Long a staple of Guillini campaign stump speeches and the incessant "History Will Be My Judge" ramblings of the President, now it seems the Democrats have adopted the venerable old saw: "...we haven't been hit on American soil since 9/11."
There's only one problem with this strained reading of our country's recent history.
It ain't true!
It ignores the reality of the October 2001 anthrax attacks.
And if you're as exasperated as I am when you hear this bunk...follow on.
During Monday's Democratic Presidential debate at Soldier Field in Chicago, none other than Keith Olbermann adopted this narrative as the premise for a series of homeland security questions:
MR. OLBERMANN: Senator Biden, thank you.
Senator Dodd, there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. Does that mean that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a good idea?
I know what you're thinking. Who IS this numbnuts who's getting all bent out of shape over a seemingly minor oversight by KO, an eminent progressive icon, during an otherwise spot-on debate moderation? Even if the statement is technically untrue-- it was a terror attack...on American soil...after 9/11-- well big fu@#in' whup. Only five people died. And it probably wasn't al Qaeda.
Why not just gloss over the anthrax attacks? Get over it. Move on.
Well, dear reader, we mustn't, and here's why.
First, there is a compelling argument to be made that, of the two terror attacks we suffered through, the October 2001 anthrax attacks were a greater threat to our republic than the September 11th sneak attack. The 9/11 attacks-- as vicious as they were-- were a one shot deal. They got lucky and caught us with our pants down. And while it certainly wreaked more physical damage than the anthrax attacks, should that be the sole measure of a terror attack's efficacy? What if the anthrax terrorist's (s') objective was not to destroy infrastructure and kill people, but to adversely curtail our freedoms? The swift passage of the USA Patriot Act and the imposition of clandestine surveilance, torture rendition and perpetual war in the immediate aftermath of the anthrax attacks suggests that their long term objectives may have been heartily satisfied. (Keep in mind that the anthrax terrorist brazenly attempted to murder Senators Daschle and Leahy during the height of USAPA deliberations). And those changes are long lasting, systemic and utterly inimical to our constitutional democracy.
Second, (and this is what really bugs me) this untruth was first adopted as a Republican talking point in the 2004 election. We didn't challenge them on it then and we seem oblivious to challenging them on it now. It is a particurly insidious lie because it lends truthiness to the accompanying platitude which always, always, always follows, which holds: "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
Why do we, as Democrats, feel the need to amplify this bone-headed slogan when it just ain't true?! Aren't we proud members of the reality based community? Of course Bush and Rove want to ignore the anthrax attacks. After all, no one was ever brought to justice, the investigation was strictly a Keystone Kop routine, and substantial evidence suggests the involvement of insidious government insiders. Pee Uuu!!
They need the anthrax attacks to go away. We in the reality- based community need it to stay.
Sorry for the rant, but its time we Democrats stop enabling this tortured reading of our post-9/11 history.