The Mayor Who Cannot Name the Murderers

There are occasions when a politician is required to say what happened. September 11 is one of them.

Nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Islamist terrorists. They were not unfortunate extras in some abstract pageant of global suffering. They were not incidental casualties of an unspecified “war that followed.” They were murdered by men who hijacked passenger aircraft and flew them into buildings on purpose. It is hard to think of a historical fact that requires less interpretation.

Yet the words of New York City’s Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, have raised the awkward question of whether he means to mark the day as an act of remembrance or as another occasion to lecture the public about the consequences of American foreign policy.

A post from 2023 has resurfaced. “Nearly 3,000 New Yorkers died on 9/11; 22 years later, the death hasn't stopped. We mourn our neighbors who died that day. The hundreds of thousands who died in the wars that followed. The unknown millions injured & displaced. In their memory, we work toward a better world,” Mamdani wrote on X in 2023.

There is nothing objectionable in mourning civilians killed in later wars. There is nothing objectionable in wanting a better world. There is something peculiar, however, in commemorating the greatest terrorist attack in American history without mentioning the terrorists.

The sentence contains the dead. It contains the wars. It contains the injured and the displaced. It contains the pious hope of a better world. What it does not contain is the word “terrorists.” Nor does it say that the nearly 3,000 New Yorkers were murdered. This may appear a small matter of wording. To the families of the dead it is not.

Some of those families are now asking that Mamdani stay away from New York’s 25th-anniversary commemoration. Their unease has only grown after his interview with Hasan Piker, who said in 2019, “America deserved 9/11.”

Mamdani first declined to condemn the remark. He later called it “objectionable and reprehensible.” One might have thought that identifying as reprehensible the claim that America deserved to be attacked by terrorists would be the easy part. Apparently even that required a pause for reflection.

Marc Thiessen, who was inside the Pentagon when the planes hit, was less given to philosophical hesitation. “As someone who was in the Pentagon when the planes hit, this is absolutely disgraceful. You have no business ever setting foot at Ground Zero, much less on 9/11. If you dare show up, I hope you are greeted with such a Bronx cheer that you slink away in shame,” wrote Thiessen.

New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov was no more impressed. “I guess they all just ‘died’ in an accident? And then you wonder why the families of 9/11 victims don’t want you at the ceremony. Stay home, Mamdani,” wrote Vernikov.

Florida Rep. Randy Fine was blunter still. “Nearly 25 years later, NYC’s Mayor is in bed with Muslim terrorists and refuses to call out evil for what it is. Unfortunately, it seems the city forgot when they elected Jihadi Mamdani mayor. But we never will,” wrote Fine.

Fox News contributor and former NYPD officer Paul Mauro offered the mayor some advice. “You've made this easy. Don't show up on 9/11 this year -- or any year. We're not interested in your moral equivalency, nepo baby. Stick to the parlor communism daddy taught you. You and your buddy Piker can spend the day practicing Mandarin,” he said.

Michael La Rosa, a former spokesman for first lady DOCTOR Jill Biden, captured the general reaction with economy. “Is this real?”

Nancy Mace had no interest in economy of that kind. “Americans were MURDERED by TERRORISTS in the most horrific way,” she wrote.

Joey Jones, co-host of “Big Weekend Show,” put the matter more personally. “What a coward. They were murdered and sleep well at night knowing I and thousands of my brothers did our part to even the f—–g score,” he wrote.

The argument is not about whether wars produce suffering. Everyone knows that they do. It is about whether September 11 can be spoken of without first stating the most elementary moral fact of the day.The terrorists did this. They chose their targets. They chose their victims. They chose to murder thousands of people. And those who died were not responsible for the wars that followed their deaths.

That is why the language used to commemorate September 11 matters. There are many days in the year for arguing about American foreign policy. There are fewer for remembering 3,000 people who were murdered because Islamist terrorists decided they should die.

Mamdani says he intends to attend the commemoration to honor the victims, survivors, families and first responders alongside Vice President JD Vance and former presidents, including Biden and Bush. Some of the families would prefer that he think again.

A petition organized by several victims’ families asks the organizers to consider whether his presence is appropriate to the purpose of the ceremony. “We respectfully ask that the organizers carefully consider whether Mr. Mamdani’s participation would align with the intention of the ceremony and the expectations of the families most directly affected by the tragedy,” a Change.org petition states.

It is a reasonable question.

There is a difference between remembering that thousands of people were killed and remembering why they were killed. The first requires memory. The second requires moral clarity.

