Bush Ads Exploit 9/11 Victims

[specious_reasons]

I'm hurt.

I skim threads...maybe I missed it?

I know you care deeply what I think of your debating skills I'll go along with the assumption you didn't see my post...

Feel free to insert a valid reason that does not give any credit to GWB, the WOT, or Homeland Security. I'll be here all week.

1. Well, I think that it's reasonable to assume that GWB's policies can be given some credit. I mean, at the very least, the war on Afghanistan probably did disrupt Al-Qaeda's operations. Other measures and polcies could be shown to help impede imported terrorism.

The more valid debate is asking if there was a better way. In some circumstances, I think there are. This, to me, is an area of valid criticism.

2. Assuming that because there have been no attacks, Bush's policies are good or effective is a logical fallacy. Just like that rock that scares away tigers....

To recap:
You're saying basically that I'm stupid for thinking that because there have been no follow-up attacks after 9/11, that GWB's policies are working....and that it's a shame since many other voters share my stupidity.

Yes, if that's the only reason you can provide to me, you are stupid. In my more cynical moments, I do think that reason alone is enough to sway American voters.

If you can show how GWB's policies cannot be credited for the unusual leniency shown to US by Al Qaeda, then by all means do it. But right now, the inability of Al Qaeda to strike again in the US is speaking pretty loudly in favor of GWB's reelection.

-z

My beef is with this concept of "unusual leniency." Since 1990, foreign terrorists have successfully attacked on US soil twice (3? the Olympics?). There have been at least as many on American targets not in the continental US, including an attack in Saudi Arabia last year, which killed expat Americans. It's easier to hit American targets that are not in America, and so they do. And it has been that way, since before GWB was president.

 

[Cinorjer]

Why do you fear to answer the question? Look, dance all you want, obfuscate, cry, whatever...but if you find that question hard to answer, most Americans will not.

Are you actually that clueless? The terrorists don't give a damn who's President. They would have attacked no matter who was President at the time, and their next attack will come no matter who's President.

And can you actually be saying a different President will be any less tough on terrorists or less interested in tracking down known criminals? Typical right wing thinking, that Democrats are whimps. Maybe if Bush wasn't so busy flexing his muscles in Iraq we would actually have a program to fight and prevent terrorism. Oh, I forgot. We have color codes. Gee, is it "amber alert" today?

Jerry

 

[rikzilla]

1. Well, I think that it's reasonable to assume that GWB's policies can be given some credit. I mean, at the very least, the war on Afghanistan probably did disrupt Al-Qaeda's operations. Other measures and polcies could be shown to help impede imported terrorism.

Mighty charitable of you.

The more valid debate is asking if there was a better way. In some circumstances, I think there are. This, to me, is an area of valid criticism.

Of course it is more valid. Yet the Dems offer no solutions, they merely articulate what they are against. I have very little info from them on what they are FOR.

2. Assuming that because there have been no attacks, Bush's policies are good or effective is a logical fallacy. Just like that rock that scares away tigers....

So you are saying that Bush's policies have the same cumulative effect as the anti-Tiger rock? Yet the rock is static,...while Bush's policies are dynamic. Apples and Oranges.

Yes, if that's the only reason you can provide to me, you are stupid. In my more cynical moments, I do think that reason alone is enough to sway American voters.

Well then,..I'm stupid and you are a naive idiot. So I guess we have more in common, you and I, than our ultimate destination in the afterlife.

My beef is with this concept of "unusual leniency." Since 1990, foreign terrorists have successfully attacked on US soil twice (3? the Olympics?). There have been at least as many on American targets not in the continental US, including an attack in Saudi Arabia last year, which killed expat Americans. It's easier to hit American targets that are not in America, and so they do. And it has been that way, since before GWB was president.

Are you in denial about Al Qaeda(tm) brand terrorism? Well, here's a little heads up. They were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing,...the Tanzania/Kenya embassy bombings,...the USS Cole,....as well as 9/11. Lets look at the frequency; June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing), November 16, 1997 (blackhawk down firefight, Somalia), 7 August 1998 (Tanzania/Kenya), October 12, 2000 (USS Cole bombing), September 11, 2001 (No explanation needed).

Oh, I almost forgot; They were also responsible for the first WTC bomb in 1993....(Ramzi Yusef was an Al Qaeda guy)

So;
February 1993, first WTC bomb....Al Qaeda warmup.
June 1996, Al Qaeda getting more efficient
November 1997, Al Qaeda learns that killing Americans on tv is effective....Osama seeks to work this angle in earnest.
August 1998, Al Qaeda's first big coordinated hit,...their trademark. The event that should have awoken Bill Clinton from his stupor. (it didn't) Clinton responds by blowing up pill factory.
October 2000, USS Cole bombing...Al Qaeda again....lessons still unlearned apparently. Several million $ in cruise missiles decimate deserted Al Qaeda campsite. Many expensive tents destroyed.
September 11,2001 No comment.

