Gut-Check
 by William Rivers Pitt

"Courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue
 at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality."
      - C. S. Lewis

The events of Tuesday, September 11 have been described in a number of ways.
It has been called another Pearl Harbor.  It has been called an act of war.  It has been called a crime.

The new reality that has settled in since the attack has likewise been described in various ways.
We have heard the burgeoning conflict described as a 'Crusade.'  We have heard it explained
as a battle against good and evil.  Our society has been called a changed one, where rights
are less important than safety.

Ask my mother what name to bestow upon everything that has happened, however, and she will use
a term that has probably been in my family  since the earliest Irish immigrants in my line beheld the
Statue of Liberty for the first time. She would call it a gut-check.

Integrity has been described as the quality of the actions one takes when no one is looking.  My mother
worked to instill this lesson in me from the beginning of my life.  Living according to that simple code
has been a difficult struggle, one that virtually everyone can relate to in some form or another.

A gut-check, in my family, is the moment of deliberation when you  decide what to think or do in the
aftermath of a calamity or moral dilemma.   That moment can last hours, days or weeks if need be.
A gut-check is a test;  if you pass it, it allows you to look into mirrors without fearing what
you will see reflected in your eyes.

The attack upon New York City, upon Washington D.C., upon every civilian and soldier, upon the entire
country, is unquestionably the most frightening and unnerving and important gut-check this nation has
ever faced.  Everything depends upon our reaction to this.

If we, as ordinary citizens, are to gauge our own reaction, it is helpful to review how
those visible in our society have reacted.  We may measure ourselves by them.

Jerry Falwell failed the test in spectacular fashion.  His first instinct was to turn upon those whose lifestyle or politics
he finds distasteful and subject them to a withering verbal assault.  In essence, he blamed his fellow Americans for
the horror visited upon us.  I am sure the gay New York City firefighter who rode Tower Two down to dusty death
would have an opinion on this.  Sadly, he has no voice now.  Therein lies the essence of Falwell's failure.

The aforementioned firefighter, along with his comrades and those who answered the call within the New York City
police and disaster rescue departments, cannot be lionized enough.  Among the dead and the living within their ranks
walks the pride of a nation.  We hold them all in the light.  In this test of tests, these men and women pass with all
the flying colors of the rainbow.

Those within our nation who have turned their anger and fear upon our Muslim citizens have failed the test in truly bloody fashion.  Falwell's attack was nauseating, to be sure, but in the end was only words.  Fists, clubs, spittle, vitriol and gunfire
have rained down upon Americans who share cultural connections with those who attacked us.  The immigrant is the easiest
to blame, and doing so has been a wretched American parlor game passed from generation to generation like a malignant gene.  Those who do this shame us all.

A number of individuals deserve recognition for passing this test. Rudolph Giuliani, mayor of New York City,
must be singled out in particular.  In the first few days of darkness, Giuliani became the true leader of the nation.
 
He was seemingly everywhere, never sleeping, healing with one hand and informing with the other, and all the while
he showed everyone what a person who has passed the gut-check looks like.

To our great misfortune, the entity most able to inform and heal has been once again perverted to more insidious purposes.
The news-providing wing of the American media establishment has allowed coverage of this event to merely skim the surface
of an important topic, and has likewise kept all but the narrowest of viewpoints from disbursement to the American public.

With the sole exception of one Nightline episode, and a few programs on PBS,
the news outlets have told us the attack against us came because our enemies
hate our freedoms.  No more dangerous an obfuscation could be foisted.

Certainly, within the fundamentalist Islamic community, there are cultural gulfs.  Imams of that wing of the Islamic faith
deplore our ability to speak anything but orthodoxy.   The freedoms American women enjoy jar against the traditions
espoused by the Taliban and other fundamentalist sects.

This cultural divide is only a small part of the explanation for Tuesday, September 11th  and does not do just service
to the large majority within Islam that deplores the attacks.  The rest of the truth lies in our long and often disreputable involvement in those regions, for purposes that are as simple as the numbers on the sign above your local gas station.

