How Not to Think about London
Gov. Pataki on public radio this morning (I paraphrase): New Yorkers can put themselves in Londoners' shoes because we have experience with terror attacks. Now, Pataki was probably feeling beleaguered when he blurted out his remark--he came across a bit shaky--but it nonetheless sounded embarrassingly smug. America was not the first target of terrorist murderers in the history of the civilized world. London was assaulted by terror attacks for decades. Do we have to discover everything first?
That said, we all have a reminder today of who the most dangerous enemies are. They're the guys who will kill anyone--anytime, anywhere--for the sake of their vile doctrines.
Advertisement
is a Republican trademark:
"Dead or Alive!"
"We're fighting em there so we don't have to fight em here!"
"Bring It On!"
Smug is what Republicans do. Of course we can teach the Brits a thing or two about terrorism. 9/11 Changed Everything (tm), didn't it?
July 7, 2005 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're being way too harsh on Pataki. Of course New Yorkers can put themselves in Londerers shoes because they have experienced a terrorist attack. How else could they realistically claim to identify with them, if not from direct experience? If I told my just-divorced friend it'll be OK and "I feel his pain," it's a lot more comforting to him if I've been divorced myself.
And I don't think Pataki's "smugness" implies any claim to a monopoly on terrorist attacks. Sure Britain and other countries have experienced terrorist attacks before, as has the US prior to 9-11 (e.g. Pearl Harbor). But the current generation of Brits may not have any direct memory of s terrorist attack, and certainly not one of this type, that is, an al-Qaeda orchestrated one. Not all terrorist acts are created equal, without even taking into account the magnitude of their destruction.
July 7, 2005 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrorism is one of the pathologies of our age. But let's not divert our attention from state sponsored murder and oppression. All US commentators on today's violence in London need to remain humble, contrite, honest, and socially active about our own participation in bloodshed. that may not be the PC thing to say today. But so be it.
July 7, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
New Yorkers can put themselves in Londoners' shoes because we have experience with terror attacks.
Sounds more like a statement of empathy and solidarity to me, rather than "now you know what it's like to be attacked". I don't think it's a fair criticism of Pataki
July 7, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every opportunity to make a reference to 9/11 must be taken and at every opportunity the "experience of terrorism" must be appropriated and made the speaker's own.
I'm surprised Bush didn't say the very same thing, only more smugly. I imagine the only reason he didn't is that Rove was otherwise occupied this morning and couldn't be bothered to write a statement that would capitalize on this event.
Not that he won't.
July 7, 2005 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC saying how the attacks will play to Bush's strengths and increase American support for the war in Iraq. Well, who know, maybe it will. But before any polls were taken, she has given us her wisdom on the subject. Does the White House have her on retainer?
I can hardly bear to watch TV news any more because of this kind of crap. Tell me how this is news. It was the British who were attacked, but for her, it was all about the effect of the attacks on George Bush's poll ratings. It's sickening.
July 7, 2005 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pataki is a schmuck, but this fumbly attempt at empathy does not bug me. What bugs me is related to this statement:
"That said, we all have a reminder today of who the most dangerous enemies are. They're the guys who will kill anyone--anytime, anywhere--for the sake of their vile doctrines."
Listening to Bush's remarks about evil in the hearts of those who kill indiscriminantly, I think of the body count in Iraq and sadly reflect on how the statement above could well be seen as descriptive of forces that act in our name. Unfortunately, no one has cornered the market on indiscriminate killing, vile doctrines, or evil in the heart, and when one is most sure that your team is free from these taints is when one ought to be looking most carefully for self-deception.
July 7, 2005 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Britain and other countries have experienced terrorist attacks before, as has the US prior to 9-11 (e.g. Pearl Harbor).
I must ask what definition of "terrorism" you're using here to include Pearl Harbor? GW Bush seems to think the term means anyone talking up arms against the US, but I would hope you aren't taking a lead from him!
But the current generation of Brits may not have any direct memory of s terrorist attack
I doubt any sentient adult in the UK can fail to remember the IRA bombings in the 90s.
Or indeed the fascist nailbomber in 1999.
certainly not one of this type, that is, an al-Qaeda orchestrated one.
That I'll grant you.
July 7, 2005 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink