The Guardian: Can the United States move beyond the narcissism of 9/11?

[markpkessinger]

Trying to bring a bit of balance to the 9/11 discussions ...

Can the United States move beyond the narcissism of 9/11?

Gary Younge
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 September 2011 18.00 BST

< . . . >

Inevitably, the unity brought about by the tragedy of 9/11 proved as intense as it was fleeting. The rally around the flag was a genuine, impulsive reaction to events in a nation where patriotism is not an optional addendum to the political culture but an essential, central component of it. Having been attacked as a nation, people logically felt the need to identify as a nation.

But beyond mourning of the immediate victims' friends and families, there was an element of narcissism to this national grief that would play out in policy and remains evident in the tone of many of today's retrospectives. The problem, for some, was not that such a tragedy had happened but that it could have happened in America and to Americans. The ability to empathise with others who had suffered similar tragedies and the desire to prevent further such suffering proved elusive when set against the need to avenge the attacks. It was as though Americans were unique in their ability to feel pain and the deaths of civilians of other nations were worth less.

It's a narcissism best exemplified by former vice-president Dick Cheney's answer when asked just last week on what grounds he would object to Iran waterboarding Americans when he maintained his support for America's right to use waterboarding. "We have obligations towards our citizens," he said. "And we do everything to protect our citizens."

However perverse that seems now such views had great currency at the moment, following the attacks, when many of the mistakes that would shape US foreign policy for the next 10 years were made. Terrorism will do that. "Terror is first of all the terror of the next attack," writes Arjun Appadurai in Fear of Small Numbers. If nothing else the Bush administration had fear on its side. "The next time the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud," said Rice. "They only have to be right once. We have to be right every time."

< . . . >

Read full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/04/narcissim-america-reality-failure

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. Not as long as the MSM is owned by the profit-making corporations

who are OBSCENELY making mega $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off the death of those killed on 911.

[RKP5637]

2. Yep, it's a M$M feeding frenzy, probably the best perpetual one they've had in years. n/t

[Supersedeas]

46. Big Oil makes sure that the Corporate Media is fed big advertising dollars

to make the 'news' it can use.

[whatchamacallit]

3. No. Not until the charade is over.

The official script is false. As long as we follow it, the country will drift further and further from it's center... and salvation.

[markpkessinger]

4. I would add that it is a function of our national narcissism . . .

. . . that in most cases heads off any thoughtful reflection on the possibility that such narcissism exists.

[whathehell]

5. I'm generally in agreement with The Guardian, but not now

"National Narcissism", my ass...

They could easily be called "narcissistic" about

their late, "great" empire..Have you ever

counted the number of films, books, and television shows

they've devoted to it?...It's voluminous, trust me.

[mr blur]

9. And this article is wrong, how?

Insecure, are we?

USA! USA!

Better now?

[whathehell]

17. I fail to see how memorializing this tragedy, this tragedy which occured on our soil, not theirs,

is an example of narcisissm and why, even if it were,

it would be a concern of theirs.

As for you, you should really know better.

Remembering a tragedy of this magnitude is HARDLY the

example of knee-jerk jingoism your pathetic little "example" would make it.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. How is attacking other countries memorialising it?

Because that's how the Bush administration responded to it...

[whathehell]

89. Again...What part of the OP's title mentions "attacking other countries"?

Read the OP's TITLE again:

"Can the United States Move On from the Narcissism of 9/11"?

Nothing about Bush..Nothing about attacks on other countries..Rinse and repeat.:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

74. I imagine in this case, the relevant difference between memorializing a thing...

I imagine in this case, the relevant difference between memorializing a thing and becoming obsessed and self-absorbed by a thing is merely a matter of perspective and bias.

Would Pearl Harbor Day be given the same bully pulpit in the political and religious arena as was the terror attacks on the WTC, I'd hazard your point would hold more validity. If Armistice Day were celebrated prior to nationally televised football games in high-definition with red, white and blue commercial orgasms, I'd imagine your point to hold merit.



Otherwise, it appears to be simple bias and provincialism to imply that the Madison Avenue birthed dogma that criticism against God, Mother and Country is not really anyone's concern or responsibility-- especially if the criticism come from foreign shores, rather than the objective observation we may like to otherwise believe it to be. :shrug:

[whathehell]

91. Did you just get out of bed, LanternWaste?

"I imagine in this case, the relevant difference between memorializing a thing and becoming obsessed and self-absorbed by a thing is merely a matter of perspective and bias".

