On September 11, 2001, terrorists tried to murder me and destroyed my office. They killed 3,000 of my fellow Americans. A decent human being would be respectful of the dead and the traumatized from that event in drawing comparisons of domestic political controversies to 9/11.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is not a decent human being. He is a moral monster, and he advertised that in today’s column, entitled “Roe’s impending reversal is a 9/11 attack on America’s social fabric”: “Assuming little changes from the draft, overturning Roe would be a shock to our way of life, the social equivalent of the 9/11 attacks (which shattered our sense of physical security) or the crash of 2008 (which undid our sense of financial security).”
This is despicable. Overturning Roe, a decision based upon careful analysis of the United States Constitution — a thing with which Milbank seems unfamiliar, and for which he has no regard — allows the American political system to protect innocent children from wanton massacre. To compare that protection to mass terroristic murder is a confession of moral bankruptcy, and it desecrates the graves of Americans who gave their lives that day. Everyone associated with the Washington Post ought to be ashamed to have anything to do with Milbank.