Bush Ads Exploit 9/11 Victims

clk said:


The country united after 9/11. The same thing would have happened no matter who the President was.
Click to expand...

80-90%? And held it for as long as he did? and the international coalition formed on Afghanistan? These things among the myriad of homeland security initiatives that he worked for? None of his post 9/11 support was due to leadership? It can all be brushed aside as "outgroup threat"? There wasn't even a little leadership going on there? I find that very hard to swallow.
 
RandFan said:
Transleted: I'll do my best to keep any context out of the discussion.

Any suggestion is in your own mind. The point is not what others might have done but what in fact Bush did.
Click to expand...
That's a bit extreme. Context is cool. Debating issues thoroughly explored elsewhere is just derailing.

Your second point, well taken, although the issue is not what he did, or didn't do, but whether the 9/11 should be used in commercials.
 
DaChew said:


80-90%? And held it for as long as he did? and the international coalition formed on Afghanistan? These things among the myriad of homeland security initiatives that he worked for? None of his post 9/11 support was due to leadership? It can all be brushed aside as "outgroup threat"? There wasn't even a little leadership going on there? I find that very hard to swallow.
Click to expand...
Hey, I was extreme, I'll grant you that a little leadership was going on.
 
Brown said:
Lyndon Johnson may or may not have been a great president, but he exhibited leadership. He was famous for building consensus for his programs. Even those who were opposed to him were at times drawn toward his unity of purpose.
Click to expand...
"Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The country was deeply divided and not just between Republicans and Democrats. Many blue collar Democrats supported Johnson and the war in Vietnam.

"I will not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president."
--LBJ

My response is that I don't necassarily disagree that Johnson was what you say he was. My point is that history when viewed through an ideological filter is more likely than not to be slanted.

There is plenty of amunition to argue that Johnson's policies deeply divided this nation in a profound way.
 
Brown said:
Consider: Assuming the terrorist groups would love to see Bush thrown out of office by the November elections, which course of action should they take: (1) stage another major incident in the months before the election, or (2) remain quiet.
Click to expand...
(2) remain quiet - unless the 'major incident' killed W, of course.
 
RandFan said:
There is plenty of amunition to argue that Johnson's policies deeply divided this nation in a profound way.
Click to expand...
In a sense, Lyndon Johnson's presidency was the greatest disappointment of the 20th Century. He had one of the most stellar opportunities for greatness.... but the VietNam War got in his way.

Unfortunately, Johnson used his consensus-building techniques to mire the USA further into that conflict. In retrospect, that was his big mistake.

So many of Johnson's domestic initiatives pertaining to poverty, education, civil rights.... all overshadowed by Southeast Asia.
 
Brown said:
Consider: Assuming the terrorist groups would love to see Bush thrown out of office by the November elections, which course of action should they take: (1) stage another major incident in the months before the election, or (2) remain quiet.
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about speculative.

But hey, I like the question. Let's see, calls for additional questions.

1.) Why would the terrorists love to see bush thrown out?

2.) Do the terrorists think that someone other than Bush would be more helpful to them?

3.) How?

4.) Is there any evidence or reason to believe that someone other than Bush would be tougher on Israel? Remember the plans for 9/11 were in planning during Clinton's presidency?

5.) Is there any evidence or reason to believe that the terrorists are interested in something other than the destruction of American?

6.) If the answer is "no", then how will the removal of Bush facilitate their desires?
 
It would be just plain bizarre for Bush to pretend that 9/11 - a defining day for our nation - didn't happen. The Bush ad was understated and tasteful. As another poster stated, Bush's use of 9/11 is far more tasteful than Kerry's hawking of Vietnam...
 
DaChew said:


80-90%? And held it for as long as he did? and the international coalition formed on Afghanistan? These things among the myriad of homeland security initiatives that he worked for? None of his post 9/11 support was due to leadership? It can all be brushed aside as "outgroup threat"? There wasn't even a little leadership going on there? I find that very hard to swallow.
Click to expand...

Let me try to clarify: the country would have unified behind whoever was the President. That does not mean that the Bush did not exhibit leadership. I probably should take back my previous statement. Now I remember that Bush visited the firefighters in NYC and this was probably a morale booster for the city and the country. I think he did exhibit good leadership during that time.
 
Having watched the ad (without sound since I am at work) I can't see where the exploitation is. It's no different than any other campaign ad I've seen where candidates compete by showing who loves and cares for USA and its people more. The reference to 9/11 is no more than few seconds in length and I took a screenshot of it, which is essentially few images morphing from one to another. I took two that were the most significant.

Bush1.jpg


Bush2.jpg
 
9/11 happened. Bush took action. Vote on whether or not you like the actions he took, or vote on whether or not you think Kerry could do better.

They both have records that you can look up.
 
Personally, I think Bush was testing the water for some more serious claims...

Hopefully this sort of backlash will convince him that these sorts of campaign tactics are not without peril.

Kerry should pay attention too.
 
Demigorgon said:
BS
Click to expand...
Translation: Gainsaying.

I'm wondering Demigorgon if you are capable of logical argument or do you only posses the skill of a third grader?

Johny: Uh-uh
Suzy: Is to
Johny: Is not
Suzy: Is to
Johny: Is not...

It always warm my heart to log into a skeptics forum and see elementary school attempts at logic.

Thanks for not letting me down Demigorgon.
 
And remember NYC recently rejected the Patriot Act, ostensibly done in its name.
This is not just Democrats, there are Republicans whose loved ones died that feel its inappropriate.
Let's respect one another's opinions.
If you think its OK, I will live with that. And so will you.
If every vote is counted, the voters will decide.
 
subgenius said:
And remember NYC recently rejected the Patriot Act, ostensibly done in its name.
This is not just Democrats, there are Republicans whose loved ones died that feel its inappropriate.
Let's respect one another's opinions.
If you think its OK, I will live with that. And so will you.
If every vote is counted, the voters will decide.
Click to expand...

What?
 
a_unique_person said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/elec04.prez.giuliani.bush/index.html

Giuliani defends Bush and his use of 9/11. Of course he would, he sold plenty of copies on his book on the strength of it.
Click to expand...
And Chicago's Mayor Daley (a Democrat) also says it was not innapropriate, and fair game.

The 9/11 attacks were a defining moment of the Bush presidency, why wouldn't he use it? It's obvious why the Dems don't want him to!

Wait till they start showing clips of Bush w/ the megaphone in the debris of the WTC, this is what the Dems are trying to stop in future ads, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom