Tweet
9/11 FAMILIES AND HEROES ADVANCING AGAINST HIJACKERS OF WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL
Wes Vernon
renewamerica.us, D.C.
Sept 26 2005
The high-powered liberal establishment that runs Manhattan from the
salons of the East and West sides and wields more than its share of
clout across America is on the defensive because of outraged citizens,
firefighters, police and families of the 9/11 dead. Now Congress may
soon weigh in - big time.
Capitol Hill's outrage is bipartisan. Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) is the
vice-chairman of the Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee of
the House Appropriations Committee. That panel oversees the federal
taxpayer dollars ("Taxpayer," let us never forget, means you and me)
that may end up bankrolling a planned playpen for the "Politically
Correct" instead of creating a proper memorial to the nearly 3,000
who died in the savage, barbaric attack on 9/11. The object of Capitol
Hill wrath in this case is the so-called International Freedom Center
- or IFC). (See my column July 11 - "Political Correctness at Ground
Zero Draws Hill Protest.")
Congressman Sweeney wants a House committee investigation of this
mess. Chances are his panel will do the investigating and require
the IFC eminences - unaccustomed to taking any sass or challenges to
their authority - to explain themselves.
The lawmaker is joined by his fellow New Yorkers, Reps. Peter King -
the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee - and Vito
Fosella, both Republicans.
Moreover, the move in the Halls of Congress against moneyed and
prominent know-it-alls who are pushing for the hijacking of the World
Trade Center memorial comes from both sides of the aisle. New York's
junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has turned against the power
players of the IFC, many of whom have treated the Democrat presidential
wannabe as if she walked on water.
"I cannot support the IFC," Senator Clinton told the New York Post's
Deborah Orin. Noting the complaints that the IFC is going in a
direction that would make the memorial a center of anti-Americanism,
the senator added, "I am troubled by the serious concerns family
members and first responders have expressed to me," and that "I do
not believe we can move forward until it [the LMDC- Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation - another group involved in planning the
memorial] heeds and addresses their concerns."
Clinton took her stand shortly after the IFC issued a required report
to the LMDC in an attempt to prove itself worthy of a spot at Ground
Zero. LMDC Chairman John Whitehead had warned if the IFC failed to
prove itself, "we will find another tenant - consistent with our
objectives - for that space."
"Guess what?" opined the New York Post in an editorial, "It failed.
Time to find another tenant." Indeed the hundreds of thousands of
9/11 family members and unions representing about 182,000 police and
firefighters want the IFC out of there - yesterday. So too do the
nearly 50,000 who have signed on to a protest petition on the website,
Take Back the Memorial.
Senator Clinton, who faces the voters of New York in her 2006
re-election bid (as a stepping-stone for her 2008 run for 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue) is not about to row upstream against a political
thicket of angry people who believe they and their loved ones have
been wronged by an anti-Americanism that adds gratuitous personal
insult to grievous injury.
Debra Burlingame, whose brother "Chip" was the pilot of the plane
that terrorists crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, told me she thinks
"Senator Clinton recognized that this is no longer a couple of families
who can't get over the loss of their loved ones [as the PC crowd
wants us to think]. I think that [the senator] understands that we
fairly reflect the feelings of all of those who associate with Ground
Zero-9/11 - that is, to say the first responders, and the survivors,
as well as Americans all across the land." Uniformed Firefighters
President Steve Cassidy says his members want the memorial to put 9/11
"in context."
IFC President Tom Bernstein has expressed hope the site will be a
"magnet" for activists, politicians, academics, and scholars to
"discuss" domestic and foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. Given
that George Soros and others of his ilk are helping to bankroll this
disaster, one can easily imagine the Blame America First "discussions"
that would mar the memory of the 9/11 heroes. For example, what
"academics" are we talking about here? Ward Churchill, who called
the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns?"
The New York Times, the undisputed establishment mouthpiece, fretted
editorially that 9/11 families "will be able to censor" the IFC's
supposed good works.
Of course, that totally misses the point of the protest. Such a
journalistic display of the tin-ear stems from the simple fact that,
unlike Senator Clinton, the New York Times is not burdened with the
necessity of seeking approval from the voters (though NYT's circulation
has been on the decline in recent years, a little matter to which it
might want to direct its attention someday).
The Times, of course, urged LMDC to give rubber stamp approval
to the IFC's plans post-haste. As far as its editorial board was
concerned, New York's Republican Governor George Pataki "capitulated"
to "a misguided outcry from critics" by directing the IFC to write
the report. A better argument can be made that by not immediately
demanding the IFC's ouster from the site, the governor dithered and
postponed the day of reckoning. If that kind of slow-motion "action"
continues - as the New York Post put it - "most likely, Ground Zero
will still be a massive hole in the ground four years from now."
Understand: No one - absolutely nobody - has tried to "censor"
exhibits or lectures on the civil rights movement, the jailing of
Martin Luther King, slavery, the Civil War, the Holocaust, and the
Soviet Gulags. They're all worthy of public attention. Just not at
Ground Zero. That is not censorship.
To mix 9/11 with these other issues would detract from the proper
memorial to the dead, many of whose body parts were found hours,
days, weeks and months later scattered about in the Hudson River and
in other Manhattan environs.
If you were to ask the curators of the Holocaust - whose purpose
is to honor the 6 million Jews Hitler killed - to honor also the
victims of the 1915 Turkish genocidal slaughter of the Armenians,
those museum gate-keepers would have none of it. In fact, Burlingame
notes they have said as much. And remember, the 6 million Jews were
killed in Europe, not here in Washington, where the Holocaust Museum
is located. Ground Zero, on the other hand, is the exact site where
most of the 9/11 victims were killed. To impose PC at that location
is something akin to grave desecration.
If you live outside of the New York City area, you may not be fully
aware of the full dimensions of this bitter controversy., which
should not be merely "a local story," but by any reasonable standard,
should be national news. So why isn't it? Aside from journalistic
laziness or inattentiveness, it is hard not to notice the powerful
media people tied in one way or another to the IFC, the LMDC, or
otherwise connected with the PC venture.
The White House is clearly embarrassed by these developoments. Try
to discuss the matter with anyone there, and you get a quick change
of subject. Liberals keep harping on the fact that IFC Chairman Tom
Bernstein is an old Yale buddy of President Bush. They do not mention,
however, that Bernstein is also President of Human Rights First which
has harassed the administration for locking up terrorists at Gitmo
and has worked hand-in-glove with the ACLU to target the Pentagon
over prisoner abuse. (The ACLU, by the way, wants a "civil liberties"
exhibit at Ground Zero.)
One can envision the long-overdue congressional hearings where the
IFC will have to answer questions related to the Sweeney-King-Fosella
statement Friday that the IFC report "falls well short" of legitimate
concerns and that the IFC "is thumbing its nose at limiting to the
events of 9/11."
As the congressmen put it, "We have been patient, but the time for
debate is over." The lawmakers are not shooting from the hip. They
have met with all parties involved in the memorial controversy.
And just in case anyone misses the point, they add, "Perhaps the
opportunity to shed light on the proposed center will allow the
American people to properly scrutinize the potential for their tax
dollars to be spent blaming America for the sins of others."
Pound the gavel, Mr. Chairman. Call the committee to order. I can
hardly wait.
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast
journalist.
Wes Vernon
renewamerica.us, D.C.
Sept 26 2005
The high-powered liberal establishment that runs Manhattan from the
salons of the East and West sides and wields more than its share of
clout across America is on the defensive because of outraged citizens,
firefighters, police and families of the 9/11 dead. Now Congress may
soon weigh in - big time.
Capitol Hill's outrage is bipartisan. Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) is the
vice-chairman of the Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee of
the House Appropriations Committee. That panel oversees the federal
taxpayer dollars ("Taxpayer," let us never forget, means you and me)
that may end up bankrolling a planned playpen for the "Politically
Correct" instead of creating a proper memorial to the nearly 3,000
who died in the savage, barbaric attack on 9/11. The object of Capitol
Hill wrath in this case is the so-called International Freedom Center
- or IFC). (See my column July 11 - "Political Correctness at Ground
Zero Draws Hill Protest.")
Congressman Sweeney wants a House committee investigation of this
mess. Chances are his panel will do the investigating and require
the IFC eminences - unaccustomed to taking any sass or challenges to
their authority - to explain themselves.
The lawmaker is joined by his fellow New Yorkers, Reps. Peter King -
the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee - and Vito
Fosella, both Republicans.
Moreover, the move in the Halls of Congress against moneyed and
prominent know-it-alls who are pushing for the hijacking of the World
Trade Center memorial comes from both sides of the aisle. New York's
junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has turned against the power
players of the IFC, many of whom have treated the Democrat presidential
wannabe as if she walked on water.
"I cannot support the IFC," Senator Clinton told the New York Post's
Deborah Orin. Noting the complaints that the IFC is going in a
direction that would make the memorial a center of anti-Americanism,
the senator added, "I am troubled by the serious concerns family
members and first responders have expressed to me," and that "I do
not believe we can move forward until it [the LMDC- Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation - another group involved in planning the
memorial] heeds and addresses their concerns."
Clinton took her stand shortly after the IFC issued a required report
to the LMDC in an attempt to prove itself worthy of a spot at Ground
Zero. LMDC Chairman John Whitehead had warned if the IFC failed to
prove itself, "we will find another tenant - consistent with our
objectives - for that space."
"Guess what?" opined the New York Post in an editorial, "It failed.
Time to find another tenant." Indeed the hundreds of thousands of
9/11 family members and unions representing about 182,000 police and
firefighters want the IFC out of there - yesterday. So too do the
nearly 50,000 who have signed on to a protest petition on the website,
Take Back the Memorial.
