Tuesday, September 26th, 2006...6:51 am
Critics Complain that 9-11 Memorial Isn’t Pro-War
Len Munsil had a press conference yesterday to highlight concerns about the new 9-11 memorial at Wesley Bolin Plaza. Munsil wants to prevent there from being “political” messages.
As a guy that used to write for an old Revs fanzine used to say, “Rumpswab.”
The monument, by the way, wasn’t hatched on the 11th floor by nefarious gubernatorial nomenklatura. The memorial was designed by a commission appointed by Republican Jane Hull and Democrat Janet Napolitano, and included several people who had family members die in the attack.
By the way, several firefighters showed up. Many of these worked the “pile” in the days after the attack in an attempt to give their brothers and sisters proper burrials and honors. They crashed Munsil’s event to show their support for the memorial.
Many of the objections are to statements on the memorial that are anti-violence. Well, the memorial is dedicated to more than 3,000 victims of a senseless violent attack. A condemnation of violence here and there seems appropriate, doncha think?
Some of the objections are quite a stretch. Espresso Pundit, for example cites this part as objectionable:
VIOLENT ACTS LEADING US TO WAR
05 07 1915
12 07 1941
04 08 1964
09 11 2001
Personally, I thought the point there was that we go to war when we are provoked. But over on Espresso Pundit, the claim is that number three is a problem since it is a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin, thus we on the left (who apparenly run everything) are making claims about this war. If we (because we’re in charge, right?) wanted to do such a thing, we would not have been so subtle and included things like the bombing of the USS Maine, the “attack” on Ft. Brown and the Bascom Affair. By the way, since when do conservatives object to the basis of the Vietnam War?
Over on the conservative blog Hot Air, they object to a quote that says “You Don’t Win Battles of Terrorism With More Battles.” Their own picture of the quote though includes a second quote right above it that says “We Must Bomb Back.” This seems more a recognition of the emotions and opinions of Americans after the attacks than an anti-war message.
That’s what it comes down to. Munsil claims that his displeasure is on behalf of the victim’s families. He couldn’t find any to stand with him. Instead, he was surrounded by the families of Iraq veterans. Once again, the conservatives seem to be trying to connect 9-11 with Iraq, even though many of their own leaders aren’t making such a claim any more. Anyone that shows anything that can be conflated as an objection to this anything in this war is doing less than their patriotic duty. (Say, where was this oh-so-necessary blind support for the President when we had troops in Kosovo?) To this end, any 9-11 message is supposed to explicitly be a pro-Iraq war message. Given the controversy around this conflict, doing that would have been the “political ploy” that Munsil objects to.
NB - Can Espresso Pundit’s objection to the Tonkin reference be construed as lack of support for our Vietnam veterans? Just curious.
11 Comments
September 26th, 2006 at 11:50 am
I didn’t think it was necessary for Arizona to have a 9/11 memorial in the first place, as the attacks happened 3000 miles away. But there are clearly local connections and Arizonans who lost loved ones, so now I say more power to ‘em.
As someone who lived in New York State at the time of the attack, had loved ones in the city that day (all of whom survived), and who deeply mourned the violence and death, I find these partisan attacks on the Governor (who is clearly only one piece of the process leading up to the monument) to be tasteless and pointless. Munsil (and Trent Franks, apparently) can’t attack her on her record, which has been mostly positive. Instead, he has to make an issue out of nothing. Of course, he’s been doing that for most of his career.
I’m tempted to mail Munsil and Franks copies of “A People’s History of the United States”. “Revisionism” as they call it is only that from the perspective of the people who had the power and position to write the popular history. Since when is looking at all root causes of a problem a problem? Or nuance for that matter?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Who’s on the 11th floor?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
It was very wise of Munsil to have another event in Maricopa County because he would not want to waste all his time down in the border counties where he lost to Goldwater.
The 11th floor is the governor’s office.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Michael:
What is wrong with a 9/11 memorial? It’s an event that we should remember, because the specific target might have been New York, but the target was in fact the U.S.A.
And Ted’s point is right on target regarding the blurring (intentional or otherwise) between the war on terror and Iraq. And even if he couldn’t find any 9/11 family members to stand with him, Munsil also apparently failed to find any Afghan war veterans to stand with him either.
Now it’s true that we have invested many times as much money, manpower and resources in Iraq (chasing what?) as we have in Afghanistan (chasing the people who attacked us) so that even if there was a connection (however spurious) between Afghanistan and Iraq, one would still have to question the priorities of this administration.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I think it is very relevant that we have a 9/11 memorial in Arizona.
Why?
Because that event forever changed this country (and not for the better).
I want people to remember what Civil Liberties were about.
I want people to remember what our country was really about before the Bush Administration used this event to change the discourse of politics.
I want people to remember what the events that followed this event cost many families.
Yes, it is very relevant!
September 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
I thought the governor’s office was on the 9th floor.
In any event, it’s clear that Munsil is just copying the tired old GOP play to use 9/11 as a political tool to distract from the mess they’ve made in this country over the last five years.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Excellent analysis! Best shoot down of Malkin and Patterson I’ve read yet.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Ted I don’t mean to be issuing a fatwa about what you do or don’t cover but this story is pretty juicy.
But if you don’t want to talk about it I understand.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
The real reason Munsil doesn’t like the monument is because it’s covered with words.
Republicans are not on friendly terms with words. They just don’t like ‘em.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Hey Phx Kid, how is Senator McCain’s adopted daughter doing?
September 28th, 2006 at 9:24 am
I never said an AZ 9/11 memorial was irrelevant, just that I initially didn’t believe it was necessary. New Yorkers appreciated the outpouring of support immediately following the attacks, but we grew to resent how those attacks were used to justify all kinds of atrocities in the months and years that followed.
We’re naturally a little skeptical anytime anyone from outside the region erects monuments to the victims of that day, given our past experience with how those victims have been used for ammunition in even more death and destruction. We sometimes forget that everyone else was traumatized that day too, even if it wasn’t your backyard that it happened in.
Didn’t mean to offend, but please remember that the trauma of the day did hit a lot closer to home for us because it WAS home. This isn’t about “my trauma is worse than your trauma”, but it is about being wary about how that trauma is manipulated for political points, which I know is a concern we all share.
Leave a Reply