Are you a 9/11 Republican?

Cinnamon Stillwell voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 then voted for George W. Bush in 2004.  The reason for his change in political views, 9/11.  The liberal columnist become a 9/11 Republican.

The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

So I became what's now commonly known as a "9/11 Republican." Living in a time of war, disenchanted with the left and disappointed with the obstructionism and lack of vision of the Democratic Party, I threw in my hat with the only party that seemed to be offering solutions, rather than simply tearing away at our country. I went from voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 to proudly casting my ballot for George W. Bush in 2004.

Cinnamon Stillwell turning point from a liberal to a conservative was `left's hypocrisy when it came to the war on terrorism'.  
 

But more than anything, it was the left's hypocrisy when it came to the war on terrorism that made me turn rightward after 9/11. I remember, back in my liberal days, being fiercely opposed to the Taliban and its brutal treatment of women. Even then, I felt that Afghanistan should immediately be liberated, as Malcolm X once said in another context, by any means necessary. But when it came time, it turned out that the left was mostly opposed to such liberation, whether of the Afghan people or of the Iraqis (especially if America and a Republican president were at the helm).

Cinnamon Stillwell has truly became a George W. Bush Republican.  In the paragraph above Cinnamon Stillwell give us the latest example of the conservative movement trying to re-write history.  Conservatives claimed President Franklin Roosevelt supports "private accounts".  An other conservative proclaim President Kennedy is a conservative and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is a Republican.

Now, Cinnamon Stillwell is telling us the Democratic Party does not support the war in Afghanistan.  

The Democratic Party supports the war in Afghanistan and women rights in American and across the world.  The Republican Party only use rhetoric of women rights and democracy when they fail to kill Osama Bin Laden and find weapons of mass destruction.

It is the right's hypocrisy on the war on terror and every other issue made me a 9/11 Democrat.  

Cinnamon Stillwell and the conservative movement can continue to lie about 9/11 and their failures.  The true history of the events after 9/11 will be written one day and it  will be the conservatives in power, media, and Republican party will be proven as the Hypocrites of their day.    

Are you a 9/11 Republican?  

•  Eloy

  by Eloy on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:31:40 PM PDT

•  I'm sorry...

  But I'm going to use this opportunity to pimp my own diary...about the exact same thing, Stillwell's article.

  by secret asian man on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:38:16 PM PDT

  •  No need to be Sorry

    I did not mean to do a dairy on the same article, I just did not see your dairy.  I will be more watchful next time.  

    by Eloy on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:51:44 PM PDT

•  My take on 9/11 Republicans

  The attacks made them feel like victims, and they wanted the President to take revenge for them, even if the revenge turned out to be invading the wrong country. These are the people who hail him for being "resolute" when in fact he's being petulant and pig-headed.

  9/11 Republicans like Dennis Miller, Ron Silver, and Cinnamon Stillwell make me ill.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:39:56 PM PDT

•  More GOP BS

  Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan and killing Osama bin Laden and extirpating his terror network. Only a few left-wingnuts opposed these sensible and legal retaliations for the 9/11 attacks.

  Given that Osama is alive and planning more terror outrages, who's the hypocrite here?

  This is just more Rovian bullshit, I guess the Bush-is-our-necessary-war-leader propaganda campaign will not be over for another few years.

  It seems from a quick Google search that this spicy bitch is part of the David Horowitz cabal. That a major newspaper would publish such tripe is another sign that the corporate media can't handle the truth.

  by devtob on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:48:10 PM PDT

  •  Here we go again...

    The Left hates America.  The Left is hypocritical.  The Left didn't support the war on terror...

    Hey nitwit!  Think of all the Democrats in Congress who voted to authorize military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.  

    Very few people had any problem with military action in Afghanistan.  As mentioned elsewhere, only a few far-left folks opposed this.  It was Iraq that proved to be so divisive, and rightfully so.  As government reports note specifically, Saddam Hussein was not a threat and there was never a compelling case for war.

    This sounds like a person whose "liberalism" was limited to a few handy slogans and who latches onto whatever she sees as the "majority" view.  I too am wary of all these right-wing "conversions."  But I guess she and Horowitz have a lot to talk about.

    by The Truffle on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:25:42 PM PDT

•  Ironic

  I wonder how many Naderites will eventually become conservative Republicans. Many of them remind me of their forefathers, the radicals of the New Left. I am thinking about the types who protested and rioted in the late 1960s and early 1970. I think of David Horowitz.