This nation must reexamine our priorities, and our history, for we have at last been taught the horrible lesson that actions have consequences.  The  actions of tomorrow, under these new circumstances, do not escape this immutable law.  The media could and should be assisting in this, but do not. They hide history behind rhetoric, dooming us to repeat what has befallen us.

Because the media has failed this test, it falls to the common citizens to seek that information and introspection for themselves.  Perhaps the most  common reaction to these attacks has been, "My God, why did this happen?"

The information is out there.  This is but one aspect of the gut-check we as citizens face. With only a tiny fraction exempted,
it can be said that the great body of  the American citizenry have passed the test, and passed it well.  We hold high the flag,
and hold each other close.  We have given so much money, food, and supplies that it has become difficult for those collecting
it to know what to do with it.  They have been overwhelmed with generosity.  We rally behind our leadership in unprecedented fashion, demonstrating  both solidarity and trust in this time of conflict.

It must also be said that those who wear the military uniform have responded to the test in excellent fashion.  Whether you agree with the combative course we have set or not, only the wretched speak ill of the soldiers.  These men and women
have left aside their lives and embarked without hesitation into a conflict that has promised casualties.

They do this for us all, and are prepared to give that last full measure of devotion.  Hawk or dove, the courage and integrity
of their actions cannot and should not ever be questioned.  Once upon a time we blamed both the sword and the hand that wields it.  We spat upon soldiers returning from a war they did not start, and we failed for years to honor their sacrifice.

We must not repeat that terrible chapter.

This nation is a republic, meaning that American citizens and soldiers in uniform cede control of our national and individual destiny, through our votes, to elected leaders.  The gut-check we face, essentially, tests the fabric of this very idea, and tests
the foundations of our government.It has yet to be determined if those we trust to lead the way have passed this test and
earned the trust we have so freely given in this crisis.

Opportunistic politicians have taken advantage of this crisis by wrapping new and fiscally dangerous tax cuts in the flag, describing what would be yet another windfall for the rich as something desperately required for national and economic security.  Some have attempted to attach to the Defense Appropriations bill a rider that would open the Alaskan
National Wildlife Reserve to plunder by the petroleum industry.

Actions like these have been taken in stealth.  This is still America, and such important decisions must be done before the ears and minds of the American people.  Not everything changed last week, and actions that favor the few over the many cannot be advantageously rammed into legislation by leaders who know we are necessarily distracted.

Those within our leadership who decided that 'Infinite Justice' would be an appropriate title for our looming military actions are another example of individuals who fail the test.  Even the blandest connotation of that phrase is chilling, and not designed to create the international unity we will need to see this fight through.  The religious overtones are striking, for who but God has the power to dispense infinite justice?  The title was withdrawn, but the impact of it remains.

Those among our leadership who stampede to restrict and shred our personal American liberties deserve loud condemnation.  Many aspects of our American life must change in order to secure ourselves from further catastrophes, to be sure.
This is not an excuse to recreate America into a fearful totalitarian state, something that appears to be happening one drip
at a time.  If we fall into this trap, those who attack us win, even if we should  destroy them all.

At the end of the day, all of the confused, fearful and greed-influenced failures described above must be laid at the feet of George W. Bush, who has likewise failed to demonstrate whether or not his own gut-check has delivered that which is
essential to our country.  As the plaque that once sat upon his desk clearly states, the buck stops there.

The news media is not describing the whole story in no small part because our ultimate leader has avoided that conversation completely.  In his speech to the joint session of Congress, Mr. Bush spoke better than at any  other moment in his presidency.  He was forceful, firm, and took pains to  separate Islam from terrorism.  He told the American people that a calm and measured response to this new threat is absolutely required.  These were good words, ones I willingly praised him for.

However, so much of that speech was in reaction to words and deeds preceding it that were far less than honorable.  Before the speech, Mr. Bush appeared helpless to do anything but speak with belligerence, to frame this event as
a battle of religions by using the word 'Crusade.'

Over and over, he told us that we were attacked because our freedoms and liberties are hated, reinforcing the lie.  In his speech, he repeated this grievous error.   This was a failure, a shout into our national echo chamber that resonates loudly,
drowning out truths that require a full and complete airing.

