It’s Been 21 Years and Politicians Still Say the Same Things About 9/11

Biden and his right-wing critics agree on little, but still lionize the War on Terror.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Twenty-one years ago today, hijackers directed two passenger airlines into the World Trade Center’s twin towers and another into Pentagon. A fourth flight, likely headed toward the US Capitol, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania. The series of events, which killed 2,977 people, shocked a nation that had not experienced such mass carnage on its mainland since the Civil War. The period after the attacks witnessed a brief period of comity in the nation and an outpouring of sympathy and support for the United States from the rest of the world.

All of that soon evaporated as the US government launched the War on Terror, an effort marked by officially sanctioned torture and mass surveillance. And so today, given that history, how should we remember 9/11? 

In a speech at the Pentagon today, flanked by military brass, President Joe Biden showcased what has emerged as the conventional way to think about the history-changing cataclysm: An attack on American resolve, which the nation absorbed with dignity, and responded to with successful and justified aggression. 

As has largely been the case on this anniversary for the last 20 years, the president opened his remarks by focusing on the grief of those who the dead left behind. His own life haunted by the trauma of tragic deaths of family members, Biden vowed to “keep alive the memory of all of those lives stolen from us on that terrible day.” He added: “I know that for those of you who lost someone, 21 years is both a lifetime—and no time at all.” He quoted a message sent to the American people by the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II: “Grief is the price we pay for love.” 

After a wrenching tribute to the first responders who entered smoking rubble to save lives, Biden sought to justify the subsequent wars launched by the US government in response to the day’s atrocities. “Over the years since 9/11, hundreds of thousands of American troops have served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so many other places around the world, to deny terrorists a safe haven and to protect the American people,” he declared. Biden took pains to avoid using the occasion to drum up anti-Muslim furor. 

Meanwhile, right-wing pols chose to lionize the War on Terror without such restraint. Rudy Giuliani—who commanded the spotlight as “America’s Mayor” during 9/11 and its aftermath—took a break from his crusade to overturn the 2020 election to claim that the wars “preserved our spirit and saved our nation,” while having a poke at “Islamic Extremist Terrorists.” (Several days before the anniversary, Giuliani appeared on Newsmax and described 9/11 “in some ways…as the greatest day of my life.”)

Sen. Ted Cruz, perhaps hoping to dash the internet’s memory of his embarrassing but historic Sept. 11, 2017, Twitter mishap, drove home a similar theme.  

In his 2021 book Reign of Terror, veteran journalist Spencer Ackerman delivered a different way of thinking about the violence unleashed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Ackerman argues that the forever wars neither “protect[ed] the American people” (as Biden claimed) nor “saved” the nation (as per Giuliani). Instead, buoyed by a tangle of lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the wars torched trillions of dollars of federal money only to fan racist anti-immigrant furor; justify torture and the rise of mass digital surveillance; breed an atmosphere of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering that eroded faith in American institutions; and committed the nation to foreign adventures that could never end in victory. The chaos wrought at home ultimately opened the door to the presidency of Donald Trump, Ackerman argues.

“Experiencing neither peace nor victory for such a sustained period was a volatile condition for millions of people,” he writes. “Trump knew how to explain such humiliations: the War on Terror was an enraging story of insufficient brutality wielded by untrustworthy elites.” He goes on:

 Those elites, he claimed, pretended that America was not at war with Islam, that it was not experiencing a foreign invasion, that it was not at risk, in the final analysis, of being itself lost. If America could not defeat its enemies abroad, there were so many here at home: Muslims, nonwhite immigrants, brown people from what Trump called “shithole” countries, queer and especially trans people, Black people, socialists, liberals, Jews. A war that never defined its enemy became an opportunity for the so-called MAGA coalition of white Americans to merge their grievances in an atmosphere of righteous emergency. That impulse unlocked a panoply of authoritarian possibilities that extended far beyond the War on Terror, from stealing children to inciting a violent mob that attempted to overturn a presidential election.

Ackerman recently expressed hope that his analysis would emerge as the “dominant narrative of the 9/11 Era.” Listening to Biden and other politicians mark the anniversary today suggests that the heroic view of the War on Terror clearly still has plenty of life.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate