Down on Liberty Street

They're still finding bone fragments from the dead on the tops of New York skyscrapers, and still the shrapnel of September 11th finds its way through the soft body of American life. Today it ripped the guts from the long public career of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, one of the highest officials in the Bush Administration, as a grand jury charged him in a cover-up involving the deliberate leak of a covert American operative's name in a callous act of political retribution.

But as Republicans cry of the politics of prosecution and the techicalities of perjury, the shadows of 9-11 hang all over this case - and all over the cases Patrick Fitzgerald may yet bring against the powerful. Thoses shadows remain because of group of Americans led by the Vice-President of the United States saw 9-11 not so much as a human tragedy, but as a political opportunity.

The heart of the case against Scooter Libby and Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation is the still beating heart of September 11, 2001 - a heart beat of sacrifice and liberty defended to so many Americans, perverted - utterly perverted - by a group of zealots and pretenders. Make no mistake: the killing machine of 9-11 is still stirring; the jet fuel is still burning, taking the mostly young lives of 2,000 Americans in Iraq - men and women who died because of a sleight of hand engineered by Richard Cheney and the White House Iraq Group.

This is an administration that has made its reputation on the reaction to terror, on defense, on security - yet it did not hesitate to destroy the career of a veteran CIA operative, nor an entire front company for a network of American spies. This is cowardice and treachery.

Led by Mr. Cheney, this Administration used the attack on New York and the Pentagon to launch an unecessary war against Iraq - an immoral adventure that seems to have no end and no purpose. Iraq has no connection to 9-11. No connection. It never has.

The chain looks like this: Cheney and his neo-con gang saw 9-11 as a means to an end; they acted. The United States acted. We told the world an untruth about WMD. And now we're in a sickening quagmire, bogged down by clotted blood and gore and lies. The Valerie Wilson case was about attacking a critic of the war, a critic of the lies; it's about the excuses - the cover-up was about protecting Mr. Cheney and the WHIG, a cover-up the entangled The New York Times - a former liberal bastion - in the web of deceit.

Still, the wind whistles along the valleys of lower Manhattan, the old buildings and the much older streets, laid down by the Dutch. On days like these, the dead speak in the autumn breeze.

Ten small pieces of bone were found down on Liberty Street, on the roof of the condemned Deustche Bank building - ten small remains of human beings, ten reminders of the hatred men bear toward one another. The fragments ranged in size from half an inch to two inches, some perhaps from a rib cage, and they were turned over to the medical examiner's office. Those fragments are linked to the grenade and IED fragments that have killed so many soldiers. They are linked to fragments of Scooter Libby's life and reputation.

And they are linked to the moral fragments of the Bush Administration - an administration that was perverted by 9-11, a perversion that gives victory to the haters who would see Americans dead, in flames, amidst the rubble.

Four years later. Down on Liberty Street.

Comments

[Hootsbuddy]

Good post.
I'm sure this discovery opens painful memories for many. I'm fortunate that my memories are more abstract since I didn't personally know anyone who died in the WTC attack.
From the tenor of your writing, you were apparently not as protected as I was. Let us hope together that this war can soon end, and its perpetrators be replaced by peacemakers.

[Tom K]

Tom:

You continue to write as though the most important fact to you is Cheney's (or Bush's) subjective bad faith. Why is it so important to you that they be ill-intentioned, as opposed to merely mistaken?

If we assume, for a moment, that thse people don't conciously take their orders from the Dark Lord Satan -- assuming they actually think what they are doing is for the best -- doesn't that make for a much more interesting discussion? Doesn't the more careful debate that assumption encourages sharpen the thinking required by both sides -- justifying the assumption regardless of whether or not a Republican could be capable of intending to do good?

[Tom W.]

I think they were mistaken certainly and - in the VP's case - ill-intentioned as well. You can see that ill intention so clearly on the constant linking of 9-11 to Iraq - a disinformation effort that required a web of untruths, many of which were deliberately uttered to all of us.