I imagine that as well...And I imagine that "the relevant difference" between Pearl Harbor Day and the WTC attacks is that

the first occurred SEVENTY years ago, and the second a mere TEN years ago...A Sixty Year time span can really make a difference.:eyes:

As for the "bully pulpit", the attacks on Pearl Harbor generated more than a "bully pulpit"..They generated a World War.

"Otherwise, it appears to be simple bias and provincialism to imply that the Madison Avenue birthed dogma that criticism against God, Mother and Country is not really anyone's concern or responsibility-- especially if the criticism come from foreign shores, rather than the objective observation we may like to otherwise believe it to be"


"Otherwise", you've picked a rather odd "comparison", given the difference in time and the fact that neither you nor I were around when Pearl Harbor was

attacked...That being said, what I know of history tells me there was little inclination for sarcastic riffs on "God, Mother" "Country" or whatever

you're blathering on about here.:freak:...Sorry, but it's quite hard trying to make sense of what you're saying.

Please, Lantern...It's never wise to post half awake or on a hangover..I'm sure you'll get your thoughts straight after you wake up.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Yep. Guardianista-style anti-Americanism is ugly (nt)

[whathehell]

23. Ugly and, in this case, poorly thought out.

[truebrit71]

49. Wow. you really are clueless aren't you...The Guardian is probably one of the best papers...

...currently in print anywhere on the planet, but please don't let that stop you from getting your nose bent out of joint when presented with an uncomfortable truth...And if you think it's only 'toffee-nosed Brits' that think this way, make sure to read Paul Krugman's piece, released on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and then get back to me..

[Nye Bevan]

6. Nasty, sneering anti-Americanism at its worst.

He's probably still upset about Britain needing American help to win World War 2.

[mr blur]

8. Grow up. nt

[whathehell]

24. You grow up.

Failure to accept every opinion as

unquestioned truth is NOT a sign of immaturity.

Responses like yours, however, are.

[markpkessinger]

10. This kind of reflexive inability to consider criticism ...

... of the United States from the perspective of other countries is part and parcel of the very same narcissism of which the article speaks.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Not "from the perspective of other countries".

From the perspective of Guardianista types who are perpetually unable to reconcile their grudging admiration for the USA with their loathing of "Americanism".

Here's another example. On September 13, 2001, two days after the September 11 attacks, the US Ambassador Philip Lader appeared as a guest on the BBC TV show Question Time. During his appearance, hostile members of the audience slow-handclapped Lader and shouted abuse at him while he struggled to regain his composure. The BBC later apologized for the behavior of the audience. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Lader) *That's* the kind of attitude I'm talking about.

[markpkessinger]

15. So you conflate the Guardian with the BBC .,..

... and conflate a particular Guardian reporter with a particular hostile television audience for a BBC show, offering no connection between the two (other than, I suppose, the obvious commonality that both are British), and based on that you dismiss what the reporter has to say as "anti-Americanism?" Wow. That's some leap.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

22. No..You won't find a lot of "reflexive inability to consider criticism" on this board..

I, and some others here, have "considered" this

particular criticism and have decided to call bullshit

for reasons explained.

[truebrit71]

57. Bingo!! We have a winner...

..the irony is that the ones that have taken the biggest umbrage to the article don't realize that...

[laundry_queen]

93. Yeah, it would be comical if it wasn't so sad. nt

[Blue_Tires]

63. +1

[Violet_Crumble]

12. There's nothing anti-American about it at all...

I totally agree with this bit he said: 'The problem, for some, was not that such a tragedy had happened but that it could have happened in America and to Americans. The ability to empathise with others who had suffered similar tragedies and the desire to prevent further such suffering proved elusive when set against the need to avenge the attacks. It was as though Americans were unique in their ability to feel pain and the deaths of civilians of other nations were worth less.'

[whathehell]

21. No, you, for reasons you've made obvious as long as I've been here, would not think so.

You've never set foot in this country but are so loaded with negative

bias toward it that you're unable to see it in the writer.


"The problem, for some, was not that such a tragedy had happened but that it could have happened in America and to Americans".

Garbage...This is like telling a family who has lost many members to murder

that its somehow "selfish" of them to grieve because it was THEIR family that was murdered,


Um..Yeah..Families and nations tend to mourn their own most seriously, NOT because they consider them

"special" or "better" in an objective sense, which is what the writer is saying, but

because they are THEIR families or countrymen, and this is a totally natural response.


