The IFC Responds - Unconvincingly

But some ask why such an institution--including museum exhibition spaces, an educational and cultural center already boasting commitments from nine of New York City's, the nation's and the world's leading universities, and a robust service and civic engagement program all devoted to advancing the cause of freedom--should be placed at Ground Zero. It is a serious question, and it deserves a thoughtful response.

The answer can be found in our society's proudest traditions and its deepest aspirations.

First, of course, the World Trade Center site must include a fitting and powerful memorial. And so it will. Michael Arad and Peter Walker's "Reflecting Absence" will transform the footprints of both of the Towers into "voids," each nearly an acre in size, and including perhaps the largest continuous man-made waterfalls in the world, surrounded by a veritable forest in the middle of the nation's third-largest business district. The Memorial will dominate the site, and provide its soul.

Then there will be the Memorial Center, a museum devoted to the events of September 11 itself, with exhibit space roughly equal in size to that at the International Freedom Center. The Memorial Center will tell the stories of the day--of heroism and sacrifice, of rescue and service, of courage and resolution, of memory and loss. It is the Memorial Center that will contain the iconic artifacts of September 11.

That is necessary, but not sufficient.

Sorry, but the problem isn't the idea of setting up cultural space/museum space at the WTC that goes beyond what the memorial is. The problem is the political bent of the group that won the right to develop that space.

The political bent of that group is far out of mainstream American politics - even outside what many New Yorkers consider mainstream. Therefore, the group is not a good choice to develop the space. It makes no sense to have a group that would much rather find and place blame with the victims of 9/11 than the terrorists who plotted for years to attack and destroy as many notable sites as possible.

UPDATE:

The NY Post editorial page chimes in by saying no place for politics at Ground Zero.

UPDATE II:
Michelle Malkin savages Tofel's weak rebuttal. She notes that he doesn't refute any of Burlingame's specific criticisms, instead glossing things over.

UPDATE III:
In case anyone forgot what happened on 9/11, here is a bunch of stories from NYC area bloggers about their experiences from that day. You'll find pictures, recollections, remembrances, and more - many of the images have since been consigned never to appear prominently in mainstream media outlets because we might actually get angry about who did this to us - our city, our state, our country, our friends and families, and perfect strangers.

UPDATE IV (UPDATE'S REVENGE):
September 11 News has more on how the plans for rebuilding the WTC have morphed in the nearly four years since the towers were destroyed. Lots of images of the proposed plans, some of which look a lot better than what was eventually selected (the Libeskind plan). In fact, this plan was the runner up. A lot of this information is also contained on my old Suite101.com site.

Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC