our most urgent question today is: What should we as a nation do with our collective memory from that day?
Increasingly the answer that is being given to this question by liberal Democrats is simple, Repress it. Push it out of our mind. Pretend that it never happened; or if you absolutely must refer to 9/11, pretend it was something along the lines of an earthquake or a freakish tidal wave -- a natural disaster without the slightest political implications. A tragedy, of course, but something we should all put behind us and move on.
I obviously don't have much in common with today's Democrats (or, really, the last century's Democrats), but let's stick to the facts. The Democrats do poorly enough when you confront their positions and statements with the real facts that you don't have to make things up.
All you have to do to falsify his column is look at recent Kerry speeches. This one from yesterday will do:
Sen. John F. Kerry, intensifying the election fight over terrorism and national security, accused President Bush on Sunday of "stonewalling" for political reasons separate investigations into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and prewar intelligence on Iraq.
The Massachusetts Democrat echoed Bush's promise to make Sept. 11 a top election issue and, for the second time in the young general election campaign, portrayed the president as playing politics with the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
"I think one of the most critical questions in front of the country is with respect to 9/11, why is this administration stonewalling and resisting the investigation into why we had the greatest security failure in the history of our country and why is he also resisting having an immediate investigation into the security failure with respect to the intelligence in Iraq," Kerry told reporters at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss.
Does that sound like the Democrats are "repressing the memory" of 9/11? Pretending "it never happened"? Or, most idiotically, treating it as "a natural disaster without the slightest political implications"? Hello! The Democratic nominee is campaigning on it! Is that making it political enough for you?
Harris' column might have made sense in 2002, but it doesn't make any in 2004. While Kerry has numerous faults, one thing he is not doing is running away from this issue. Waffling, flip-flopping, distorting, and more, yes. Running away, no. It is up to Bush to counter Kerry effectively. While it may be difficult with today's press, he should be able to do it.
PS When exactly did Kerry start being refered to as "John F Kerry"? I knew that he liked to use the initials, but I didn't know that he was now using the pretentious middle inial now too. Or is it something that the WaPo reporter decided to use on his own.