GENERAL JOHN A. LOGAN

This post originally appeared on May 30, 2005

Congressman John Logan was angry. His party, the Democrats, had just lost the election of 1860 to Abe Lincoln and the Republicans. But his opposition to the fire eaters of the South who were agitating for secession had incurred the wrath of men who just recently had called him a “son of the South.” In a speech on the floor of the House, Logan warned his Southern colleagues that if they persisted in their folly, the union would crush them. He returned to his district and gave a speech at Marion, Illinois that today is widely seen as helping keep that vital part of Illinois – “little Egypt” – loyal to the Union.

Resigning from Congress, he was one of a handful of Democratic lawmakers that fought on the Union side during the war. Most of these political officers were a disaster. Benjamin Butler, for instance, was a Massachusetts Democrat whose ineptitude as a soldier was surpassed only by his incompetence as an administrator. While overseeing the military occupation of New Orleans, Butler issued the infamous “General Order #28” that stipulated that “any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.”

Other political generals were equally unfit for command and ended up costing thousands of lives because of their incompetent leadership. But not so John Logan.

Logan organized a regiment of volunteers and was named a Colonel. Immediately distinguishing himself on the field of battle, Logan made it his business to study the art of war. Attached to the Army of the Tennessee, General Grant recognized Logan’s leadership ability and promoted him to General. He played a key role in the victory at Raymond, Mississippi that cleared the way for Grant’s march to Vicksburg and eventual capture of that vital city.

When Grant moved North to take command of the Union armies, Sherman, who had nothing but disdain for political generals, took over the Army of the Tennessee. But after seeing Logan in action during the Battle of Atlanta, Sherman was impressed enough to give Logan command of the entire left wing of his army on its march to the sea. Again, Logan distinguished himself as he fought off whatever resistance the South could throw at Sherman as he devastated the countryside.

Popular with the men under his command, Logan was a rarity – a commander the men could trust. They sensed his concern for their welfare as Logan made it a habit of visiting the company mess to taste the food himself. If he found it inadequate, he’d dress down the company commander and order him to fix the situation. Usually it was something simple like changing cooks or cleaning the cooking pots once and a while. In addition, Logan made sure the men under his command were properly supplied with shoes, blankets, and other necessities that kept the men comfortable during winter months.

Logan’s concern for his men was evident after the war as well. Elected to Congress again in 1866, Logan took part in the first memorial day observance in Illinois. It’s thought that Logan became especially interested in the issue of a decoration day for the nation following a gesture by the women of Columbia, Mississippi who, during a remembrance for the dead, placed flowers on the graves of both Union and Southern soldiers. Logan had fought with Grant at the battle of Columbia and remembered well the hatred of civilians toward the Union Army. Horace Greeley wrote a famous editorial about the Columbian women and Francis Miles Finch wrote a beautiful poem for the Atlantic Monthly entitled “The Blue and the Grey.”

Logan’s popularity with the men paid off when he was named Commander in Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR). In 1868 he issued his famous general order that designated May 30th as Decoration Day “for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land.”

Because of Logan’s leadership, the GAR grew into the most influential voting bloc in the Republican party. For more than 30 years, no Republican could get the Presidential nomination without the support of the GAR. At it’s peak, more than 400,000 veterans of the civil war were members. Their presence during parades and remembrances of that war became a source of inspiration to an entire generation of American historians and writers.

Logan would go on and be elected Senator and even be nominated on the 1884 Democratic ticket for Vice President. He was a strong advocate of public education and served on the Committee for Military Affairs. When he died in 1886, he lay in state in the Rotunda of the Capitol. Thousands of tearful veterans filed past his coffin to pay their last respects to the man they nicknamed “Blackjack.”

Some historians have taken a less than charitable view of Logan’s motivations for initiating Decoration Day. They point out that Logan probably used the holiday to promote his own political career. His bid for the Senate in 1871 played up his role in boosting the holiday and he never failed to remind audiences of his service in that regard.

However, Logan also wrote a loving tribute to his men in a book that came out after his death entitled The Volunteer Soldier in America which was written partly in response to U.S. Grant’s autobiography that criticized the performance of volunteers during the war.

John Logan didn’t come up with the idea of Memorial Day. But his generous inclusion of Southern dead in his General Order authorizing Decoration Day was a magnanimous gesture that helped heal the wounds of that conflict and bring us together as a nation.

It might not be a bad idea this Memorial Day to take a page from our forefathers and recognize that those on the other side of the debate of the War in Iraq mourn our losses as well. For this one day, let us be united in recognition of the service these brave men performed and the fact that no matter what you believe, they have given that “last full measure of devotion” to a grateful nation.

UPDATE

My special friend Romeocat has a beautiful Memorial Day post filled with pictures of her recent trip to Washington, D.C. Special attention is paid to the World War II Memorial, an emotional place for her since her father served on Wake Island during the war.

A great Memorial Day A/V treat.

Given that my common law relations have been delayed a few hours (sparing yours truly the frightening prospect of having to interact with human beings less than 4 feet tall and of considerably less advanced years than me), here are a few more tidbits from my web journeys this morning.

“THE WORST BOOK OF 2005”

Leave it to R. Emmett Tyrell to do a real, first class deconstruction of Jimmy Carter. Giving him the J. Gordon Coogler Award for the worst book written in 2005, Tyrell slices, dices, and barbecues the ex-President as only he can:

Jimmy has actually published 20 books now. Probably he should have been made Coogler Laureate 20 times. The problem is, so vain is this insufferable huckster and so desperate has he become for notice that, as his presidency attracts ever more flies in history’s dustbin, he is increasingly likely to show up at our Coogler Awards ceremony—whether invited or not. There he would stand, clutching his Coogler to his bosom and sermonizing until the janitors turned out the lights. Worse, he might bring Rosalynn, an author in her own right.

Jimmy was the worst president in American history and, in personal terms, the most repellent. That last statement would have been implausible a year or so after he vacated the White House. Today, however, after a quarter-century of caddish behavior toward his successors, it is perfectly acceptable. His public criticisms of sitting presidents have been insulting and usually dishonest. He has oozed vitriol against America even while he was strutting on foreign soil. Before him no president criticized his government from foreign soil. Jimmy has repeatedly broken that rule.

In fact, no prior president has spoken as rudely and dishonestly of his successors or of his country as has Jimmy. The acerbic Harry Truman came to loathe President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In public, however, Harry minded his tongue.

Jimmy’s presidential achievements were even more modest than those of Bill Clinton and of Gerald Ford, and his blunders on domestic and foreign policy are unsurpassed and possibly unsurpassable. What is more he writes bad books.

Read the entire, hysterical piece.

REMEMBER…

Lori Byrd (blogging from her swanky new digs at Wizbang) is asking for links that highlight what Memorial Day should be all about. I will have a post Monday with some thoughts, but please go to Wizbang and leave a link to a news story or a blog post that you find particularly relevant.