The invasion of the Falkland Islands resulted in NO deaths whatsoever and yet the UK deemed

it "tragedy" enough to "seek vengeance" by going to war with Argentina, showing no need

to "empathize" with those who might, and in fact, were, hurt and killed in that dispute.

The article is myopic and prejudicial in the extreme.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Those reasons would be an intense dislike of the warmongering Right Wing...

Also, I wasn't aware that you somehow have managed to see my passport and know where I have and haven't travelled. I also wasn't aware that setting foot in the US somehow turns folk into flag-waving dittoheads. Learn something new every day...

You haven't read the article properly. The two crucial words you ignored in the line of the article you quoted back at me was 'for some'. It's very clear in the article that he's not telling people they can't mourn. What he's talking about is the inability of some to empathise with others or not to want suffering to happen when it came to avenging the attacks. The US had so much good-will and sympathy from the world after September 11, and Bushco pissed it all away with its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and the massive death-toll and suffering it caused.

That last paragraph in yr post looks as though it's an attempt to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also comes across as looking like you don't know what the reasons were for the UK going to war with Argentina over the Falklands. The UK didn't consider the invasion a tragedy, and the reason there was a war was a complete failure of diplomacy between the UK and Argentina where both countries felt backed into a corner where they had no option but to go to war...

[whathehell]

66. So we should skip memorials because of "the 'war mongering Right Wing"?

Forget country, I'm beginning to question your PLANET!

Seriously...You can't be THIS delusional, can you?

"That last paragraph in yr post looks as though it's an attempt to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq".


What post are you referring to?...Please show me where I referred to Iraq & Afghanistan, as I recall

saying nothing ABOUT the wars there.

As for your defense of Falklands war, maybe they did NOT regard it as a tragedy but maybe they SHOULD have considering

that people DID die for that "complete failure" of diplomacy, didn't they?!

I'm sorry, Vi, you're getting a bit too removed from reality, for me...It's becoming

a matter of diminishing returns, if you will and I have noticed that no one

else is responding to you either...Uh..Later :eyes:

[truebrit71]

58. 9/11 = The Falklands?

Wow, talk about Epic Fail...9/11 was a terrorist attack on the USA, the Argentine invasion was an illegal, physical occupation of sovereign UK territory...in order for them to be equal the hijackers would have needed to seize control of Manhattan Island, not destroy a few buildings on it...Do try and keep your apples and oranges separate...

[whathehell]

76. Um..No.

and I can see you're trying desperately to "make up" for lost

ground here, but you would actually need to READ the initial exchanges

between these two posters to understand the concepts under discussion.

Let's hope your reading ability is up to the challenge.B-) .

[krabigirl]

39. Lmao.

[G_j]

54. thanks for proving the point! nt

[izquierdista]

7. Of course they can

Tomorrow will be the narcissism of 9/12, the day after the narcissism of 9/13, etc. Because every day in America is narcissism day.

[whathehell]

25. Yeah...Sure...Whatever...

If it's nasty and anti-American(s)it must be true.

Ever heard of a knee jerk?.:eyes:

[Solly Mack]

11. k/r

[lunatica]

18. This country has always been narcissistic, but so has Britain and all other Empires

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Brits lecturing anyone else about narcissism amuses me

Seriously? The most obnoxious colonial power of the modern era? And don't tell me for a second that the reaction in the UK would've been vastly different if some terrorists had plowed airliners into London and killed 3,000 people.

[whathehell]

26. Yes, it is amusing.

in a sad sort of way.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Not sure why it would....

Okay, I think I get it. It's not okay to call the reaction of some Americans narcissistic, but it's totally acceptable to strongly imply that the British are? Also, not sure how you define obnoxious when it comes to colonial powers, but I'd suspect there'd be a few European powers that beat them hands down, and if we include the post-colonial invasions and 'interventions' carried out by the US in the name of freedom and democracy, then we've got a winner!

btw, you might have forgotten but London suffered a major terrorist attack in 2005. I don't recall the reaction in the UK being to go off and invade a few countries and bomb the crap out of them. Seeing Blair was so deeply entwined with Bush's misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, he probably had no weak targets left to choose, but the reaction in the UK didn't appear to be one of hyper-jingoistic cries for war and revenge.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. With all due respect to the victims of the 7/7 tragedy

But 52 victims is not even in the ballpark of 9/11. Not even close. Don't for even a second try to tell me that the UK wouldn't have been "hyper-jingoistic" if that many people had been murdered and national landmarks toppled, because I don't believe it.

I don't, for the record, think Brits are narcissistic, but I don't think some smarmy commentator has any right to levy that kind of accusation about Americans when in all likelihood his country would've done the same thing had they suffered an attack of a similar magnitude.

[truebrit71]

50. Yup, only 52 innocent victims...pfttt why anyone bothers remembering a number that small...

...is beyond me...:sarcasm:

Your comment actually reinforces what the writer of the article said...

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. That is not at all what I said and you damn well know it

So don't you dare try to twist my words and act like I don't recognize the serious tragedy suffered by the UK on 7/7/05.

I notice that no one wants to touch my point that IF Britain had lost 3,000 of its citizens in a terror attack, its response wouldn't have been as commendably muted as the original poster seems to want to insinuate.

I really do not appreciate you putting such nasty false words in my mouth.

[truebrit71]

70. "7/7 isn't even in the same ballpark is 9/11"....your words...

..how else can one construe those remarks??

I can tell you this though, if the Houses of Parliament had been blown up by Al-Q I am 100% sure that Tony Blair wouldn't have invaded Belgium in response...

[whathehell]

78. It's the numerical difference, dear

and please don't overestimate Blair

He WAS stupid enough

to follow Bush, wasn't he?

[truebrit71]

79. ...but at least the Poodle could find his own country on a map....

...

[whathehell]

82. Bush could not only find his own country on a map

he could find yours!

[truebrit71]

84. Nope. He was too busy looking for the country of Africa and that placed called Yurrup...

...:-D

[whathehell]

86. Yup...How else could he get the Poodle to sign on?

[treestar]

64. As to your second paragraph - are you sure they would

not have had they been able to? I mean they did so at second hand regarding the US, so for themselves they would, and Iraq was already going on and are the Brits out of there yet?

I admit our news does not cover things well enough in other countries so that we are ignorant of 7/7 to a great degree (I admit to not remembering, was probably somewhat aware as it happened). But then we are also ignorant of UK press coverage on it or its politicians use of it to gain any particular ground.

I'd look into all that before concluding the UK did not make a big deal of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. No one with teeth like that could possibly be accused of "narcissism"

IT'S A JOKE! :hide:

[treestar]

20. To be sure had it happened on UK soil

American Aid would have been appreciated. Maybe the British do have more of a stiff upper lip - they might not memorialize it so much. But every culture is different. Most cultures would be quite overwhelmed by this.

[marmar]

27. Apparently not all of us, given some of the responses in this thread......

How many people have been killed because of U.S. foreign policy? You want to talk about enduring terror.......

[whathehell]

28. It's hardly "narcissism" to mourn an incident like 9/11 and had this occurred in any other country,

I doubt they'd be baring their fangs as the writer in this article is.

As far as the question "How many people have been killed because

of U.S. foreign policy", if YOU want to talk about "enduring terror",

you should ask yourself how many people were killed because of British

foreign policy during their long period of Empire.

[marmar]

29. The Guardian UK is a newspaper, not a government.....

...... and it's actually quite critical of British foreign policy. Read it sometime.

[whathehell]

30. No shit, Sherlock...

and btw, I have read it.

[truebrit71]

59. Not closely enough it seems...

:eyes:

[whathehell]

62. Um...Closely enough

for all the others here who seem

to share my opinion, dear.:eyes:

[truebrit71]

67. Sorry dear, but you appear to be in the thin-skinned minority...

...

[whathehell]

71. Sorry, dear, but it seems you can't count..

or is reading where your problems lie?

[truebrit71]

72. Funnily enough, neither...

...but feel free to continue to validate the opinion of the writer of the article...

[whathehell]

75. "Funnily enough"?...It seems the jokes on you

and screw the writer, you just validated MY opinion, LOL!:rofl:

[PufPuf23]

31. Equal time for the naming of innocents killed by wars based on lies

in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries since 9-11-01 would have been more fitting than encouraging the 9-11 myth this weekend.

The policy of the USA is not to fight terror but to bring and breed terror.

I regret the innocent lives lost in the USA and sympathize with the innocents that died on 9-11 and have lost life or had lives ruined in the subsequent wars.

[Baby Bear]

32. Just to be sure, I looked up narcissism

in Wikipedia. No doubt it, we are number 1.;)

[whathehell]

40. Speak for yourself, honey.

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. Boorishly inappropriate timing and using 9/11 to make his point.

Fail.

