A hole in the ground

Name JR's best lay.

 

Kristen Shepard.

 

As someone who lives in NY, I'm telling everyone that doesn't that on this issue, Olbermann couldn't be more wrong. Bush has had nothing to do with the lack of progress at the WTC site, it is the local pols (Bloomberg, Pataki, all the NJ governors, etc.), the Port Authority, Larry Silverstein, and the various interest groups that have stopped anything from happening.

As someone that lives here Olbermann should know better. Wait, I take that back, I believe he is smart enough that he does know better, but is blaming Bush anyway. He showed that while he's much more eloquent than the other hack talking heads, he's equally as phony.

 

Excuse my ignorance but how does the governor of New Jersey have a say in any construction project in NYC?

 

T1 --
He was using the hole in the ground -- the "wound in America" -- as a metaphor for the political misuse of a national tragedy, time and again, right up through that pathetic speech last night. He's not blaming Bush for their not having been anything built yet at Ground Zero. He's blaming him for keeping the wound open for his own advantages.

 

The land at the WTC site is owned by the Port Authority. The Port Authority was created to do infrastructure projects related to the ports of all of the harbor, which has facilities in both NY and NJ. The PA is run by a board who's members are appointed, 50% by the NY gov, and 50% by the NJ gov. This causes horrendous gridlock since each state only wants to approve projects that will benefit them, not the region as a whole.

 

Thanks. Sounds a lot like NO's levee boards.

 

Beat me to it, Smasher.

And I don't think anyone ever suggested Nagin should have New Orleans looking "as if nothing happened within a year." There should be more progress being made there.

That, however, isn't even my point. I don't think Nagin should be using the WTC to fend off legitimate questions about what he's doing to help his constituents, especially in the manner in which he did it.

 

Olbermann has his faults, and since his words are clearly tinged with partisanship, you have to take that into account (kind of like reading Rolling Stone magazine).

But there is no doubt that he is a terrific orator when it comes to this stuff - passionate, articulate. When he was speaking last night, it felt like America hushed to listen (well, those watching MSNBC). I know our house went silent.

If he ever showed himself equally willing to take on a lefty misstep, I think he could position himself as the conscience of America. He's that skilled and authoritative when he wants to be.

Murrow anyone?

 

Here's what he said:

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.
While there is one line where he is talking about the wounds, most of this is blaming Bush for the lack of progress on the site. And on that he is knowingly wrong, which is usually called lying. People outside the NYC area don't know what has been happening to cause the deadlock on progress, so blaming Bush is distorting the facts, and Olbermann should know it.

I usually like his pieces, but this one is just as bad as any of the nonsense spouted by other talking heads.

 

Bush made a lot of promises that night in Sept. 2005 when he stood in front of Jackson Square in New Orleans, the exterior of St. Louis Cathedral regally lit behind him -- despite the reality of there being no electricity in the city.

Many who were evacuated saw him on TV that night and thought, "Great, the power's back. I'm going home to start cleaning up and getting back to normal." Then they found out there was no power in the city. Bush simply needed a backdrop that made for a nice photo op, video style.

Sad. It made a lot of people outside the region, I think, mistakenly perceive the city was better off at the time than it was. But hey, at least it looked better than having a dark Jackson Square behind Bush. It's all about appearances, right?