Memorials, controversy and playing politics with national grief.

I was down at the State Capitol in Phoenix on Friday and had a few minutes before my appointment, so thought I'd take a look at the much maligned 9/11 Memorial. Frankly, in the context of the rest of the statements displayed, I didn't find the two or three that were so controversial to be outside of the scope of propriety, given the purpose of the memorial.

In fact, I think it's quite telling that we've heard very little about the 9/11 Memorial controversy since the elections. But nevertheless, I would urge people to see the thing themselves before they make up their own minds.

Just out of curiosity, I went over to the Viet Nam Memorial and paid closer attention to what was written on it since the last time I was there. I was stunned to notice something. Namely, there are far more potentially controversial passages on that memorial than on the 9/11 monument.

I jotted down a few of the quotes:

1968: My Lai massacre occurs

1969: 4 students killed by National Guard at Kent State

1971: Lt. Calley convicted of My Lai massacres

1972: US bombard North Viet Nam on Christmas

1973: US Senate rejects $260,000,000 in aid to South Viet Nam

1973: US House of Representatives approves $474,000,000 cutback in aid to South Viet Nam

1975: President Ford requests massive aid to South Viet Nam to halt offensive. Congress refuses.

1975: Saigon falls to NVA on April 30th, 1975.

Now, those statements are clearly at least as interpretable as being condemning of US actions than anything on the 9/11 Memorial. So why haven't we heard a hue and cry from Don Goldwater, Len Munsil and JD Hayworth to get them removed from the Viet Nam Memorial?

Perhaps it's as Janet Napolitano recently said of Hayworth, that consistency just isn't their best thing.