Since Sept 11,2001..........................(crickets chirp)


There. Please now compare the record of
Bill (blow me baby) Clinton to GWB. Here's a hint; the WOT, Homeland Security, and Patriot Act were non-existent prior to 9/11. People are not stupid....they can research this stuff very easily if they have a mind to.

-z

 

[specious_reasons]

Dammit Rik, I'm saying if you can point to policies that presumably have the effect of impeding attacks on American soil, thats fine. But, if your only argument is "well, no planes have crashed into building since 9/11" then you're not being rational.

Well then,..I'm stupid and you are a naive idiot. So I guess we have more in common, you and I, than our ultimate destination in the afterlife.


Are you in denial about Al Qaeda(tm) brand terrorism?

So;
February 1993, first WTC bomb....Al Qaeda warmup.
June 1996, Al Qaeda getting more efficient
November 1997, Al Qaeda learns that killing Americans on tv is effective....Osama seeks to work this angle in earnest.
August 1998, Al Qaeda's first big coordinated hit,...their trademark. The event that should have awoken Bill Clinton from his stupor. (it didn't) Clinton responds by blowing up pill factory.
October 2000, USS Cole bombing...Al Qaeda again....lessons still unlearned apparently. Several million $ in cruise missiles decimate deserted Al Qaeda campsite. Many expensive tents destroyed.
September 11,2001 No comment.

Since Sept 11,2001..........................(crickets chirp)

-z

Proved my point:
6 attacks, 4 in foreign countries.

No crickets chirping after 9/11, either:

05/03 - Gunmen attack in Saudi Arabia.

Gulf War II - Bush's own staff is claiming that at least some (though not all) attacks on American military targets in Iraq are from terrorist organizations sneaking into the country.

I think these attacks look like the kind of things a reorganizing Al-Qaeda can get away with after being disrupted in Afghanistan.

I'm assuming since this is third time I've mentioned the Saudi attack that you, for some reason, don't think it counts?

 

[subgenius]

To say that terrorists will dance if your opposition is elected is just a sad thing.
This type of hyperbole does nothing to further a position or rational civil dialogue.

 

[RandFan]

Much as I dislike Bush, I can't see anything offensive in the use of those images. I, do, however think that the flag-draped coffin image opens up the way for Kerry to respond with an ad which shows the flag-draped coffins which are coming back from Iraq on a daily basis.

Wow, very good. I'm not a political strategist so I can't really say for sure if that would be effective in the long run. But it sends chills up my spine. And of course the Republicans will be screaming foul that Kerry would use dead soldiers for a political purpose. Sauce for the gander.

Great point reprise!

 

[epepke]

[modu]This post has been reported for being vulger.

While rude, this post does not violate forum rules. I would encourage Nie Trink Wasser to be more civil in his posts and, failing that, I would encourage other posters to ignore him.

I note that the post has been modified. Perhaps the vulger material was voluntarily removed?[/modu]

I've pretty much given up on trying to get you moderators to understand the difference between "obscene" and "indecent."

However, could we please see some willingness to spell "vulgar" correctly? It really isn't that hard.

 

[epepke]

I've seen those commercials. I don't really see anything offensive, wrong, or even out of the ordinary about them.

However, I could write one hell of a devastating anti-Bush commercial using exactly the same footage. I am accepting bids now.

 

[crackmonkey]

Why is it wrong to suppose that terrorists may wish one man to be elected over another? If they perceive one candidate's foreign policy would be more advantageous to them, they'd certainly hope he'd win.
This seems utterly obvious...

 

[shecky]

To say that terrorists will dance if your opposition is elected is just a sad thing.
This type of hyperbole does nothing to further a position or rational civil dialogue.

Yes, the "dancing terrorist" argument is a ridiculously speculative one that it's advocates really can't address.

But let's expand on the concept with some fantasy play. Suppose through some magic we know voting GWB out of office actually would satisfy al qaeida, and they'd disband and leave the U.S. alone. Would any faithful GWB supporters vote against him in the cause of neutralizing al qaeida? Or would they vote for him on priciple, but putting the U.S. in further risk of being a terrorist target?

 

[subgenius]

Its one thing, to suggest that terrorists may favor one candidate over the other. To say they'd dance is taking it to the extreme and obviously slanders that person by implying that they are on the terrorists side.
I realize others will defend the statement to the hilt. I've almost given up on hoping that anyone can see the other side of an argument around here.
The kind of exaggeration I'm talking about only furthers polarization.

