“Will you see the movie?” That’s a question going around America right now.

Reviews have generally been positive, but there’s no doubt it’s an intense movie and will bring back a flood of memories from that fateful day. Reviewer Bill McCuddy recently warned potential viewers they would “go down into the ground” with the airplane.

In any conflict it’s important for the public to understand the reason to place men and treasure in harm’s way, and the war on Islamic terror is no different. Of all the events on September the 11th Flight 93 was obviously a tiny ray of sunshine poking through a very dark cloud.

The only constructive reason to capture it on film, or for that matter see it, would be to learn from it. Movies about the other three flights would serve no other purpose but to glorify the terrorists. Flight 93 was about fighting back. As someone recently said, those passengers, through cellphone and airphone technology, grimly understood their fate and decided to launch the first counterattack of the war.

Any discussion of this subject would be incomplete without mentioning the effect the Iraq war might be having on the memory of the actions of those passengers. Regardless of which side one takes, the answer wouldn’t change the fact that certain Islamist groups wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible before the Iraq decision was made, and we have no reason to believe they’ve changed their minds.

Personally, I plan to see the film. Part of that decision is due to historical curiosity–I’m interested to see how they portray the FAA, DoD and airlines involved in the day’s events amidst a blevy of conspiracy theories on the web. But mostly it’s a desire to be reminded that there are still heroes in this world and on why we need to continue the fight.

MORE

John Podhoretz provides a very well-thought out review of the movie and why Americans should see it.

The Right Truth blog also has a review, which includes the following:

Writer / director / producer Paul Greengrass is a liberal. He says we must put our liberal and conservative views aside when it comes to this terror and protecting the United States. Rush Limbaugh has done a sit-down interview with Mr. Greengrass. The printed interview will come out in the next three weeks in the Limbaugh Letter. He is airing excepts from the interview on his radio show.

Joke about Rush if you like (he deserves some of it), and remind us he’ll put his own spin on it (he will), but Mr. Greengrass’s perspective is the important thing here. George Bush will be gone in a few years, and if the republicans continue their foot-shooting ways the democrats might wake up back in power, despite Howard Dean. But such events won’t change the terrorist mission statement one bit.

Is there a worse public speaker in the Senate than Susan Collins (R-ME)? It must be the way she puts AN. EQUAL. EMPHAISIS. ON. EVERY. WORD. SHE. SPEAKS.

As if that weren’t painful enough, Collins’ latest news conference had her paired up with Sen. Joe “Lullaby” Lieberman (D-CT). This dynamic duo stole the show yesterday with *shocker* criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of Katrina.

As Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, it was Collins’ pleasure to annouce the committee’s new best seller, “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared.” You heard right — according to the United States Senate, we’re still unprepared for a hurricance that hit last year. Actually, isn’t that pretty much par for the course for big government?

The big recommendation of the report is this: to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and replace it with “a stronger authority” called the National Preparedness and Response Authority (NPRA). So the Senate wants to fix a “bumbling bureaucracy” by creating an even larger bureaucracy; leave it to government to fix big government with bigger government.

Meanwhile, Collins’ Republican colleagues were hard at work drafting “solutions” to our nation’s “energy crisis.” The plan’s centerpiece involves mailing out $100 tax rebate checks to help taxpayers purchase gasoline. How does the Senate plan to offset tax revenue? According to Senator John Thune (R-SD), the legislation “would suspend a number of tax credits and royalty waivers received by oil corporations.”

As James Taranto notes,

Thune is going to cut taxes on the purchasers of fuel and make up for it by raising taxes on the producers of fuel. Whatever the merits of the tax breaks he proposes suspending, it seems clear that the producers would pass the costs on to the consumers.

In other words, the Senate wants to rob Peter to pay Peter.