  Anyway I really wonder about many of the young far left folks who voted for Nader. If the statistics are to be believed Nader's strongest support was from college age students who were white and well-off. College students who have yet to deal with the pressures of the "real world".

  Horowitz was once involved with radical groups. He was out to the far, far left. In the Reagan years he shifted to the far right, where he is today.

  What I think may happen with many of these fringe types is that once they get out of school, once they start working, their views will change. When they have to start paying taxes, when they have to start paying bills, and worrying about crime, their left-wing radicalism will abate.

  In time they will eventually move to the suburbs, settle down, have kinds. Like the forefathers, who turned to the right in the late 1970s and 1980s, they will make the same transition.

  This author's conversion doesn't really suprise me. There is lots of precedent for it.

  by jiacinto on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:04:41 PM PDT

  •  if the last election was any guide

    we managed to talk a great deal of them back into the democratic party. on my campus at least, a great number of the volunteers for the dean and later kerry campaigns were former nader voters, who were upset at the corporatization of the democratic party under the guidence of the DLC, but who no longer believed nader's canard that "there was no difference between the parties." nationally, the under-30 vote shifted from being equally divided between bush and gore in 2000 to 55-45 for kerry in 2004, with a 10% higher turnout. that shift has got to be in large part due to the nader voters coming home. you can denigrate them as "fringe groups," but they made the difference in several races, and were probably what kept the dems from getting blown out in the last election.

    by wu ming on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:58:44 PM PDT

    •  55-45 was the breakdown among

      under 30 voters.  The 24 and under voters were even more strongly Democratic, one poll I've seen puts it around 60-40.

      by IhateBush on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 10:08:33 PM PDT

•  Probably Should Not

  . . . support the war in Afghanistan.

  Afghanistan did not attack America on 9-11.  If -- and I seriously doubt it -- Osama bin Laden had any hand at all in the attacks, it was as a collaborator or a stooge for American interests.

  Hey, look!  We're building permanent military bases in Afghanistan!  And -- I know this os just another one of those zany coincidences -- the bases seem to be right along the route of the planned natural gas pipeline!  Say, you don't think -- nah, people who think that the neo-cons are following the plan they laid out in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and Brzinski's "Grand Chessboard" are just bitter, paranoid left-wing conspiracy nutjobs . . .

  So, as Afghanistan didn't attack us, and if the Bushistas at the very least knew 9-11 attacks were coming, why exactly are we at war with Afghanistan?  Oh, the heroin crop that the Taliban suppressed, that's it!  Under the Taliban opium poppy production fell 90%.  Since we "liberated" Afghanistan (Karzai now securely rules a 30-yard radius surrounding his person) Afghanistan has allowed women to vote, and has regained its rightful place as the planet's #1 opium producer!  MERKA -- FUCK YEAH!

  The Democrats supported, and continue to support the war in Afghanistan, for one of three reasons.  One -- the probable one -- is that like most of us they believed the Official Story of the 9-11 attacks for a while, and by the time they figured out the truth the war had toppled the Taliban, and we were ocmmitted, and Dems don't want to say -- oh shit!  We were fooled!  So they're pretending that they still believe we had some good reason.

  Possible reason #2 is that the national Dems are almost as imperialistic as the Republicans.  Possible reason #3 is that they are dumb/in denial, and haven't looked at that wacky conspiracy theory about the guy in the cave, the nineteen Arabs with boxcutters, and the only steel-framed concrete highrises ever to collapse due to fire!  What a frickin' howler!  And the Cessna flight-school dropout who did the 270-degree turn while dropping through several thousand feet at 400 MPH and brought the plan in at treetop level, and left only a 15-foot wide hole with the plane with the 124' wingspan!  That would be the plane that was completely incinerated (which hah-hah explains the lack of any significant debris) but the passengers inside the cremated plane were able to be identified from their DNA!

  Bring on the fucking Tooth Fairy!  And millions of Americans still believe this shit!

  Plans to attack Afghanistan were in preparation months before 9-11.  A number of foreign governments knew we planned to attack Afghanistan in October 2001.  That has been published in reputable foreign newspapers.  And we did attack Afghanistan in October 2001.  We needed a pretext.  We made one.

