In other words, these people want to implement socialism to commemorate freedom.
I have never liked "eminent domain" uses like this, which is what the United 93 families are trying to call the seizure. But this isn't for something needed like a highway or whatever. In this case it boils down to taking privately-held property (owned by Svonavec Inc.) by force of government, for benefit of a very few people.
Look, I think that what the passengers on United 93 did was courage personified. And their example is certainly something that all people can look to as an act of selfless abandon. But it is wrong to attempt to "memorialize" those who fought back on United 93 by violating the virtues of the country that they wound up doing everything in their power to protect.
You want to know what would be a much more appropriate memorial to United 93? Let the owners of Svonavec do with the field as they see fit. If "they" indeed "hate us for our freedoms" then what better way to give "the terris" a giant middle finger than to show 'em 2,200 acres of pure undefeated capitalism?
(Incidentally, 2,200 acres is how big the United 93 families want the memorial to be. Isn't the Vietnam War Memorial at Arlington something like one or two acres?)
Wouldn't surprise me if Bush approved the seizure in his final days as President. The man has shown so little regard for conservative values anyway: why should he feel obligated to demonstrate 'em now?