Senator Clinton, who faces the voters of New York in her 2006
re-election bid (as a stepping-stone for her 2008 run for 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue) is not about to row upstream against a political
thicket of angry people who believe they and their loved ones have
been wronged by an anti-Americanism that adds gratuitous personal
insult to grievous injury.
Debra Burlingame, whose brother "Chip" was the pilot of the plane
that terrorists crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, told me she thinks
"Senator Clinton recognized that this is no longer a couple of families
who can't get over the loss of their loved ones [as the PC crowd
wants us to think]. I think that [the senator] understands that we
fairly reflect the feelings of all of those who associate with Ground
Zero-9/11 - that is, to say the first responders, and the survivors,
as well as Americans all across the land." Uniformed Firefighters
President Steve Cassidy says his members want the memorial to put 9/11
"in context."
IFC President Tom Bernstein has expressed hope the site will be a
"magnet" for activists, politicians, academics, and scholars to
"discuss" domestic and foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. Given
that George Soros and others of his ilk are helping to bankroll this
disaster, one can easily imagine the Blame America First "discussions"
that would mar the memory of the 9/11 heroes. For example, what
"academics" are we talking about here? Ward Churchill, who called
the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns?"
The New York Times, the undisputed establishment mouthpiece, fretted
editorially that 9/11 families "will be able to censor" the IFC's
supposed good works.
Of course, that totally misses the point of the protest. Such a
journalistic display of the tin-ear stems from the simple fact that,
unlike Senator Clinton, the New York Times is not burdened with the
necessity of seeking approval from the voters (though NYT's circulation
has been on the decline in recent years, a little matter to which it
might want to direct its attention someday).
The Times, of course, urged LMDC to give rubber stamp approval
to the IFC's plans post-haste. As far as its editorial board was
concerned, New York's Republican Governor George Pataki "capitulated"
to "a misguided outcry from critics" by directing the IFC to write
the report. A better argument can be made that by not immediately
demanding the IFC's ouster from the site, the governor dithered and
postponed the day of reckoning. If that kind of slow-motion "action"
continues - as the New York Post put it - "most likely, Ground Zero
will still be a massive hole in the ground four years from now."
Understand: No one - absolutely nobody - has tried to "censor"
exhibits or lectures on the civil rights movement, the jailing of
Martin Luther King, slavery, the Civil War, the Holocaust, and the
Soviet Gulags. They're all worthy of public attention. Just not at
Ground Zero. That is not censorship.
To mix 9/11 with these other issues would detract from the proper
memorial to the dead, many of whose body parts were found hours,
days, weeks and months later scattered about in the Hudson River and
in other Manhattan environs.
If you were to ask the curators of the Holocaust - whose purpose
is to honor the 6 million Jews Hitler killed - to honor also the
victims of the 1915 Turkish genocidal slaughter of the Armenians,
those museum gate-keepers would have none of it. In fact, Burlingame
notes they have said as much. And remember, the 6 million Jews were
killed in Europe, not here in Washington, where the Holocaust Museum
is located. Ground Zero, on the other hand, is the exact site where
most of the 9/11 victims were killed. To impose PC at that location
is something akin to grave desecration.
If you live outside of the New York City area, you may not be fully
aware of the full dimensions of this bitter controversy., which
should not be merely "a local story," but by any reasonable standard,
should be national news. So why isn't it? Aside from journalistic
laziness or inattentiveness, it is hard not to notice the powerful
media people tied in one way or another to the IFC, the LMDC, or
otherwise connected with the PC venture.
The White House is clearly embarrassed by these developoments. Try
to discuss the matter with anyone there, and you get a quick change
of subject. Liberals keep harping on the fact that IFC Chairman Tom
Bernstein is an old Yale buddy of President Bush. They do not mention,
however, that Bernstein is also President of Human Rights First which
has harassed the administration for locking up terrorists at Gitmo
and has worked hand-in-glove with the ACLU to target the Pentagon
over prisoner abuse. (The ACLU, by the way, wants a "civil liberties"
exhibit at Ground Zero.)
One can envision the long-overdue congressional hearings where the
IFC will have to answer questions related to the Sweeney-King-Fosella
statement Friday that the IFC report "falls well short" of legitimate
concerns and that the IFC "is thumbing its nose at limiting to the
events of 9/11."
As the congressmen put it, "We have been patient, but the time for
debate is over." The lawmakers are not shooting from the hip. They
have met with all parties involved in the memorial controversy.
And just in case anyone misses the point, they add, "Perhaps the
opportunity to shed light on the proposed center will allow the
American people to properly scrutinize the potential for their tax
dollars to be spent blaming America for the sins of others."
Pound the gavel, Mr. Chairman. Call the committee to order. I can
hardly wait.
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast
journalist.