Where's the Freedom Tower?

On this, the seventh anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks, it should be noted that it took all of 410 days to build the Empire State Building here in New York City. This is significant because in the 77 odd years since that structure was opened, technology has improved, and workers are at least as capable. So why, seven years after 9-11, do we have no permanent structure built on the footprint of the Twin Towers?

That answer is simple. Political wrangling, changing plans, and a myriad of local, state, and federal agencies with their fingers in the pie have conspired to make a mockery of the one thing the nation seemed determined to do in the wake of the terror attacks. That is, simply, to rebuild. The sordid history of a foundation laid and removed, one plan on paper that was ultimately scrapped, and competing political egos doesn't warrant repeating here. Suffice to say there's plenty of blame to go around.

Now New York's mayor wants the state agency charged with supervising the rebuild at Ground Zero dissolved. He says, rightly, they've botched the job. The proof? Just take the subway to lower Manhattan and look for yourself. However, getting rid of a government agency is easier said than done. At least one powerful politician stands in Mayor Bloomberg's way, and that person has blocked some of the mayor's initiatives in the past.

Now you might say political squabbling is a bit untoward on this, the anniversary of 9-11. You'd be right, but this is New York. Politicians will fight on any day and at any time. While they do, the hole that is Ground Zero sits, waiting for the spirit of unity the city and nation showed on that awful day to reappear.

It could be a long wait.

Tactics Shift in the Hunt for bin Laden

On the eve of the 7th anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks, the US is changing strategy in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In doing so, they're beginning to acknowledge mistakes that some have been pointing out for a long time now. The question is whether they're making other errors in this tactical shift.

US, Pakistani, and European officials admit they haven't had a solid lead on bin Laden's whereabouts since they came close to nailing him at Tora Bora in December of '01. They also say the war in Iraq has been a major obstacle. That's right, the war Bush said was central in fighting the war on terror has in fact been an impediment in finding the world's most sought after terrorist. So now the question is, how do you change tactics after a fruitless search of seven years?

The answer, at least in this case, is the Predator drone spy plane. Because the Pakistani government has made it difficult for the CIA and Special Forces to operate freely in their territory, the Predator, with its deadly Hellfire missiles, has been seen as a viable alternative. Problem is, in tripling the number of missile attacks along the Afghan-Pakistan border in recent months, the number of civilian casualties has spiraled. This has made enemies of the Pashtun tribes along the border. That in turn makes it more difficult to cultivate the human intelligence needed to figure out where bin Laden is hiding.

It's significant that no one has ratted bin Laden out despite a $25 million dollar reward posted by the US. Perhaps the possible redeployment of US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan may make a difference, if it ever happens. Perhaps the change in leadership in Pakistan can mend frayed US- Pakistan relations. And maybe a new administration in Washington can come up with a new and innovative strategy to capture the man whose very freedom is America's biggest failure.

Or maybe Osama bin Laden will die of old age in the hills of Pakistan. What do you think?

Hillary Won't Pick a Fight

It was her first campaign stump since the Democratic National Convention, where she clearly hit a home run in asking her supporters to back Barack Obama. Senator Hillary Clinton made several stops across central Florida Monday, but if someone expected her to lower the boom on Sarah Palin, they would have been disappointed. Her former communications director Howard Wolfson said she wouldn't get involved in "cat fights" with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, and yesterday, he was right.

Hillary Clinton may have said "No McCain, no Palin", but that's as far as she would go. When asked specifically about the Alaska governor, she wouldn't take the bait. She's probably smart not to. There's no reason other than the fact both are women to expect Hillary Clinton to go after Palin. Better Joe BIden, who, after all, is running for the same office, to handle the task of stopping the Palin Express.

There are also signs that former President Clinton may soon be adding his heft to the Obama effort. He's due to lunch with Obama in Harlem day after tomorrow, and perhaps stumping for the Illinois senator could be on the agenda. Sure, there was bad blood between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, but that was then. If anyone can present the case for electing Obama with a laser-like focus on the economy, it's Bill Clinton. Recent polling says Obama's margin over McCain on economic issues is slipping. Keep the campaign focused on Bush bungling and McCain's economic ignorance and Obama should win no matter what the polls say a week after Labor Day.

McCain will continue to push the notion that Obama isn't ready to lead, and is somehow so character flawed as not to be trusted. Both the Clintons can swat those arguments aside like Venus Williams at the US Open.

Will they?

Another Term for Bloomberg and Friends?

Yeah, I know the presidential sweepstakes kicks off in earnest today. And yeah, Hillary Clinton will be in Florida on behalf of Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin will go on World News Tonight. Still, today we talk local. There's a move afoot in New York City to overturn the will of the voters. Those who would benefit are playing coy, not wanting to discuss it much, for fear of angering the people who put them in office.

I'm talking about changing term limits for local elected officials. Term limits are currently set at two consecutive terms for all members of the City Council, as well as citywide elected officials, including the mayor. The limits were set by voters in a referendum more than a decade ago, then affirmed in a second round of balloting. It's no secret members of the Council have wanted to get rid of them, but they're pretty sure if it goes to another referendum, they'll lose.

So what to do? How about passing a law that sets term limits at three instead of the current two? That kills two birds with one stone. It bypasses the electorate, and it allows elected officials to run for a third term next year. Another referendum couldn't get on the ballot until next year, too late for the current crop to benefit. And what of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who swore up and down he was done on Dec. 31, 2009?

Not so fast. After saying he wouldn't run again but would consider what kind of term limits law the Council passed, Hizzoner seems to have had a change of heart. Not about the consideration part, but about running again. True, he's a popular guy, but in shifting positions doesn't he run the risk of looking like Rudy Giuliani at the end of 2001? You may remember Rudy thought (and still thinks) he was the city's savior, without whom New York might fall apart. When his bid for a third term fizzled, he wanted to stay an extra 90 days. That didn't work either.

Mike Bloomberg has toyed with the presidency, and there's was talk he might run for governor in 2010. He tamped that down, but few people think if term limits were extended he wouldn't make another run for mayor.

You tell me. Should term limits be extended?