Westchester Housewife

Meet Debra Burlingame, who won a battle at Ground Zero.

BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN

Saturday, October 1, 2005 12:01 p.m. EDT

Rage renders some people incoherent and others blind. It causes some to flare up--fiercely, but briefly--and then to burn out. In others, it does no more than instill sadness, and paralysis. Yet in Debra Burlingame--the 51-year-old sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon by terrorists on September 11, 2001--rage has fueled eloquence, an impressively mulish obstinacy, and an almost eerie moral clarity.

These are not all virtues, however, if you happen to be--like the founders and planners of the International Freedom Center--the object of that rage. Just this week, George Pataki, New York's governor, ordered the ousting of the Freedom Center from the World Trade Center memorial site: He did so, it should be said, in response to the relentless pressure exerted by Ms. Burlingame and the Take Back the Memorial Movement, a coalition of little platoons of 9/11 family members assembled to boot the Freedom Center off Ground Zero. This is ground that Ms. Burlingame and numerous Americans regard as hallowed; for them, the Freedom Center's apparent mission--the establishment of an educational venue focused more squarely on such matters as the Native American genocide and the Jim Crow South than on the victims and perpetrators of 9/11--was pure anathema, proof not merely of leftist muddle-headedness but also of an elitist contempt for popular feeling.

The Take Back the Memorial Movement's best-known voice--and certainly the most articulate critic of the Freedom Center--is Ms. Burlingame, who started it all on these pages in early June, when she wrote an op-ed essay titled "The Great Ground Zero Heist." In it, she made public the Freedom Center's determination to build a memorial that "stubbornly refuses to acknowledge" 9/11.

"Rather than a respectful tribute to our individual and collective loss," she wrote, "[we] will get a slanted history lesson, a didactic lecture on the meaning of liberty in a post-9/11 world . . . [and] a heaping foreign policy discussion over the greater meaning of Abu Ghraib and what it portends for the country and the rest of the world." She also asked whether it was seemly for the Freedom Center's advisory board to include members who had said, "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" (Columbia's Eric Foner); pushed for the center to highlight how 9/11 had led to the curtailment of civil liberties (the ACLU's Anthony Romero); and led a world-wide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused on the U.S. military (Michael Posner, of Human Rights First).

Her rage was irrefutable, and one got the sense, after her piece appeared in print, that the Freedom Center did not stand a chance.

When I called Ms. Burlingame on Wednesday, the day Gov. Pataki put a stop to the Freedom Center, she sounded contemplative, not triumphal. "We're not really done," were her first words--the Freedom Center may have gone, but it was still not certain what would take its place. She wanted the recognition of her victory to be restrained, not raucous, and her voice betrayed some of the fatigue that can so often set in as soon as a battle of attrition is over. I suggested that we meet the next morning, to talk about the turn events had taken.

"Oh no!" she protested, "Not in the morning! I look horrible in the morning!" This last assertion turns out to be the only thing I've heard her say that is open to refutation.

At 10 a.m. the next day, I found her outside her home in Pelham, N.Y., in prosperous Westchester County, looking the very picture of blond, suburban poise: neat hair, pearly teeth, understated jewelry, crisp white cotton shirt, laundered blue jeans, blue flip-flops, pink toenails. She was hauling empty garbage cans off the sidewalk and back onto her drive, where her SUV was parked. Two dogs barked their greetings as we stepped into a house so immaculate that it was hard to believe it was kept not by a Full-time Homemaker, but by a Full-time Activist.

" 'Activist'. . . I'm not entirely happy with the term," she said to me with mild reproof. "I'm a citizen." We were seated in her small office--a place where Mexican oil paintings vied for space with pictures of her brother and a collage of yellow Post-it Notes on the wall. This was, in fact, the one part of her house that was less than perfectly ordered; I confess that I was reassured by this--Ms. Burlingame, disconcertingly, can come across as a seemingly flawless person on a seemingly flawless mission.

This was not the view, of course, of the men she took on at the Freedom Center. "They dismissed me as a Westchester housewife," Ms. Burlingame said, more in mirth than in indignation. She was referring, principally, to Tom Bernstein, the center's chairman, best known before this project as a founder of Manhattan's Chelsea Piers leisure complex. Mr. Bernstein led a triumvirate, along with Peter Kunhardt (the creative director of the center and a filmmaker of repute) and Richard Tofel (the president and COO of the center, and formerly the assistant publisher of The Wall Street Journal), that sought to derail Ms. Burlingame's opposition to the Freedom Center.

"When I talked to Tom Bernstein in person about what they were about to do at the center," Ms. Burlingame recounted, "he said to me, 'You know, 9/11, if we don't put it in a broader context, it will be forgotten. It will not stand the test of time if we do not put it in a broader historical context.' The arrogance of this was stunning. And when I told him that Ground Zero was, to the 9/11 family people, and especially the military, a sacred place, and that you cannot put anything on this site that ignores that, denigrates that, marginalizes that, or does not give it the acknowledgment that is due . . . he looked at me blankly. Completely blankly. They were trying to cut 9/11 out of it completely."

So is there no broader context for 9/11? "Absolutely!" she exclaimed, chafing mildly at the idea that she might have come across as one-dimensional. "Of course there is! But one of the challenges of putting together a memorial museum is doing it in real time. This history is still unfolding. We have these people who are still at large, not the least of whom is Osama bin Laden.

. . . So when people say, 'Hurry, hurry, hurry, and build this,' I say, 'Why? We still don't have a grasp on the full story here.' "

Here, Ms. Burlingame resorts to her greatest strength--forensic rigor acquired at law school (where she went, at the age of 37, after working for TWA as a flight attendant for several tedious years): "You can't tell the broader story of 9/11 and not talk about terrorism, or Islamo-fascism, or the jihad. . . . But in the Freedom Center's 49-page report they never once mention bin Laden. The words 'al Qaeda' never appear anywhere in it. There's nothing about the war on terrorism."

This is the woman Messrs. Bernstein and company dismissed as a hausfrau. How they did so is baffling: She has the facts at her fingertips, the confidence of a person at ease with authority, and the rhetorical skills of one at home with the language. How could they have believed that she would just go away? "They were ambitious," Ms. Burlingame replied, "and myopic.

Bernstein is an ideologue, a true believer. He told me that he was prepared to dedicate the next 10 years of his life to the center." They patronized her: By her account, Mr. Bernstein said, "Debra, we're calling on people from all sides of the political spectrum . . . very balanced . . . people who are very dignified." To which she responded, "Oh really! Tell me who you have that's conservative. And he replied, 'Fareed Zakaria' [editor of Newsweek International]. I squinched my face up and said, 'He's not conservative,' and Bernstein goes, 'Naah . . . he's not, yeah, you're right, he's not.' "

This gets to the heart of the problem: The Freedom Center's progenitors were convinced--utterly and adamantly--of their own reasonableness. In an inversion of the usual conditions of passion, the Forces of Rage--here, led by Ms. Burlingame--had an impressive clarity of vision; by contrast, the self-styled Forces of Reason were blinded by their own certitudes. (Ms. Burlingame insists that the blind include the editorial page of the New York Times, which twice attacked her by name--describing her, even, as "the Governor's Proxy"--yet did not consider it important to print a letter from her in response. The page's editor, Gail Collins, would not, it seems, take her calls. "A very, very snotty assistant said to me, 'Let me take your information.' Ms. Collins was 'busy,' 'unavailable' . . .")

Finding interlocutors on the telephone wasn't always this hard for Ms. Burlingame. After her op-ed appeared in the Journal in June, she received calls from political players in Washington, asking her to drop her opposition to Mr. Bernstein's project. She is prepared, only, to name John Bridgeland--a former director of the Domestic Policy Council in President Bush's White House, deputy policy director for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, and, after 9/11, the first director of the USA Freedom Corps Office. He called twice "to discourage me . . . no, not discourage, to 'explain what was actually going to be happening [at the Freedom Center],' and that I'd 'got it all wrong.' I said to him, 'Are you aware of some of the exhibits that they're talking about?' " He wasn't. "Here's a man who didn't know what was happening, yet he was picking up the phone and trying to effect an outcome."

Ms. Burlingame's face, never inscrutable, reflects afresh some of the fury she must have felt at the time. Composure is only a part of her arsenal. "Anger can be very, very productive, as long as it's focused and you don't lose your mind. After the London bombings [in July], someone asked me, 'Have we become complacent? Do you miss 9/11, when people had more unity?' And I say, 'No, no, no. What I miss is the anger. And the clarity. That's what I miss.' "

Two days ago, this press release praised the swearing in ceremony of Chief Justice John G. Roberts:

September 29, 2005

NICEVILLE, FLORIDA -- Vanguard PAC, one of America's leading conservative groups, today hailed the Senate's confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice, and urged President Bush to follow up this victory with a strong conservative nominee to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"As a protege and disciple of Chief Justice Rehnquist, John Roberts is better suited than anyone to fill that great jurist's shoes," said Rod D. Martin, Vanguard PAC's founder and chairman. "I congratulate the new Chief, as well as President Bush, the 78 Senators who voted for confirmation, and the countless thousands of Americans who fought alongside us to reach this day."

Now it's time for the President to name Justice O'Connor's successor. We call on him to listen to his friends, not his enemies: America deserves the kind of truly conservative justice who will uphold the Constitution, stand for the rights to life, liberty and property, allow children to recite a Pledge of Allegience that includes the words 'under God', and believe in the values virtually all Americans share.

"This nomination can change the shape of the Court -- and of America -- forever. We call on the President to view this as his legacy, and make it one for which we can all be grateful."

Vanguard PAC mobilized tens of thousands of activists across America in support of Justice Roberts' confirmation, and Martin promised to greatly intensify those efforts in support of a serious conservative nominee "like Scalia or Thomas. "We will pull out all the stops. The President need not fear the sputtering, litmus-testing left. He has the right to appoint, and we have the votes to confirm. We trust this President; but we expect his very best."

Want to Know How Your Senator Voted??

For the complete breakdown, click here.

And, now you can know just how much YOUR senator cares about the future of America and her system of jurisprudence. Use the knowledge wisely, as you go to the polls next time.

God Bless,

Dan'L

HEY! . . . I GOT A GREAT IDEA! . . . LET'S MAKE A MOVIE!

Back to the indictment of Tom Delay for a moment. Byron York reports in this column that Ronnie Earle, the liberal Democrat Texas prosecutor who brought the indictment seems to have Hollywood on his mind.

It seems that during the last two years Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to his work on the DeLay case. Read the column to find out more about this movie, . . . and ask yourself whether or not you think there is something seamy about Earle actions.

If you have one functional brain cell, or a smidgeon of intellectual honesty, you might also ask yourself what the Democrat Party strategists would have recommended to all those thousands of fax recipients, if Judge Kenneth Starr had given a film crew similar "extraordinary access" to his work in the Clinton investigations, or if the Republicans had invited a couple of cameras and a producer or two into some Congressional offices during the same time frame?? Yeah, . . . just imagine.

And, . . . . to show you just how political this guy WANTS to be, take a gander at this web site: http://www.ronnieearle.com/contribute.html

God Bless,
Dan'L

TOM DELAY'S INDICTMENT

The prosecutor is a sworn enemy. Ronnie Earle. Conspired to violate Texas election laws. No specifics. Democrats in Texas believe that the scheme DeLay is accused of masterminding resulted in the domination of the Texas legislature by Republicans.

DeLay is only charged with a conspiracy. There are no details in the indictment. All it says is that DeLay was supposed to have agreed with someone on a scheme to direct corporate campaign donations to candidates for the Texas legislature. No details on how the scheme was carried out. No details on what anyone did to further the scheme. At this point DeLay's lawyers have no idea at all what in the world they are supposed to defend against.

If guilty ... removed from office and punished.

Might be advisable to remember that shortly after Republican Kay Bailey Hutcheson became a Senator, this very same prosecutor had her indicted on some misuse of office charge. The case was so weak that it never even reached trial. What's the old adage? . . . "You can INDICT a ham sandwich," or something like that??

If found to be groundless . . . . serious questions need to be asked about this prosecutor. And, he should be watched for whatever rewards come his way, in the future.

We can also remember here the questions that were raised about Clinton's fund-raising activities. The Senate had a hearing on those abuses. Ohio Democratic Senator John Glenn worked 24/7 to make sure that the Senate didn't give any serious consideration to the charges. He was rewarded with a ride on the Space Shuttle.

But, then ... Clinton was a Democrat. Different rules prevailed.

MIKE BROWN GIVES HIS SIDE

So we finally heard from the much-maligned former head of FEMA yesterday. The guy Michael Moore hired a private investigator to do a background check on, then manipulated the details he decided to release, before telling us that his highest accomplishment was that of running horse shows – something not as easy as Moore would have you believe, and he was testifying before Congress. Mike Brown circled the wagons regarding the criticism of his response to Hurricane Katrina. Who could blame him?? The mainstream media was using him as a way to denigrate George W. Bush, and those wunnerful editors and newscast producers just followed their noses, right along with Michael Moore’s web site rantings. Essentially, Mr. Brown said that while he made some mistakes, the majority of the blame for how things went in New Orleans should lay squarely at the feet of the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana. I think I’ve been saying that all along, (see: Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil “Your Views” column, September 27, 2005)

