Books Forgetting 9/11 ow Larry Silverstein rebuilt the World HTrade Center and left the terror attacks behind. Credit: image via Shutterstock The Rising: The Twenty-Year Battle to Rebuild the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein, Knopf, 368 pages Larry Silverstein never much liked the Twin Towers. Sure, the real estate developer concedes, Minoru Yamasaki’s skyscrapers defined New York City’s skyline for nearly three decades, but only because they were “looming monoliths” whose ugliness was inescapable. Anyway, Silverstein adds, the Port Authority had built them wildly over budget—$900 million wasted on a pair of buildings that, by the time he secured their leasehold in 2001, were in a sorry state. Silverstein remembers inspecting his new property in July of that year with “unyielding objectivity” and sighing that the World Trade Center was below his standard for Lower Manhattan. Entering the Twin Towers felt like leaving New York for a vast maze of lobbies on lobbies and elevators which ascended to nowhere. The entire complex turned him off. Silverstein openly admits that he was not free from a feeling of guilt in the WTC mess. After all, he built and managed the nearby Tower Seven, a cheaply made “shoebox” that earned ridicule from nearly everyone who saw it, including his own wife. Upon entering the vestibule after the building’s completion in 1987, she glanced at the impersonal red marble walls and declared, “It looks like a mausoleum.” When the World Trade Center actually did become a mausoleum on September 11, 2001, Silverstein, like everyone else in the United States, was devastated. Were it not for an urgent call from his dermatologist early that morning, he would have been dead. He was supposed to be on the top floors of the North Tower, taking meetings at Windows on the World. He got lucky. Others didn’t. Silverstein Properties lost four people on 9/11 and, of course, the buildings themselves, which when they came screaming down brought with them the end to a whole way of life. Silverstein’s memories of the day are hazy: He was not himself, not in control, not the confident builder who had just secured dominion over the two tallest skyscrapers in New York. “I was absolutely staggered,” he recalls. “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing with my own eyes.” But his bewilderment did not last more than a day. On September 12, when the rest of the country was lolling in that somnambulatory unity that comes with collective grief, Silverstein had already put the past behind him. Where others saw only tragedy, he saw opportunity. From a developer’s point of view, the original World Trade Center was a difficult sell. It wasn’t just that the buildings were looming monoliths; people will still rent offices in ugly buildings. The problem had more to do with the plaza between them, which effectively gated the complex off from the rest of the city—maybe a draw for tenants in the seedy 1970s, but certainly not at the turn of this century.  Now that Mohammed Atta and Co. had cleared all that away, Silverstein understood that he had a chance to redo a part of lower Manhattan, and this time get it right. He said as much to George Pataki the morning after when the governor asked him if he was considering rebuilding the Twin Towers. No, Silverstein said, he had in mind something more ambitious: four towers, two and half million square feet each, sixty, seventy, eighty stories—something big, glitzy.  Later, and after more reflection, he articulated his goal more clearly. Something had to be done to honor the victims of the terrorist attack—their vaporized remains, after all, had been pummeled into the ground where the towers once stood—but the World Trade Center site could not remain a cemetery. Rudy Guiliani had suggested during his final days as mayor that the 16-acre plot should never be built upon, that it should be treated just like the beaches of Normandy: “a beautiful memorial that just draws millions of people here who just want to see it.”  The idea was popular, understandably, with those who had lost family and friends in the attack. But Silverstein shot it down. Osama bin Laden, he reasoned, had destroyed this massive commercial center because it was a symbol of American strength; in the aftermath of that destruction, real American strength would not be found through perpetual mourning, but instead through resolutely sweeping all that grief away, once and for all, and building a new commercial center, better than the one before.  The proposal promised a double win for Silverstein: it allowed him to claim a patriotic motivation for his project, and, since he was the leaseholder on the site, it made good business sense. “I wanted tenants to return to a site that had been targeted on two earlier occasions by terrorists, to a neighborhood whose air had turned toxic in the days after the Twin Towers collapsed,” he explains. “And I also wanted them to pay top dollar for the offices they would be leasing.” The struggle to achieve that vision is the subject of Silverstein’s memoir, The Rising: The Twenty-Year Battle to Rebuild the World Trade Center, the most interesting book published on the September 11 attacks since the Bush presidency. Silverstein manages to make a simple story of the most complicated real estate deals in American history: the transfer of care over the Twin Towers from a public owner, the Port Authority, to a private leaseholder, Silverstein Properties. And, more impressively, Silverstein presents his story about rebuilding on Ground Zero in the practical, unadorned style of a commercial developer—totally free of the gauzy patriotism that so often obscures explanations about how 9/11 transformed Lower Manhattan. In a meeting with a victims group early in the process, Silverstein explains that he believes “the future of New York was not about grieving or sentimentality.” Instead, he counters, it is “about restoring the beating commercial heart of downtown Manhattan.” This attitude pervades the whole book, and, as anyone who has visited New York in the last decade knows, his vision has become reality. That story aside, The Rising is also a fascinating study on how age affects perception, especially with regard to how we choose to remember, or rather, not to remember, 9/11. Silverstein is 93 years old and has been in the real estate business since 1957, when he bought his first building. He has dealt with nearly every personality who has passed through New York in the last fifty years. In rebuilding the World Trade Center, he placed himself at the center of an ensemble cast whose state, local, and federal players included Rudy Guiliani, Michael Bloomberg, George Pataki, Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson, Andrew Cuomo, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and many others—bankers, lawyers, functionaries at the Port Authority, all the unseen lever-pullers in New York who keep the place running. It truly was a battle to get the project done.  In writing about it all, a younger old man—someone in his 70s—might have opted for simply settling scores. And while Silverstein does indulge himself a little, he is old enough to know that his grievances don’t actually count. He may call Pataki “self-aggrandizing,” Paterson “second-rate,” and Chris Ward, his one-time adversary at the Port Authority, “fatuous,” but he thanks them all in the book’s acknowledgements anyway. For Silverstein, it doesn’t matter that they butted heads and had fallings out over the course of a massive construction project; the work they were engaged in was much bigger and much more important than a series of little squabbles. They were reinventing New York. “One of the things about being in your nineties is that you realize there is no point in trying to fool yourself,” Silverstein confesses. “You have to look at what you have accomplished with a hard, unstinting gaze. There is no longer any reason not to come to terms with the life you have lived.” I suspect it was the terrorist attacks that made Silverstein start thinking in those terms. He was 70 then and left alive only by blind chance. Every moment he has lived after the attacks has been a sort of afterlife, totally unearned.  Ever since the morning of September 12, Silverstein says, the phrase a better version of New York has been running through his head, influencing his every decision. It was what drove him to be meticulous in his reconstruction of Tower Seven. The memory of the first version was shameful; the new one had to erase it: “It had to look right. It had to feel right. Hell, it had to be magnificent.” Silverstein was well aware that, for better or for worse, he would be remembered—if at all—as the guy who rebuilt the World Trade Center. “I had begun to understand that if I was going to do something, I had better do it right,” he admits, adding, “I didn’t want to be known as the villain who plunked down a few sterile buildings in Lower Manhattan that had all the character of cardboard boxes.” And so, for the same reason, he was particular even about the parts of the project in which he was not directly involved. Silverstein played a large part in picking the design that would eventually be used for One World Trade, overruling some of the more fanciful proposals that dazzled the grandees at the Port Authority. And he was critical of the decision—later rescinded—to christen the building “Freedom Tower,” a name he argued connected the building too closely with the unpleasantness of September 11. (“How many tenants would want offices in a skyscraper that was tacitly advertising itself as a target to a new generation of terrorists?”)  Silverstein’s reasons for the special care he took with the project are bigger than just an obsession with shoring up his personal legacy. He still believes, as George W. Bush said a month after the attacks, that the most effective way to show strength in a hostile world is to defy threats with commerce, to continue to conduct business in the American way, to buy, to sell, to build; always bigger and better.  “What rose up from the ashes needed to bring back to life a part of Manhattan that had been destroyed,” Silverstein says of his early resolution to rebuild. “It had to be a spectacular complex that would attract tourists and help revitalize a dispirited neighborhood.”  And accomplishing it required a certain forgetfulness about 9/11. Not of the historical fact, of course, but of the passions and deep emotions so many people felt after the attacks. Those feelings are appropriate to a cemetery, but not to the new World Trade Center, which, as Silverstein rightly points out is, less than 25 years later, now a place where New Yorkers of all ages come to work, live, and play. Even the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, whose design Silverstein reviewed before the project began, has been put to that use. These days, it is more a place for respite than for mourning. That was always the idea, to wind down the tragedy into gentle oblivion. Silverstein explains that he immediately supported the memorial’s design because, while it visibly honored the dead, it also met the needs of the living. It was designed in the character of a public park, and Silverstein recognized that the new memorial plaza would double as “a sanctuary” for those who worked in the five skyscrapers surrounding it. One day, many years after the memory of 9/11 had long faded from the national consciousness, the shady benches near those two giant waterfalls surging endlessly into the deep foundations of the Twin Towers might be little more than a nice place for a quick lunch break. “Lulled by the soft sound of cascading water,” Silverstein writes contemplatively, “it would provide an oasis of tranquility and for reflection amidst the downtown hustle and bustle.” That day is fast approaching, if it has not arrived already. The post Forgetting 9/11 appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics The Real Realignment The parties have experienced nearly full transformations in foreign policy. Credit: image via Shutterstock We’ve lived through nearly a quarter century of intense polarization with no clear dominant political party. Unless last night’s presidential debate changes the race as dramatically as June 27’s did, we could see an election as close as 2000’s based on the current polling. But don’t say political realignments are impossible. Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris completes a major shift within the parties, if not between them. It is tempting, and at least partially true, to say that the two least popular and most radical vice presidents of the 21st century have been brought together because of a family beef. It is difficult to imagine Cheney following his daughter in a crusade against the former President Donald Trump if Trump hadn’t engineered Liz Cheney’s 39-point defeat in a Wyoming congressional primary. The elder Cheney was the highest-ranking Bush 43 administration official to endorse Trump in 2016, despite the indignities suffered by Jeb(!). More significantly, however, Democrats have decided they hate Trump more than they dislike the foreign policy of George W. Bush. Former Republicans who can loosely be described as neoconservatives and their fellow travelers have increasingly left, or been driven from, the party in the Trump era. The elder Cheney’s first real fight with Trump was when he confronted then Vice President Mike Pence about his boss’s foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute in 2019. That Pence now agrees has much more to do with January 6 than Cheney’s original views do.  “It seems, at times, as though your administration’s approach has more in common with Obama’s foreign policy than traditional Republican foreign policy,” Cheney was quoted as saying by an event attendee. In GOP circles, them’s fightin’ words. Fighting, of course, is what Cheney wanted the military to do in even more countries than the president he served under was willing to tolerate. Bush’s presidency was ruined by the Iraq War, without which there might never have been a Barack Obama administration, at least not with the huge congressional majorities that were barely sufficient to enact Obamacare. (Despite Obama’s antiwar bona fides, there was also a later Iraq-lite adventure in Libya that mostly Republicans opposed, but I digress.) Trump pointed much of this out during his 2016 presidential campaign. Calling the Iraq War a mistake and a failure on the Republican debate stage in military-heavy South Carolina, where Ron Paul was practically booed off the stage for making similar observations, Trump wound up repealing and replacing the Bush dynasty. It is not an accident that the earliest, and most enduring, Never Trumpers were disproportionately neoconservative. Now Harris is honored to receive the Cheneys’ endorsement, years after the former vice president, at least, had attained a Trump-level supervillain status among partisan Democrats. Rumors that Dubya himself might be a surprise guest at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago seemed plausible enough. Harris even obtained her party’s presidential nomination through something resembling regime change, even if the regime actually remains very much the same. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and a subset of the Libertarian Party are supporting Trump over Harris because they think she is closer to the Cheneys on foreign policy.  The transformation by the two parties on foreign policy isn’t complete. I wouldn’t go as far as Tucker Carlson and call Harris a neocon. Trump has also so far done more to jumble the political coalitions and complicate partisan rhetoric than change U.S. foreign policy, which has perplexed some of his more consistent allies. President Joe Biden botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan and in the process risked the progress of foreign-policy restraint in the Middle East. But the withdrawal needed to happen, he saw it through to completion in the face of withering Republican criticism, and it would not have been pretty or cost-free no matter who was president at the time. Yet few buy Biden’s argument that a relative lack of boots on the ground amid a large U.S. role in proxy wars, including one involving nuclear-armed Russia, is really peace. Progressives have for mainly Trump-centric reasons abandoned any skepticism of the Biden-Harris administration’s policy on Ukraine. And their concerns about the war in Gaza appear to be driven at least as much by identity politics as latent peacenik tendencies. One now hears in private conversations generic Republican voters talk about the military-industrial complex. The people who roll their eyes at that kind of talk now discard their conservative domestic policy priorities to vote for Democrats. The generic Republicans in turn roll their eyes at them, even (and perhaps especially) when they have the stature of someone like Dick Cheney. The conservatism of Trump’s new friends is suspect as well. RFK over Ben Carson at the Department of Health and Human Services would be bad news for pro-lifers, for example. There has also been a troubling tendency among intervention skeptics to revert to old, fringier habits while in greater proximity to political power than during the Bush-Cheney years. This is nevertheless one of the most dramatic political changes of our times and a rare reason for cautious optimism.  The post The Real Realignment appeared first on The American Conservative.

Six Jews executed in a tunnel by Hamas. Where are the “human rights” organizations? The post Silence After Murder Most Foul appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Troubling and dangerous ties with a communist tyranny. The post Greenfield Video: Walz’s China Romance appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Good job, media. The post Introducing Dan Bilzerian, Crazed Jew-Hater on X appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Where does Harris stand, exactly, on immediate deportation and proof of citizenship to vote? The post Kamala’s Open Doors for Violent Inadmissible Illegals appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Why is he still employed at a New Jersey hospital? The post Imam Khalil Adem: From Kidnapping to Threatening the End of Jews appeared first on Frontpage Mag.