Bush Ads Exploit 9/11 Victims

Monty Python did it right.

Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person.

I uncork my nose at you.
 
RandFan said:
I don't think the ads, as they are now, are inappropriate but respect those who do.
Click to expand...

The question is does Bush (et.al.) respect the people who do as well?

Apparently, the ads have generated a backlash against Bush. First, a significant number of the victims (no, I don't know how significant -- it doesn't matter) have said that they felt the Bush ads were exploitative of what happened to them on 9/11 and now a significant number of Americans (significant enough to affect the polls) have agreed with that. Bush (et.al.) has chosen to ignore this sentiment and run with the ads anyway. He has also compounded his problems by refusing to meet with the 9/11 commission for so long (~2 years!) and now seems willing to meet with the commission because not doing so would adversely affect his run for office in November (he appears to be very good at reading polls).

Some in this thread have said that Kerry exploits the dead of Vietnam in the same way that Bush is exploiting the dead of 9/11. I would ask to be shown an example of the same direct exploitation as is in the Bush ads. Bush has shown that he is two-faced with respect to 9/11 in that, on the one hand, it is okay to use the images in his campaign to show how "effective" he has been on battling terrorism since 9/11 and, on the other hand, he is unwilling to talk about what he did (or did not) do with respect to fighting terrorism before and during 9/11. Had he been up-front with the 9/11 commission right from the very beginning, then I (and others?) would probably feel much more comfortable in believing that the ads are not his attempt at exploitation of the circumstances. As it is, his lack of credibility on this (and other things) has made me question his fitness to lead.

Bush has not shown the "leadership" that the US needs in a president!
 
I lost 295 colleagues at the WTC, the first plane hit our floors. I've only seen the Bush ad once, it made me very sad :( I know Bush wants people to remember his support of the American people on 9/11, but the ad still made me wince...
 
dsm said:
The question is does Bush (et.al.) respect the people who do as well?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe so.

Apparently, the ads have generated a backlash against Bush. First, a significant number of the victims (no, I don't know how significant -- it doesn't matter)
Click to expand...
That is interesting. It doesn't matter? Hmmm..... You can just decide that on your own.

have said that they felt the Bush ads were exploitative of what happened to them on 9/11 and now a significant number of Americans (significant enough to affect the polls) have agreed with that.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the numbers. I thank you in advance for taking the time to post them. If they do then that is significant in a political sense. While THAT is significant that is the extent of it.

Bush (et.al.) has chosen to ignore this sentiment and run with the ads anyway. He has also compounded his problems by refusing to meet with the 9/11 commission for so long (~2 years!) and now seems willing to meet with the commission because not doing so would adversely affect his run for office in November (he appears to be very good at reading polls).
Click to expand...
I hate to be cynical but you are describing a politician. Not unlike the presidents before him. I don't condone it but I understand it. Clinton was known for his unprecedented use of focus groups and polls.

Some in this thread have said that Kerry exploits the dead of Vietnam in the same way that Bush is exploiting the dead of 9/11. I would ask to be shown an example of the same direct exploitation as is in the Bush ads.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that you see the world through an ideological filter. You've seen the ads. How you can make a statement like that is beyond my comprehension. Vietnam was an extremely divisive war. It kept LBJ from running for office. It nearly tore the US apart. Kerry himself suggested that the Vietnam war should not be used for political purposes. Yet here he is doing that very thing. Not surprising since Kerry has waffled on every major issue.

Bush has shown that he is two-faced with respect to 9/11 in that, on the one hand, it is okay to use the images in his campaign to show how "effective" he has been on battling terrorism since 9/11 and, on the other hand, he is unwilling to talk about what he did (or did not) do with respect to fighting terrorism before and during 9/11. Had he been up-front with the 9/11 commission right from the very beginning, then I (and others?) would probably feel much more comfortable in believing that the ads are not his attempt at exploitation of the circumstances. As it is, his lack of credibility on this (and other things) has made me question his fitness to lead.
Click to expand...
And you have every right to make that judgement. The President like the one before him is resistant to having his decisions challenged. Like I said, you are describing a politician. I can't excuse or explain his reasons or his actions. I don't at this time have any problem with them. It remains to see if others will. If in November he is turned out of office you can pat yourself on the back, comfortable knowing that you were so smart in helping to root out this bad leader.

