Would another 9/11 tear America apart or unite her once again?

[Politics_Guy25]

Do you think that it would be similar to the reaction after September 11, 2001 with a sense of unity, joint purpose, common cause and desire to seek justice (before Bush turned it into a political sledgehammer to use against the Democrats and used it as a false pretext to invade Iraq) or do you think that it would lead to recriminations, angry accusations, unbelievably hyperbolic rhetoric and all out full blown partisan warfare?

I'm talking something as shocking, as horrifying, as unexpected as 9/11/01. What do you think?

[stevedeshazer]

1. I think you're sick for even asking such a question.

Why in the world would you ask that?

[LuvNewcastle]

2. Things would go to hell quickly.

We'd be dealing with the blame game around Washington and the economy would take another nosedive. Forget about ending the war(s). Resentment would boil up between the teabaggers and everyone else. Not good times.

[Politics_Guy25]

6. The reason that I ask this is because I think the GOP wants another 9/11

They would again exploit terrorism the way that they exploited it the first time after September 11, 2001. I would expect the media and public to rally around President Obama the way that they rallied around President Bush. However, I don't like the tone coming from the media about Ft. Hood or at least some elements of the media and it made me question if we'd see the same rallying around.

Ft. Hood and the reaction to it is why I thought to ask this question.

[rucky]

14. I agree with that hunch.

The message in the media would be "Obama has failed to keep America safe"

It would be hell.

[PBS Poll-435]

3. I do not believe that the Republicans would be mature enough to not play politics

Michael Steele and Newt would on every Sunday talk show blaming the Democrats and Obama for letting such a thing happen.

[Chemisse]

4. I think it would be divisive.

The right wingers are far more concerned with tearing Obama down than with the health and safety of this country. I suspect they would respond with the glee of a batch of mischievous gremlins, chirping out their recriminations while happily dissembling the weak structure still holding the country together after such a crisis.

[ixion]

5. unite? It polarized the nation

it was a coup de'tat, hardly something to unite over. :eyes: :wtf:

[Politics_Guy25]

7. Not really no

Bush soared to 90% approval, had Congress roll over to let him invade Iraq. quelched all dissent for his entire first term and it took a certain governor from Vermont, Dr. Dean, to begin to dig us out of the patriotic mania that Karl Rove implemented. It took Dr. Dean standing up to Bush that began to give the democratic party its soul and its voice back.

[villager]

17. The Democratic Party has its voice and soul back?

:shrug:

[ixion]

25. no, see you missed it

we crossed the Rubicon that day.

For all the talk about Mr. Popular, there were plenty of people who didn't trust the official narrative.

That was the day that the "reality-based community" was born. It was the day that the neocons fully seized the narrative. It was the day that what was left of our republic was lost to the corporate theocracy.

Hardly a unifying day.

[juno jones]

8. The 'united' feeling was temporary.

And the shift was to the right. Suddenly the most liberal, pacifist people I knew were united in their cause with revenge and war.

It wore off eventually, the afterglow of fear and anger dissipated just in time to experience the bush 2 hangover as the patriot act worked as intended and FEMA failed horribly in NO.

[Politics_Guy25]

10. It was a horrifying time for sure

I was appalled at what it did to people. It started 8 years of hell. The initial reaction, however, of all members of congress singing GBA on the steps of the capitol and the unity that existed for the rest of that year was a good thing. Bush tore it to shreds in 2002 when he engaged in his 3-pronged strategy to a)take away civil rights through new laws b) drag the world to war with Iraq and c) use it as an issue against the democrats in the 2002 midterms. A different president would have used such a resevoir of good will for far better aims.

[Hannah Bell]

9. the first one didn't "unite" people in any meaningful sense. it just gave bush cover for his wars

& economic terrorism.

8 years later, people are more fucked & divided than ever.

[Politics_Guy25]

12. It did unite for the first half year or so after..-n/t.

[Hannah Bell]

13. uh - how so, other than getting a lot of people to put magnetic yellow ribbons on their trucks?

i saw no "unity," just a bunch of phoney emotionalism.

"unity" = deeds, not words.

[tabbycat31]

11. tear us apart

The GOP WANTS another 9/11 and that would make things even worse IMO. Look at all they're blaming Obama on now....

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. iff the events of 9/11 had happened with Al Gore as President - there would have been no calls for

national unity from the right and most of the media!! The GOP and most of the media would have been talking about how his weakness brought this on the country. There would have been a lynch mob - not patriotic rallies. How much more so if such terrible events happened under the watch of someone who most of the Republican base consider a foreign-born, black Kenyan, Muslim-Marxist. and quite possibly the anti-Christ.

When Republicans or most of the media talk of national unity, they mean watching the whole country work itself up into a right-wing militaristic, blood thirsty frenzy - when all voices of reason and moderation are silenced.

Look how the actions of one single madman, acting alone at Fort Hood, Texas resulting in 13 tragic deaths sent the right-wing and their obedient media into racist and bigoted seizures. Imagine what they would do if the organized actions of several extremist resulted in thousands of deaths. Regardless of what they would say publicly. They would barely be able to contain their glee.

[RC]

16. If Al Gore were President, 9/11 would not have happened.

The Clinton administration knew of a coming terrorist attack and warned the incoming bu$h administration. Cheney shelved the report without reading it. The bu$h administration did nothing to stop it.
They put together their own report. Kinda Sleazy Rice was to report on it 9/12/2001. She never did and for some reason the report she was to present has slipped out of sight, never to be heard of again.

[dysfunctional press]

20. that's not a certainty.

it probably wouldn't have happened- but it's impossible to say for certain.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. agree. The Clinton Administration was certainly vigilant and the Bush Administration disinterested

but it is still hard to say for certain what would or would not have happened

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Yeah because no terrorist attacks happen in Democratic administrations.

[Politicalboi]

18. It would tear it apart if happened today

Not only would Obama be blamed, he probably was friends with the terrorist. Unlike Bush. Oh wait...
I hope in the trial someone brings up PNAC. Lets ask The Dick what that was all about.

[dysfunctional press]

19. it depends on what kind of event, who instigated it, and what the administration's response would be

too many variables.

it's easy to say that the pukes would use it divisively for political gain- but it's also very possible that they would rally around the president.

[WVRICK13]

23. The Question Should Be

do the Republicans have enough power to pull off another clandestine attack like they did on 9/11?

[jpak]

24. Rip the country apart like a wet used teabag

and usher in an era of RW violence

[mmonk]

26. Any chance at any kind of return to constitutional government

and an informed populace would be gone for the current generation. We are still teetering on a point of no return despite the past election.