  We should not be in Afghanistan.  

  by proudtinfoilhat on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:12:12 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    There was legitimate reason to attack Afghanistan after 9.11 They were harboring Bin Laden and those terrorists. Military action against Afghanistan was necessary.

    by jiacinto on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:18:30 PM PDT

    •  not a black and white choice

      there were approaches to neutralising al-qaeda and catching bin laden besides either bombing the shit of afghanistan (which didn't end up working very well) or sitting back and doing nothing, as the right has accused us lib'rul peaceniks of advocating.

      as i argued at the time, we would have been far better served by:

      1. playing up the unjustness of the attack on new york diplomatically as a way of uniting the world behind the destruction of al-qaeda.

      2. worked with factions within the taleban regime unhappy with the al-qaeda presence to achieve their handing over of bin laden in exchange for formal recognition and some development aid while working with pakistan/iran to seal the borders.

      3. devoted a huge amount of resources towards coordinating and expanding global intelligence cooperation so as to expose and uproot al-qaeda and other aligned terrorist organizations, not just in afghanistan but also germany, syria, england, pakistan, kashmir, SE asia, etc. remember that syria and iran volunteered their intelligence files on al-qaeda on september 12th, which we repaid by disregarding it and denouncing them as "the axis of evil."

      4. increase tenfold our foreign aid to the muslim world, especially focusing on scholarly exchange and projects nurturing the development of civil society and real grassroots democratization.

      5. leaned immediately on the israeli government to come up with a legitimate and just peace settlement for the palestinian occupation, thus negating a major course of arab/muslim upset at the united states.

      6. built a case in the world court to convict bin laden and al-qaeda on charges of crimes against humanity in the public eye, in a manner similar to the nuremburg trials.

      as it is, our government wasted all of those chances and went ahead and destroyed what was left in afghanistan because it felt it had a legitimate cause for vengeance, and got what out of the action? a new group of warlords in kabul, skyrocketing opium production, a few sham elections, a bunch of dead american soldiers and afghani civilians, an increasingly hostile global muslim populace (within which murderers like bin laden will have an easier time swimming and recruiting new fanatics), a pakistan on the edge of civil war, and an intact al-qaeda network.

      so who's unreasonable now? the leftists who thought a more nuanced response was in order, or everyone else, who were more concerned with the righteousness of their revenge than with what long-term effects their actions might have?

      by wu ming on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:52:16 PM PDT

      •  Well

        You write:

        worked with factions within the taleban regime unhappy with the al-qaeda presence to achieve their handing over of bin laden in exchange for formal recognition and some development aid while working with pakistan/iran to seal the borders.
        -------------------------------------------------

        Like they would have negotiated with us? The attacks merited a strong response. War with Afghanistan was just and necessary.

        by jiacinto on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:32:55 PM PDT

        •  how can you know

          until you actually attempt it? the coalition of warlords that we call the taleban was not of one mind, and in fact our "success" in overthrowing it as a regime had a lot to do with the fact that a great number of them were willing to switch sides when paid off or promised positions in the new regime. there was in fact a great deal of resentment towards jihadi "outsiders" from the gulf, which we could have used in conjunction with the threat of annihilation.

          bombing and invasions are not the only "strong" response, and they are not always the most effective method of getting things done. i personally could give a shit whether we look "strong"; i'm far more concerned with what this course of action failed to accomplish: namely,  capturing and trying in the world court the upper eschelon leadership of al-qaeda, disrupting their global network, and minimizing if not completely undercutting their political and logistic support worldwide.

          the path we took, no matter how "strong" it may have felt, and no matter how "just" our lashing out may have been, has failed. there were other options other than this one. negotiation and secret channel offers would have given us a carrot to offer besides the stick of invasion. by offering no real attempt at diplomacy, we predetermined the taleban response, and guaranteed war. a nuclear al-qaeda state in pakistan may very well be the result of that choice.

          by wu ming on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:15:32 PM PDT

    •  I am not in total agreement but.......