NET NEUTRALITY MAKING PROGRESS

It appears that the bipartisan net neutrality coalition is making an impact.

The broad, nonpartisan movement for Internet freedom notched a major victory today, when a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″ — a bill that offers meaningful protections for Network Neutrality, “the First Amendment of the Internet.”

20 members of the Committee (6 Republicans and 14 Democrats) voted for the bipartisan Bill, and only 13 against.

This legislation has the support of many conservatives and liberals and is designed to keep large Telecoms from imposing a “two tiered” internet on the rest of us. For information on what this legislation does, go to Save The Internet.Com and read about it.

YES…BUT WHAT DOES FERDY THINK?

Without a doubt, the smartest feline on the internet is Ferdy the Cat. As a guardian of internet behavior, Ferdy celebrates the takedown of hackers and spammers wherever they ply their execrable trade.

This news story is something I would like to see more often. I want to see hackers getting arrested and spending long years in jail. I want to see these jail terms publicly announced over and over again. Every hacker should be seen as a disgusting little felon instead of a romantic warrior against The System.

Thank you for listening to this important message. We will resume our usual light-hearted fare as soon as Bruce finishes trying to get the new web development software at work to operate properly within the guidelines of the lab’s security system.

Sounds like Bruce is going to be busy for a while…

Ferdy will probably be doing a cat dance when he hears of this.

HAYDEN CONFIRMED AS CIA CHIEF

What about the big fight all the netnuts were promising over this nomination?

At his confirmation hearing, Hayden sought to assure lawmakers he would be independent from his military superiors but said he would consider how his uniform affects his relationship with CIA personnel. If it were to get in the way, he said, “I’ll make the right decision.”

Hayden, who headed the National Security Agency for several years, became a lightning rod for the debate about the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program. Some Democrats and civil-liberties advocates argue the monitoring was illegal.

As head of the NSA from 1999 to 2005, Hayden oversaw the program. His defenders say he was relying on the advice of top government lawyers.

Hayden was confirmed by a vote of 78-15. And this points up the utter vacuousness of the left’s critique of all the NSA “surveillance” programs – the Democrats themselves are not saying that the programs are illegal and with very few exceptions, are not calling for these program’s termination.

Having said that, I have my own questions about how these programs have been run and I believe it would be in the interest of civil liberties if a full briefing on how these programs operate be given to the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I also am worried about proper oversight.

But to say the programs are, on their face, illegal is just plain stupid. Just another outgrowth of Bush Derangement Syndrome…

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

His Highness has been “tagged” and the questions he is forced to answer are revealing the pussycat beneath the warlike exterior:

4. Would you rather sleep with someone else, or alone?

Now, let’s be logical here: If I’m asleep, why would I care? That being said, it’s so much more fun going to bed knowing that there’s somebody you can make utterly miserable with your loud snoring.

13. Who was your first love?

A lovely, sweet little Korean girl that I had the worst crush on in 2nd grade. She must have loved me too. She didn’t slap me, call me a “pervert” or kick me in the groin, not once. Unfortunately, those were only three things on a rather long list of things that she most pointedly didn’t do.

19. What’s the one thing on your mind?

Avoiding ever reaching the point in my life where I have only one thing on my mind.

MEXICO GETS “VETO POWER” OVER BORDER ENFORCEMENT?

I’m not sure if this is something to worry about or if it’s just common courtesy:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.—Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

If this is indeed “consultation” I don’t think we have anything to worry about. However, given this Administration’s curious rollovers when it comes to pleasing Vicente Fox, I would follow any “consultations” like a hawk.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO BACK TO BLOGGING…

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith is raising additional warnings about blog regulation:

Now a contributor at RedState, Smith pointed readers to a new article that included what he saw as a foreboding quote from Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine.

Allen “co-sponsored legislation in March that would bring political Web sites under campaign finance rules if they spend $5,000 or more on their operations,” the paper wrote. “He said he would watch how blogs factor into the 2006 races under the FEC rules before deciding whether to press the issue.”

Smith’s reaction: “We need to understand that these guys are relentlessly hostile to free, unfettered political speech. Every bit of freedom they see as a potential threat, and they are always ready to regulate as soon as they think the have the votes.”

Given John McCain’s recent comments made about bloggers at The New School commencement where he accused us of being little better than ideological hit beasts, I think we should take Mr. Smith’s warnings to heart. Once McCain’s candidacy gets underway, he knows that he will be skewered on a daily basis by conservatives and may seek to forestall criticism by putting some bloggers out of business.

GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE HEATING UP

I find myself in almost total agreement with the Commissar here:

I’m not sure what to make of the global warming debate. With the release of algore’s “Inconvenient Truths,” the discussion is front-and-center again. On the one side the many scientists and politicians who warn that human activities (CO2 emissions, for example) have added to global warming, that it is worsening, and that we must take steps to alleviate it; these are the “advocates.” On the other side — the skeptics, the rebutters.

The complex forecasting models used are beyond my understanding. About the only way for me to make sense of this debate is to look at the competing claims of the different sides, and see which seems more compelling, more objective.

So much of the information we get seems to be agenda driven – by both sides. I read Scientific American a lot because at least they give both sides a fair hearing. But read all of the Commissar’s post for some truly thoughtful analysis.

MISSING IRAQ WMD’S

Frontpage has an interesting colloquy between three “experts” who are convinced that IRAQ’s WMD was spirited off to Syria by Russian Spetznatz troops prior to the invasion:

Just recently, Saddam Hussein’s former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped removed them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia’s secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation. Today we’ve invited three experts on this subject to discuss the details of Al-Tikriti’s testimony and its larger significance.

Color me unconvinced, although I would love to know what Russia was moving to Syria (and Lebanon) prior to the war. The preponderance of evidence to date suggests that Saddam was fooled into believing he had WMD when he didn’t. Until something a little more substantial emerges to counter that argument, I will remain a reluctant skeptic.

AL QAEDA’S “LONG WAR” SCENARIO

Rusty Shackleford has a superior piece about plans being made by al Qaeda for the long term conflict with the west:

At some point, al Qaeda realizes, it is not enough to simply weaken the will of the enemy. Readers should remember that the goal of terrorists is not to “terrorize”. Terrorism is a method, not a goal. Al Qaeda’s goal is the same goal as the Council on American Islamic Relations or the Muslim American Society—the imposition of Sharia law and the eventual restoration of the global Caliphate. What separates CAIR and MAS from al Qaeda is not the goal, but only the means to achieve it.

Read the whole thing.

Finally, many thanks to John Hawkins at Right Wing News for making The House “Website of the Day” yesterday.

With Zsu-Zsu’s kids and grandkids coming in this weekend, blogging will be intermittent, sparse, and probably incoherent. Or should I say, more so than usual…

Until next time, here are a few items that ordinarily I would have penned 1000 word screed on but don’t have the time to give them the justice they deserve:

ALBINOS RIDING THE IDENTITY POLITICS GRAVY TRAIN

Who says identity politics is ruining America?

It seems that The Da Vinci Code cannot not offend everyone on the planet; this time, it’s the albino community that is angry with the movie for depicting albinos as evil villians. Michael McGowan, the head of the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation, had asked the movie’s production people not to bleach Silas the albino monk’s hair or make his eyes red, but to no avail.

These guys ought to get in touch the CAIR for instruction in how to browbeat a major media company. And they definitely should take some lessons in how to practice the old grievance and guilt routine. They also need a little instruction in media relations as well as spokesperson identification. The trick is not to sound like you’re whining, just hurt and disappointed.

I have complete confidence that the Albino community will eventually “get it” and will join the ranks of aggrieved and suffering minorities very soon.

BUSH APOLOGIZES FOR SAYING “BRING IT ON”

And we all wondered why Bush never apologized for anything:

The significance of this shouldn’t go unnoticed. Bush has now admitted what the progressive blog community has said all along: Bush’s tough talk was wrongheaded and cost lives.

While contrition may be a media policy that works with our lapdog press (and judging from CNN’s first blush of commentary, it seems to be getting the desired result), America must now ask what this admission means. Does Bush take responsibility for the deaths generated by his admitted mistake? Does he accept the logical conclusion that his bluster resulted in the killing and maiming of hundreds if not thousands of US troops?

Considering that much of the insurgency was planned before Bush even took office, this is an interesting construct. Is the gentleman saying that Bush’s “bluster” killed Americans?

HOORAY! In a similar context, one might posit the opposite as well; THAT THE SIMPERING, DEFEATIST TALK ON THE LEFT ALSO EMBOLDENED THE INSURGENCY AND COST LIVES AS WELL!

In fact, since it seems clear that we are now settling on giving out responsibility for mistakes in Iraq, perhaps it is time for the left TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROLONGING THE CONFLICT BY GIVING THE INSURGENTS HOPE THAT THE LEFT’S AGITATION FOR CUTTING AND RUNNING FROM IRAQ WOULD HAND THE SUNNIS A VICTORY!

Somehow, I don’t think that Peter is quite willing to go that far, do you?

GEORGE GALLAWAY…NO WORDS

I think I’ll just let this stand with no comment:

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”

Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”

On second thought, this really does deserve some kind of response, although for the life of me, I can’t think of anything to say that doesn’t begin with a string of expletives and end with a call for Mr. Gallaway’s being in the dock for treason.

But I better not – too many liberals would take me to task for criticizing the bloke and that “speaking truth to power” like this is protected speech and therefore, perfectly righteous. A touch “over the top” perhaps, but that can be excused because George is…so, well passionate!

In other words, his heart is in the right place…

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PREPARE TO ABANDON THE SINKING SHIP

This news from my Chicago Tribune this morning is not unexpected. The House will engage in a “free flowing debate” on the Iraq War over the coming weeks.

The purpose is not to elicit support for the war. It will be to allow vulnerable Republicans the chance to jump ship:

The decision to hold a public debate on an issue that has sent President Bush’s approval ratings tumbling and put Democrats within striking distance of recapturing the House reflects the growing pressure facing Republicans from bad news about the war. GOP leaders hope the forum will give their endangered incumbents a chance to distance themselves from the war, argue that it is going better than most recognize, or both.

Wars and other military conflicts have long triggered sharp emotions in Congress, imperiling political careers and prompting public despondency as well as enthusiasm. With the winding down of the Vietnam War and revelations about the Watergate scandal, voters swept in a new freshman class with 92 members in 1974, roiling the usually staid House with an influx of largely liberal members.

Iraq is at a critical juncture. The next six months will see the new government trying for the first time to get a grip on the security situation. This is an extraordinarily complex task given the players involved and the stakes.

They must not only rely on the police and the military to fight the insurgency, they must also negotiate with the various sectarian militias who have infiltrated the police (heavily in some parts of the country) and army (not as much). They must also work to rid the corruption and graft from the ministries, establish themselves in the Arab world, and try and build confidence in the people in democratic institutions that will truly unite the country under one, central government.

And the Iraqis must do all of this just as we begin to draw down our forces. It is a challenge that would tax the abilities of even established states and I consider it a less than even chance that the new government will be up to the task without considerable American help.

But that help will not be forthcoming if Congress has any say in the matter. These debates will show the true depth to which Republican incumbents will sink as they try and split hairs about where they stand on the war and what the President must do for their continued support.

It will not be a pretty sight, I assure you.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

One of the many eye-popping statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his letter to the President was a curious statement about 9/11 that has largely gone unnoticed by the press:

September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various
aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

The messianic Iranian President is actually hinting at a conspiracy involving government “intelligence and security services.” Which government he doesn’t say. But judging from statements made all over the world by characters as diverse as a former Bush Administration economist at the Department of Labor as well as a former German Defense Minister, the belief that the US government either had foreknowledge of 9/11 or directly participated in the events of that day.

Indeed, there’s nothing new about conspiracies surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. Within days of the attacks, Arab newspapers were discounting the mounting evidence which showed Osama Bin Laden responsible and were instead pointing darkly to a conspiracy involving the Israeli intelligence service Mossad and the CIA. This theory came complete with the rumor that no Jews died when the towers fell and that, in fact, the Israeli consulate called all the Jews who worked in the towers the night before the attack and told them to stay home from work the following day. A poll taken in Egypt a few months following the attack showed that only 19% believed al Qaeda was involved while 39% blamed Mossad. Other polls done in Arab countries show similar or even increased percentages of people who believe either Israeli or American intelligence (or both) perpetrated the attacks.

Then there is the case of the curious Frenchman Thierry Meyssan who wrote a bestselling book in Europe that posited the notion that 9/11 was some kind of “false-flag operation” – a type of intelligence campaign which, according to the tinfoil hat crowd, involves pulling off a covert action and blaming it on someone else. And what to make of the long running German TV murder mystery show that featured an episode that blamed George Bush and the CIA for the attacks?

In America, the conspiracy ball has been rolling quite nicely, thank you. Pushed along by Hollywood celebrities like Michael Moore and Charlie Sheen as well as a very large, very vocal segment of left wing internet blogs, the theories all seem to have a couple of things in common; that the government knew about the attacks prior to 9/11 and did nothing about them and that the “whole story” of what really happened that day is being withheld from the American people.

And those are the sanest elements contained in those theories. Recently, a movie has been sweeping the internet that includes every cockamamie theory of government involvement in the attacks that have bubbled up from the fever swamps over the last few years. Loose Change would have us believe that the official report compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers on why the Towers fell is utterly and completely wrong, that the reason the World Trade Center towers came down was because they were deliberately destroyed by government agents placing explosive charges at strategic points in the buildings and then detonating them in a controlled demolition.