More troubling, it is becoming more and more clear that Mr. Bush may have cut and run on that deadly and dangerous day.  Radar reports describe withprecision the course of those hijacked aircraft.  None, but none, appeared to threaten Air Force One.  This flies in the face of explanations coming  from the White House press office.

In times of crisis, other Presidents have made a point to dash back to Washington D.C. as quickly as possible.
Bush, however, went into hiding. Perhaps there are good reasons for this demonstration of weakness and fear,
but the American people have yet to hear them.

Perhaps the greatest failure of Mr. Bush has been to challenge other nations in such a bellicose manner.  They are either with us or against us, we are told.  Machiavelli spoke of this long ago, and said that such a challenge inevitably causes all to be against the challenger.  This ham-fisted diplomacy carries none of the delicacy required to face the threat.

This will not be a conventional war.  It will be a struggle whose ultimate outcome will be basedupon diplomacy and the
mutual sharing of information.  Many nations will not do this at gunpoint, thus damming up possible sources of information
that could aid us.

In fairness, it must be stated clearly that Mr. Bush faces the most important and immeasurable
gut-check of all.  The process may well not be complete, and there is hope that his sail may yet
further unfurl to set him  upon a better direction than he has thus far traveled.

The early signs have not been promising, but as another Presidential desk plaque says, "Oh God, thy sea is so large and my boat is so small."  That Bush has been tossed violently along with the rest of us is clear.  How he ultimately responds will define him for all time, and will determine our fate.  He must be watched.

This leads to the last aspect of the test we as Americans face in this time of trial.  It has been made quite clear
in a variety of ways that dissent at this time is nearly tantamount to treason.  Disagree with the leadership,
disagree with Bush, and you are herded into the same corner with the terrorists.

Nothing could be further from fact, and nothing could be more unhealthy to our nation.
Now more than ever, the simple fact that the citizens are ultimately the essence of the
government comes into play.  We The People, that parchment reads.

If we dissent, we must speak.  If we see a better way, we must speak.  If we are being taken
down a path dangerous to all we hold dear, we must speak.  If we hear things that are not true,
or that seek to hide the truth, we  must  speak to set the record straight.

We have been told to keep to our American way as much as we can.  We are told to spend
money as an aid to our wounded economy.  We are told to go out into our cities and sports arenas,
juicy targets all, and live our lives with as much normalcy as possible.

Likewise, we must nurture and tend that flame of dissent, for it is the fire that first forged America,
and is the fire that has kept us warm for generations.  Dissent is our birthright.  Forfeit it and we forfeit everything.

Finally, we must not give in to our fears.  Fear begets vengeance, and vengeance is a river of blood that has no end.
We look forward to a day of justice, in the name of all who have died and all who have risen to this challenge.
Justice, however, cannot be revenge.  This, perhaps, is the most pressing aspect of the test.
The status of our very souls are on the line.

I do not come to these assessments lightly, for I have faced my own gut-check in recent days.

On Thursday night, I heard of a threat to my home city of Boston.  The existence of that threat was confirmed Friday morning – Attorney General Ashcroft had telephoned Boston mayor Thomas Menino and informed him that credible evidence was in hand describing a potential attack on the city, scheduled for the coming Saturday.

I was faced with a decision.  I could stay in the city with my loved ones, and have faith in those who defend it.  Or I could leave with my loved ones, seek safety in distance, and wait to see what transpired.  Within this decision lived so many of the dilemmas described above – fear, freedom, integrity, and measured response to a threat among them.

I remembered my years in San Francisco.  Each day I went to work in offices housed high in skyscrapers.
The threat of earthquake was ever-present, and images of 1906 loomed large.  Despite this, my life continued.
I went to work each day, walked passed buildings made of glass, and traveled across bridges whose structural
strength was uncertain.  I did this because I refused to live in fear.

If someone had told me that an earthquake was almost definitely coming tomorrow, however,
I would not have planted myself on Market Street with my middle finger pointed at the ground.
I would have left, sought safety, and not thought twice about it.

