In their coverage of President Bush's commemoration the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and, particularly, his televised September 11 prime-time address, both The New York Times and The Washington Post suggested it was Democrats who undermined efforts to recreate the national sense of unity that initially followed the attacks. In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, reports have made clear the White House's strategy for extracting political gain in the period leading up to the 9-11 anniversary and on that day.

In a September 11 press gaggle, White House press secretary Tony Snow stressed to reporters that Bush would be “reflective” rather than political in his prime-time address that evening and would “try to talk in a way that unifies the American people.” In covering the speech and the presidential events that preceded it, both the Times and the Post echoed this characterization. In a September 12 article, Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that Bush's prime-time speech “brought to a close a day when leaders of both parties put aside ... the acrimony,” but added, "[A]s soon as the speech was over, the partisanship flared again" -- a reference to the Democratic criticism of the address. From the Times article:

Mr. Bush's address brought to a close a day when leaders of both parties put aside, at least for the moment, the acrimony that has characterized the national security debate since the brief period of national unity after the attacks. But as soon as the speech was over, the partisanship flared again. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the president “should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning” to justify his Iraq policy. And Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the address disappointing, saying, “You do not commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 by politicizing it.”

A September 12 article by Post staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Michael A. Fletcher noted that Bush's “painstakingly choreographed day was intended by the White House to recapture ... the sense of shared purpose” experienced in the aftermath of 9-11. The Post went on to report that, because “Democrats have been attacking the administration over Iraq and Bush's national security record,” Bush “faced a tall order” in urging Americans to come together. From the Post:

Bush's 16-minute address closed a day of mournful ceremonies for him and the nation. After a memorial service near Ground Zero in New York City, Bush flew to Shanksville, Pa., where he and first lady Laura Bush met family members of the victims and placed a wreath on the makeshift memorial near the spot where the hijacked United Flight 93 aircraft slammed into a field.

They traveled next to the Pentagon, where they placed a large, white floral wreath on the new stone facade on the section of building that was destroyed by the attack. The Bushes silently faced the wall while a military band played “America the Beautiful.”

The president's painstakingly choreographed day was intended by the White House to recapture -- at least for a moment -- the sense of shared purpose that prevailed in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

But Bush faced a tall order. Although he urged Americans last night to “put aside our differences,” Democrats have been attacking the administration over Iraq and Bush's national security record, hoping these issues will help them reclaim one or both chambers of Congress in November.

But the suggestion by the Times and the Post that the White House approached the anniversary by putting politics aside and promoting unity is unfounded and, in some cases, contradicted by the outlets' own reporting. For instance, Bush's prime-time address prominently featured a political message, as he repeatedly tied the war in Iraq to the larger struggle against terrorism. As the Associated Press reported, "[M]ost of his 17-minute speech was devoted to justifying his foreign policy since that day. With his party's control of Congress at stake in elections less than two months away, Bush suggested that political opponents who are calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be giving victory to the terrorists." From the address:

BUSH: We're training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation. We're helping Iraq's unity government grow in strength and serve its people. We will not leave until this work is done. Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Osama bin Laden calls this fight “the Third World War” -- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's “defeat and disgrace forever.” If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen.

Indeed, the Times article -- which earlier accused Democrats of resorting to “partisanship” in the wake of Bush's address -- finally noted in the last paragraph the reason for the Democratic criticism:

Even as he called for unity Mr. Bush alluded to Democratic calls for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, saying, “Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone.”

The Times article also noted that Vice President Dick Cheney, in an address at the Pentagon earlier in the day, made “a veiled effort to portray Democrats as appeasing the enemy” -- a fact that seems to contradict Rutenberg and Stolberg's earlier assertion that “leaders of both parties put aside, at least for the moment, the acrimony that has characterized the national security debate”:

Addressing a crowd of 500 that included relatives of victims, Mr. Cheney said the United States would keep pressing the fight. “We have no intention of ignoring or appeasing history's latest gang of fanatics trying to murder their way to power,” Mr. Cheney said, quoting the president and reprising a theme that has been taken by critics as a veiled effort to portray Democrats as appeasing the enemy.

Meanwhile, the Post -- in characterizing Bush's “painstakingly choreographed day” as meant to “recapture ... the sense of shared purpose” that followed 9-11 -- ignored the fact that Bush appeared only with Republicans during his September 10 visit to the site of the World Trade Center. Indeed, while Bush toured the Ground Zero site with three members of his own party -- New York Gov. George Pataki, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- absent from the event were New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, as American Prospect editor Michael Tomasky noted in a September 11 post on the magazine's Tapped weblog. Tomasky highlighted Clinton and Schumer's absence in response to a September 11 Post article that described Bush's visit as leaving “aside the partisan rancor.” From Tomasky's post:

Both the Times and the Post note this morning that Bush laid two wreaths at ground zero last night in the company of George Pataki, Mike Bloomberg, and Rudy Giuliani. The Post goes well out of its way to remark that the event “left aside the partisan rancor” that...well, that Bush & Co. have enforced on the country since about 9-14.

If this event was so nonpartisan, where were Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton? Neither paper makes any mention of their having been there. I'm told that in fact they were not invited (they were at St. Paul's church, where Bush went after laying the wreaths -- and where there were apparently no photographers!!). In what sense does an event that features four Republicans but excludes the two senators who were representing New York at the time of the event, but who happen to be Democrats, leave aside partisan rancor?

By suggesting that Democrats were responsible for injecting partisanship into the commemorative events, the Times and the Post also simply ignored reports that made clear the White House's strategy to capitalize politically on the anniversary of the attacks. For instance, in an article for the September 18 edition of Newsweek, investigative correspondents Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff quoted an anonymous senior administration official acknowledging that Bush's September 6 announcement that 14 terror suspects had been transferred from CIA-run secret prisons to the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay was timed in conjunction with the upcoming anniversary:

The timing of last week's announcement, just before the fifth anniversary of 9/11, was no accident. It allowed the White House to showcase its successes in capturing terrorists, and to put pressure on Congress to quickly approve the tribunals. “There were obviously messaging opportunities,” says a senior Bush aide. “We could sit back and let the war be defined by the media and our critics, or we can define it ourselves.”

Further, in his article for the September 18 edition of Time (posted September 10 to the Time website), White House correspondent Mike Allen reported that soon after Bush's announcement, the White House and Republican Party leaders urged conservative media figures to promote Bush's speech “in the context of the election”:

Thirty-five minutes after President Bush finished his surprise East Room announcement last week about plans for prosecuting some of the world's most prominent terrorists, White House and Republican officials convened a conference call of conservative TV pundits and other allies, and later of state party leaders around the country. A participant said listeners were urged to spread the word about the aggressive speech “by talking about it in the context of the election.” The message: Republicans are strong, and Democrats are weak. The White House strategy isn't subtle. With Republicans worried about losing the House and conceivably even the Senate in November, the President is taking a big gamble that an unflinching focus on national security will be his party's political salvation.