The problem with debunking theories like those advanced in Loose Change as well as the numerous books and articles arguing for a conspiracy involving the US government, the CIA, secret societies, multi-national corporations, or the Bush family is one of time. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to lay out the facts to refute these theories on a point by point basis.

Popular Mechanics published a piece in March of 2005 debunking many of the theories in Loose Change. And recently a website has been set up to specifically challenge statements and assertions in the film at odds with known facts. Another website “Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” has links to dozens of reports, articles, and studies that directly answer most of questions raised by conspiracy theorists about the attack.

But this is just a drop in the bucket. A Zogby poll from August, 2004 revealed that nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe that the government had advance knowledge of 9/11 and “consciously failed to act.” Clearly, there is much work to do if the truth about the real conspiracy involving Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the evil men who deliberately set out to execute a detailed plan to murder nearly 3,000 innocent Americans is to survive another generation.

This is the danger in not slapping down the fantasists, the paranoids, and the swaggering, self-important celebrities who promote 9/11 conspiracy theories for money, for attention, or because it’s the “in” thing to do; future generations will not understand who attacked us on 9/11 and why.

The recent release of the film United 93, which is enjoying modest success at the box office, shows that there is a hunger for the real story of what happened on 9/11 to be become part of our national narrative. Hollywood is uniquely suited to this task as films like U-93 allow us to revisit history without the concomitant shock of experiencing the event for the first time. Not only does folding the story into our history remove the event somewhat from the realm of politics, but it also allows for a kind of reflection and study that isn’t possible as long as the event is considered “news.”

Like other events that have loomed large in our past such as the Battle of the Alamo or the Battle of Little Bighorn, a fair amount of myth making will probably be passed down in the retelling of 9/11 stories. But the problem with 9/11 and all of the conspiracy theories being generated is that there is a real danger that myth will stand in for facts and the true nature of the evil done to America on that day will disappear down the rabbit hole. Will it be more important 50 years from now to remember the courage of the passengers of Flight #93 or will there still be debate about whether an Air Force jet shot her down?

The only comparable event to in recent history was the Kennedy assassination, an event almost as traumatic as 9/11 and one that has generated a $2 billion conspiracy industry of books, films, tapes, DVD’s, not to mention numerous seminars, forums, and a conspiracy museum where for $10 a head you can take a tour through some truly bizarre postulates concerning the assassination. The event itself, fading from memory, has been memorialized by Hollywood in one of the strangest, most intellectually dishonest films ever made; Oliver Stone’s JFK.

Stone’s skills as a film maker were used to combine a half dozen different conspiracy theories into one gigantic tissue of lies, half truths, misrepresentations of known facts, and a calumnious attack on President Johnson who was dead and hence, unable to defend himself. Stone’s main character was New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, whose out of control investigation and trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw for the Kennedy assassination is one of the most bizarre chapters in the history of American jurisprudence. Garrison’s successor Harry Connick, Sr. called the Shaw probe “one of the grossest, most extreme miscarriages of justice in the annals of American judicial history.” The fact that Connick told this to Mr. Stone did not deter him from making his film. In fact, Garrison himself played Chief Justice Earl Warren in the film, a truly macabre touch by the filmmaker.

The damage done by Stone and the other conspiracy muckrakers is that they make little or no effort to give any context to their theories. Hence, they can portray history any way they wish. If they want to show that Kennedy was killed because he was going to bring American troops home from Southeast Asia or because he was going to cut the defense budget, they can get away with it because few people today have the critical thinking skills or historical knowledge necessary to question those base suppositions.

And the truly alarming fact that 70% of Americans under 30 years old believe that JFK gives a true representation of the facts surrounding the assassination points up the danger that conspiracy mongers like Stone can have on people’s attitudes toward history. What do these younger Americans think when they read something that contradicts Stone’s fantasy? It would be interesting to interview someone who takes Stone’s movie as gospel after having them read William Manchester’s masterpiece Death of the President.

One could envision similar problems with the generations born after 9/11. The horror and tragedy of that day could end up being subsumed by questions about whether or not the buildings were sabotaged, or whether the Pentagon was damaged by a truck bomb, or if the entire incident was one gigantic government conspiracy to ensure the re-election of George Bush.

We cannot let that happen. Considering that the War on Terror will probably be a generational conflict, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to keep what really happened on 9/11 from sliding away into the muck of conspiracy and fantasy. Otherwise, we run the risk of forgetting why we fight and why we must win this war.

UPDATE

Douglas Hanson follows up at AT with a slightly different angle on Ahmadinejad’s words and how there is a real threat from state-sponsored attacks on America.

After I wrote my review of the film United 93 this morning, I was pretty drained emotionally. In fact, I didn’t think there would be anything that would be able to pique my interest and motivate me to write about for the rest of the day.

Good thing I happened to run across Slate’s Dana Steven’s review of the same film. There’s nothing like reading full blown, to the max idiocy to get the blood pumping to my brain and get my fingers itching to do a little keyboard solo on someone who exhibits as much jaw-dropping cluelessness as Stevens.

If you are one of those who saw United 93 and are keenly disappointed that Director Greengrass failed to turn his project into a 90 minute brief to prove the incompetence and evil of the Bush Administration, you would think Ms Stevens a genius rather than the pouting philistine that she appears to be. In truth, Stevens review is illustrative of a view quite prevalent on the left that, in essence, boils down to this: Things would have been different if you know who had been President.

The convoluted reasoning behind this notion rests with the hypotheses that 1) 9/11 was Bush’s fault; 2) the situation was made worse by the incompetence of the President; and 3) the government worked much better the previous 8 years and the gaffes, goofs, confusion, and panic were solely the result of the government going to hell and a handbasket during the 8 months of the Bush Administration.

Oversimplification?

I hope I don’t sound like a cynic with a heart of lead when I say that United 93, as grueling as it was to sit through, left me feeling curiously unmoved and even slightly resentful. At some point, Greengrass’ exquisite delicacy and tact toward all sides—the surviving families, the baffled air-traffic controllers, even the hijackers themselves—began to smack of political pussyfooting. What is Greengrass actually trying to say about 9/11? That it was a terrible day on which innocent people suffered and died? That the chaos and shock of that morning’s events (skillfully evoked via hand-held camera and real-time pacing) kept anyone, even the air-traffic controllers who watched the hijackings unfold, from understanding what was going on until it was too late?

First of all, yes Dana you “sound like a cynic with a heart of lead” since you asked. And that “political pussyfooting” (nice touch including the hijackers although one gets the impression you have more sympathy for them than you do the controllers) which we take to mean the director’s reluctance to assign “blame” was, of course, the entire rationale for the film. Sorry you missed it.

As politicized as the 9/11 Commission eventually became in its public sessions, the final report had much to say about why the entire United States government froze up into one massive ball of ice. Much of it was institutional. Some of it, like FAA protocols for dealing with hijackings were hopelessly inadequate to deal with what happened on 9/11. From the report:

“In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that:

• the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
• there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
• hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.