So it was Friday night, when I found myself in a Jeep with my loved ones traveling northwest on Route 2.
I spent the next night and day in New Hampshire, watching the news and slowly becoming convinced that the
reports  of danger had been badly overblown.

The Attorney General, it seems, received a poorly translated bit of intelligence pointing a bloody finger at Boston.
He called with the  warning before consulting other sources, and the brushfire began.  I am heartened that he is
so ready to respond to threats, but am disturbed that such dire news was launched before due consideration.

I refuse to regret the fact that I sought shelter for myself and my loved ones.  The shattered debris in midtown Manhattan
are a testament to the ingenuity of our enemies, and to the difficulty our leaders face in defending against this kind of threat.
In this way, our nation is truly changed.  Prudence and safety have been given new definitions, and achieving them requires
new actions.

Nevertheless, I will not forget watching the skyline of Boston recede into obscurity in my rear-view mirror Friday night.
I still wrestle with the  fear that leaving Boston was an act of cowardice, that I too was cutting  and running.
I fear that I ceded a small victory to those who attacked us.

I am not finished with my gut-check, and my actions on Friday are proof of this.  There is much of my course I do not yet know.  So it is with many of us. I take courage in my test from something I saw while in New Hampshire.   I walked the
streets of Keene that day, and came upon the town square.   There  were gathered about twenty people, who faced the
traffic with American  flags  and signs which read, simply, "Peace."

They had completed their gut-check, and were acting upon principles invigorated by the test.
They do not want bloodshed, and they do not want war.  They had not fallen into the awful
quagmire that is the desire  for vengeance.

Whether you agree or disagree with those people from Keene, you must respect them.
They have reached a place we all must seek.  They stand upon firm ground, they speak and act without fear.
They passed the test.
 
 

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 29, 2001

Answers

All we are saying

is give peace a chance

All we are saying

is give peace a chance

All we are saying

is give peace a chance

All we arKERBLAMMM

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), September 29, 2001.

Rarely have you rambled so well Cherri. Except for the now obligatory political sniping your "gut check" is right on. Mine turned out different than yours.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 29, 2001.

Add "Cherri posting an anti-Bush cut and paste", to "death" and "taxes" as the only certain things in this world.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 29, 2001.

Cherri, I liked it. I liked it a lot. Thank you.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 29, 2001.

RushLimbaugh.com

I just came from an informal, outdoor memorial service that MG Van Antwerp gave for the two ladies from ACSIM that were lost last week. It was quite moving. The families were there and it was clear that this meant a lot to them. The General has a sincere way of sharing his own faith that helps lift everyone's spirits.

What I wanted to share, however, was a vignette General Van related about the President and the general's executive officer who was badly burned over 50% of his body. General Van said that the President visited LTC Brian Birdwell at Washington Hospital Center. He spent time talking with Brian. He prayed with Brian, and then as he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of Brian's bed and saluted him.

The President then held that salute as Brian, with burned and bandaged arms, ever so slowly returned the salute. It wasn't hard to picture the scene in my mind, and I think it says a lot about our Commander-in-Chief.

Picture that, and remember that there were no cameras or microphones around, just an eyewitness who saw it. Therefore it did not happen for history or posterity. It happened because the president of the United States respected Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell enough to go to the foot of the bed and hold the salute, knowing how difficult it was for the soldier to respond in kind. This was President Bush's paying of the deepest respect to Brian Birdwell, and also inspiring and motivating.

After I related this story, I received an e-mail from a member of the military who led me to more fully understand the true significance of this. He wrote, "As the commander-in-chief, President Bush never first initiates the salute. So the statement when the president salutes you does not apply. The only case where a president is expected to initiate a salute is to a Medal of Honor winner. So Bush is acting out of deepest respect when he initiates a salute. Lieutenant Colonel Birdwell is under no compunction to return a salute from the president. However, he did, since it was the mark of respect to the person initiating the salute, in this case, the president of the United States."

