BCT Editorial – 9/10/06

This page was last updated on September 10, 2006.

Reliving 9/11; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 10, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans must examine events of the past five years on the anniversary of terror attacks

“Monday marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America, a day of infamy that will remain frozen in time.

“We will always remember the airliners crashing into the landmark World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania cornfield and the scenes of devastation that followed: the two massive buildings collapsing in downtown Manhattan, the terrible images of the doomed jumping from horrific heights and the heroic life-saving efforts of emergency responders.

“But as we commemorate these historic events on Monday, we should also be assessing the future through a few honest questions:”

[RWC] When someone feels the need to label their questions as “honest,” that should set off your “spider senses.”

“* Have federal agencies such as the FBI and CIA resolved the petty turf battles that prevented them from acting on information they had before 9/11, indicating the attacks were imminent? Last year, the 9/11 Commission reported that they hadn’t.”

[RWC] “Petty turf battles?” The editorial conveniently fails to note much of the lack of information sharing was the result of statute and policy positions. Indeed, one (Jamie Gorelick, Asst. AG during Clinton administration) of the builders of the “wall” between the CIA and FBI was a member of the 9/11 Commission.

“* How do we address Iraq? Better yet, how do we get out? It appears that the situation is worsening with continued fighting in the streets amid the specter of civil war.”

[RWC] Note the question. To the Times, it’s not “how do we win?”, it’s “how do we get out?”

A brief retrospective of Times editorials is due here.

Just over a year ago, two editorials (“Cut and run” and “Stay the course”) in three days tried to convince us “The Bush administration is laying the groundwork to declare victory and get out of Iraq” but “It [Bush administration] cannot be allowed to declare victory and bug out.”

By March 2006, when the Times finally figured out President Bush wasn’t going to cut and run, the Times declared the “only exit strategy is fast approaching the declare-victory-and-get-out stage.” Editorials since then have repeated that position.

These guys are incredible, and hope we have short memories.

“To date, more than 2,600 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. Another 270 died in Afghanistan. About 20,000 have been wounded in both countries. The U.S. has spent more than $430 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and another $250 billion for homeland security. All of which prompts the next question.

“* Are we winning the so-called war on terror? Recent polling by The Associated Press indicates that doubts about the war are mounting in the United States. One-third of Americans believe that the terrorists are winning. In addition, the poll indicated that 46 percent of Americans do not think that Osama bin Laden will ever be caught.”

[RWC] Since I haven’t seen the cited poll or its questions, I can’t comment on the validity of the assertion.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume this paragraph is accurate.

Should we be surprised by such results? No. When all we get is a steady drumbeat of editorials bashing our efforts, and so-called news reports that focus solely on bad news, what should be expect?

Regarding the emphasis on bad news, here’s an excerpt from a recent speech by Defense Sec. Rumsfeld. “It’s a strange time when a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror.”

In case you’re interested, a search of the Times website found no mention of Sgt. Smith, though it’s possible there was a story in the print edition. I found one mention (a nice editorial) on the Post-Gazette website and no mention on the Tribune-Review website.

“* Finally, we need to ask ourselves - and our public officials - whether America is on the right track, both domestically and around the world, to prevent future terrorist attacks and quell the unrest that foments them.

“For too long, leaders on both sides of the political aisle have used 9/11 as a means to promote their personal agendas and careers. If the last five years have taught us anything, we should know that now is the time to put aside our political ideologies and address the problems truthfully.”

[RWC] What are the odds the Times will take its own advice?

“Honest answers to a few legitimate questions would be a good place to start.”

[RWC] Above the questions were “honest” and now they’re “legitimate.” The author is sure working hard to get us to buy into his questions.