 

[WildCat]

Missed Opportunity
Officials: Bush Administration Was Slow to Approve Drones to Kill Bin Laden
By Ted Bridis and John Solomon
The Associated Press
W A S H I N G T O N, June 24— When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.

Hmmm, so OBL was spotted 3 times before Bush took office. So why doesn't the headline read "Clinton Fails 3 Times To Kill OBL"? Wasn't he the president when the drones spotted OBL? If this doesn't show bias on the part of AP, I don't know what does!

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq......
And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

Maybe they didn't have the confidence level in the intelligence to carry out an attack before we were at war there? There were several missed attacks on Saddam & Sons during the war, which you rabid anti-Bush types criticized mightily when unsuccessful, now you pretend to be upset at this?

For all you Bush-hating Dems out there, blind knee-jerk criticisms of everything Bush does, accompanied by a complete lack of explaining what the Dems (Kerry) would do, will not carry the election in November. We all know the Dems hate Bush, think he stole the election, was selected, is stupid, AWOL, war-mongering, etc. and so forth. This preaches to the choir of hard-core Bush-hating Dems. Unfortunately, to the other 70% of American voters (and especially the 30% of us who are independent) it comes across as shrill and desperate.

Where are the Dem policies on terrorism? Foreign policy? Domestic policy? Do they even acknowledge that there's a WOT? Any better plans to stabilize Iraq? Any economic policies that don't involve a trade war via protectionism?

We all know you hate Bush, but why should we vote for Kerry? Really, the rest of us need to know. So far, this information isn't being offered or doesn't exist.

Bush still leads the polls slightly, despite non-stop coverage of the Dems and their peimaries over the last 6 months. Bush hasn't even cracked his campaign piggy bank yet. If the Dems are to win this election, they'd better start a new strategy that involves actual ideas instead of some clubby, wink-and-nod rolleyes over how bad Bush is or they'll get clobbered come November. Seriously.

 

[SlippyToad]

And if we want to be simplistic about it, the only time it happened was on his watch.
Cuts both ways.

Honestly I'm not so sure that if I were in this kind of position I would want my name flashing to a backdrop of images of fear, horror, and destruction. It may seem like a genius advertising campaign but the association is going to be hard to break and easy to exploit -- if Kerry's campaign has any brains at all.

 

[demon]

Just quite what the relatives think as they see the images of their loved ones bodies beamed to the local bar's TV set, as the warmongers look on approvingly, can scarcely be imagined.

Are there images on US tv of the hundreds of dead brought home from Iraq? Is it true they don`t show them on US tv? I`ve heard it is but I don`t know.

 

[Dorian Gray]

RandFan said:
Bush was our leader and we haven't been attacked since.

HA HA HA!
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36562&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Most Annoying Bush Apologist Sayings
Here are some that I absolutely hate. I am sure no one has any more.

Trying to prove Bush has security under control
"There have been no more terrorist attacks in over 2 years", even though there weren't too many in the 225+ years before that.

It's the very first saying in the thread!

Nie Trink Wasser said:
I watched that ad when it came out last night.

the claim that it exploits 911 victims is ridiculous. It shows a brief image of a flag with the building in the background and NEVER MENTIONS 911, simply says tough times.

It's not a radio ad, you simpleton. "A picture is worth a thousand words", and all that, thanks to the magic of television.

Having said that, if he wants to remind everyone that he was president during the worst attack in US history, more power to him. Just don't let him near any electrical outlets.

 

[RandFan]

HA HA HA! It's the very first saying in the thread!

It's funny, you complained so loudly recently about my being rude to you. You seemed so sad that I almost didn't have the heart to point out your fallacious reasoning.

RandFan
I'm so sorry that your precious little ego is too fragile for a SKEPTICS forum. Perhaps you should try posting to the www.mylittlepony.com forum.

BTW, did you check it out. It has butterflys, pastels and ponies.

I stand by the statement. Are you only capable of snide remarks and snickering or can you defend your position? You say it is annoying, why?Could you make a logical argument to refute the statement?

Dorian, this is a skeptics forum not high school. If you really think that your behavior is making points then I'm afraid that I have some sad news for you. Logical argument carries the day. Not BS. So, Mr. Class Clown, do you have the balls to back up your sneering? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Dorian Gray]

You seemed so sad that I almost didn't have the heart to point out your fallacious reasoning.

You don't have the knowledge, sources, intelligence or attention span to point out anything.

First of all, stupid, no one ever has to defend the position that something is annoying, since it is a subjective statement.

Second of all, the 'fallacious reasoning' is that 9/11 is a shining moment for Bush. You fail to grasp that it could logically be argued that a Chia pet is watching over us, since no attacks have happened in 2 years. Or maybe a Chalupa. Or Rosie O'Donnell. Come to think of it, I moved to Phoenix in August 2001, then 9/11 happened, then I moved away in November 2001, and there have been no attacks since. Obviously where I live is directly responsible for there being no further attacks.

