file photo

It has been three years since the tragedy of Sept. 11, not that you would have missed this fact if you watched the Republican National Convention. It has been three years since the single most horrific event in American history, a day that was supposed to bring all Americans of all political hues together, and a day that was supposed to unify the world under one cause. The events of Sept. 11 should have been the most non-political in our history.

Sadly, the events of Sept. 11 have become extremely political, and frankly, one party is to blame. The Republican National Convention last month dwelled on Sept. 11 more than any other issue. The video clip of Bush standing on the rubble of the Twin Towers with a megaphone, speaking to emergency workers, was replayed with the same frequency as the “Dean Scream” back during the Democratic Primaries. In fact, the video that prefaced the president’s speech went no further than the weeks just after Sept. 13, the day Bush made that trip to New York City.

That moment was admittedly stirring, but I for one am sick and tired of the double standard Republicans have set.

Thursday, The Spectator printed an incredibly thought-provoking column entitled “U.S. Soldiers Preserve Freedom.” In it, the columnist makes the argument that the conflict in Iraq should not be politicized. This is an argument many on the right have made. They have asked that we “respect the efforts of the troops” by supporting the military action we are undertaking and remain silent about our concerns.

These people incorrectly assume that by opposing the war, and feeling that the subsequent occupation has been managed with disgusting negligence, one is not supporting the troops.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am disgusted with the Bush administration’s handling of this war because the people who have paid dearly have been our courageous troops. Supporting our troops and disagreeing with our president are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Also, besides ignoring the importance of discussion and dissent in a democracy, the argument Republicans are making also contradicts the very strategy they have employed in their own campaign.

If we are to operate under the conclusion that Sept. 11 was the beginning of the War on Terror, then how is it fair to criticize John Kerry or any American for making the war in Iraq a political issue while endlessly using the memory of Sept. 11 for political gain?

I think I have a few ideas why they do it. Perhaps it’s because the war in Iraq is a disaster, with more than 1,000 tragic deaths of American soldiers while insurgents controlling many key areas of the country. Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, one of the most respected think tank in America, asked, “Might all this bloodshed at least start to slow down soon? Unfortunately, there are few grounds for such hope.” In regards to the effectiveness of the occupation, he said, “Unless current trends change substantially, the administration’s goals of making Iraq a beacon of democracy, stability and prosperity in the Middle East appear increasingly out of reach.”

We are spending $5 billion a month on this conflict, and our servicemen and women make up 85 percent of the troop presence.

Those who try to pretend the situation in Iraq is going well are not optimistic; instead, they are na‹ve.

There’s another reason the video at the convention ended just after that famous speech at the rubble, and the reason can be found in Bush’s words that day: “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

Sadly, as Osama bin Laden dwells in the caves of Pakistan and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri releases videos to Al-Jazeera (as he did on Thursday), largely because of the movement of special forces from Afghanistan to Iraq when these men were surrounded, those words seem hollow, insincere, and extremely political.

So as Republicans ask Democrats to stop politicizing the situation in Iraq, perhaps it is a good time for them to look in the mirror, to watch their convention, to listen to their own rhetoric and decide whether it’s prudent to attack those who oppose the war.