This editorial cartoon published in The World Journal Sunday Forum is just in time for the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The image rendition does not attempt to provoke or record the sensation of terror and sorrow of that tragic morning, neither does it make an appeal to group loyalty of honoring or, very often, over-glorifying the heroism.
這幅刊於世報週日論壇的時事畫評，正好趕上9/11恐怖攻擊的十週年紀念。畫面表達既不企圖挑動或記錄那悲劇之日的恐懼與悲傷感受，也不訴諸集體忠誠，來褒揚或過度榮耀英雄主義。
Its a task for me to handle such a heavy theme involved with thousands of civilians killed, I had to be very cautious to keep my opinions within the bounds of what society as a whole will accept while at the same time delivering a humorous slant. I think I did a good job.
處理涉及數千國民死亡，如此沉重的主題，對我是個挑戰，我必須非常小心在社會大眾能接受的範圍內來表達我的意見，於此同時還得帶點幽默。我想我做得不錯。
Ive been reviewing "a flood of anniversary commentary" from both the mainstream English and Chinese media these days and found a well-reflective article written by Mr. E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post, which, in my opinion, can narrate for my pictorial work best.
近日瀏覽中西媒體“大量的週年評論”，在華郵發現迪歐尼先生寫的一篇思想深刻的文章，我認為最能闡述我的畫評作品。
As one can see from the straight-forward title "Time to leave 9/11 behind", the assertion of Mr. Dionnes commentary presents no doublespeak as well , neither the writing consists of euphemism and the like. This article is rational, convincing and, above all, sincere.
見諸其直接了當的標題《就讓9/11過去吧》，迪歐尼先生評論的主張既不含糊，修辭亦不委婉。這篇文章理性、具說服力，最重要的是--真誠。
華郵社論
Time to leave 9/11 behind
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Published:：September 7
（Translated by Chinghuey Tiao 刁卿蕙 譯 )
After we honor the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we need to leave the day behind. As a nation we have looked back for too long. We learned lessons from the attacks, but so many of them were wrong. The last decade was a detour that left our nation weaker, more divided and less certain of itself.
在紀念完2001年9/11攻擊十週年後，我們需將此日置之身後了。對一國而言，我等已回顧太久。我們雖自此攻擊學到教訓，但其中多有謬誤。繞了十年圈子已使吾國衰弱，分歧愈甚，自信愈少。
Reflections on the meaning of the horror and the years that followed are inevitably inflected by our own political or philosophical leanings. It’s a critique that no doubt applies to my thoughts as well. We see what we choose to see and use the event as we want to use it.
反思此恐怖之意義及接踵而來的這些年，不可避免地會被己身之政治或哲學傾向所屈折。這批判無疑也適用於我的想法。我們只見我們選擇所見，利用此事為所欲為。
This does nothing to honor those who died and those who sacrificed to prevent even more suffering. In the future, the anniversary will best be reserved as a simple day of remembrance in which all of us humbly offer our respect for the anguish and the heroism of those individuals and their families.
這並無助於尊重那些死者和那些為了阻擋更多苦難而犧牲的人。往後，週年最好保留成一個單純紀念的日子，值此日我們全體謙卑地向那些個人及其家屬所受的煎熬與英勇表現致上敬意。
But if we continue to place 9/11 at the center of our national consciousness, we will keep making the same mistakes. Our nation’s future depended on far more than the outcome of a vaguely defined “war on terrorism,” and it still does. Al-Qaeda is a dangerous enemy. But our country and the world were never threatened by the caliphate of its mad fantasies.
倘使我們續將9/11置於吾國意識中心，則將不斷重蹈覆轍。吾國之未來曾太過倚重於一個定義模糊之「反恐戰爭」的結果，現時依然如此。阿凱達是個危險敵人，但我國與世界絕不受哈里發之狂想所威脅。
We asked for great sacrifice over the past decade from the very small portion of our population who wear the country’s uniform, particularly the men and women of the Army and the Marine Corps. We should honor them, too. And, yes, we should pay tribute to those in the intelligence services, the FBI and our police forces who have done such painstaking work to thwart another attack.
過去十年，我們要求來自吾邦人口中極少數的軍公人員做出了大犧牲，以在陸軍和海軍陸戰隊服役之男女為尤。榮耀他們，誠屬當然。是的，我們該致意的，還有情報人員，聯邦調查局探員和警方，因其鉅細靡遺之工作已然防堵了另次攻擊。
It was often said that terrorism could not be dealt with through “police work,” as if the difficult and unheralded labor involved was not grand or bold enough to satisfy our longing for clarity in what was largely a struggle in the shadows.
過去常說恐怖主義不能經由「檢警工作」來應付，彷彿其所涉之艱難和未曾提及的勞苦，還未大或明顯到可滿足我們對清晰之渴望，而多半在陰暗處吃力地進行。
Forgive me, but I find it hard to forget former president George W. Bush’s 2004 response to Sen. John Kerry’s comment that “the war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation.”
Bush retorted: “I disagree — strongly disagree. .. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got.” What The Washington Post called “an era of endless war” is what we got, too.
原諒我，但我實在難忘前總統喬治．布希於2004年回應參議員約翰．凱瑞的評論，凱瑞說「反恐之戰較非軍事上之行動，而多關情報蒐集與執法操作。」 布希反駁道:「我不同意 --強烈不同意…在9月11日的混亂和大屠殺之後，以法律文件來伺侯咱們的敵人是不夠的。恐怖份子和他們的支持者發動了攻擊，這就是向美國宣戰，戰爭就是他們應得的。」當時華盛頓郵報名之為「一個沒完沒了的戰爭時代」，我們也得著了。
Bush, of course, understood the importance of “intelligence gathering” and “law enforcement.” His administration presided over a great deal of both, and his supporters spoke, with justice, of his success in staving off further acts of terror. Yet he could not resist the temptation to turn on Kerry’s statement of the obvious. Thus was an event that initially united the nation used, over and over, to aggravate our political disharmony. This is also why we must put it behind us.
雙方當然都暸解「情報蒐集」和「執法」的重要。 其政府大力統轄二者，他的支持者總語帶正義地提及布希成功地延緩了更多恐怖行動。然而他卻很難抗拒凱瑞其理自明的說法。因此，在最初用來團結國家的一樁事件，便重複地加劇我們的政治歧異。這也是我們須置之於身後的原因。
In the flood of anniversary commentary, notice how often the term “the lost decade” has been invoked. We know now, as we should have known all along, that American strength always depends first on our strength at home — on a vibrant, innovative and sensibly regulated economy, on levelheaded fiscal policies, on the ability of our citizens to find useful work, on the justice of our social arrangements.
在如潮湧般的週年評論文章中，注意「失落的十年」一辭是如何地頻被召喚。現在我們知道了，我們本來一直就該知道，歷來美國國力首決於我們國內的力量---倚賴一個活力，創新和理性規劃之經濟，一個穩重冷靜的財經政策，吾國公民覓得有用工作的能力與公道的社會措施。
This is not “isolationism.” It is a common sense that was pushed aside by the talk of “glory” and “honor,” by utopian schemes to transform the world by abruptly reordering the Middle East — and by our fears. While we worried that we would be destroyed by terrorists, we ignored the larger danger of weakening ourselves by forgetting what made us great.
此非「孤立主義」，是一種常識，已然被「榮耀」與「榮譽」之說，被以猝然重組中東秩序，期能改造世界的不切實際策略--以及被我們的恐懼，給推到了一邊。當我們擔心可能會被恐怖份子毀滅時，我們忽視了令我們衰弱的更大危險，那就是忘記了我們之所以偉大的原因。
We have no alternative from now on but to look forward and not back. This does not dishonor the fallen heroes, and Lincoln explained why at Gettysburg. “We can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow this ground,” he said. “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.” The best we could do, Lincoln declared, was to commit ourselves to “a new birth of freedom.” This is still our calling.
從現在起，我們別無選擇，唯有前瞻而非後顧。這並未羞辱罹難英雄，林肯在蓋茲堡作了解釋。「我們不能供奉--我們不能聖化--我們不能令此地神聖」，他說「這些勇士，無論是生是死，在這兒奮鬥，已經聖化了這地，這遠非我們的貧瘠力量所能增減。」 林肯宣稱，我們所能盡力而為的，就是承諾自己「一個自由之新生」。這依然是我們的使命。
字體：小 中 大