[truebrit71]

48. So what, 9/11 is now some sort of holy day? Fuck that noise...

BTW read the Paul Krugman piece in the NYT...did he display "boorishly inappropriate timing" too?

:eyes:

[whathehell]

52. It's called a "memorial" dear...and please feel free to fuck your own "noise" and insensitivity

I don't remember Americans complaining about the circus surrounding

the death of one dear Diana

So, how 'bout minding you own FUCKING business?

[truebrit71]

56. Nope. Sorry. Got nothing to do with insensitivity and everything to staying true..

...to those that died...No need for jingoistic flag-waving and chest-thumping and a great time to keep demanding answers to questions that have been avoided for 10 long years...

So 9/11 = Diana Spencer? A better example of apples and oranges I cannot think off...

"mind my own fucking business"? Not bloody likely. I live here too dear, so that ain't an option.

[whathehell]

61. Not to a snide and insensitive bore, it wouldn't.

Grief has nothing to to do with "chest thumping and flag waving" or the lack of questions, dear.

One can always ask questions AND have a memorial service,

they just rarely happen on the same day.:eyes:

Of COURSE you'd think the sentimental circus made

of Diana's death was a case of "apples and oranges"!

What is truly "your" business is a question similar to what

is truly "your" country....Just living here won't cut it, mate.

In your case, it's clear you can take the boy out of Britain,

but not the Brit out of the boy.

Just remember that if you prefer the

anachronistic bullshit of your own

ceremonies, you can always take your bloody ass home.

[truebrit71]

69. I have lived here over half of may life, dear...

..and trust me, if "your" country is stupid enough to vote any of the current gop candidates into office I will most certainly look to take my bloody ass home...

Paul Krugman (an American) said essentially the same sort of thing as this Guardian piece...should he have shut up too?

[whathehell]

73. How unfortunate for us, lol!...and you are over doing the "dear" bit a tad, aren't you?

Your promise makes me almost wish it WAS stupid enough...Then again,

it would have to be dunce-y enough to re-elect Cameron, and finance a bunch

of mediocre I.Q.s with titles, wouldn't it?

I'll read Krugman and decide for myself whether or not he "essentially said the same thing",

but much as you may dislike it, criticism from "within" is NEVER perceived

as it is from without, and that's a UNIVERSAL phenomenon, "dear", so

don't pretend it doesn't apply to the UK and other nations.

The chauvinism of the Brits can be astounding, and I know BECAUSE I've experience it,

and I don't mean on this board.

[truebrit71]

77. Ahhh, so now the truth comes out...you have a personal axe to grind about Brits...

....figured as much...

Go ahead and make another pithy retort and after that I will put you on ignore as your personal agenda has become tiresome to me....

[whathehell]

80. Nope..I've know quite a few Brits...I dated one, had others as roomates, co-workers, etc..

Some I've liked, others I haven't.

What I DO have is "experience", which is more than I can say for

some of the ignorant non-Americans here who are unlikely to have even met

an American face to face, let alone set foot here.

If that's too pithy for you, I can only tell you

I find it funny that you consider putting me

on Ignore as a "threat", lol


Whatever, bro...Thanks for playing:hi:

[truebrit71]

81. That was less than I had hoped for...

...I think you can do much better...;-)

[whathehell]

83. Awww...Sorry to disappoint

and you are right,

I CAN do much better, it's just

that you're not the only one

getting "tired" of agendas.;-)

[truebrit71]

85. .. in that case I rescind my "threat" and eagerly await more...

..;-)

[SoCalDem]

34. Nope.. we are a narcissistic nation that loves to wallow in our defeats

By doing that , we never have to examine WHY the "defeats" happened.

Imagine this:

Sept 12, 2001

Bush steps up and says :

" I know that many of you do not believe I am the rightful president, but today, I'm all you got, and I am disgusted by what happened on my watch. I am firing Rice and Rumsfeld and launching an impartial investigation led by Richard Clarke, to find out how this could have happened. If I am found to be culpable, I will submit myself and Cheney for impeachment proceedings. In the meantime, we will be sending troops to Afghanistan to wipe AlQaeda off the map, while we gratefully accept the rest of the world's offer to help us root out these terror cells where they exist. We have been hit and hit hard, but we will not become like the people who hit us. We are not going to succumb to thre impulse for revenge at any cost. It's not who we are."

