| Date: | Saturday September 06, @07:29PM |
|---|---|
| Author: | ewing2001 |
| Topic: | Bush |
| from the NY-Times/Maureen-Dowd dept. | |
NY Times -Sunday September 7, 2003
Update: Kristen Breitwieser about DC 9/11 (09/08)
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON — On one channel tonight, we can watch the iconic side of the Bush presidency. In the risibly revisionist Showtime movie "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," George W. Bush is Vin Diesel-tough as he battles terrorists. "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come get me," the fictional president fictionally snaps on Air Force One after the 9/ll attacks. "I'll just be waiting for the bastard."
On network channels at the same time — W. is pre-empting himself! — we can watch the ironic side of the Bush presidency. Even though Bush the Younger has done everything in his power not to replicate the fate of his dad, he is replicating the fate of his dad. Only months after swaggering out of a successful war with Iraq, he is struggling with the economy. His numbers have fallen so fast, Top Gun is now tap dancing. He will address the nation to try to underscore the imaginary line that links the budget-busting pit of Iraq to the heartbreaking pit of 9/11.
Just as the father failed to finish off Saddam, so the son has failed to finish off Saddam. Just as the conservatives once carped that the father did not go far enough in Iraq, now the "cakewalk" crowd carps that the son does not go far enough.
"We need to get Iraq right and we're trying to do it a little bit on the cheap," Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor, chastised on "Nightline." "I think we could use more troops; we could certainly use more money."
The more you do, the more you need to do. That's the Mideast quicksand, which is why it is so important to know how you're going to get out before you get sucked in.
Dick Cheney's dark idea that a show of brutal force would scare off terrorists has ended up creating more terrorists.
Tonight will be a stomach-churning moment for Mr. Bush, and he must be puzzling over how he got snarled in this nightmare, with Old Europe making him beg, North Korea making him wince, the deficit making him cringe, the lost manufacturing jobs making him gulp; with the hawks caving in to the U.N. and to old Saddam Baath army members who want to rebuild a security force; with Representative David Obey demanding the unilateral heads of Rummy and Wolfie, so that "Uncle Sam doesn't become Uncle Sucker"; with the F.B.I. warning that more Islamic terrorists who know how to fly planes may be burrowing into our neighborhoods.
Does Mr. Bush ever wonder if the neocons duped him and hijacked his foreign policy? Some Middle East experts think some of the neocons painted a rosy picture for the president of Arab states blossoming with democracy when they really knew this could not be accomplished so easily; they may have cynically suspected that it was far more likely that the Middle East would fall into chaos and end up back in its pre-Ottoman Empire state, Balkanized into a tapestry of rival fiefs — based on tribal and ethnic identities, with no central government — so busy fighting each other that they would be no threat to us, or Israel.
The administration is worried now about Jordan and Saudi Arabia in the face of roiling radicalism.
Some veterans of Bush 41 think that the neocons packaged their "inverted Trotskyism," as the writer John Judis dubbed their rabid desire to export their "idealistic concept of internationalism," so that it appealed to Bush 43's born-again sense of divine mission and to the desire of Mr. Bush, Rummy and Mr. Cheney to achieve immortality by transforming the Middle East and the military.
These realpolitik veterans of Bush 41 say that Bush père, an old-school internationalist who ceaselessly tried to charm allies as U.N. ambassador and in the White House, "agonized" over the bullying approach his son's administration used at the U.N. and around the globe.
Some of the father's old circle are thinking about forming a Republican group that would speak out against the neocons. "What's happening in Iraq is puzzling," said one Bush 41 official. "The president ran on no-nation-building. Now we're in this drifting, aimless empire that is not helping the road map to peace."
W. has always presented himself as the heir of Reagan, and dissed his father's presidency, using it as a template of what not to do.
But as he tries to dig himself out tonight, he may wish he had emulated the old man, at least when it comes to slicing the deficit and playing nice with the allies.
By Kristen Breitweiser
Sept. 8, 2003 |
The film "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," which premiered
Sunday night on Showtime, is a mind-numbingly boring, revisionist,
two-hour-long wish list of how 9/11 might have gone if we had real
leaders in the current administration. This film is rated half of a
fighter jet -- since that is about what we got for our nation's defense
on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
Despite the title, the film only budgets approximately 10 minutes to the
actual morning of 9/11. Most of the movie is spent cataloging the myriad
cabinet-level debates as to whether to declare "war" against terrorism
and how to effectively sell that to the American people.
It is understandable that so little time is actually devoted to the
president's true actions on the morning of 9/11. Because to show the
entire 23 minutes from 9:03 to 9:25 a.m., when President Bush, in
reality, remained seated and listening to "second grade story-hour"
while people like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade
Center towers, would run counter to Karl Rove's art direction and grand
vision.
Remember the aircraft carrier photo-op? Bush is a man of action; in
fact, he is an action hero. Except, of course, when it really counts,
like in those early morning hours when this country was under attack and
our Commander in Chief was drinking milk and eating cookies with second
graders. Can you imagine one of those second-graders years from now when
they are asked where they were on the morning of 9/11? They will simply
say, "I was sitting with the President reading him a story."
It also confuses me that the filmmakers would allot so much time to the
war posturing in Afghanistan because that, too, has been a failure.
President Bush is quoted in the fictional drama as saying he will take
Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But, I'm sorry, have we captured him?
And why so much time spent on this war plan anyway? I thought there was
a copy of it on the President's desk the day before 9/11? So what's all
the fuss about? Why all the cabinet meetings with all the dignified
speak?