You also fail to grasp that nothing on this scale has ever happened to any president in the history of the US EXCEPT Bush. That tends to pin blame and fault, not provide a sense of pride in the man under who's watch it happened.

 

[LeFevre]

How could one tell if some of the things Bush, or rather the intelligence agencies, have done have an effect on stoping terrorist plots to murder?

Saying that it is similar to a Chia pet handling things greatly glosses over the daily work the US and other countries' intelligence, military, anti-terror, whatever are doing.

Dorian Gray, do you think that all the intelligence work, finding out where top terrorist leaders are, who the connect to, what the plan, when they plan to do it. . . amounts to working just as good as a Chia pet?

I don't really give Bush much credit, I givecredit to the world intelligence agencies and military. These are the folks who are, or could possibly have, stopped terrorist activities (hopefully anywhere, not just an attack on the States).

You also fail to grasp that nothing on this scale has ever happened to any president in the history of the US EXCEPT Bush. That tends to pin blame and fault, not provide a sense of pride in the man under who's watch it happened.

This to me is similar to folks who think that if Kerry is elected, many terrorists would be dancing in the streets to have someone less war prone than Bush in office so the terrorists could start to try and attack the US again. They are going to try no matter who is in office.

It wasn't FDR's fault that the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it wasn't Clinton's fault that the WTC was carbombed, it wasn't Bush's fault that planes were hijacked and used as missiles. It is because we are evil infidels who aren't Islamic.


edited to add I need to smegging preview my posts

 

[RandFan]

Second of all, the 'fallacious reasoning' is that 9/11 is a shining moment for Bush.

Straw man. No one is claiming that 9/11 is a shining moment.

Claims:

1. Al Qaeda is motivated to inflict harm on the United States
2. After our invasion of Afghanstan they are even more motivated
3. In spite of all of the threats by Al Qaeda there has been no more attacks[/list=1]
   
   

   You fail to grasp that it could logically be argued that a Chia pet is watching over us, since no attacks have happened in 2 years. Or maybe a Chalupa. Or Rosie O'Donnell.

   Oh really, well try it and see.
   
   

   Come to think of it, I moved to Phoenix in August 2001, then 9/11 happened, then I moved away in November 2001, and there have been no attacks since. Obviously where I live is directly responsible for there being no further attacks.

   Hold on there Gray, there is NO link between your moving and terrorists attacks. On the other hand George Bush DOES have a connection. He has implemented policies and has the authority to direct federal agencies and has done so to protect us.
   
   Your move, chia pets or chalupas have nothing whatsoever to do with our protection. You argument is vapid it's embarrasing.
   
   

   You also fail to grasp that nothing on this scale has ever happened to any president in the history of the US EXCEPT Bush. That tends to pin blame and fault, not provide a sense of pride in the man under who's watch it happened.

   Bush MUST take responsibility for the event. But there must be some context. It was in planning before he took office. Individuals who should have had red flags go off in their heads were asleep at the wheel.
   
   If you wish to give context to our protection then fine. But you can't give blame for the event and refuse to give credit for the protection afterward. Otherwise you would by default and defintion be logically inconsistent. So which is it going to be?
   
   I take a great sense of pride in Bush. Polls clearly show that others do also. Yes this is an appeal to the gallery which doesn't prove anything other than I am not alone in my feeling of pride.

 

[RandFan]

How could one tell if some of the things Bush, or rather the intelligence agencies, have done have an effect on stoping terrorist plots to murder?

Saying that it is similar to a Chia pet handling things greatly glosses over the daily work the US and other countries' intelligence, military, anti-terror, whatever are doing.

Dorian Gray, do you think that all the intelligence work, finding out where top terrorist leaders are, who the connect to, what the plan, when they plan to do it. . . amounts to working just as good as a Chia pet?

I don't really give Bush much credit, I givecredit to the world intelligence agencies and military. These are the folks who are, or could possibly have, stopped terrorist activities (hopefully anywhere, not just an attack on the States).

This to me is similar to folks who think that if Kerry is elected, many terrorists would be dancing in the streets to have someone less war prone than Bush in office so the terrorists could start to try and attack the US again. They are going to try no matter who is in office.

It wasn't FDR's fault that the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it wasn't Clinton's fault that the WTC was carbombed, it wasn't Bush's fault that planes were hijacked and used as missiles. It is because we are evil infidels who aren't Islamic.

Great post, it bears repeating.

Thanks LeFevre,

The degree with which Bush deserves credit is arguable. I acknowledge that. I obviously think that it is more than you. However I appreciate the consistency of your logic.