Bush has not shown the "leadership" that the US needs in a president!
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion. I hope you are capable of respecting mine. While I'm disappointed in his spending and his ass kissing of Vincente Fox he has responded outstandingly as a leader through these difficult times. I have not come to this conclusion easily. I have thought about it carefully and weighed his actions and found him to be the right person in the position at the right time to lead our nation through this critical time. Even if he is turned out of office. I think history will record this as it will his father for the first Gulf War.

RandFan
 
Brown said:
I want to take the opportunity to expand upon this point, which I consider to be very important. One should strive to avoid being a hypocrite, applying one set of standards to a guy that you like and a different set of standards to a guy that you don't like.

If the terrorism had occurred on Clinton's or Kerry's "watch," and Clinton's or Kerry's folks produced exactly the same ad for their man as Bush's folks produced for their man, would it still be a bad move? (Personally, I think any commercial that depicts the recovery of human bodies, flag draped or not, is insensitive to the families and would therefore be wrong. This same standard would apply to without regard to political party.)
Click to expand...

We don't really have to use hypotheticals and the subjunctive here.

During Clinton's first term, the first bombing of the World Trade Center happened, as did the Oklahoma City bombing. The latter is especially significant, as it happened in April, 1995, quite conveniently timed for the November, 1995 election. Please remember that, while the Twin Towers had good phallic value, the Oklahoma City bombing particularly caught the public attention because of its daycare center. Also, not that it matters much, at first there was suspicion of this as an Al Qaeda action as well.

Did Clinton have campaign ads that featured footage of bodies being recovered from that terrorist attack?

I don't know. But in what I would term at least a moderately conscientious search (the first three pages of hits from five searches containing various combinations of Clinton, campaign, election, advertisement, ad, Oklahoma, city, and bombing), I could not find a reference to one.

I have found some accusations, though.

From Doug Bandow on a conservative website (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dougbandow/db20001115.shtml): "Even more irritating is his whining sanctimony and determination to turn everything to political advantage. Clinton has yet to apologize for attempting to score points off tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing," this apparently in reference to an interview with Esquire.

From James Ridgeway of The Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0333/mondo4.php): "At the time, Clinton was trying to make political hay off the Oklahoma City bombing, which itself had nothing to do with foreign terrorism."

So Clinton managed to provoke the ire of The Village Voice, hardly an ultraconservative rag. But as we used to say in the 1980s, where's the beef?
 
rikzilla said:


Ok SG, try and be just a teensy-weensy bit objective and answer this question;

If you were Osama Bin Laden who would you rather be President of the United States? Kerry, who will expedite the release of prisoners @ Gitmo, repeal the Patriot Act, pull back the US Army from Iraq and Afghanistan......or Bush who will keep troops looking under every rock until they find you. Who is the preferred candidate? Eh?

-z
Click to expand...

I think you are looking at this wrong, applying short term goals to a movement that is pretty patient in bringing about it's long term goals. OBL and al-quida want a cataclismic holy war uniting all muslims. The best way to do this is to provoke military response. Even if we give you your point (for the sake of argument as actually I doubt it) that Bush will do more in the short term to combat terrorism, we still are left with the long term ramifications.

Many on the right need to wake up to the possibility they are being played. What will really help OBL and AQ is not lax short term pursuit of their agents, rather what will really help them is the United States becoming a explicitly christian nation so that the disputes can be framed in religious terms. OBL likely would rather have Bush than Kerry in this regard; Bush is more likely to promote the image of the U.S. as a Christian rather than secular nation. OBL doesn't want touchy feely liberals in power, he wants idiot bible thumpers that think muslims are evil in power, because he isn't in the short term business of getting away with attacks like 9-11. These attacks are pretty small potatoes compared to the comprehensive holy war he'd like to start. To start a big war he needs allies, and he needs an enemy to rally his idea of islam. Bush might as well have been sent from central casting for this purpose.