The real Condoleezza Rice apparently didn't know planes could be used as
weapons, but she is portrayed in the movie as a woman who knew an awful
lot about bin Laden and al-Qaida by 8 p.m. on the evening of the
attacks. The real FBI was caught flat-footed by bin Laden and the 19
hijackers, but in the movie they gather the names and photos of the
hijackers very rapidly. I guess their "networking" problems, like Rice's
bin Laden knowledge, got "cleaned up" by the evening of 9/11 in the
movie version.
It's also interesting to watch the fictional versions of Ari Fleischer
and Karen Hughes "strategizing" and "orchestrating" to make President
Bush look like a strong leader. Who knew that it was such hard work to
frame the president as an empathetic, strong and competent leader in the
face of the nation's worst tragedy? Forgive my naiveté, but I never knew
how meticulously planned the president's every single word and movement
were. And if his words are that carefully and painfully chosen, just how
did those 16 words get into his State of the Union address anyway? But I
digress.
What is so "off" about the film is that it is too slow, too methodical,
too calm. There are no suit jackets hanging over chairs, no five o'clock
shadows, no empty coffee cups strewn about, no shirtsleeves rolled up,
no people pulling all-nighters. No tempers flaring. No panic. No raw
emotion. Nothing but a lot of talking, walking and more talking, and the
occasional workout session by the president -- who knew he could bench
press so much weight?
When juxtaposed against the recently released transcripts of 9/11 phone
calls from inside the towers, the administration's attitude doesn't look
good. How could they all be so relaxed? So unemotional. How could any of
them even sleep? Why weren't they worried about a second wave of
attacks? How did they know for sure that there was not another attack
soon to follow? Why were they so disinterested in the rescue and
recovery efforts? Maybe this would explain why the Environmental
Protection Agency couldn't be bothered to monitor the air quality of
lower Manhattan. Nobody cared. If the Administration is this relaxed
facing the nation's worst tragedy, are they asleep when they negotiate
health care reform?
Just as an aside, I especially liked the tender moments shared between
the president and First Lady, particularly when she mentioned the
atrocities the Afghan women faced under the rule of the Taliban. We --
the 9/11 widows -- have requested meetings with the First Lady to
discuss our goals for the 9/11 Independent Commission. She never
answers. Honestly, we take offense that Mrs. Bush will fly halfway
around the world to meet with Afghan women and yet she won't meet with
us. All we want to do is make this nation safe for our children.
I did learn some things in the film. First, I didn't realize that it
took President Bush until Friday afternoon to visit New York. Frankly, I
don't remember much of the month of September 2001, but why would the
administration want to publicize the fact that it took the President so
long to visit the place terrorists had attacked? Are we buying the story
that it was for national security reasons?
And since we are talking about the visit to Ground Zero, I found it
particularly offensive that there was so much posturing about how to get
the best photo-op. The worst part comes when the president meets a young
mother and child who are desperately searching for their missing father
and husband. President Bush takes the picture of the child's father and
signs his name across it, telling the young girl, "When your daddy comes
back, tell him you met me." For a child and wife facing the devastating
loss of a loved one who very likely has just been burned, crushed and
buried in rubble, meeting the president doesn't rightly matter. Nor does
it matter having his signature scrawled across a photo that you wanted
to display on a wall of missing victims -- something that would have
offered at least a glimmer of hope.
Miscellaneous things that surprised me included the fact that the film
perpetuates the big fat lie that Air Force One was a target. Forgive me,
but I thought the White House admitted at the end of September 2001 that
Air Force One was never a target, that no code words were spoken and
that it was all a lie. So what gives?
Also surprising is the debate about whether the military may or may not
have shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. You would think that the
President of the United States would know the answer to this query, and
yet a shoot-down is raised as a possibility and never definitively
answered -- even to the President.
There was also no mention of the Saudi royals and bin Laden family
members who were allegedly flown out of the country in the first few
days after the attacks. I guess that got left on the cutting room floor.
Not surprisingly, there is no mention of accountability. Not once does
anyone say, "How the hell did this happen? Heads will roll!" I was
hoping that, at least behind closed doors, there were words like, "Look,
we really screwed up! let's make sure we find out what went wrong and we
make sure that it never happens again!" Nope, no such luck.
Finally, with the abundance of creative license taken in the film, I was
surprised to see that the film didn't take better "care" of Donald
Rumsfeld. On the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld remained at his desk --
apparently unaware that we were under attack until the Pentagon was hit,
a full hour after the WTC. Why the film editors decided not to rewrite
this history I don't know -- maybe in real life, thanks to recent
developments in Iraq, Rummy will be leaving soon to spend more time with
his family.
I watched this film with three of my widow friends. We have spent the
last two years fighting this administration to try and get answers to
the many questions that plague us about 9/11. When they're finally
answered, our questions will undoubtedly make this nation safer than it
was on that morning. But our reality is that our husbands are never
coming home. We are left to raise our children without them. Too bad
Showtime can't rewrite our history of 9/11 -- that would be something
worth watching.
About the writer:
[Tom Gorman:]A "mind-numbingly boring" propaganda film
A 9/11 widow reviews last night's Showtime film about President Bush's
actions on and after that fateful morning.
Kristen Breitweiser is a 9/11 widow. She is a co-founder of the group
September 11th Advocates and is a member of the Family Steering
Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies.
printed from Bush: Fictional President Vs. Brutal Force Tapdancer on 2004-05-25 23:13:07