On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.” (emphasis mine)

“In every respect” would seem to take in the alternative history scenario of Bill Clinton to the rescue although people like Stevens never seem to let such mundane details like, you know, actual facts get in the way of a good anti-Bush rant.

One might ask why government was so unprepared for the disaster but this would bring up some royally uncomfortable verities about the way the United States snoozed its way through the entire 1990’s (George Bush #41 included), something Stevens and her ilk have no stomach for doing. It is much easier to simply blame it all on Bush with any alternate telling of the myth akin to breaking a commandment (that is, if lefties believed in such things).

Stevens’ complaints don’t end there:

United 93 is no Schindler’s List, relying on characterization and storytelling to draw viewers into identifying with an otherwise unimaginable horror. If anything, Greengrass’ agenda is an anti-identificatory one. If the Spielberg of Schindler’s List is a wheedling seducer, Greengrass is a chillingly precise archivist. He never cuts away to the families of the Flight 93 passengers, arriving home to listen to their heart-rending voicemail messages. He never visits the inside of the three planes that did crash into buildings that day; we’re aware of their fate only through the words of the air-traffic controllers, some clips of CNN news coverage, and one terrifying stock shot of the plane hitting the second tower. He barely even names the passengers—an hour into the movie, I still hadn’t figured out which one was Todd Beamer—and makes a point of stressing their utter unspecialness, their glazed stares and dull in-flight chatter. The suspense, such as it is, is purely negative—we know in advance what will happen to Flight 93, so the maddeningly slow burn of the film’s first hour (Businessmen heft suitcases! Flight attendants chat about condiments!) serves only to torment us with the anxiety of the inevitable.

Note to Dana: MAKE YOUR OWN GODDAMN MOVIE ABOUT FLIGHT #93 IF THAT’S THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT IT!

There is nothing more annoying than a “woulda, shoulda, coulda” critic who doesn’t possess an ounce of talent to actually make a film themselves but who is more than willing to tell a director how he should have made his. The movie Stevens is proposing Greengrass make is so far removed from the director’s vision that it makes her pouty, foot stomping tirade about what’s missing from U-93 sound like someone running their fingernails across a blackboard. Absolutely hopeless.

It’s fair game to criticize a director for an unfulfilled vision or a lazy vision, or even for having no vision at all. But to actually posit the notion that a critic’s judgement on what vision the director should have had as legitimate criticism smacks of pure politics to me.

And if that doesn’t convince you of the political motivations of Steven’s disguised critique of U-93, try this:

In the last five years, “9/11” has become a generic brand name for terrorism, its sky-high recognition quotient useful for ginning up support for any and all manner of belligerent causes. The closest this film ever comes to a political statement—and possibly the only laugh line in the movie—is the snappish question of a beleaguered official: “Do we have any communication with the president at all?” Greenglass may not want to come right out and say it, but the audience’s weary chuckle made it clear: As we slog into the fourth year of the war being waged in 9/11’s wake (and, at least in part, in its name), there’s still no satisfactory answer to that question.

Yes, “9/11” (the quote marks are a nice touch – as if only a few deluded souls care about it in any context at all) is very useful for “ginning up support” for “belligerent causes” – kinda like war except you and the other misanthropes on the left don’t really believe in that kind of nonsense. To you and your ideological brethren, what happened that day was more about skewering Bush than anything untoward that happened to the United States. It’s sickening.

As far as the “joke” about communications with the President, here’s more from the 9/11 Commission:

The NMCC learned of United 93’s hijacking at about 10:03.At this time the FAA had no contact with the military at the level of national command. The NMCC learned about United 93 from the White House. It, in turn, was informed by the Secret Service’s contacts with the FAA.225

NORAD had no information either. At 10:07, its representative on the air threat conference call stated that NORAD had “no indication of a hijack heading to DC at this time.”226

Repeatedly between 10:14 and 10:19, a lieutenant colonel at the White House relayed to the NMCC that the Vice President had confirmed fighters were cleared to engage inbound aircraft if they could verify that the aircraft was hijacked.227

The commander of NORAD, General Ralph Eberhart, was en route to the NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, when the shootdown order was communicated on the air threat conference call. He told us that by the time he arrived, the order had already been passed down NORAD’s chain of command.228

It is not clear how the shootdown order was communicated within NORAD. But we know that at 10:31, General Larry Arnold instructed his staff to broadcast the following over a NORAD instant messaging system: “10:31 Vice president has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].”229

More inconvenient facts regarding what was happening in the government that day. The answer to the question “Do we have any communication with the President at all?” was a resounding yes. The coordination between NORAD and the FAA was, as shown earlier, entirely inadequate to deal with the situation. The audience chuckling is much more indicative of the success that Stevens and others have had in perpetrating the myth of Bush incompetence that day than what really happened, something that Greengrass wasn’t interested in portraying anyway.

Yes we should be upset with our government for the way 9/11 was handled. It was incompetent. It was negligent. It was without question a disaster. But the exact same thing would have happened regardless of who was President. To say otherwise isn’t speculative, it’s a deliberate falsification of what we know from history.

If Stevens didn’t like U-93 that is her right. But to turn a movie review into a diatribe against the Bush Administration only makes her look like an idiot who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

While the film United 93 has opened to generally good reviews, there appears to be some pouting among many critics that there was no “cathartic moment” of release and that the film offers viewers little more than a “thrill ride” with little in the way of context or judgement.

It is the nature of criticism to find fault although some critics fall so in love with the sound of their own cynical, scratchy voice that their critiques are little more than lame attempts at being contrary. Critics by and large are also a notoriously jaded lot and films that purport to show something as emotionally charged as September 11 almost by definition fail to live up to their expectations.

That said, here are a scattering of reviews from several different sources.

BRIAN LOWRY IN VARIETY

Taut, visceral and predictably gut-wrenching, “United 93,” Paul GreengrassPaul Greengrass’ already much-debated look at Sept. 11, trades in some emotional impact for authenticity, capturing the overwhelming sense of chaos surrounding that day’s harrowing events. The result is a tense, documentary-style drama that methodically builds a sense of dread despite the preordained outcome. While media attention has focused on reaction to the movie’s trailer, strong ratings for earlier Flight 93 TV projects suggest there will be considerable curiosity, morbid or otherwise, about “United 93” that should translate into robust box office.

KIRK HONEYCUTT,< em> HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

In years to come, United 93 may enter our mythology in ways unimaginable. But for now, we have a starting point. “United 93” is a sincere attempt to pull together the known facts and guesses at the emotional truths as best anyone can. Then, in the movie’s final moments, the impact of the heroism aboard United 93 becomes startlingly clear.

