Look Back in Anger: More Terrorism Is Imminent
The left-wing press, exercising its stronger-than-ever First Amendment rights, is often so frantic that its hard to ignore. The New York Times, which has degenerated into an anti-Bush/appeasement-at-any-cost propaganda sheet, recalling the papers strange coverage of World War II, is a topic Ill examine below. But even fringe publications like The Nation are as irritating as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who are stricken with amnesia about their own vast array of foreign policy failures while butting into the Iraq debate, as if anyone wants to hear from these born-again experts on terrorism.
Just one example, from a Sept. 23 Nation editorial: "Abroad, the Bush teams initial military victory in breaking up Al Qaeda cells and routing their Taliban protectors in Afghanistan has been tarnished by a stream of postwar revelations of needless civilian deaths from US bombs and mistreatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners."
Maybe it hasnt dawned on the upper-income-bracket editors of The Nation, but these captured fanatics are enemies of the United States and were engaged in war with this countrys military, as well as rejoicing at Osama bin Ladens well-planned massacre a year ago.
With the exception of those old enough to remember Pearl Harbor, the carnage of Sept. 11, 2001, is the central historic event of our lives. I was eight years old when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, and for decades after the question, "Where were you when...?" was a common benchmark, something anyone born before, say 1957, could share, regardless of political ideology. The crumbling of the Twin Towers instantly relegated that (still-unsolved, in my mind) shocking murder to a long-ago era.
Writing two days before the first anniversary of Sept. 11, my sadness and incomprehension of that day has largely been replaced by anger. Its mostly directed at the ratings-obsessed media, the lack of security in New York City and other obvious high-density targets, self-aggrandizing politicians mainly concerned with reelection and a rubber-necking U.S. culture that craves constant commemoration of an horrific occurrence.
The television coverage of this one-year milestone (far more saturated than the one-month, six-month and nine-month ceremonials about the same event) is grotesque. In part, its an insult to all the families whose lives were forever altered by the attacks, as if they need one more extended period of mourning to mark their losses. On a larger scale, the ubiquitous tv marathons, books and magazine "special" editions this month trivialize the perilous condition of the world, a confusing jumble of violence that hasnt been matched since World War II.
Both Newsweek and Time printed "One Year Later" issues last week, which was reasonable enough, but the fact that both publications dated their editions Sept. 11, 2002 (a Wednesday), instead of the usual Monday date, was obscenely cynical. Worse yet was that Newsweeks newsstand copies were printed on heavier-stock paper than issues sent to subscribers, with "Commemorative Edition" the headline at top. The flailing U.S. News & World Report also published a stand-alone, advertising-free "commemorative issue" (the fine print on the cover reads"Keep on sale through Nov. 11, 2002"), and opened with a mandatory photo of the burning towers in New York.
I witnessed the event live on Hudson St. and then like the rest of the nation saw nonstop film of those planes crashing into the towers for days after. Its not an image–or sequence of images–that bears repeating at this point.
Last Saturday night I was watching a video documentary about Ulysses S. Grant, and while rewinding the first reel, Larry King sprung up on CNN, interviewing network anchors Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw about their "reporting" experiences last year. After being assaulted by about 15 cliches, I turned to Cartoon Network until the second half of the Grant biography was ready for viewing. One hopes, probably quixotically, that Americans will boycott the orgy of television self-congratulation, save the live speech by President Bush on Wednesday morning in New York City.
Writing in the Sept. 6 New York Times, critic Caryn James had several smart insights. She said: "Some of Wednesdays attention is clearly necessary, notably the live coverage of the memorial ceremonies at ground zero. The documentaries and taped reports, though, continue what television has already been doing. There is such an emphasis on human-interest stories and eyewitness accounts, its as if the whole country has been engaged in a year of televised talk therapy...
"In an ABC report scheduled for Wednesday night, Barbara Walters visits a therapy group of widows and their adolescent children. The cameras have followed these people for months; they knew they were being discreetly observed. Yet there is still a creepy voyeurism involved, no matter how