      Afghanistan was not harboring Bin Laden, it was the Taliban. O.K. they ran the country, however at least 50% of the Afghanis didn't approve of the Taliban, the women.
      I think these 9/11 Republicans are nothing more than opportunists, that goes for Miller, Ron Silver, and this guy too. Wasn't Miller's HBO show cancelled right after 9/11, Ron Silver, although a talented actor was not getting that many juicy parts. I used to think Dennis Miller was really funny, but not anymore, I guess Republicans just don't have the same sense of humor as I do. I just can not watch his show. According to Paul O'Neil's book, weren't the plans to invade Iraq on the table at the first National Security Council meeting in February of 2001? I also read somewhere that Colin Powell, in early 2001, went to the Taliban with lots of money for them.It was about a year after they went to visit the Crawford Ranch. I think little old Georgie was just pissed that when he asked them to turn over Bin Laden they didn't. They took our money, and then screwed Bush. I still would like to know exactly what that money was to be used for, a natural gas line for Enron maybe? I also recall Bush put Cheney in charge of terrorism, and it was around the same time, he was also having his secret energy talks. Several days before 9/11 the Enron shit was hitting the fan. I just have all these questions, and until I get some answers I can never support George W. Bush. I was pro the war in Afghanistan, like most Americans, but something is just not right with this whole picture. I was never good at putting puzzles together, they always frustrated me, and this one has me really going crazy.

      by Vera Lofaro on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:12:26 PM PDT

      •  Well

        What I do know is that the Bush administration did give $43 million to the Taliban in April of 2001. Not sure why no one ever addressed that issue.

        by jiacinto on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:34:02 PM PDT

        •  Thanks,

          I knew it was a big number, but I am nearing 60 and my memory for figures is not what it used to be. There is just too much information fighting to get into my brain.

          by Vera Lofaro on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:42:19 PM PDT

•  United States of Amnesia

  I pity (and fear) those who vote Republican because of 9-11 and the so-called "War on Terror."  Greg Pallast has uncovered that Bush shut down investigation into the Khan nuclear network and into the bin Laden family shortly after taking office.  52 warnings were given to the FAA in the four months leading up to 9-11.  As many as 13 other intelligence services gave warnings to the Bush administration.  What meaningful action did Bushco take to protect us prior to Sept.11?   The roots of the war on terror have been fed by Republican policies for many years.  I am comforted that this horde of voters is quite tiny despite the perception created by the talking heads.

  by stirringstill on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:08:52 PM PDT

•  Nader 2000, Bush 2004: what's the diff?

  Stillwell helped elect Bush both times.

  The notion that a Nader boutique politico was liberal or progressive is nonsense.

  by Elwood Dowd on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:38:09 PM PDT

•  Obviously, Stillwell doesn't live in NY or DC

  I guess it goes without saying that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.  There were plenty of warning signs, and GWB blew it.  It is that simple.  Maybe it wasn't all his fault, but it was his responsibility.  Since W has never admitted to making any mistakes, about anything, ever, there is no particular  reason to think that he and his pals would not blow it again.  

  "'9/11 changed everything", as we heard again and again.  But the ports are still unsecured.  Our so-called intelligence services seem more disorganized than ever.  Laws to get guns and other domestic weapon supplies under control have been repealed or subverted.  We have close to half a million troops in or going to or coming back from Iraq, and therefore not available to address more urgent security threats.  While we were searching for imaginary weapons of mass desttruction in Iraq, Iran and North Korea seem to have taken the opportunity to accelerate their development of real weapons of mass destruction, and Osama bin Laden has walked away free.

  We have sacrificed over 1500 soldiers, spent billions on give-aways to big W supporters (Halliburton, et al.), listened to a lot of talk, and watched a bullying disregard for basic rights lead to some truly revolting episodes of torture.  But despite these "changes", there seems to have been remarkably little progress toward preventing 9/11-type attacks in the future.  Not even Stillwell could claim that we are safer today than we were four years ago.

  It is not a coincidence or liberal bias that all the states which suffered significant numbers of casualties in the 9/11 attacks or are realistic future terrorist targets (e.g., NY, MA, NJ, DC, CA) voted for Kerry.  Many of those voters had friends or family in the Pentagon or the WTC on 9/11 (I did).  If they had seen W as a leader who would make a serious effort to make them safe from another attack, they would certainly have voted for him.  But they saw only a man who played shell games and cheap politics with our security, our liberty and our lives.

  by Kerry Conservative on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:51:37 PM PDT

•  These People ...

  These people are all obviously incapable of critical thinking and, being so handicapped, believe anything they're told so long as it panders to their prejudices.

  by gwhayduke on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 10:11:36 PM PDT