What to do about Ground Zero

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a long article on an attempt to broaden the theme of the 9/11 memorial at ground zero. In a post today at SISU the author has a much better phrase for this effort by the left to divert our attention from this hallowed ground - she calls them "grave robbers" - and that sounds about right to me.

There is plenty of time to debate silly claims like the Amnesty International rant that we run gulags like the Soviet Union. There are also plenty of locations to commemorate almost any other issue that enough people who want to fund it can choose.

But the location where the Twin Towers were should be reserved to honor the memory of those who died that day. The monument should be simple and focussed. Why in the world should it be anything else?

A few weeks after 9/11 a concert was held to raise money for the families of the victims. Operaman appeared and sang a great line about the Saudi shiek who had offered $10 million but but put a condition on it partially blaming America for its plight. As you may remember Mayor Guiliani said to the shiek - take the cash and shove it. If Soros wants to fund this thing - we should collectively tell him to go find the shiek.

In today's WSJ a person on the Commission tries to play it down by saying there will be some additional stuff around the memorial in the freedom center and then has the audacity to quote from Lincoln at Gettysburg. Wouldn't it be more moving to simply have the memorial at that place and use some other place to make the political statement?