The Road to 9/11: Have we become what we fight?

The Road to 9/11: Have we become what we fight?

by Patrik Henri Follow

Frederick Nietzsche wrote "He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you."

It can be said — indeed, I will say — that this site and others like it have have been fighting a monster, one created by the far right wing elements of this Republic. I will also say that this fight is a necessary one, and that for far too long this site and others like it have been fighting, if not alone, then at the very least vastly outnumbered. This is not intended to an attack on the necessity of, or to dispute the seriousness of, that fight.

But as Nietzsche wrote, it is easy to become what you fight, and while I don’t lay claim that this has happened, the recent efforts on this site, and others, to halt ABC’s foolish decision to air the blatantly partisan "The Road to 9/11" Docudrama concern me. They concern me because there have been similar efforts to suppress "partisan" and "flawed" shows on television... but those efforts were made by that same right-wing monstrosity.

(First, a disclaimer: for a time I posted here as the Baptist Death Ray. I still post on Street Prophets under the same account, but though I am fond of the use of internet personae I have no real interest in disguising my actual identity, or of engaging in the use of sock puppets — I am not, for the record, Lee Siegel.[1] While I do not use my real name, it is readily apparent to anyone familiar with whois... but in the world of political discourse I think it more appropriate that I pay homage to the name of my favorite Antifederalist.)
With that out of the way, it is time to lay my exposed neck out on the chopping block of discourse:

In 2003 CBS planned to air a miniseries on it’s prime-time network entitled "The Reagans." This show, in fact, never aired on CBS, because various right-wing groups got together to pressure CBS into having it removed. CBS buckled and decided to run it on the Showtime network — a pay-for-access channel that requires Cable or Satellite TV to view. This was, at the time, considered a fairly substantial "win" for the right wing, since it greatly reduced access to the show.

In 2004, Michael Moore released "Fahrenheit 9/11," which caused the right wing of this country to explode in anger. Disney (the same company behind "The Road to 9/11") tried to keep the movie from being released. Many critics of the movie lambasted it for what they described as a legion of inaccuracies. I found it a deeply moving and worthwhile film, despite its errors and occasional lapses into the realm of tin-foil hats.

In both cases, right wing groups tried to suppress each film. In one case they mostly succeeded, in another they simply encouraged more people to see it — but in both instances they were wrong, and most sites who professed concern about the state of our liberties stepped up and said so.

The issue, for me, was whether it was appropriate for a political group to keep people from viewing political ideas, even slanted or inaccurate ones, simply because they disagreed with those ideas. That has, in my view, always been a fundamental value of this country. The unpopular views of today may be the trailblazing ideas of tomorrow. In some tragic instances the freedoms we have were just barely enough to allow an idea to be heard, but not enough to protect the men and women who gave them voice.

Now it seems we have wandered into a Bizzarro world where right is left, up and down, and the champions of our endangered liberties are trying to prevent those liberties from being exercised because the things being said are wrong.

Certainly by all accounts "The Road to 9/11" is egregiously biased against the Clinton administration. It is, by every appearance, a flagrant attempt by skilled wordsmiths to shift the blame from the Bush administration to the Clinton administration, and it claims as its source of authority the 9/11 Commission report while at the same time contradicting that report in key, important instances.

Let no one think that I believe the film is useful.

And indeed, we should acknowledge that if the film had succeeded in its original scope — with Scholastic using it in schools as a bona-fide representation of history, as a watercooler conversation piece about "how it really happened," as a heroic paean to the right-wing belief that a Democrat can never be trusted when it comes to defending the interests of this Republic — it could have been used to strengthen the image of the Republican party when it needs and yet does not deserve strengthening.

So I am, like you, alarmed at the presence of this film, disgusted by the sheer audacity of its writer, angered by the glee at which the destructive parts of our political sphere have trumpeted its lies and half-truths... and in no small measure I have wished, mightily, that this thing had never been made, and that it might never be seen.

And yet... I have not joined in the campaign for ABC to pull it off the air. I can’t bring myself to do it. It feels no different than the campaigns to pull "The Reagans" off the air and to keep "Fahrenheit 9/11" from the theaters. The only difference that I can see is that in this case the negative effects will be felt by my side, not theirs.

But the stakes are great, and part of me still wishes that the docudrama would never be seen. I have seen many compelling arguments against opposing its airing: it lies while professing to be truth is the most compelling moral argument against its existence. And politics is not, it seems, a place for ideals and morality: perhaps it is true that for far too long the right wing has had the upper hand when it comes to ruthlessness, and that to oppose them we must learn from them.

But then I think about what we are fighting against. The right wing of this country is engaged in a rather peculiar form of idolatry — an idolatry of ideology, which holds high the god of Security by sacrificing the Isaac of our nation: Liberty. We must, we are told, sacrifice liberty for security. Certainly to a point there is historical precedent for this, but always to a point: now, more than ever, the dividing line between what is acceptable and what is not is dissolving.

They would have us submit to warrantless searches in the name of security.

They would have citizens be held without trial in the name of security.

They would have their critics be branded as traitors in the name of security.

They would have all attempts to air opinions contrary to their own be silenced.

This Republic was founded with the intent of preventing such things, yet they are occurring today.

This site, and others like it, are instrumental to the restoration and protection of our liberties, which is why I am reluctant to support a plan that attempts to suppress speech, even if that speech is detestable. One of the dangers of freedom is that it may be used against you. "The Road to 9/11" is certainly a cudgel aimed at the head of anyone who would like the current administration to be held accountable to its mistakes, and it is maddening that there are people who have the audacity to crow about it. But if our concern about the erosion of civil liberties in this country is real, and not merely a smokescreen for an attempt to replace one unyielding political philosophy with another, then at what point in this battle do we go too far?

At what point, as Nietzsche warned, do we become what we fight?

If ABC does pull "The Road to 9/11," will it be a victory for our side? Certainly, in at least once sense — the propaganda apparatus of the right wing will have been stymied in one of its efforts. However, I am concerned that it will strengthen a precedent that may, at some point, be used in turn by them against us — and something that we want heard will, instead, be silenced.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/09/08/244241/-The-Road-to-9-11-Have-we-become-what-we-fight