All the shows I've seen have been on the bent of rememberance... Retrospectives. They are pretty much leaving the attacks/attackers on the back burner choosing instead to relive the accounts of the people who were there and remember them for the people they were.
Osama is dead. KSM is still in jail. We've devastated two countries...
I don't see a call for war here. There's no new hatred. The shows I've seen are more like a memorial. I know you still jerk off to the idea of how Gore would have handled things if the election hadn't been 'stolen' from him, but if you bothered to look at the 9/11 shows out there this weekend you'd realize that they are pretty much on par with what you're asking for.
Yes, my point was, that an excess of 'national mourning' creates one emotion, that easily turns into another, needing an outlet.
This is why 'Remember the Alamo' and Remember the Maine', while about 'remember the losses', were really war cries.
When the nation feels a great loss, it is easy for that to turn to anger, to shame, to desire an act to 'strike back', and that looks for something to do.
I don't think we're close to having that turn to war now; that was in the aftermath of 9/11, when it could be used for support for Iraq. But I do think that it can easily still feed anti-Muslim feelings, feeding bad relations, hate, tensions, and prevent the sort of positive relationships it'd be better to have with Muslim countries, even more just at the time many of them are forming new governments after overthrowing dictators.
The reaction to 'building Mosques', especially 'near ground zero', is an indication; we have $42 million being spent to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment we know of, we have a presidential candidate saying he supports a ban on building any new mosques in the US.
It's ironic considering that Muslims were the targets of 9/11 just as we were and suffered much greater losses as a result - the attacks were intended to get the US to invade a Muslim nation, which would get the Muslim world to stop shunning Al Queda and instead support them in anger at the west, they hoped.
The request to hate someone in remembrance events isn't explicit, but it's a natural reaction. We should keep the event in perspective. We're not likely to go so far as to tie in a call for positive relations as I mention above, any more than they're calling for anger, but it does create emotion.
It's a little like how rebellions in the Middle East often are driven by ceremonies to remember the victims of the regime. They don't need to say a word about anger at the regime. The emotions from the even easily fuel that anger. I'm just encouraging people not to let the sorrow of the losses do that to further harm relations and how the feel about Muslims.
You don't understand my position on Gore. It's not about 'how he would have handled 9/11'. It's about not having democracy corrupted, about the person the people chose winning the election. I don't like that the election was wrongly decided against the will of the people. It also happens to be the case I don't like a lot of bad policies Bush allowed our government to do - but they're not the point. If the situation were reversed, I'd say that as much as I opposed him, Bush should have been awarded the office as a matter of democracy. I just wouldn't mind as much, saying that one set of unfair events canceled the corporate corruption for Bush.
So it's not just about my preference for Gore over Bush - it's about simply having the election follow democracy. One set of issues is how the actual votes were not counted correctly or voters were wrongly denied the right to vote; there are also issues about things like the role of corporate money in elections. In this case, both were a problem. IMO, you are supporting an un-American opposition to democracy, defending the corruption of an election with trashy lines.