I turned on my TV on the morning of September 11, 2001, and tuned in to CNBC to get my morning fix of stock-market news and analysis. The picture on my TV screen showed an aircraft embedded in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. My initial reaction — a common one at that point — was that a horrible accident had just occurred.
But several minutes later, I saw a second plane glide across the sky into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. CNBC’s on-air host at that time, Mark Haines, put into words what every viewer must have instantly concluded: The “horrible accident” was really an act of terrorism.
My wife soon joined me in front of the TV. And it wasn’t long until we heard, over a distance of three miles, a "whump" as a third plane slammed into the Pentagon.
Our thoughts for the next several hours were with our daughter, whom we knew to be at work in the World Financial Center when the planes struck the adjacent World Trade Center. Was her building struck by debris? Did she flee her building only to be struck by or trapped in debris? Had she smothered in the huge cloud of dust that enveloped lower Manhattan as the Twin Towers collapsed? Because telephone communications were badly disrupted, we didn't learn for several hours that she had made it home safely. She was one of the lucky ones who walked straight to a dock and onto a ferry that took her across the Hudson to Hoboken, New Jersey, where she then lived.
Her good fortune, and ours, was not shared by the victims in Manhattan, the Pentagon, and western Pennsylvania, and their legions of parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children, grandchildren, lovers, and good friends.
Never forgive, never forget, never relent. That was, is, and will always be my view of the war on terror.
* * *
Nine days later, on September 20, 2021, President George W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress. I watched reluctantly because I cannot abide the posturing, pomposity, and wrong-headedness that are the usual ingredients of politicians’ speeches, even those politicians whose policies I support. (Churchill’s rallying speeches during World War II are another thing: masterworks of candid but inspirational oratory.)
In any event, Bush’s performance was creditable (thanks, no doubt, to his writers and ample preparation). The vigorous and evidently sincere applause that greeted Bush’s applause lines — applause that arose from Democrats as well as Republicans — seemed to confirm the prevailing view that Americans (or their political leaders, at least) were defiantly united in the fight against terrorism.
But I noted then, and have never forgotten, the behavior of Hillary Clinton, who was then a freshman senator. Some of Clinton’s behavior is captured in this video clip (11:45 to 12:15). The segment opens with Bush saying
Terror unanswered can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what, we’re not going to allow it.
The assemblage then rises in applause. The camera zooms to Clinton, who seems aware of it and stares briefly at the camera while applauding tepidly. (Compare her self-centered reaction with that of the noted camera-hog Chuck Shumer, who is standing next to her, applauding vigorously, and looking toward Bush.) Clinton then turns away from the camera and, while still applauding tepidly, directs a smirk at someone near her. I also noted — but cannot readily find on video — similar behavior, include eye-rolling, at the conclusion of Bush’s speech.
Clinton — as a veteran political campaigner who knew that her behavior would draw attention — was sending a clear signal of her disdain for the president’s pronouncement. Why? Because he had an opportunity for leadership that her husband had squandered through his lame responses to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the downing of U.S. helicopters in Somalia, and the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa? Because Bush was a Republican who had won the presidency after great controversy? Because she resented not being at the center of attention after having been there for eight years, as an influential FLOTUS?
Yes Clinton was “hawkish” on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that does not erase her public display of disdain for George W. Bush — or his remarks — on an occasion when such a display was inappropriate. No president should be given leave to do as he will, but neither should his unexceptionable remarks on a solemn occasion be mocked.
Clinton’s behavior on January 20, 2011, signaled that the war on terror would become a partisan occasion for Democrats. And it became just that.