Richard J. Tofel, President of the International Freedom Center, responds in an op-ed piece in today’s WSJ to Debra Burlingame’s WSJ article The Great Ground Zero Heist.

Mr. Tofel had this to say with regard the space the IFC will be taking up at ground zero.

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.

As envisioned in Daniel Libeskind’s master plan for the site’s redevelopment, the International Freedom Center’s building will serve as a buffer between the sacred Memorial and the hustle and bustle of the surrounding city, including the thousands of people who will move each day in and out of Santiago Calatrava’s spectacular new transit hub.

But the International Freedom Center itself will do much more than that. It will serve as a complement to the Memorial, bringing a universal “narrative of hope” to a place where hope is imperative.

“Narrative of Hope?” Ok, I can get on board with that. But here is the basic problem: how is the narrative of hope going to be told? Will visitors be greeted with a “we must understand why they did this to us” exhibit? Will the ACLU get their way and have a platform to lecture everyone on the “evils” of the Patriot Act? These are political points of view and have no place on the hallowed ground where so many people were senselessly murdered.

To be sure, the International Freedom Center will host debates and note points of view with which you–and I–will disagree. But that is the point, the proof of our society’s enduring self-confidence and humanity. Moreover, the International Freedom Center will rise above the politics of the moment. It will not exist to precisely define “freedom” or to tell people what to think, but to get them to think–and to act in the service of freedom as they see it. And it will always do so in a manner respectful of the victims of September 11.

All wonderful stuff - somewhere else. If you present the point of view that America was somehow to blame for September 11, which is clearly how some people - myself included - will regard any discussions or exhibits that attempt to “understand” how terrorists could do something so heinous, then it has no place anywhere near ground zero.That is the litmus test in my view.

The bottom line is this. Mr. Tofel says nothing in his piece that describes the types of exhibits that will appear in the IFC. He gives us a lot of flowery language and some really nice quotes from George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, but he is short on facts. He also leaves a lot open to interpretation, which is exactly what I am worried about. Does anyone honestly believe that, with that much room, George Soros and the ACLU are not going to thrust their political views on those that visit the IFC, under the guise of getting “get them to think–and to act in the service of freedom as they see it?”

Mr. Tofel can gloss over it all he wants, he can’t change these facts about the people with input into the planning and design of the IFC.

• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the world-wide “Stop Torture Now” campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld’s refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is “irresponsible and dishonorable.”

• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, “I’m not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House.” This is the same man who participated in a “teach-in” at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, “The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military,” and called for “a million Mogadishus.” The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner’s statement warning that future discussions should not be “overwhelmed” by the IFC’s location at the World Trade Center site itself. (ed. note: Really? Gee, I wonder why?)

• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib “hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself.”

Do you want these people to have any part in making these decisions? I sure as hell don’t, and I venture a majority of Americans would agree. How can Mr. Tofel expect anyone to believe that the IFC will “rise above the politics of the moment” with these people involved?

These are political people with political agendas and I am not stupid or naive enough to believe they will simply leave agendas at the door.

Are you?

**UPDATE**

More responses to Tofel’s “explanation”: Michelle Malkin, Sissy, Irish Pennants

**UPDATE**

I just received a copy of the following email from a Solidier’s Mom via the takebackthememorial.org email address. She wrote to Mr. Tofel yesterday after hearing about the IFC plans. Mr. Tofel pointed her to his article in the WSJ today for “the other side” - this is her response.

Mr. Tofel:

Thank you for your response. We have read your response with great interest — hoping that the initial stories were perhaps inflated. Sadly, that is not the case. However noble your and the International Freedom Center intent is, we are still not convinced that the WTC site is the appropriate place for such an endeavor. Perhaps it should be at the United Nations, a body allegedly devoted to Peace in the World that surely could use the attention and commitment of such a gesture? You do yourself and your project no favors parading the signatories to such a grand scheme from academia, given the history of such individuals and their somewhat anti-American stance.

To be clear, we are true supporters of all the concepts of freedom and herald its great history — and mourn its tragic failings. However, the fight of the Czech Republic and such other struggles for democratic rule have no place at such a site. “Ground Zero” truly is hallowed ground to us and most Americans — as sacred as any national cemetery or battle site — and we would no more support this grand scheme were it proposed for Arlington National Cemetery or the Gettysburg Battlefield.

We remain committed to the idea that the entire site of the attack of September 11, 2001 be reserved entirely as a memorial committed to the victims of that attack, the American people and the men and women who have given their lives in this War on Terrorism.

Sincerely,

Names Withheld

That pretty much nails it.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 at 9:57 am and is filed under Good Causes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.