MANOHLA DARGIS, NEW YORK TIMES

In its vivid details and especially its narrative pacing, the account of the United 93 hijacking in the 9/11 report reads like a nail-biter, something cooked up by Sebastian Junger. Drawing on different sources, including the report and family members, Mr. Greengrass follows the same trajectory as the report, with most of the screen time devoted to the period between takeoff and the excruciating moments before the plane crashed. The film carries the standard caution that it is “a creative work based on fact,” yet Mr. Greengrass’s use of nonfiction tropes, like the jagged camerawork and the rushed, overlapping shards of naturalistic dialogue, invests his storytelling with a visceral, combat-zone verisimilitude. And yet at the same time, beat for beat, the whole thing plays out very much according to the Hollywood playbook.

LISA SCHWARZBAUM, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

Movies are the perfect medium for this exercise in gratitude — they always have been, with the screen so big and the audience so huddled together. And the world has never felt more precarious, or the distinctions between the lucky and the unlucky more tenuous, than they did on the day the World Trade Center fell, the Pentagon was attacked, and one Boeing 757 crashed near Shanksville, Pa., diverted by doomed passengers who died yanking control away from their captors’ hands.

DAVID ANSEN, NEWSWEEK

“United 93” is a memorial built of shattering, indelible images. This is first-rate, visceral filmmaking, no question: taut, watchful, free of false histrionics, as observant of the fear in the young terrorists’ eyes as the hysteria in the passenger cabin, and smart enough to know this material doesn’t need to be sensationalized or sentimentalized. Wisely, Greengrass has avoided casting recognizable faces, and many of the flight controllers are played by the people who were actually on the job that day, including FAA national operations officer Ben Sliney. Though you know the outcome, you can’t help hoping (as you would at any thriller) that things will turn out differently, that the military will intervene, that the president will be found, that someone will define the rules of engagement.

ANN HORNADAY, WASHINGTON POST

Ambivalence seems to be a painfully inadequate, mewling response to the courage of United 93’s passengers who, according to Hemingway’s definition of the term, acted not in fearlessness but despite their fear. This is a film that demands a different vocabulary, one that conveys both misgivings about our need for these fetishistic cinematic rituals, and admiration for the discipline and dignity with which an artist has brought the incomprehensible into lucid and uncompromising focus.

“United 93” is a great movie, and I hated every minute of it.

RON ROSENBAUM, SLATE.COM

But is the fable of Flight 93 the recompense that it’s been built up to be? Does what happened on Flight 93 represent a triumph of the human spirit, a microcosmic model and portent of the ultimate victory of enlightenment civilization over theocratic savagery, as the prerelease publicity about the new film insists? Or is the story of United Flight 93 a different kind of portent, not “the DNA of our times,” but rather the RIP?

This review originally appears in The American Thinker

There is a moment in the film United 93 where director Paul Greengrass takes a small step backward from the unrelenting intimate universe into which he has boldly thrust the audience and allows a glimmer of the larger truth of September 11 to be revealed.

Having committed themselves to their heroic effort to take back the cockpit, the passengers are in position in the back of the plane, the larger, stronger men occupying the first three rows closest to the terrorists. Then, it hits you. The look on their faces as they steel themselves to make the attempt mirrors exactly the looks on the faces of the hijackers just prior to their attack as the terrorists also had to summon up the courage to carry out their dastardly deed.

Whether intended or not, Greengrass reveals the faces of men at war. And even though there are no grand, overarching truths about humanity, or good and evil, or the superiority of one set of beliefs over another in U-93 (there is a short scene toward the end of the film that shows both passengers and terrorists praying), the singular fact that “they” attacked us and “we” fought back cannot be denied, cannot be hidden despite the desperate attempt by some over the last 5 years to do so. We are at war.

And for those who insist that we are not, that the War on Terror is some gigantic plot of the Bush Administration to win elections, or seize power, or exercise some kind of monarchical control over the American people, United 93 at bottom, shows this kind of 9/10 thinking to be seriously deluded.

Indeed, there has been an attempt by many on the left to make war on the War on Terror itself, as if the enemy is not thousands of fanatical Muslims hell bent on killing Americans but rather a domestic ideology that seeks to prevent such a catastrophe. For at bottom, what many on the left seek to obscure is the simple necessity of acknowledging that a conflict exists in the first place. On an existential level, they can deny the reality of war by turning cause and effect on its head by justifying terrorism as a logical outgrowth of US policies in the Middle East or toward Muslims in general. It is this intellectual dishonesty that is successfully countered by U-93 in its brutally simple yet deeply emotional subtext; a reminder of what it was like to be an American that day.

There is no overt political context to the film which is why it succeeds so brilliantly. Its unflinching look at the failures of government on that day points no fingers, takes no names, assigns no blame. Instead, the almost documentary nature of the movie allows Greengrass to explore a particular theme that the 9/11 Commission tried to bring out but failed miserably in doing so due to the intrusion of partisan politics in its public hearings: The United States of America was fast asleep on September 11. And the wake up call found us all in a state of denial so profound that the resulting paralysis by the military, by the government – by all of us – contributed in no small way to the scope and dimension of the tragedy.

This is where the psychic pain for the audience is at its worst; watching first the disbelief, then the concern, then the near panic of total confusion as the FAA, air traffic controllers, and even the military all watch helplessly as their operations sputter and limp, eventually grinding to a muddled halt. The Air Force Colonel’s plaintive cry to his superior, “I have two planes to defend the entire east coast” while watching the Twin Towers burning on the wall sized monitor in front of him elicits empathy for his plight while at the same time engendering outrage that our $300 billion military could be reduced to such impotence.

Similar feelings are evoked watching as the FAA tries to understand what is taking place in the skies over America that morning. Operations Manager Ben Sliney (playing himself in the movie) does not stint in portraying himself as befuddled as the rest of his staff as reports start coming in from all over the country about hijacked airplanes, whether or not they are still in the air, and where they are. There are times when their confusion becomes almost farcical as they are first unable to talk to anyone at the “Hijack Desk” except a janitor who happens to be cleaning the conference room and then their all important military liaison is nowhere to be found.

But it was in the air traffic control rooms in New York, Boston, and Cleveland where the confusion was at its most chilling. The New York controller handling United 175 that eventually crashed into the second tower grew more and more frustrated as the drama unfolded, the tension in his voice rising the closer the plane got to the city. As the plane dropped off the radar, the audience knowing it had plowed into the North Tower, he pathetically kept trying to raise the plane on the radio, unaware of the enormous tragedy that had just engulfed the country. Similar scenes in the other control rooms were equally heartbreaking as one by one, the aircraft dropped off the radar screens, the full import of the aircraft’s disappearance from their flickering monitors lost in their disbelief and utter confusion.

A large part of the film’s success can be attributed to Mr. Greengrass’s spare and unemotional script. By writing and filming in cinéma vérité , Greengrass avoided many pitfalls that a more traditional approach would have opened up, not the least of which would have been the temptation for including declaratory speeches by hijackers and passengers alike. As it was, the sheer ordinariness of both the characters and the dialogue contributed immensely the horror of what was happening on the plane as well as the heroic nature of the passengers.

