Ground zero, 2004
Next year's Republican Convention will convene blocks from the WTC site, just days before the anniversary of 9/11. The reception from New Yorkers, though, might not be what the White House has in mind.
Sept. 11, 2003 | New York may be a wildly Democratic city that chose Al Gore over George W. Bush by a 4:1 margin in 2000. But that didn't stop the White House from forming a close bond with the city during its darkest hour.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks two years ago, Bush swiftly reassured New York City's traumatized citizens that the nation, and the federal government, would remain by the city's side as it tried to stagger back from that unprecedented strike on civilians. "I can't tell you how proud I am of the good citizens of [New York] and the extraordinary job you all are doing," Bush told New York Mayor Rudolf Giuliani and Gov. George Pataki, during a televised Sept. 13, 2001, conference call, soon promising $20 billion in recovery aid. (* only 5.5 billion was ever paid)
The next day Bush made his stirring visit to ground zero, draping his arms around New York firefighters and standing on the remains of a fire engine, where he shouted from a bullhorn that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon."
"The rallying he did around New York, saying we're all in this together, that was an important aspect of the aftermath of the attacks, and it was well done," says Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who represents Manhattan. Bush's popularity soared in New York, a traditional bastion of political liberals, and remained high for well over a year. But Bush's standing could suffer next year when the Republican Party National Convention convenes here, its date pushed back from August into early September -- ending just days before the third anniversary of 9/11.
It doesn't take a jaded Bush critic to wonder if the president's handlers plan to use the moment not just to stage a celebration of the president's first term, but also to exploit the tragedy that happened just blocks away from where Republican delegates will gather. How successful that would be, of course, depends on this administration's accomplishments in reviving the economy and waging the war on terror over the next year. But there are already a raft of critics in New York ready to express their disappointment -- and for some, anger -- at the president's post-9/11 treatment of the Big Apple.
Some community activists and elected officials claim the White House has all but turned its back on New York as it struggles to rebuild its downtown area physically and economically, and as it wrestles with the long-term health and environmental implications of the terrorist attack.
"The White House has used Lower Manhattan as a campaign springboard for the president's reelection in 2004, and nothing else," says Margarita Lopez, a Democratic city councilwoman who represents that part of Manhattan. "I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt months ago, but no more. Dealing with this issue has been partisan from beginning to end."
Adding to the bitter aftertaste was the stunning revelation late last month, that the Environment Protection Agency, at the prompting of the White House, had misled New Yorkers by publicly insisting in the wake of the twin towers' collapse that breathing the polluted air in Lower Manhattan posed no health risk. That insistence came despite EPA's having done no testing whatsoever on the air quality. Subsequent analysis has proved the air to be quite toxic.
The report, conducted in-house by the EPA's inspector general, suggested that the White House, anxious to paint a portrait of normalcy for America in the wake of the surprise attacks, and wanting to reopen the New York Stock Exchange as quickly as possible, pressured the EPA to make those too-good-to-be-true health assessments.
"They're still lying about it, they still haven't cleaned it up, and slowly people are being poisoned every day," complains Nadler. "More than half the [9/11] rescue workers tested already report restrictive airway diseases. People [in Lower Manhattan] will be coming down with diseases, with lung cancer, for 15 to 20 years, and Bush will be responsible for that. Because instead of properly cleaning things up, the White House buried its head and lied because it didn't want to pay for the cleanup."
The EPA is scheduled to get a new chief, but Sen. Hillary Clinton has announced she'll block the pending nomination until she gets answers about who was responsible for instructing the EPA to mislead New Yorkers about the air quality.
"There are very few indications the Bush administration has done anything extraordinary to help New York," concludes Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. "We shouldn't have to fight to ease the burden of digging out of this horrible mess. Especially since it was a federal [intelligence] lapse that allowed us to be attacked in the first place."
A White House spokesman did not return calls for comment. Neither did the press office for New York's Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg.
The city's dissatisfaction with Bush was reflected last week in a New York Daily News poll that showed 56 percent New Yorkers disapprove of the way he is handling the war on terrorism and think the city is less safe than it was two years ago. Only 20 percent say they will vote for Bush in the next election (he received 19 percent of the city's vote in 2000). |
