ON GOING FROM 9/11 TO 9/12

IT'S TIME

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman had one head-turning title for his op-ed piece:  "9/11 is over".  And it's got an editorial to match.  A lot of the piece resonates for me, but this bit most of all:

"We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

What does that mean?

This: 9/11 has made us stupid.

I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers.

But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are."

I'd add that I honor, and weep for all the casualties we've incurred since 9/11, and humbly thank their families for an immensely unthinkable sacrifice.

It's time for someone to say this off a very public bully-pulpit. 

We wrote a blank check as a country to our politicians after 9/11 over half a decade ago. 

It's time to put a stop order on it, and write a new one with a much more considered number instead.

It's just time.

Comments

[Alex Tolley]

Who is this "we"? By being inclusive, Friednman disrespects all those who fought against the rush to war and were vilified and even caused "treasonous". Friedman was a cheerleader for "democratizing the ME", now he wants to salvage something of wrecked dreams of that hubris. We've now lost more of our troops than citizens on 9/11, and the Iraqis have lost tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people. Iraq today is a shattered economy without rule and in the midst of civil war.

What we need is less of the 9/12 politicians drawn from the ranks of those who were so willing to make, or go along with, a series of bad policy decisions that have in total done inestimable damage to economy and reputation of the US, and more of a new slate of politicians who will stand up and make informed, independent decisions. So far I am not impressed with the self selected "leaders" offering themselves for candidacy.

On another of your threads about tourism in the US, I said that the US has become too hostile for tourists, despite the low $USD. Friedman has a quote about that in the referenced article:

"Roger Dow, president of the Travel Industry Association, told me that the United States has lost millions of overseas visitors since 9/11 — even though the dollar is weak and America is on sale. “Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world,” Mr. Dow said.
Total business arrivals to the United States fell by 10 percent over the 2004-5 period alone, while the number of business visitors to Europe grew by 8 percent in that time. The travel industry’s recent Discover America Partnership study concluded that “the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.” Those who don’t visit us, don’t know us."

[Dennis]

Bush and the Republicans used 9/11 for their own political gain. Anti-Terrorism has become their raison d’etre to the detriment of the American publics. To me, terrorism has been and always will be part of civilization because there will always be bad and crazy people around. It is a law enforcement issue and special forces should be able to deal with that problem.