From a technical standpoint, the film succeeds brilliantly on several levels. The extensive use of the hand held camera by cinematographer Barry Ackroyd often gives the unsettling feeling that the viewer is in the middle of the action on the screen. This is especially true at FAA Headquarters and the various air traffic control rooms in Boston, New York, and Cleveland. As the controllers struggle to understand what is happening in the skies over America and desperation begins to creep into their discussions, the audience finds themselves in the middle of these conversations as the camera pans quickly back and forth, focusing on the puzzled faces of the technicians as the horrible reality of what is happening begins to dawn on them.

The editing by Clare Douglas and Christopher Rouse is clean and crisp, approaching a sublime level of near perfection during the attacks on the cockpit by first the terrorists then the passengers. The claustrophobic setting of the film – the inside of a commercial airliner – presented enormous problems, especially sequences filmed in the cockpit. It is a testament to the editors’ skill that both attacks elicited searing, emotional responses from the audience.

The percussive and synthesized score by John Powell was mostly unobtrusive, jarring us awake at appropriate places in the film with hammer-like percussion blows to the heart as when the terrorists rose from their seats to begin their attack – a perfect low-key compliment to the film’s intimate setting.

And it is that intimacy that draws us in and nails the audience to their seats. We do not get to “know” any of the characters in any traditional sense. There is very little exposition since everyone knows what the outcome will be. Instead, Greengrass allows the events themselves to simply unfold in as close to real time as possible, making no judgements about either the hijackers or the passengers. Even the one passenger who sought to warn the terrorists, fearful that any attempt to take back the plane would kill them all, is portrayed in a neutral manner (although the fact that the gentleman spoke with a vaguely European accent is an interesting aside nonetheless).

In the end, Greengrass lets the story do all his talking. A wise choice since the it would have been a relatively simple matter to have made a histrionic, flag waving spectacular instead of the intensely personal drama U-93 turned out to be. For some, that intensity will open old emotional wounds from 9/11 making it very difficult for them to see this film. I would urge them to make the effort anyway. For United 93 will not heal the hurt but rather recall in a vividly personal, emotionally charged manner who and what caused our souls to be scorched that terrible day.

The farther we get from 9/11, the more urgent that reminder becomes. We’ve already had one wake-up call. Is it necessary for the fanatics to give us another?

UPDATE

Libertas has an excellent review of the film, echoing many of the themes I touch on here, although the reviewer is disappointed that Greengrass failed to provide much in the way of a moral context.

It is very tempting when looking at Mary McCarthy’s fascinating connections to heavy hitters in the Democratic party national security establishment to try and connect the dots to form what Varifrank has called “The Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory.” And while not entirely dismissing out of hand such a possibility, I believe such thinking neglects a much more mundane and common explanation.

Mary McCarthy is part of a very exclusive community of like minded Democrats numbering at most 200 experts in national security and foreign affairs who staffed the Clinton Administration’s Departments of Defense and State (and the much more exclusive National Security Council). These were the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries that flesh out any administration and get their jobs thanks to both their political connections and their experience in foreign and military policy.

This experience comes from a variety of places including our intelligence agencies, military staff jobs, foreign service postings, think tanks, and Capitol Hill staff positions. They provide an invaluable service to the party by constantly developing policy prescriptions and position papers that bubble and froth by being debated and shaped at conferences and forums until a consensus of sorts is reached.

In McCarthy’s case, she was running with an exclusive club indeed if Sandy Berger and Rand Beers were her patrons at the NSC. But that alone doesn’t prove that her actions in leaking were part of conspiracy nor does it make it probable that those worthies mentioned above even knew she would violate her oath of secrecy so brazenly. Her contacts with Berger and Beers were probably confined to seeing them at the numerous conferences and scholarly forums where the rest of the Democratic contribution to the military industrial complex meet.

The Republicans, of course, have a similar group albeit much larger but perhaps more disciplined. Where the Democrats have a half dozen major think tanks with another dozen or so small but influential policy groups, the Republicans have a remarkable network of scholars, ex-military, ex-intelligence and foreign service as well as former bureaucrats who work through long established think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

I read a few years back where the turnover of scholars at Republican think tanks is much quicker than their Democratic counterparts which allows for more voices to take part in the policy debates that both of these institutional networks depend on to clarify and formulate the party’s positions. For McCarthy, her stint at The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) was the result of a common practice in the national security establishment of making sure that the agency’s “voice” was heard in the upper reaches of a political party’s councils. There are similar sabbaticals granted to Republican employees so that they can fulfill a similar purpose.

Whether she volunteered for the CSIS assignment or chosen is unknown. But the fact that the CSIS is generally thought of as a Democratic party organ made her return to the CIA in 2003 a problem given that a Republican Administration was running things. As has been pointed out, her being assigned to the Inspector General’s office could be considered a demotion from the position she had prior to leaving the CIA in 2001 (the NSC staff). An interesting question would be did she volunteer for the assignment knowing that she would have access to a wide variety of classified information?

Several former intelligence officials said they were particularly alarmed about McCarthy’s alleged involvement in any leaks because of where she worked at the CIA. L. Britt Snyder III, who was CIA inspector general from 1997 to 2000, said if McCarthy leaked information while working in the IG office, “we would have considered that a fairly egregious sin.” The IG, he said, “gets into everything, including personal things. That makes it a little different than other places.”

Consider this: Is it coincidence or conspiracy that Mary McCarthy, partisan Democrat, was placed in exactly the right position to scan a massive amount of intelligence about a wide variety of political hot button topics that, if selectively leaked, could cause the Bush Administration enormous embarrassment and damage?

Just thinking out loud…

In all the rush of the last few days, I failed to post a link to my debut appearance on C-Span’s Washington Journal on Sunday.

Just in case you were waiting with bated breath in anticipation of seeing my munificent presence on the telly as I fought the good fight against the lovely Taylor Marsh, the liberal bias of C-Span, and the earpiece that kept trying to fall out of my ear…

Here’s a link to the video page at C-Span. My segment can be found under the Sunday, April 2 show.

(Hint: I’m the fidgety one)

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Coming soon to a theater near you – whether you’re ready or not – will be the first mass market attempt by Hollywood to insert the tragedy of 9/11 into the American narrative. United 93, a Universal Studios project set to open April 28, tells the story of the ill-fated airliner whose passengers heroically attacked the cockpit and foiled the hijackers’ plans to fly the plane into the White House.

The question isn’t whether or not the film should have been made, but rather whether or not the people of the United States are ready for Hollywood to do what Hollywood does best: breathe life into myth and employ marketing skills honed over a century of huckstering to fold 9/11 permanently into the fabric of American culture.

The industry is watching very closely how U-93 does at the box office. Set to open later this summer is Paramount’s Oliver Stone blockbuster World Trade Center, which, unlike the Universal production, will feature big name actors and a very big budget. At bottom of course, it’s all about the money. And a good showing by U-93 will encourage other studios and other producers to jump on the 9/11 project bandwagon while the subject is “hot.”