On September 11, 2001, New York did not suffer an unfortunate episode in the general history of human misery. It was attacked. And nearly 3,000 people were murdered. For the families who lost them, that remains difficult to forget. One would hope the mayor of New York could manage the same.

I will always remember the soot from office papers that ended up in the gutters of my Brooklyn home.

What do you remember about that day 25 years ago?

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Trump asks Stefanik to withdraw from UN ambassadorship

Say what you will about President Donald Trump, but the man knows how to keep his pieces on the board. Recently, he took to Truth Social—his digital fiefdom—to announce that he’d asked Representative Elise Stefanik, the New York firebrand, to step back from the gilded prospect of becoming U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Why? Because the House Republicans are clinging to a majority so slender it could snap under the weight of a single defection. 

Trump, ever the pragmatist, spelled it out: "I have asked Elise, as one of my biggest Allies, to remain in Congress to help me deliver Historic Tax Cuts, GREAT Jobs, Record Economic Growth, a Secure Border, Energy Dominance, Peace Through Strength, and much more, so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." No mincing words there—just the bullish cadence of a man who sees the game and plays it.

He went on: "With a very tight Majority, I don’t want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise’s seat. The people love Elise and, with her, we have nothing to worry about come Election Day. There are others that can do a good job at the United Nations." 

Fair enough. Stefanik’s a proven loyalist, a congressional pit bull who’s bitten into the Democrats’ ankles more than once. Why risk her district for a role that, let’s be honest, others could muddle through? Trump’s not wrong—the U.N. is a bloated talking shop where “good enough” often suffices.

But the plot thickens, as it always does in the swampy mire of American politics. 

CBS News whispered that Stefanik was under pressure to bow out, despite a Senate confirmation that looked like a bipartisan cakewalk. The razor-thin Republican edge in the House was the headline reason, but Fox News Digital dug deeper, unearthing a mess of local squabbles in Stefanik’s New York district. Primaries there are a peculiar beast, and the Republican grandees can’t agree on who’d inherit her throne. 

Two insiders, steeped in the state’s political muck, warned of a potential special election nightmare. One told Fox: "Elise has been saying [they] need to wait for Trump, and it's allowed the process to grow out of control." A fair jab, perhaps, but this source wasn’t letting the party bosses off the hook either, noting their failure to quash the infighting. "Nature abhors a vacuum," they said. "And you have 15 different county chairs, basically like three different regions of the state, pushing their own person. It's a really messy, ugly process." 

Truer words were never spoken—politics is a knife fight, and when the leadership dithers, the blades come out.

This same source mused that Stefanik was "one of the first ones ready to go" for Trump’s inner circle. Had she bolted for the administration right after his inauguration, would the chaos have been avoided? Maybe. But the second source wasn’t so charitable: "She let that happen." They argued Stefanik’s failure to anoint a successor early left the field in disarray, with ambitious nobodies circling like vultures. Both agreed on one danger: a rogue conservative running third-party could split the vote. The first source flagged a New York Conservative Party darling who "never supported Trump"—a heretic in these parts. In Stefanik’s ruby-red district, a Democratic upset seems fanciful, but stranger things have happened when egos fracture the right.

The stakes are high. Republicans can’t afford to bleed seats with their House margin already on life support. 

Look at Florida—Randy Fine, a Republican, is getting out-fundraised by a Democrat in a special election for another safe seat come April 1. In New York, the rules are even trickier: special elections skip open primaries, leaving the 15 county chairs to play kingmaker. 

Some fret that Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat with a taste for socialism, might stall the vote if Stefanik jumped ship, leaving the seat vacant and the GOP a vote short.

Trump, undeterred, doubled down on Thursday: "Elise will stay in Congress, rejoin the House Leadership Team, and continue to fight for our amazing American People. Speaker Johnson is thrilled! I look forward to the day when Elise is able to join my Administration in the future." What role she’ll reclaim remains murky—her old gig as House GOP Conference Chair now belongs to Michigan’s Lisa McClain. Stefanik’s spokesperson, predictably, didn’t bother replying to Fox’s queries. 

Silence is its own answer.

So here we are: a tale of loyalty, strategy, and the perennial dysfunction of party politics. Trump’s keeping Stefanik in the trenches, where she’s most useful, while the New York GOP fumbles in the dark. It’s a reminder that in this game, strength isn’t just in numbers—it’s in knowing who you can trust when the knives come out.

"Thanks for reading! If you’d like to toss a coffee my way, check out my Buy Me A Coffee—means a lot!"

Tweet