That's a new one to me, too. If the president salutes you, you don't have to return it? Okay. For those of you in the military, I deeply apologize for my ignorance. The e-mailer concludes, "Lastly, Bush held the salute when he saw Lieutenant Colonel Birdwell begin to respond. To have dropped the salute would have pointed up Birdwell's injury. It's a testament to the respect that Bush had, that he put his life on hold for as long as it took for Lieutenant Colonel Birdwell to return the salute. Just thought you'd like to know, Rush."

I've received a couple of other e-mails such as this. "Rush, something even more dramatic. Not only did our president salute the lieutenant colonel, but military customs and courtesies demand that the personnel with lower rank always salute a superior first and then hold it until a superior salutes back. Our president was holding an inferior-ranked individual in higher regard than his own rank - that of the supreme commander of the United States."

Lieutenant Colonel Birdwell will never, ever forget this, because I'll bet you he did something he thought he couldn't do that day, through the pain and the bandages. The president held that salute until he returned it, an ultimate display of love and respect, with nobody around to see it. What is it J.C. Watts always says, "Character is doing the right thing when nobody is watching."

On Wednesday, a most amazing story came to us from Rich Galen's online news letter called Mullings. It was a very heartwarming and touching story about the president of the United States visiting Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell in a burn unit. This soldier had been burned over 50% of his body in the terrorist assault on the Pentagon. There were no cameras or microphones around to record this, as a spontaneous George W. Bush saluted the junior officer and held the salute until the badly injured young man could respond.

This is the exact opposite, so we were told, of military protocol, which calls for junior officers to salute their superiors. So by saluting the injured lieutenant colonel, and holding it until it was returned, the president elevated his rank above Bush's own as commander-in-chief. You can read the complete story below, and once you do, you'll see why it meant so much to me to receive an e-mail Thursday from Lieutenant Colonel Birdwell's brother thanking me for relaying the story.

"I cannot tell you how grateful and truly proud I am that when Brian started to return that salute, despite his wounds, the president held his salute firmly and thereby permitted my brother the honor of demonstrating his and the true character of so very many others of our fighting men and women. Indeed, you should know that it was this very character that likely saved Brian's life in the first place. As Brian crawled through the fire, certain brave men and women pulled him from the carnage, carried him out to the parking lot, then into the adjoining street."

The e-mail closes saying: "The simple act of holding a salute evidences a quality of character and leadership in our president sorely needed in the coming conflict. So on behalf of my little brother - a true patriot of whom I cannot be prouder - I venture to say that his willingness to endure the pain and the discomfort required to return the president's salute evidences an even greater willingness and resolve on the part of his compatriots to follow wherever the president leads, confident that he has the country's, and therefore their own, best interests at heart.

Sincerely, Wade Birdwell older brother of Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell

Wade, thanks for this note. It's just an accident of fate that I got this. I get roughly 10,000 e-mail notes a day in my inbox. Nobody accesses it other than me. There are an amazing number of people that don't believe that, even though I've stated it I don't know how many times. There's no system. Now, I don't read them all; it's just not possible. But the subject line on your mail is what got me, "My little brother, Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell." When that caught my eye, I knew I had to read that. It's a pleasure to get your note. Thanks very much. I appreciate your sentiments, and wish your brother a fast and complete recovery.

-- Glad (you@mentioned.it), September 29, 2001.

I have to respect Bush for saluting the man, he is after all an American and having been in the military, he knows the respect a salute carries.

I doubt he remembered the rules in such detail that he remembered who, how and what it meant.

I do believe he was showing his respect-man to man with the Lt. Colonel.

I don't know why you believe I think of Bush as less than human, every person in America was effected by the actions of 911, but is no exception. This does not mean I believe he show be president and run the country, or even has a legal right to run the country.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 29, 2001.

Cherri,

I would like to respond to your last post, but unfortunately it is so incoherent that I am unable to understand your point.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 29, 2001.

J- You wouldn't. Don't even try. You're a bit too "scrambled" yourself, to ever comprehend. Try another thread.

-- not (surprised@the.smallness.of.his.intellect), September 29, 2001.

Maybe there is a difference between "effect" and "affect". Ya think?

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), September 29, 2001.