By various accounts, there are half a dozen or more 9/11 projects on the boards awaiting final approval by the hard-eyed money men who rule Hollywood. And the question uppermost in their minds is the simple bottom line calculation of how many Americans are truly ready to accept our searing national nightmare of 9/11 played out on the big screen, with all the concomitant emotional and psychological baggage inherent in an event that all but the youngest among us lived through and shared.

Trailers for the movie shown in theaters have elicited some gut-wrenching responses. Newsweek tells of one such incident in New York City where the theater actually pulled the trailer after several complaints:

The AMC Loews theater on Manhattan’s Upper West Side took the rare step of pulling the trailer from its screens after several complaints. “One lady was crying,” says one of the theater’s managers, Kevin Adjodha. “She was saying we shouldn’t have [played the trailer]. That this was wrong … I don’t think people are ready for this.”

A similar reaction occurred in Los Angeles when the trailer was shown there:When the trailer played before “Inside Man” last week at the famed Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, audience members began calling out, “Too soon!”

(Here’s a link to the trailer. It will upset you.)

“Too soon” may be a legitimate complaint for many, many people. The trailer is absolutely devastating. For many Americans, 9/11 is still a raw, open wound that refuses to close despite the passage of time. It is these people who will most likely recoil in horror at the images of planes flying into buildings and desperate people taking desperate chances.

But does this mean that U-93 will flop?

Ultimately, the success or failure of U-93 will hinge on the ability of the American people to embrace the tragedy as a part of our history and not shun it because the memory of that day lingers in the shadow world of nightmare.

No medium is more suited to this process of turning history into myth than film. The secret of the cinema has always been its ability to draw us into a story while at the same time allowing us to remain as a semi-detached observer, both in and out of the narrative. Where 9/11 is concerned, the emotional bombshells that will be at the film’s heart will be somewhat tempered by the realization – often deliberately fostered by the director using subtle tricks of camera angles and scene cuts – that we are, after all, watching a movie.

It is, of course, part of the film-going experience to be frightened, or thrilled, or titillated, or moved to tears. A director manipulates our feelings throughout his creation, conducting our emotions like Lorin Maazel before the New York Philharmonic. Good directors can play us like an instrument so that we never realize that we are held in thrall until we are jarred awake by a climax or plot twist. Alfred Hitchcock was a master at playing his audience, almost lulling them to sleep until he chose to hurl them out of their seats with a few seconds of terror.

The magic of movies is how very much like a dream they are; a third person excursion into a world created by the artistry and imagination of some very talented people augmented by a gee-whiz technology that can make the dream almost too real. For writer/director Paul Greenglass (The Bourne Identity) the challenge is obvious; try to immerse the audience in a film where everyone knows the details of the plot from beginning to end. We know who the protagonists are. We know what happens to the plane. The only question in the mind of the audience is will the story that unfolds match expectations of what it would have been like to actually be there.

Director Ron Howard had a similar problem confronting him when he chose to make Apollo 13. Everyone knew the bare outlines of the story – that the spacecraft got into trouble and only through the hard work of NASA and the grace of God did the astronauts survive. Howard chose to weave a narrative of unusual power by interspersing scenes from the damaged space ship with the scrambling technicians at NASA working against the clock and the human drama of the families of the astronauts in crisis. The result was an emotional blockbuster of a movie that had the audience cheering at the end despite knowing the outcome in advance.

Greenglass is not vouchsafed the luxury of a completely uplifting storyline. However, the raw material he has to work with is dramatic enough. And if the trailer of the movie is any indication, he will be able to use several dramatic devices to advance his story without resorting to cheap theatrics and special effects wizardry.

But there is a question that begs to be asked and answered; is it necessary and proper to make a movie about 9/11 now, less than 6 years after the tragedy?Hollywood has been known to stoop to unfathomable depths of exploitive degeneracy in the past when it came to tragedies. Movies about serial killers like David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), Jeffrey Dahmer, and Ted Bundy were all rushed into production and into theaters within months of their stories appearing on the news.

But 9/11 is different. There are people alive today whose flight from the doomed Towers has so altered their perceptions that the smell of the burning flesh of their comrades still resides in their nostrils and they can still hear the horrible, shattering sounds of people hitting the courtyard in front of the Towers after jumping out of windows far above to escape the flames.

For these and perhaps millions of others whose souls were seared by the horrific images of that day shown live and in color on our TV screens, 9/11 is not an historical event as much as it is a part of their life. In that respect, any film about 9/11 becomes an autobiographical portrait, more documentary than drama. It is almost like opening a personal diary, peeking at the contents, and showing all the secrets of one’s personal life to the rest of the world. For many Americans, it will be an intrusion so invasive that they will instinctively turn away. These are the walking wounded from 9/11 and they deserve our sympathy and understanding.

But for the rest of us, it is time to confront the evil and place it into the great narrative story of American history. The way events pass from history into myth often determines how future generations relate in an emotional way to the times. Pearl Harbor, an attack more devastating militarily but without the immediate emotional impact of 9/11, was mythologized almost immediately thanks to the brilliant propaganda work done by director John Ford, whose 1943 production December 7th: The Pearl Harbor Story was so iconic that Hollywood borrowed battle sequences from the film for years.

The film, however, never showed the true nature of the American Navy’s disaster that day because the military refused to allow Ford to show several sequences critical of the naval commanders, as well as scenes that offered analysis of what went wrong. It was left for later films like From Here to Eternity and the joint American-Japanese production Tora! Tora! Tora! to tell that excruciating story.

I would hate to see something similar happen to films about 9/11. The story of that day includes not only snippets of unparalleled heroism and base cowardice but also confusion, ineptness, and a fatal refusal to acknowledge the scope of what was taking place in the skies over America that day. Leaving these painful yet vital facts out of the myth will cheapen the sacrifice of those who gave their lives as well as allow people to draw the wrong conclusions about what kind of country America was that day.

A large part of the narrative of 9/11 has to be America asleep at the wheel, careening toward disaster for most of the previous decade, oblivious to the dark clouds of fanaticism and hate that were building on the horizon. The paralysis of all who could have either prevented or minimized the tragedy can only be explained in that context. And Hollywood is particularly well suited to tell that story in all its glory and shame.

Movies about 9/11 will be difficult to watch for all of us. Some may go to the theater fully expecting to view the movie but will be forced to get up and leave in the middle of it because the rush of memory will be so painful as to make it unbearable to watch. For others who stay until the end, let’s hope they are rewarded with a cinema experience that is both sobering and uplifting at the same time.

It’s going to be a long war. In order to fight it and win, we must be able to put the tragedy of 9/11 in a box and be able to view it as we would a sad memento as from the funeral of a loved one. And one way we Americans can put these memories into that kind of context is by allowing our greatest cultural gift to the rest of the world – Hollywood movies – to close one chapter of our national history book and begin another.