"But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Re-re-writing 9/11

Boy, nothing says "Let's start the weekend" like having your mouth wrenched open for the better part of an hour while a dentist's drill tries to see just how close it can get to the nerve without sending you into epileptic spasms of pain. Consquently, this will be short so I can lie down and take a nap.

The Internet exploded today over an ABC drama-mentary coming out on this fifth anniversary of 9/11. It was incredible how quickly headlines went from describing the outcry of those who felt maligned by ABC's interpretation of their actions pre-9/11, to ABC capitulating and re-editing certain parts so that said individuals wouldn't have to look themselves in the mirror. I'm still catching up on my September 10th world history, so I don't know how accurately ABC represents certain events or participants therein (though their pointed gesture of labelling it a "dramatization" makes it obvious how accurate they think it is). But the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy of these kneejerk critics is captured nicely by one fellow blogger:

. . . a virtual kerfuffle has erupted over the upcoming television “docu-drama” that not only recreates the horrors on the streets of Manhattan and the other targets, but tries to explain which politicians had what role to play in the unconnected-dot scandal that made it all possible. Apparently the account would have us believe that presidents who slept through decades of terrorist attacks in distant lands might have had as significant a degree of responsibility as the president who had been on the job all of eight months—fancy that.

This is becoming quite the entertaining farce. The left is up in arms because the docu-drama tries to reconstruct the years of mis-steps, through more than one president, which brought us to the wretched pass of 9/11. Voices on the right are saying that nobody comes off looking good. But those on the left can’t stand it, and are crying out for—wait for it!!—all out CENSORSHIP of the show if they don’t get it revised to suit their Clintonista fantasies. So it’s all pretty incredible. You can create a grotesque caricatured docudrama of the private life of Ronald Reagan when he’s too old and sick to defend himself, and, well, that's entertainment! And you can portray George Bush— in television comedy, caricatures, formal addresses and debates, “documentaries”, commercial films, plays, and assorted advertising campaigns—as virtually retarded, or an active and witting accessory to the deliberate terrorist murder of thousands of his fellow-citizens, a soulless profligate of the lives of American military, a plunderer, liar, thief, tyrant, racist, moron, moron, moron, and you can even make a public show of your conjured fantasies of murdering him— and that’s all just fair comment.



Curious, is it not, how grotesque "art" like the upcoming Death of a President (depicting the murder of George W. and its supposed aftermath) is barely a blip on the radar screen, something one commentor nonchalantly brushed aside saying, " . . .a dalliance with the fantasy of assassination has nothing to do with, and isn’t likely to lead to, committing the act itself. In unruly times, people tend to have unruly thoughts. . .". Our blogger continues:

Kill the president? You unruly old thing, you! But try to examine how those charged with governing and protecting the American nation performed (or didn’t) in the exercise of their solemn responsibilities— try to re-construct historic events based upon assembled accounts and quotations and logical surmises (all of which have documentable sources even if they are now conveniently gainsaid by the principal players)-- and the free-thinking, free-speechifying left cries FOUL!!!!! And it wants you silenced. NOW. OR ELSE.


It warms the heart knowing that, even years later, a tragedy like 9/11 can still bring out the best in America, doesn't it?

I leave you with an analysis by
Newt Gingrich on the historical parallels between the problems faced by Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush during their respective wars. I'm still not sure I buy into the World War III metaphors, but I think his commentary and conclusions are highly insightful.

1 comment:

Ammianus Marcellinus said...

I think that I'd have to say I can hardly believe it, but I at least second Newt's theory that the president really hasn't mobilized the country as well as necessary, seeing as how I just posted on it tonight...