation from them to do better in the future. Isn’t that what memorials are all about?

In that light, there was really nothing political about the President’s discussing Iraq as its danger to the world was awakened by the attacks on New York and Washington. So criticizing his speech as political is off base. If his opponents must criticize something in this context, let it be the war policies he is pursuing. But then, that really would have been injecting politics into a day of remembrance.

A Day Late

Yesterday was pretty hectic, so I didn't get anything posted, though I did take time for remembrance and reflection, as I hope you did.

Like many of you, I remember where I was the day a group of sub-humans attacked civilians in New York and Washington, and reminded us that, even in the twenty-first century, the idea of civilized humanity has still not taken hold in some areas. Time may have clouded my memory of some of the details, but the events unfolded, as best I remember, as follows.

At that time, in my role as a defense contractor, I was working on a U.S. Military installation in Huntsville, Alabama - an hour behind New York - working closely with the Saudi Arabian government in their procurement of military hardware from the U.S. government. We were actually in the process of planning a series of meetings with some Saudi military personnel, to be held in Huntsville the following month, when I was sitting at my desk and my team leader stopped by.

She asked me, "Did you hear about the World Trade Center?"

I hadn't.

But for some reason, just hearing the name of the place immediately made me think of the 1993 WTC bombing, so I asked, "They didn't bomb it again, did they?"

She said, "Yeah," and then followed up by pointing out that we really weren't sure yet, but that a plane had hit one of the buildings. It could only be an accident.

Of course, a few minutes later the idea of it being an accident was no longer a reasonable thing to think, as we received word that a second plane had hit. We were under attack.

I tried to log onto a website to get the details, but it seemed every server was clogged with traffic. I e-mailed a friend working elsewhere on the base, asking if he had heard anything. All he wrote back was, "Yes, get to a TV or radio." It was then that I remembered to turn on the radio on my desk. Sure enough, the local station was broadcasting ABC's coverage of the event.

About this time, I was called into my Division Chief's office for a previously-scheduled meeting to make plans for the upcoming meetings with the Saudis. He is big on continuing on as normal, holding the panic until we know more information. Fair enough.

But we weren't in his office for long when another member of the team stuck her head in his door to tell us, "The Pentagon's been hit."

Meeting paused.

We had a guy from our Division in Arlington on business that day. He wasn't scheduled to be in the Pentagon, but his proximity to it got our team leader on the phone quickly, trying to make contact. No luck, the phone lines are either clogged or down. His wife called the office to see what we knew. A few minutes later, our man in Arlington was actually able to get a call through to us, much to everyone's relief.

It was about this time that another employee of the contractor I work for came down the hall announcing that one of the Company Vice-Presidents had directed that all employees leave the base as quickly as possible. Naturally, no one was being allowed on the base at this time, and we wondered if we would be able to get off the base. Fortunately, there was no trouble in that regard.

After leaving the base, I went immediately to the company's building in the city. Every television to be found in the building was turned on, and everyone's attention was on the same thing. I went to the office of a worker that I had shared an office with a few years earlier to watch events unfold.

I hadn't been there long when it happened.

First one, then the other tower collapsed into the city in a massive cloud of dust. Everyone present realized that we had just seen a lot of people die, a few hundred miles to our north. After a few minutes, someone quietly said, "It's gone!" Walking the halls, I could detect a combination of high levels of despair and anger over what had been done to us.

Yes, us. Everyone there realized that the attack was designed to kill a portion of us, but to hurt all of us. And it had.

Being a company whose primary customer is the U.S. military, and that is staffed by a large percentage of former, as well as active, military personnel (guards and reserves), we all knew that our business just became a larger part of American life, and that, sleeping or not, the American nation was a giant that was being readied to inflict vengeance for the blood of her children.

When I finally got home that evening, I received calls from friends who wanted to compare notes, as well as one from a friend who lives alone and wanted some company that night. "Come on over," I told him. And he, and I, and my wife watched the ongoing coverage together, including President Bush's address to the nation. In office less than eight months, his presidency was now destined, for better or worse, to be one of the most consequential in history.

President Bush's comments confirmed what everyone already knew - we were now at war, and would be for many years, due to the nature of the enemy we would have to fight. That war continues to this day, and the blood of Americans is still being shed, but now the battle is being fought on our terms. Specifically, it is being fought on the turf of the bad guys, and not on our turf. Young men and women are still stepping up to serve in our all-volunteer military, making their service even more recognizable as the honorable sacrifice that it has always been.

In the days following the attacks of 2001, this nation decided that we should no longer have to live with terrorism as an every day fact of life. No civilized person likes going to war, with all that war involves, but a reasonable person realizes that war is sometimes thrust upon a people. To borrow from Abraham Lincoln, there were those who were ready to go to war to impose their tyranny, and there were those who were ready to accept war rather than let that tyranny succeed. And the war came.

How long will the war go on? No one knows, just as no one knew on December 8, 1941 how long that war would last. I have no doubt that many were frustrated when that war dragged on past the roughly two-years that comprised our involvement in the First World War. But however long we had had to make the sacrifices in previous conflicts, it was recognized that we had to stay in that fight until it was won. One hopes that the powers that be will have that same commitment to the present struggle for life and freedom - that it will last as long as it takes to win.

And lest we lose sight of what's at stake, it is good for us to remember - vividly - what we saw on that day. We saw the best of humanity in the actions of Americans trying to help one another, and the worst of humanity in the actions of our enemies who took pleasure in taking the lives of innocent civilians and then danced in the streets of far away lands in celebration.

Remember New York.

Talk About Insecure

In a perfect world, the American public would be as outraged by a recent letter drafted by Senate Democrat leaders as those leaders are by the upcoming ABC miniseries that prompted the letter.

The letter – signed by Democrat Senators Harry Reid (the Minority Leader), Richard Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan – is written in response to ABC’s production of “The Path to 9/11” – a miniseries that portrays the Clinton Administration as failing to do all in its power to combat terrorism and, possibly, prevent the worst terrorist attack on American soil – which took place a scant eight months after Mr. Clinton left office.

It’s really not so stunning, or even disturbing, that Democrats and other supporters of President Clinton are upset over the verdict on his administration that the film reaches. I would expect them to get upset over anything, be it factual or fictitious, that would call into question their competency or judgment. Most all of us would get upset as well in that position. But what is disturbing, and what distinguishes the liberals’ response to this movie from conservatives’ response to any number of commentaries by Bill Moyers, or inaccurate reports from Dan Rather, is the tactics used by the Democrats to try to intimidate a major media outlet into changing its programming.

Following Mr. Clinton’s angry response and contact with the Disney Company’s Robert Iger, the above-mentioned senators sent a letter dated September 7 to Mr. Iger urging him to “uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.” (Emphasis mine)

With all the issues that U.S. Senators could be dealing with right now, that the leaders of one of the major parties would take the time to draft such a letter at all lends ironic weight to an idea implied by the film that Democrat national leaders, such as Mr. Clinton are too distracted with trivial matters to deal effectively with major concerns. I’m guessing that President Bush and Senator Bill Frist never drafted a letter to Messrs. Moyers or Rather because they recognized how such an act would belittle men in their position - unlike Mr. Reid and company, who obviously worry excessively how they are viewed by their glamorous friends in Hollywood.

But what’s truly insidious about the letter sent to Mr. Iger may be the idea conveyed by the following excerpt:

“The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.”

Make no mistake about it. This paragraph, contained in a letter written by leaders of a party that aspires to control the U.S. government, is a thinly-veiled threat against the ability of a major media outlet to continue to receive broadcast license renewals. And it smacks of the type of good old-fashioned censorship that people like this are so fond of – incorrectly – accusing conservatives all the time.

I seriously doubt that ABC will cancel the show. As to whether the network will, as Mr. Clinton has demanded, edit the film to change the perception of him it creates, I suppose I will never know (as I haven’t seen the unedited version).

But one thing I do know. Episodes like this only further confirm the fears of many – be they real or simply perceived – that the problem with the Democrat party at the national level goes beyond mere incompetence to oppressiveness. It has been a long-standing tactic of the lunatic fringe left to do all they can to silence opposing voices (remember the pot-clanging rally outside the Capitol during the State of the Union?). As this movement is now the single most powerful faction among the Democrats, it should not be surprising that the tactic becomes standard use. Should the Democrats ever gain total control over the government again while this faction is ascendant, the consequences for American Constitutional freedoms could be severe.