Klein’s Quips

More thoughts on “United 93″ in my latest column for the American Spectator.

From Bush’s perspective, this is an excellent choice. Snow will be forceful and articulate while also being sympathetic to the position of the press. But I think the move is looks bad for Fox News. However they decide to spin it, the fact that one of their news anchors left to be the flak for the White House looks bad. Imagine the reaction of conservatives if Wolf Blitzer were to become press secretary for a Democratic President?

I just came back from the world premiere of ‘?United 93′ at the Zeigfeld theater here in New York. Needless to say, it was quite an emotional experience. From a purely cinematic standpoint, the film was extremely well crafted, but more importantly, it is an unsanitized portrayal of the barbarism of the terrorists and a fitting memorial to the ordinary people aboard the flight who performed heroically under extraordinary circumstances. To the dozens of victims’ families in the audience, it was especially harrowing, and at the end of the movie, I could hear loud sobbing coming from the section of the theater where they were seated (a few rows in front of me). I have to admit, I was a basket case myself for most of the movie. I experienced a lot of emotions I hadn’t quite felt since 9/11. Some may say, what’s the point? Why go to a movie to reopen wounds? Why should seeing a movie be painful? But by this logic, why do we have any memorials? Why do we have a Holocaust Museum, which, in addition to teaching us, shows gruesome images of medical experiments being conducted on Jews?

Others may argue that it’s too soon for such a film. But many war films were released while World War II was still being fought. And though this is the first feature length dramatic film directly dealing with 9/11, Americans have already been inundated with entertainment that implicitly addresses the subject, such as ‘?Munich’ and ‘?V For Vendetta,’ and one of America’s top rated television shows,’24.’ And let’s not forget that Michael Moore exploited the tragedy in ‘?Fahrenheit 9/11.’ Why is a shoddy piece of anti-American propaganda okay three years after the attacks while a sympathetic portrayal of the heroes of Flight 93 off-limits almost five years later?

Also, the fact that the film was made within five years of the actual events likely contributed to its haunting realism. Many of the air traffic controllers who were on duty on 9/11 play themselves, as does FAA national operations manager Ben Sliney. Had the film been delayed by 10 to 20 years (or until critics were to deem it the “?right time”) such opportunities may not have been possible, and the movie would have lost its verisimilitude.

Director Paul Greengrass deserves credit for making a film that’s completely apolitical. The events are dramatized as accurately as possible and he doesn’t attempt to assign blame or add his own editorial comments. The terrorists are not portrayed either sympathetically or as stone-faced warriors, but come across as cowards, and their brutality is revealed as they slash their defenseless victims. There is no Hollywood whitewashing of Islam either. In the opening scene, the hijackers pray in Arabic in their hotel rooms. As they carry out their mission throughout the movie, they repeatedly invoke the name of Allah. It shouldn’t be surprising that in a film that aims for accuracy, the terrorists come off as bad guys.

For a film about 9/11, one of the most harrowing aspects, ironically, was that it brought me back to what the world was like before 9/11. In the post- 9/11 world, we’re always conscious of terrorism, but in the film, as an air traffic contoller begins to suspect a hijacking, people are instinctively dismissive, assuming that it can’t possibly be true because we hadn’t had one for decades. It’s amazing how naive we were about the terrorist threat.

Also, since the film takes place in real time, it really gives us better insight into what was going on at the FAA, air traffic control, and the military on that day, how poor communication was, and how long it took them to figure out what was happening. While it’s obvious to the audience what’s transpiring, to those living through it, it isn’t obvious. They couldn’t conceive that one plane would be hijacked let alone 4. At first they assumed the plane would land attempt to land at some airport to make demands, as prior hijackers had done. They couldn’t imagine that the planes would be flown into buildings.

People will have to consult their own hearts before deciding whether or not to see this film. I know a lot of people who won’t see films like “Schindler’s List,” becuase they feel they don’t need to see it to understand how awful the Holocaust was. But for those who do see it, the film is a fitting tribute to the heroes of Flight 93.

Oh, and before I went to see the film, I reread the sections of the 9/11 Commission Report that dealt with Flight 93, and would recommend others do so as well. I have excerpted the parts pertaining to the flight and have posted them

here.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in the War on Terror is that the further we get from Sept. 11, the less seriously Americans will take the terrorist threat. This is potentially dangerous because the less concerned Americans are about terrorism, the less supportive they will be of measures to protect against terrorist attacks. And this is precisely what our enemies are banking on.

