No kidding. However, this article tries to resuscitate the IFC by commenting on the link between Tom Bernstein of the IFC and President Bush.
The NY Post covers the reaction to Sen. Clinton's opposition to the IFC.
Clinton opposed the center in yesterday's Post, saying she couldn't support the project because of concerns by victims' families.Like the NY Times article above, there are still a few holdouts who think that the IFC should remain at Ground Zero:
"It's not a political issue — it's an issue of right and wrong," said Pat Lynch of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. "In our view, the IFC simply doesn't belong at Ground Zero, and we appreciate Sen. Clinton's support."
Steve Cassidy, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, echoed those words, saying the center doesn't belong on "the hallowed grounds of the World Trade Center."
And Debra Burlingame, an activist for 9/11 families, pointed out that Clinton's position makes the opposition bipartisan.
"Opposition to the IFC by these respected leaders, 9/11 families and thousands of first responders should move Gov. Pataki to take the next necessary step: Remove the IFC from the World Trade Center site," she said.
But some 9/11 relatives sit on the center's advisory board and disagree with the criticism.What would you expect Tofel to say? Of course he's disappointed. He's supposed to be sheparding this project through to fruition and this is one huge roadblock to that effort.
Chris Burke, whose brother worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, said he's not sure whether the center belongs at Ground Zero, but believes in "reason and dialogue."
"In terms of the freedom center being un-American, I just can't find any evidence of it," he said.
And Richard Tofel, the center's president, said despite his disappointment with Clinton's position, "we remain committed to creating the International Freedom Center."
Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC, Pataki, LMDC, urban policy, Freedom Tower, IFC, Drawing Center, Ground Zero.
No comments:
Post a Comment