Freedom Tower: 1776 and 2006

"You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later."

--New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin

Alert Nagin!

Progress is being made on repairing that "hole in the ground."

NEW YORK -- The Freedom Tower — the 1,776-foot emblem of ground zero's renaissance — has been so beset by setbacks that it has even had multiple groundbreakings.

But in a visible mark of progress, 25-ton steel columns are at last rising at the site of the soaring skyscraper that will replace the World Trade Center's twin towers.

"Today the steel rises, the Freedom Tower rises from the ashes of Sept. 11, and the people of New York and the people of America can be proud," Gov. George Pataki said on Tuesday, when a massive crane lifted the first column. Painted with an American flag and the words "Freedom Tower," the 31-foot-high column was set over steel bars on the southern edge of the tower's base.

The second column, also raised on Tuesday, bears the signatures of steelworkers and politicians from Virginia, where it spent time at a steel company before being shipped to New York. A third column — covered with signatures of New Yorkers and Sept. 11 victims' relatives, as well as pictures of some firefighters killed in the 2001 attack — will be installed in the coming days.

The images of 9/11 are so vivid in my mind.

When I reflect on that day five years ago, I'm caught off guard by how raw my emotions still are. The feelings I experienced are still so fresh.

How could human beings hijack civilian airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

It happened, but that makes it no less surreal.

Something else is surreal to me.

Given the enormity and brazenness of the 9/11 attacks, I just don't get how the Lefties -- the Dems, the lib media, and assorted outspoken critics of the Bush administration -- can be rooting for the U.S. to suffer defeat in Iraq.

In its coverage of President Bush's year-end news conference, the Associated Press gleefully reports on setbacks in Iraq and an embattled American president.

WASHINGTON -- The president opened the question-and-answer session by conceding the obvious — things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.

"The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success," he said.

"Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."

Bush also explained a striking shift in position — his statement on Tuesday that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq, contrasted with his insistence at a recent news conference that it was "absolutely winning."

He said his earlier comments were meant to say that, "I believe that we're going to win, I believe that ... My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted."

So much is being made of this "striking shift."

Bush still insists that we are going to win. If Bush were to say that we're going to lose, that would be a striking shift in position.

Looking ahead, Bush said a decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to Iraq rests on whether a specific, achievable mission can be defined. Top generals worry that a troop surge could strain the military overall and might be ineffective unless accompanied by political and economic changes in Iraq.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission said a quick buildup of troops could be helpful if the military commanders on the ground thought it would be effective in arresting what it called a "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.

White House officials had earlier said the president intended to address the nation before year's end to set out a revised plan for Iraq. That speech has been put off until after the holidays.

The lib media do all they can to make Bush appear weak.

What's important about the assessment by the Iraq Study Group (now renamed the Baker-Hamilton Commission because it sounds a bit less lame) is that defeat would be catastrophic for us.

The recommendation is NOT retreat.

As far as Bush's speech being put off until after Christmas, who cares?

If Kerry were president (Gag!) and he delayed an address, the lib media would no doubt praise him for taking the time to weigh his options.

When Bush does it, he's depicted as floundering and breaking a promise.

Bush was asked whether he was like Lyndon Johnson, who had difficulty sleeping during the difficult days of the Vietnam War.

In response, the president said it was difficult knowing that "my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives." And yet, he said, the United States must prevail in the global war on terror — and will.

The media will not rest until they get President Bush to say that Iraq is Vietnam, that he's a liar and a failure, that we've lost the war, that it's over.

The AP account asserts with disgust that although American service members have died in war, Bush won't retreat.

Imagine Terence Hunt, AP White House Correspondent and writer of this article, reporting on FDR during World War II.

Would Hunt write this?

In response, the president said it was difficult knowing that "my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives." And yet, he said, the United States must prevail in the global war on Nazism and Fascism — and will.

Who knows?

Maybe he would have wanted to retreat. Maybe he would have portrayed FDR as callous and uncaring about the fatalities. Maybe he would have worked to undermine the U.S. war effort.

I think it's beyond irresponsible for the lib media and the Dems and spineless Republicans to be serving as propagandists for the enemy.

That's not to say that it's wrong to acknowledge the reality of war and confront the difficulties and tremendous costs of the struggle.

I just don't get how they can be cheering for the U.S. to lose.

If Hunt had been around during Christmas 1776, would he have reported that George Washington was losing and it was time to give up?

Perhaps.

Bottom line:

IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM.

The war in Vietnam didn't impact the freedom of Americans.

The outcome of the war in Iraq will impact our freedom. An admission of defeat will encourage our enemies to continue on their quest to bring the West to its knees.

Iraq is a battle in the War on Terror that we can't lose.