Of course Republicans are as capable as attempting to go good as Democrats are inately: but this crew did not make the attempt, in my judgement.

[Rob]

What will the history books teach when it comes down to the truth about and behind the war in Iraq. Will it be draped in patriotic anti-terrorist terms, leaving out the lies and cover-ups that fooled the American people into the quicksand?

The happenings across the street from 130 Liberty will stay with all of us forever. I, a former DB employee, who was not in the building that day but in my 'home' office in Baltimore, still marvel that only one person from DB lost their life in the tradgey of 9/11. The subsequent use of the lost building, first hosting a huge American flag and shortly thereafter it became a black screened vision of what once was. Sort of like honesty, uprightness and courage of conviction in politics.

[Ralph]

The idea that they were just honestly mistaken and well-intentioned is laughable. War is evil and should only be used as a last resort. By lying and decieving to get their war, they knew full well that US troops would die and be injured, they knew that innocent civilians would also be killed and maimed. So, that is why they are evil men hiding behind the flag and taking advantage of the 9-11 attacks for a policy agenda that was diliberatly dishonest. How any Republican supporter with any integrity can make excuses for them is an example of why this country is headed in the wrong direction. For some, it's party loyalty over the truth, and that's dangerous. How dangerous? Just ask Cindy Sheehan - a woman with more guts than anyone in this administration.

[Ralph]

War is hell. Anyone who intentionally missleads a nation to war is part of an evil agenda. Hiding behind the 9-11 deaths and wearing an American flag lapel pin cannot absolve them of this crime. Republicans who put party loyalty over the American people and the respectful opinion of the world, are part of the problem.

[Tom K]

Ralph:

My point is this -- precisely because war is so terrible, those who commence it in a mistaken but good-faith belief that it is necessary must be condemned, too. There is a "moral obligation to be intelligent" when one takes on such far-reaching responsibilities. In terms of effect, a would-be war profiteer who advocated taking on Hitler to boost his bottom line is less worthy of blame than a committed pacifist who could not bring himself to support another war likely to continue the horrors of WWI.

To put it differently, motive may affect our moral judgment of leaders, but not our practical judgment of what they've done. Since it's also almost impossible to establish, I suggest it is more productive to focus on effects, rather than motives.

Was GWB wrong to invade Iraq? What should he have done instead? These and related questions are obviously important and legitimate. While the question "why did he do it" is also legitimate to ask, those already convinced that his reasons were evil should guard against carrying that belief into their assessment of the other questions, which are more important.

[Tom W.]

Instead of invading Iraq, he should NOT have invaded Iraq - what a ludicrous question.

[Ralph]

Tom,

You wrote that: "precisely because war is so terrible, those who commence it in a mistaken but good-faith belief that it is necessary must be condemned, too. There is a "moral obligation to be intelligent" when one takes on such far-reaching responsibilities."

Hey, we agree on something! OK, first of all, these people ARE intelligent. The main thing is that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bremmer, Rice, Powell, Rummy, et al. KNEW that Saddam was no evidence that Saddam was involved with 9-11, they knew that there was no smoking gun to show they had reconstituted their nuclear programs, that any chemical or biological weapans they may have still had was minor, that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan have more ties to Al Qaeda than Iraq ever did, they knew that Iraq was a broken country that wasn't even a real threat to its own neighbors let alone the United States - so they knew that they had to LIE to the American people to drum up support for an invasion. I think they simply wanted to install a US friendly regime in a Middle East country which, surprisingly, just happens to have the second largest oil reserves in the world. Do you realize that Congress refuses to investigate the war profiteering going on in Iraq right now? Billions are un-accounted for. Our tax money is lining the pocket of Bush-Cheney cronies and friends.

"In terms of effect, a would-be war profiteer who advocated taking on Hitler to boost his bottom line is less worthy of blame than a committed pacifist who could not bring himself to support another war likely to continue the horrors of WWI."

What kind of logic is this? War profiteering is the same as treason: it's making money off the blood of human beings. In the Civil War, profiteers sold guns to the Union that didn't even work right. And if everyone was a pacifist (like Jesus Christ if I recall) than there would be no wars for bloodsuckers like Halliburton to make money from.