In an attempt to get some sense of the pulse of the nation, I looked at post 9/11 trends in the Gallup Poll, which each month asks Americans the open-ended question, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” In Oct. 2001, the first such poll taken after the Sept. 11 attacks, 47 percent of Americans answered ‘terrorism.’ In this month’s poll, only 6 percent did. It trailed Iraq (25%), Immigration (19%) Oil Prices (11%) Economy in general (10%) and Dissatisfaction with gov’t (8 %). It was also tied with health care, unemployment and education.

I put together this chart that plots out the downward trend, post-9/11, of people identifying “terrorism” as the most important problem facing America:

Note: The trend line is segmented because I couldn’t find the Gallup Poll data for March 2002, March 2003 and March 2005.

You have to read it to believe it. In an article published by the Palestine Chronicle, Palestinian Prime Minister and Hamas terrorist leader Ismail Haniyeh writes:

I know there are many people who mendaciously and maliciously or maybe ignorantly portray us as bellicose and anti-peace and prone to violence. But this is untrue.

Untrue? Let’s look at some headlines from the past few days:

Haniyeh refuses to stop rocket attacks on Israel

Hamas defends restaurant bombing

For more on Haniyeh’s background, click here.

Richard Clarke, the Left’s favorite counterterrorist, co-authored an op-ed for the Sunday NY Times arguing against bombing Iran (link unavailable). The piece argued that in the mid-90s the Clinton Administration was faced with a decision of whether to bomb Iran because of its support for terrorism, but decided instead to act covertly. The article goes on to discuss how bombing Iran would be disastrous because it would lead to higher oil prices, increased Iranian-sponsored terrorism and worse trouble in Iraq.

Their are two main problems with the article. Firstly, it tries to draw parallels between Iran in the mid-1990s and the current situation in Iran, even though the current regime is far more radical and is pursuing nuclear weapons. Secondly, it discusses potential risks of an attack on Iran without addressing the consequences of letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

This article in The New Republic (free registration required) should make it clear that the world cannot live with a nuclear Iran. Most of those who argue that we can learn to live with it compare the situation to the Cold War, when we lived with a hostile and nuclear USSR. But the situation is completely different. However evil the Soviets were, they still had an interest in avoiding a nuclear retaliation by the U.S., whereas the Iranian leadership is suicidal.

According to the TNR piece by Matthias K���¼ntzel:

Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.” On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it “will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable–only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.

And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a “worthwhile” outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?”

There are certainly risks to taking military action against Iran. But letting them obtain a nuclear bomb should not be an option.

In a column today on the dangers of sugary drinks that I don’t know whether to take seriously, Nicholas Kristof makes the following suggestion:

“Third, we should impose a tax on sugary drinks–5 cents per fluid ounce. One of the most successful health measures this country has ever taken was the cigarette tax, and we should apply the same approach to beverages. All sweetened nondiet drinks would be targeted: soft drinks, iced tea, fruit punch, sports drinks and other concoctions like the 240-calorie Starbucks Caffe Mocha (not counting the whipped cream).”

For those keeping score, if the Kristof tax were to go into effect, it would cost you an extra 60 cents for a can of Dr. Pepper and $3.60 for a six-pack.

In a column for TCS, I argue that a compromise on immigration may have to wait for President Rudy Giuliani.

Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian prime minister and a leader of terrorist group Hamas, said the decision by the EU and U.S. to cutoff direct aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government until it recognizes Israel was “blackmail.”

This was an especially riotous perversion of language. For a party to be blackmailed, it has to be giving money to another party. How does it constitute blackmail when one party is ceasing payments? If anything, the cutoff in aid put an end to extortion. Under the prior arrangement, the U.S. and E.U. funneled money into a corrupt Palestinian government in the hopes that it would become peaceful. Now that was blackmail.

In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes that the Bush Administration is intent on bombing Iran to stop them from acquiring nukes and would use tactical nuclear weapons, if necessary. An article in the Sunday Times concurs that the Administration is prepared to act:

The Sunday Times was last week given the same message. A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. “?It’s not in their nature,” he said.

White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left Al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.

But the Times article plays down the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons would be used in air strikes:

The Sunday Times understands that a strike with a conventional weapon is much more likely. By 2008 a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 30,000lb behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 100ft under the ground before exploding.

Without knowing who the anonymous sources are, it’s hard to judge how accurate either account is. It makes sense to me that the Bush Administration would at least consider the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons if that is the only way to demolish Iran’s deep, underground facilities. Or, perhaps the Bush Administration is intentionally leaking to Hersh to float the idea. It can only help the diplomatic process if the Iranians are convinced that Bush may actually use nukes against them in 2008, when he has nothing to lose politically.

But those of you who have strong opinions on the matter can put your money where your mouth is. At Tradesports the odds are less than 4-1 that the U.S. or Israel will carry out an air strike against Iran by March 2007.