[whathehell]

42. What BS.. "Loves to wallow in our defeats"...The usual spin is we're too "arrogant" in our victories

So which is it?...Whatever negative you can think of today?:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

51. On Sept 12, 2001 Bush and his minions had already been taking Cipro for 2 days ...

... to prepare for an anthrax attack intended to assassinate some of our top Democratic legislators in Congress. An attack that originated from a US army base and that no one in the public would know about for two more weeks.

Doubt he would have said anything like that.

Don

[TwilightGardener]

41. No.

[WCGreen]

43. It scared me to death as the jingoism I always feared reared it's

ugly head...

[lynne]

44. Maybe the Brits should just plan another royal wedding -

- if they're feeling left out and ignored. That always pulls media attention in their direction.

[laundry_queen]

45. Good deflection

Then you don't have to have any self-reflection. That kind of twist takes practice.

[whathehell]

55. Nice try...

But the "self reflection" on 9/11 has been going

on for ten years in this country.

As to "deflection", I'm afraid

you're confusing it with dismissal.

You see, the empty "critiques" from those whose

resentment of our place in the world is so obvious

and so constant, that it is hard to regard any but the

most astute as having objective value.

The word "deflection" implies the perception of threat and since

we're the endless target of diatribes posing as analysis,

this lame little try wouldn't even make the radar.

.

[laundry_queen]

92. I just don't get it

Why do you constantly attack anyone who is critical of the US? That is what I meant by my post. Deflecting criticism instead of honestly taking a good look at yourself says a lot about a person. When I have a good friend who has perhaps gotten a big head, or has been dismissive of me and my other friends, or has been self-centered, I call them on it. If they were a real friend to start with, they take my comments and examine their own actions. If they don't give a crap about what I say they were never a friend to begin with and if that friend has been consistently self-centered, and instead of self-reflection - becomes incensed about what I say and turns the blame outward, then it's likely they are a narcissist. See, a lot of times, it will be your best friends that give you the best advice. It may not be what you want to hear, but that is not what friends are for. Real friends tell you the truth and don't kiss your ass. One way you can tell a narcissist from the rest is they don't want to hear the truth - they like the kissing ass routine. It seems to me there is a lot of evidence on this thread to support the hypothesis in the article.

[whathehell]

96. Well, I'm sorry that you don't get it,

especially since I thought I explained myself rather well.

I don't accept the premise that I "constantly attack everyone

who is critical of the US"...I simply don't accept EVERY

criticism of the US that is thrown out here,

and I'm not sure why I, or anyone else,

should be expected to. I don't find that many people (or nations) do it very well,

and to be honest, one can hardly assume that every critic

is a "friend".

[whathehell]

53. Ha!...Spot on.

After all, what are the deaths of thousands here next to


the spectacle of an anachronistic monarchy there.:eyes:

[whathehell]

65. I agree. I think they're feeling a bit resentful

a tad "left out", if you will.

I suspect it may be a frequent problem for them.:eyes:

[sofa king]

47. I saw something yesterday.

Yesterday I walked along a line of 5,000 or so flags lined up in the grass, to commemorate the American lives lost ten years ago.

I estimated that if one counted every blade of grass within about two feet of those flags, one might begin to approach the number of innocent people who died as a result of the fallacious and opportunistic war started by the Bush Administration, by intentionally misguiding the anger of the American people.

Nobody else appeared to notice.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Yeah. It wasn't the 10th Anniversary of something really important, like Princess Di's death.

Give me a fucking break.

[hifiguy]

87. Some of you who are getting apopleptic about this piece

might want to read the first paragraph:

"In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks the then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, called in her senior staff and asked them to think seriously about "how capitalise on these opportunities". The primary opportunity came from a public united in anger, grief and fear which the Bush administration sought to leverage to maximum political effect."

That is why your snide hand-wringing is sadly misplaced. The BFEE did not view it as a tragic occurrence, they viewed it as the perfect opportunity for wars, redistribution of the treasury to the MIC and political manipulation. Until you realize that, you are blowing smoke from your fundaments. Virtually every M$M perception and presentation of 9/11 is made in perfect accord with the BFEE's desires.

[whathehell]

88. Had the OP lead with the sentence of the first paragraph you quote here

instead of flame-bait like:

"Can the United States Move beyond the Narcissism of 9/11"?

he would not have RECEIVED "apoplectic" responses, he would

have received an entirely DIFFERENT set which would

have reflected interest and reason.

[laundry_queen]

94. The 'some' you speak of are the enablers of the wars imo. nt

[spanone]

95. dear guardian, obviously not.