Now, keeping in mind that perhaps Brown might not have done the best job, it's important to listen to what he has to say because, after all, he was there. He says all of what I’ve been saying, and we've heard before: Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco couldn't work out their differences and bickered, slowing the response to Katrina. He also points something out that the media has ignored: Nagin and Blanco tried to evacuate New Orleans in essentially a single day (maybe two.) Now compare that with the preparations for Hurricane Rita, in which Texas Governor Rick Perry started the Houston evacuation days in advance. Of course, you say!! Rita had better preparation because of what had happened with Katrina!! Well, essentially the folks over at the National Weather Service haven’t changed the way they forecast these storms, so the question remains, “Who really dropped the ball??” I contend it was the Governor and Mayor – Not FEMA or George W. Bush, (although I’ve said, and will continue to say, we need better mandates, requiring minimum standards to be met, when it comes to disaster plans)

As I asked, in the above article, will the media investigate Nagin and Blanco's share of the blame in this?? Nope. As I said, this won’t happen for two simple reasons: 1.) Nagin and Blanco are Democrats. To criticize liberals is not part of the media's capability these days. They are far more comfortable, lying there in bed with Michael Moore. They know that if it all goes south, they can change horses and very few people will notice. Second, to criticize Nagin and Blanco would be to shift blame from Bush. That would make the president look good, and favorable coverage of George Bush is not allowed in the mainstream media these days.

The leftist media in this country is simply not going to report anything that would make George W. Bush look good. So Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco get a huge pass. Only the locals, who might have some influence on the issue, could make a difference, but they’re currently pre-occupied. Must be nice.

God Bless,
Dan’L

ASSIGNING BLAME FOR KATRINA RESPONSE

When the federal response to Hurricane Katrina was being raked over the coals in the media, the general consensus was that the feds had screwed up bad. Really bad.

The Mayor of New Orleans was on the radio swearing, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and generally crying out loud, and the governor of Louisiana was blaming everyone she could think of to blame.

The media did their very best to portray President Bush as a clueless moron, and the blame game was off, and running.

We were led to believe that state and local officials were victims in this, . . . and they were, by and large, absolved of any responsibility in the mainstream media. But now we're learning that things didn't quite work out that way.

In fact, . . . as you’ve seen, if you keep up with the postings here on Vast Right Winged Conspiracy, or my letters to the “Your Views” column in the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil, it's coming to light that the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana have a lot to answer for. And the facts are coming from a much-maligned source: former FEMA head Mike Brown.

Brown admitted yesterday that he should have sought assistance from the Pentagon sooner following Hurricane Katrina. But never mind Brown, . . . he was fired (oops, . . . I mean "resigned') and has already paid the price for his poor performance. But what he told Congress about the local officials down there in Louisiana is quite telling.

According to congressional aides, Brown said Nagin and Blanco "sparred during the crisis and could not work together cooperatively." That's right, . . . sparred. Two Democrats, the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana, . . . not getting along. Imagine that. He also had quite a few things to say about Kathleen Blanco, who was apparently concerned about her political image.

He said she was indecisive and refused to cede control of the National Guard to the feds because "it would have undercut her image politically."

Will the state and local Democrats who botched the Katrina relief operation be hauled before Congress and made to answer for their incompetence, or will the media continue to shelter them and give them a pass?? Something tells me they won’t, because there’s nothing in it for the media, . . . We'll see.

God Bless,
Dan’L

Reuters Gets Hoaxed!

"U.S. and Iraqi forces have shot dead the second-in-command of al Qaeda in Iraq, dealing what a U.S. commander called on Tuesday a serious blow to the militant group at the heart of Iraq's insurgency," Reuters "reports" from Baghdad:

U.S. and Iraqi forces tracked Abu Azzam, said to be the right-hand man of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted man in Iraq, to a high-rise Baghdad apartment building where he was shot on Sunday, U.S. spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said.

"We got specific information and intelligence that led us to him," Boylan said. "We've been tracking him for a while."

The death suggested progress against the two-year-old insurgency, particularly as the military said Azzam was behind a surge in violence in Baghdad since April that has killed and maimed hundreds. But attacks continued unabated.

Holy cow, Reuters has fallen for a hoax! Everyone knows that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism (or "militancy," as Reuters calls it)--zero, zip zilch. BUSH LIED!!!! when he said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda. But apparently the word gullible doesn't appear in the Reuters stylebook.

NY Times Admits Fabricating News - Yet Again!!

The mainstream media's newspaper of record admitted late Saturday that one of its reporters fabricated part of a news story on Hurricane Katrina relief.

Saying his paper "flunked" the test of basic journalistic fairness, New York Times public editor Byron Calame said Alessandra Stanley's Sept. 5 report claiming that the Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera "nudged" an Air Force relief worker out of the way so he could film himself rescuing a Katrina victim had been made up out of whole cloth.

"Since Ms. Stanley based her comments on what she saw on the screen Sept. 4, the videotape of that segment means everyone involved is looking at exactly the same evidence," Calame noted.