"To put it differently, motive may affect our moral judgment of leaders, but not our practical judgment of what they've done. Since it's also almost impossible to establish, I suggest it is more productive to focus on effects, rather than motives."

Yes, effects are important. But even if the Iraq war had gone well for us, it would still matter that the admin lied about getting us there. And I can see that you know little about criminal law since motive is often essential in establishing guilt and sentencing. What really got me pissed off was how they kept bringing up the late 80s when Saddam gassed his own people. But, at the time, the US supported Saddam because he was a secular tyrant fighting the Islamic revolution of Iran. Then, when it became convenient for them, they started bringing up the Kurds etc. Shameful.

"Was GWB wrong to invade Iraq? What should he have done instead?"

Are you He could have TOLD THE TRUTH! And Congress could have had a backbone and fully investigated the White House claims of the nuclear threat. Why did I know that we would not find WMDs and that the Niger doc was forged? (Why did I know that and the Bush admin, Congress and the media didn't?) We had the whole world behind us after 9-ll. We had the inspection teams crawling all over Iraq. We could have continued supporting the overthrow of Saddam from within Iraq (as was Clinton's policy). The poor people of Iraq have been through so much war and misery... to put them through this again was tragic and it makes me angry every time I think about it. The Middle East is less stable, and we have helped terrorists recruit even more jihadists.

[James Robert Dobbs]

2001-09-11: My first thought was, "This is horrible." My second thought was, "Bush is going to pimp out these dead bodies for years."

[Tom K]

Ralph:

Strangely, I agree with much of what you say. But we're really talking to different points.

Yes, the motive of the admins. would be important to a criminal case concerning the Iraq war. It would be relevant to the criminal case of a "war profiteer" who encouraged us to take on the Nazi's, too. But such a criminal case isn't likely to be brought when history vindicates the position of the offending party (as it did with the hypothetical war profiteer).

Almost absent from your post is any substantive answer to the question, what should Bush have done instead? Telling the truth about the war concerns the procedure for getting there, not the substance of what our policy should have been. Your only substantive answer seems to be, we should have continued Clinton's policy of encouraging Saddam's internal opposition. But that policy -- constant bombing and embargos causing enormous suffering in Iraq -- had yielded no results for their enormous costs, and were increasingly coming under attack from the international community that condemned the war.

Once we went in for Gulf War I without removing Saddam, we were stuck with a problem. Continuing the Clinton policy would have lead nowhere good; dealing with the threat of militant Islam was not one of Clinton's strengths. Any alternative to invading Iraq must, in my view, have included an end to the ruinous sanctions/no-fly bombing policy. But ending those, alone, would not be a policy. What else should we have done? It is a very difficult question. While that doesn't necessarily excuse the administration for coming up with a very flawed answer, the fact that there were no clear, effective alternatives took the issue out of the 2004 campaign, as it left the Dems. with nothing to say except, "we would have done the same thing, better."

[Ralph]

"But such a criminal case isn't likely to be brought when history vindicates the position of the offending party (as it did with the hypothetical war profiteer)."

Look, if you rip-off the US Government while supplying services or weapons, you should be prosecuted. Whether the war is justified or not. Why don't you get that?

"Almost absent from your post is any substantive answer to the question, what should Bush have done instead?"

Well, we could have had a real honest debate about that with Congress, the UN, our allys... but we didn't because the Bush admin lied to us, and the world about the threat from Iraq. You act as if the war was a last resort, but it wasn't. Why don't you get that? What are we doing with North Korea? Are we invading? Or are we negotiating? Are we rushing into Syria? No, we are debating our opitions and working through the UN as we should.

"dealing with the threat of militant Islam was not one of Clinton's strengths"

Oh, and President Bush has done a better job? Hmmm I recall that 9/11 happened under this Administration, but let's blame Clinton. Good argument. Yes, we could do better, but the Republican party has not done much other than piss off the rest of the world.