Story: "A timeline and record of key events and quotes are etched onto a giant angled ring reflected by sunlight in what designers said was intended to capture how Arizona and the nation responded to the attacks, and to remember the strong emotions.
But this week, blog visitors have said they’re shocked at some of the inscriptions, which they describe as political statements against the Bush administration and its war on terror. One inscription states, “You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles.”
Another: “Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn’t prevent attacks.” And another reads, “Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians,” referring to a wedding reportedly hit by mistake in Afghanistan.
“It’s a worldview that is critical of America, and in many cases cheapens 9/11,” said Greg Patterson, a lobbyist and consultant who operates the EspressoPundit blog, where he and his readers have been critical of the memorial.
“It is bent on attacking the Bush administration’s take on the war, at the expense of the memory of 9/11.” Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he was stunned to learn of the inscriptions. “To politicize it to me is absolutely outrageous, instead of a memorial to remember those who have sacrificed their lives,” he said. "
I find this so appalling, I don't know what to say. But the blatant liberalism bleeding through this memorial is just sickening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
This is not a memorial for the victims and heroes of 9/11, obviously. It is clear that this is simply a "memorial"--an outlet--for anti-war people and Bush-haters.
To ask questions is natural--and good, for it solves problems and causes change. To look for a place to put blame is human nature--and oftentimes unfortunate, but it also induces accountability and change. To show emotion after a tragedy is healthy--and it shows people have hearts. But to use a memorial for opinionated propaganda is shamefully wrong--and it shows the true face of the opposing point of view.
And I have to make a comment about the line "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles." What are we supposed to do? Surrender? Say, "Come on, destroy us, our children, and our way of life, cause 'you don't win battles of terrorism with more battles'"? If we backed down and did what Israel was forced to do, we'd all be living in Rhode Island right now, surrounded by fanatical Muslims in 49 other "former states." We'd be the "United State of America."
www.kingdomadvancing.blogspot.com
This isn't really on-topic, but has anyone seen the Frontline documentary "The Man Who Knew" about FBI agent John O'Neal? It was done a couple of years ago - very fascinating. (It has to do with the 9/11 bombings - that's what made me think of it.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
I haven't got a problem if someone wants to privatly fund something like this,
But it shouldn't be funded by the government.
Kingdom, exactly my thoughts.
Carey, never seen it.
Jason, ditto.
It's quite fascinating, Robert. We watched it in Government class last week. You should see if you can find it in the library or something. I want to watch it again (without the background noise of ignorant, disrespectful, un-patriotic classmates).
*Oops... I already used the word "fascinating." My bad.
Post a Comment