How Close Is Close Enough?

I'm still astounded that idiots like Charles Johnson make the unbeatably peurile argument that the mosque is "two blocks away from Ground Zero." It's really not a matter if distance. It's the symbolism. Still, how close is close enough? A landing gear away?

Above photo: A piece of the landing gear that crashed into the building of the proposed Ground Zero mega mosque. The only reason that building was sold for only 4.87 millions dollars (to an NYC waiter, Sharif El-Gamal) for such a distressed price was because of the damage from the 911 attack. That building is a war memorial, a piece of American history. The 911 attack on America continues unabated.

*****

Interesting that the anti-Semitic demonizers at Firedoglake make the same argument repeatedly, and here's the latest:

The Cordoba House, actively fearmongered by the right wing, has become a lightning rod for criticism across the country. In a recent poll, nearly 70% of all Americans oppose the construction of the Islamic Center, which has been falsely called a “Ground Zero mosque” (there’s a place of worship inside the Islamic Center, but it’s mainly a kind of YMCA for the Muslim community. And, it’s not on Ground Zero, but near it).

RELATED: Actually, looks like this is all too close for comfort for President Hussein. He stupidly threw fuel on the fire this morning. See, "Obama Says Mosque Remarks Were Not Endorsement":

President Obama said Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in Lower Manhattan, he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of that project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion.

Mr. Obama, who was visiting the Gulf Coast with his wife and youngest daughter for an overnight stay, made his comments at the Coast Guard district station here.

On Friday night, he used the White House iftar, a sunset dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, to weigh in on the mosque controversy.

In clarifying his remarks, Mr. Obama was apparently seeking to address criticism that he was using his presidential platform to promote a project that has aroused the ire of many New Yorkers. White House officials said earlier Saturday that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote that particular project, but rather sought to make a broader statement about freedom of religion and American values.

Later in the day, the White House press office elaborated further, issuing yet another statement.

“Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night,” it said.

Right. "Not backing off." Got it.

More at Memeorandum. See especially John Hinderaker on the left's unhinged terror apologists, "Obama's Finest Moment?":

Greg Sargent is a left-winger who worked for Editor & Publisher magazine. When that publication went broke, he caught on as a blogger at the Washington Post. Today he hailed President Obama's endorsement of Cordoba House as "One of the finest moments of Obama's presidency." That's damning with faint praise, some would say, but it is interesting to follow Sargent's logic. He agrees with us that Obama intended his remarks to be taken as a strong endorsement of the Ground Center mosque:

Obama didn't just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity. ... Obama went much further than [to acknowledge the legal rights of the project's backers]. He asserted that we must "welcome" and "respect" those of other faiths, suggesting that the group behind the center deserves the same, and said flat out that anything less is un-American.

I think that fairly sums up Obama's remarks. Sargent contrasts Obama's enthusiasm with the Cordoba House's reception on the right:

Many opponents of the project have been employing a clever little dodge. They say they don't question the group's legal right to build it under the Constitution. Rather, they say, they're merely criticizing the group's decision to do so, on the grounds that it's insensitive to 9/11 families and will undercut the project's goal of reconciliation. The group has the right to build the center, runs this argument, but they are wrong to exercise it.

That, too, fairly sums up our position and that of many conservatives. But why is this a "clever little dodge"? Does Sargent believe that everything a person has a legal right to do is a good thing? He never addresses any of the facts that cause critics of the Cordoba House project to believe that it is a bad idea: the cultural center's proposed location adjacent to Ground Zero; the fact that it is named after the capital of the Muslim caliphate in Spain; the fact that the person most closely identified with the project, Abdul Rauf, blamed the U.S. for the September 11 attacks; the curious reticence of the project's front men to explain where the $100 million needed for the cultural center will come from; and the plethora of mosques already available in New York at locations other than Ground Zero.

I've added the bold highlighting at the quote. Idiot leftists rarely discuss why the public has problems with this, and notice that part about "the cultural center's proposed location adjacent to Ground Zero..."

I noted previously how the Mega Mosque controversy was becoming a central political issue at the time of the 9th anniversary of 9/11. President Hussein has guaranteed that it'll be one of the top election issues in November as well.