"My viewings of the videotape - at least a dozen times, including one time frame by frame - simply doesn't show me any 'nudge' of any Air Force rescuer by Mr. Rivera," the Times internal watchdog said, adding, "Ms. Stanley declined my invitation to watch the tape with me."

Times editor Bill Keller, however, is still standing by Ms. Stanley's bogus report. He told Calame that she was "writing as a critic, with the license that title brings - [and] was within bounds in her judgment."

"Ms. Stanley's point was that Mr. Rivera was show-boating - that he was being pushy, if not literally pushing - and I think an impartial viewer of the footage will see it that way," Keller insisted.

But Calame countered: "Ms. Stanley certainly would have been entitled to opine that Mr. Rivera's actions were showboating or pushy. But a 'nudge' is a fact, not an opinion. And even critics need to keep facts distinct from opinions."

Stanley's bogus report continues a pattern at the Old Gray Lady of making up the news.

Two weeks ago, columnist Paul Krugman was forced to admit that he falsely claimed media recounts in Florida showed Al Gore winning the 2000 presidential election. In August, a Times profile of Hillary Clinton changed a quote first reported by NewsMax where Clinton said she was "adamantly opposed to illegal immigrants."

In the toned down Times version, Clinton's opposition was to "illegal immigration" rather than the immigrants themselves.

"Know Thine Enemy!"

War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance

In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.

The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25.

Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.

Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.

Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty (search) signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants. As the Pravda.ru (search) Web site announced, “the reconciliation between China and Russia has been driven in part by mutual unease at U.S. power and a fear of Islamic extremism in Central Asia.”

Relations between Russia and China have steadily improved since the mid-1980s. The recent military exercises may have helped renew a post-World War II alliance they forged against the U.S. It lasted several years before a bitter split, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (search) denounced dictator Joseph Stalin’s bloody purges and refused Chairman Mao (search) an honor to be a co-leader of the global communist movement.

Today, Moscow and Beijing want to build a multi-polar world. That would require diluting American global supremacy and opposing the U.S. rhetoric of democratization. Both sides are willing to bend to reach those goals. China, for example, supported Russia’s heavy-handed tactics in Chechnya (search). Russia, in turn, supported China’s demands that Taiwan (search) reunite with the mainland.

A sign of their newfound cooperation surfaced during the July 6 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (search) summit in Astana, Kazakhstan. China and Russia demanded the U.S. provide a timetable for withdrawing its troops and bases from central Asia.

Geopolitically, China and Russia share interests as well. They both want to keep insecure central Asian dictators in power, because those dictators are likely to serve as a counterweight to American influence. Unfortunately, the harsh regimes may boost the case of radical Islamists and lead to more extremism and violence in post-Soviet Muslim areas and the Xinjiang province.

Perhaps more alarming from an American perspective is the close relationship both China and Russia have with Iran. China has signed 25-year, $50 billion deals to develop and import liquid natural gas from the giant South Pars (search) field in Iran. Russia benefits from large-scale contracts with Iran, including construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor (search).

If the U.S. and the three European powers, which failed to negotiate a halt in the Iranian nuclear program, bring the case against Tehran to the U.N. Security Council, Russia and China are likely to block real sanctions. They may threaten to veto a resolution calling for the use of force to terminate Iran’s nuclear-arms bid.

Moscow and Beijing want to work together because each country now views the other as its “strategic rear.” Given this reality, the U.S. should take prudent steps to drive a wedge between Russia and China. To do that, the Bush administration should:

—Work with Russia to battle radical Islamic groups in Central Asia. Opposing Islamic terrorism and militancy is a joint interest for the two powers. Washington should help develop joint energy, services and manufacturing projects in Central Asia among, for example, Russian, Turkish and Indian firms.

—Increase intelligence monitoring of relations between Russia and China,
especially in national security areas. Intelligence gathering should focus on
the condition of Russian forces in the Far East, including the possibility of
the Russian Pacific Fleet’s intercepting the U.S. Seventh Fleet in any
confrontation in the East China Sea.

—Strengthen military and security cooperation with India and Japan.
The U.S. should work with them to secure shipping lanes and develop
Central Asia and the Russian Far East to offset China’s growing
economic power.

Despite strides in Sino-Russian rapprochement, Moscow remains nervous about China, especially its intentions in the Russian far east and Siberia. Riding the Chinese dragon may well prove even less comfortable for the Russians than they anticipate.

At that point, they may wish to renew a genuine partnership with the United States. But until then, we must monitor this emerging partnership carefully — and work to keep it from getting too cozy.