Laying it on a little thick

Let’s see, who do you suppose was exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 the most blatantly over the last week? Was it:

a) White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan at yesterday’s press briefing

“I think if you go back to September 11th — remember, on September 11th the threats of the 21st century were brought to our shores. We saw in a very clear way the threats that we face on that day.

“And the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11th that this is a long struggle that we’re going to be in, that this is a different kind of war, one which we have never seen before. And we do face a determined and ruthless enemy, an enemy that has no regard for innocent human life. That’s the nature of the enemy that we’re up against. That’s the nature of the enemy that the President will be talking about in his remarks tomorrow night.

“And the President made it clear after September 11th that some will want us to grow complacent and forget about, or put the attacks off as a distant memory. But it does require patience and resolve to see this struggle through to the end. We have no option but to defeat the terrorists, and the terrorists will be defeated…. That’s one of the lessons of September 11th, is that we must take the fight to the enemy, and that’s exactly what this President has done and will continue to do.”

b) White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove last week

“[P]erhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition.”

Or c) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, yesterday, in a ruling on state-sponsored Ten Commandments displays.

On September 11, 2001 I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference of judges and lawyers, principally from Europe and the United States. That night and the next morning virtually all of the participants watched, in their hotel rooms, the address to the Nation by the President of the United States concerning the murderous attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in which thousands of Americans had been killed. The address ended, as Presidential addresses often do, with the prayer “God bless America.” The next afternoon I was approached by one of the judges from a European country, who, after extending his profound condolences for my country’s loss, sadly observed “How I wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy and distress, could conclude his address ‘God bless______.’ It is of course absolutely forbidden.”

It’s a close call, but I’m going with Scalia.

McClellan always leans on 9/11 when he’s dealing with questions he doesn’t like; Rove is just a callous automaton who’d exploit his grandmother if he thought he’d get a couple of votes out of it; but I found Scalia’s exploitation of the attacks the worst because it was the most gratuitous. Arthur Silber summarized the problem perfectly.

Even though its performance in recent years could legitimately have led many observers to expect no more at this point, to soil decisions which are supposed to represent the most deliberate, careful, respectful, intellectually serious and — dare one say it — judicious thought at the very apex of the United States’ system of justice with this kind of cheap grandstanding is beneath contempt. Whatever Bush or anyone else said in the wake of events on that terrible day, such remarks are of no legal consequence whatsoever, and they are utterly irrelevant — which renders Scalia’s mention of Bush’s comments gratuitous in the extreme.

You may have thought that individuals wearing black robes did not deliver low blows and were incapable of cheap shots, at least in their published opinions. Scalia proved you terribly wrong today.

What a disgrace.

Keep in mind, Scalia is Bush’s favorite Supreme Court justice (though the president believes his first name is Anthony), and may soon be his top choice to become Chief Justice.

It’s amazing to me that the only thing the Republicans seem able to point to, in order to justify virtually anything they want to do, is September 11 — an event which (I sincerely hope) they had nothing to with, and about which they have done absolutely nothing useful.

  • That’s funny, the Republican editorialist/talking point regurgitator in my local paper always calls Scalia “Anthony” aw well.

  • The Justice Scalia comment is absurd on its face. No one who argues for the separation of Church and State suggests that the words God Bless America should be outlawed. In this country we have different notions of God. No one disputes that the “generic” God that encompasses many different kinds of God is an important part of our society. The difference should be obvious to anyone. Had the President ended his speech with Jesus Bless America or Allah Bless America or the God of Moses Bless America many would be offended. That is what the issue is about and it is a comment on the weakness of the position of many that they feel bound to distort what people believe to try to win the argument.

  • “How I wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy and distress, could conclude his address ‘God bless______.’ It is of course absolutely forbidden.”

    For Scalia to present this as a quote is rank BS. There’s not a country in Europe where such a remark would be forbidden. But politicians in Europe would naturally be careful about making such remarks because they live in much more secular nations, where people don’t base their votes on religious platitudes and might instead be offended by them.

    How I wish that the Head of State of my country would eschew the prostitution of religion for the sake of votes. And how I wish my countrymen were more sophisticated when it comes to judging the shams of their leaders.

  • European nations (and many Latin American ones) have seen what misery religion can create when governments embrace one or vice versa. Most are secular in the extreme (by our peculiar standards) and, oddly, they don’t seem to have collapsed into moral cesspools. Christians and Scalia (there is a difference) should ponder the very clear and unambiguous message of Matthew 22:21 – “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

  • Comments are closed.