Not so fond memories?

The title of this article sickens me. Makes the whole thing sound like a walk in the park. Shields is an idiot H/T to Espressopundit

Not so fond 'Memories'

Oct. 1, 2006 12:00 AM

Like it or not, Arizonans are getting a firsthand lesson in the discouraging politics of public memorials.

By the end of last week, a tired and emotional Billy Shields was trying to salvage the state's 9/11 memorial, the target of a broadside of criticism by Republican gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil, conservative bloggers and some military families.

Nobody, it's clear, feels worse than Shields, chairman of the Arizona 9/11 Commission, over what transpired last week. The privately financed memorial, Moving Memories, it seemed, had succeeded all too well in capturing the "history, experience and feelings" of residents on and after Sept. 11, 2001.

Like our fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and New York, we shared the horror at what happened that day. From the point of initial shock forward, though, our national unity has fragmented.

Some of the 54 laser-etched inscriptions on Arizona's memorial reflect those divisions.

And now Shields, a veteran firefighter who assisted at Ground Zero, is seeking to make things right if people have been offended by a handful of those inscriptions, if they view them as anti-American.

To begin some healing and gain a new perspective, Shields plans to reconvene the 9/11 commission after the Nov. 7 election to review every phrase, especially those viewed as objectionable. Input will be sought from the public, input that the commission sought over the past three years and 50 open meetings.

Um....I dont remember hearing about any meetings...anyone else?

Any recommendations to alter the inscriptions will then be forwarded to the Capitol Mall Commission, which now owns the memorial, for a final decision.

Likely to get a thorough scrubbing are such inscriptions as, "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles," "Congress questions why CIA & FBI didn't prevent attacks," "Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians," and "Violent acts leading U.S. to war, 05-07-1915, 12-07-41, 08-04-64 & 09-11-01."

Critics have expressed frustration (to say the least) that the memorial refers to a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan that killed 46 civilians. Does this suggest that some believe the United States should not have struck back at the Afghan-based terrorists who attacked us?

Well, yes. Like it or not, some Americans believe exactly that. The memorial sought to reflect that view, countering it with others.

You dont counter anything on a memorial, ITS A MEMORIAL...there to REMEMBER the incident...Not be PC and let it be countered!

Shields said commission members debated for hours which inscriptions to use, and that some of them caused him a twinge in his stomach. But the decision was made to include some of these provocative inscriptions because through words and phrases - from newspaper headlines and verbal histories and the federal 9/11 Commission report - the memorial was designed to give meaning to the way Arizonans reacted on that dark day: the diversity of thought, opinion and actions and reactions.

Um....the diversity of what happened that day? What does the accidental bombing of a wedding party have to do with what happend ON 9/11/2001?

The memorial purposefully was not a headstone of names. It was seen as a gathering place to invite open dialogue and reflect on the events of 9/11 and its aftermath as the words, phrases and timeline laser cut in a circular steel visor are illuminated onto a concrete ledge by the sun.

It is one thing to dialogue..that will come naturally from the memorial, but its a memorial for petes sakes...PRESENT IT AS SUCH!

It is virtually certain that some of the etchings will be changed. The memorial should unify, not split us. At the same time, critics vowing to tear the structure down need a fuller understanding of what also constitutes the memorial.

We wonder if they realize that the soil in the memorial's concrete is from Shanksville, Pa., where United 93 crashed; rubble from the Pentagon that was hit by United 77; and a flange from a steel beam from one of the collapsed towers at the World Trade Center.

No...we didnt know that, and the website gives NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER that this is the case. The commission is hiding something...what are they hiding? Maybe that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing from the start..thats what!

The memorial was intended to evoke a range of emotions. It has done that. Now, starting fresh, let's work together to strike an appropriate balance that is a lasting tribute to the victims of 9/11.

A lasting tribue that Arizonans can be proud of. You want balance? HOw about until the memorial is changed, we include a brass plaque over the monument...saying maybe, "Bin Laden loves lefties?"

EspressoPundit has done a good job with this, he has downloaded the commission report and can find none of the offensive phrase in it, he also has gotten ahold of the powerpoint presentation to the lesiglative committee and found that none of the inscriptions were in that presentation, as well, he points out that, "Did we know about this? Was there any coverage of the these meetings? Did Shields or the other Commission members raise any red flags or seek any advice? The answer to these questions, of course, is "no." Referring to the meeting that caused a "twinge" in Shields' stomach.

The commission knew what they were doing, and the media was right there with them, as well as the Governors office. What all those parties didnt count on was the strong voice of the conservative public through the blogosphere, and how much influence it bears. Do we think the Governor is going to address this? No...she is too busy hiding and deflecting criticism...hell I havent even got a response to my letter that I sent her...not even a form letter. Such as it is with Napolitano...hide until the situation dies down.

I want Len Munsil and the Libertarian candidate to latch onto this during the debates, put the governor under the spotlight then highlight her hypocrisy.