Just when you think the rhetoric of those seeking to pollute the 9/11 Memorial with anti-American propaganda can’t sink any lower, up steps the New York Times to call those of us who come down on the side of a site that’s totally devoted to the events and heroes of that tragic day “un-American.”
It is a campaign about political purity – about how people remember 9/11 and about how we choose to read its aftermath, including the Iraq war. On their Web site, www.takebackthememorial.org, critics of the cultural plan at ground zero offer a resolution called Campaign America. It says that ground zero must contain no facilities “that house controversial debate, dialog, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events.” This, to us, sounds un-American.
The Times defends the size of the Memorial by saying it “is larger than the public spaces in the Whitney Museum.” A Memorial honoring the victims of the largest, the most destructive, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United States should not be compared in any way, shape or form to an art museum (I will forgo commentary about the anti-American nature of much of the politically motivated art at the Whitney). By drawing an analogy with the Whitney, the Times unconsciously reveals how it views the events of 9/11 and its aftermath.
It’s a theme I’ve dealt with many times here; there is a sizable segment of the left that cannot grasp or refuses to see that the world changed following 9/11. They see terrorism as a “nuisance” and as a problem for international law enforcement. The interconnectedness of al Qaeda with rogue states is not something to concern ourselves with. The war in Iraq is unnecessary because Saddam Hussein wasn’t an “immediate” threat.
This is a mindset that can compare the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo with the behavior of the worst tyrants in history because at bottom, they do not believe we are at war. They concentrate on everything but the ongoing struggle because to do so would explode cherished myths both about the War on Terror and the United States in general.
The hearkening back to Viet Nam, the constant comparisons with Hitler, the belief in conspiracies, all seek to obscure the harsh reality that there are thousands and thousands of terrorists out there supported by millions of others who wish to wipe us off the face of this earth! For whatever reason, this hasn’t penetrated the minds of the editorial page writers at the New York Times. They see this battle over the Memorial and truly can’t understand why anyone would object to the casual anti American bias that’s become so commonplace to the left that no one gives it a second thought anymore. They are playing by rules that became obsolete the second that first plane plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. And sadly, this editorial reveals their lack of understanding of how truly hallowed a place the Memorial is to not just the families of the fallen, but to those who understand the nature of the life and death struggle we’re in and see any besmirching of America through the selective use of history to be sacrilege.
Karen Lee who lost her husband on that horrible day sums it up perfectly: “What happened that day was not about left and right. It was about right and wrong.”
Given the moral relativism of the Times and the rest of the lickspittle left, it’s hardly surprising that they just don’t get it.
To contribute or get involved in the fight to Take Back the Memorial, go here.
All I’ll add is that a newspaper dumb enough to publish editorials like this one in a post-9/11 world has some nerve lecturing anyone else about a “sense of proportion”—let alone about what’s “un-American.”