9-11 wasn't at it's geopolitical core about killing people, it was meant to evoke a response in hopes that the U.S. would begin a war on Islam uniting all arabs. Bush is more likely than Kerry to screw up by overreacting. So, if you want to help out OBL, vote Bush. If you want the U.S. to quit making huge international blunders by failing to really consider the other side's real goals for whetever reason, be it cynical political advantage (i.e. "bring it on") or simple incompetence, get the fundies the heck out of government.
 
Suddenly said:
...OBL doesn't want touchy feely liberals in power, he wants idiot bible thumpers that think muslims are evil in power, because he isn't in the short term business of getting away with attacks like 9-11. These attacks are pretty small potatoes compared to the comprehensive holy war he'd like to start. To start a big war he needs allies, and he needs an enemy to rally his idea of islam. Bush might as well have been sent from central casting for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Sounds good, one problem though. He doesn't need anything from any US President. Any action will be spun to his best advantage (if not downright invented). We are the great Satan whether we are kissing their ass and helping them win their war against the Soviet Union or our President is a Bible thumper. And to be honest, whoever is in office will be made a thumper by the leaders of these people. They have always lied and they always will.

Bear in mind, the planning for 9/11 was during Clinton's presidency. The notion that Bush's election and "Bible thumping" sent Muslims into hysterics is simply wrong. The ideology or theology of our president is meaningless IMO. We support Israel, we maintain bases in Saudi Arabia, and we are a Christian nation. These things are of more import to OBL then anything our President says. Again, IMO.
 
RandFan said:
Sounds good, one problem though. He doesn't need anything from any US President. Any action will be spun to his best advantage (if not downright invented). We are the great Satan whether we are kissing their ass and helping them win their war against the Soviet Union or our President is a Bible thumper. And to be honest, whoever is in office will be made a thumper by the leaders of these people. They have always lied and they always will.
Bear in mind, the planning for 9/11 was during Clinton's presidency. The notion that Bush's election and "Bible thumping" sent Muslims into hysterics is simply wrong. The ideology or theology of our president is meaningless IMO. We support Israel, we maintain bases in Saudi Arabia, and we are a Christian nation. These things are of more import to OBL then anything our President says. Again, IMO.
Click to expand...

The note as to the particular timing of 9-11 really doesn't refute my point, and in a lot of ways supports it. They don't care about present specifics, they just want to push the U.S. towards theocracy in hopes of a inevitable future cataclism. The calculation being that terrorist attacks on Americans will push the county in a conservative direction. It is simple provocation.

There is no notion that Bush's bible thumping sent Muslims into hysterics. The real danger is the U.S. adopting foreign policy based on religious principles or simple retributon for past attacks, and the Bush administration has moved us further down that path. By definition, OBL et. al. are going to hate any American president and portray them in a bad light, but it is pretty obvious that Bush is the one person that gives them the most ammunition.

I doubt Bush is OBL's first choice as president, that would be someone more like Pat Robertson, but I'd think it pretty obvious concerning OBL's long term goals that Bush would be more "useful" than would Kerry.
 
Suddenly said:
The note as to the particular timing of 9-11 really doesn't refute my point, and in a lot of ways supports it. They don't care about present specifics, they just want to push the U.S. towards theocracy in hopes of a inevitable future cataclism.
Click to expand...
They are trying to push the U.S. towards a theocracy? I don't think that they are going to have much luck with that. As time goes by there is less and less connection between church and state. Even the most obscure references are being eliminated. The debate is over. Yes there are instances in this land of 50 states, many cities and counties where religion is rearing its ugly head but the tide is not in that direction.

The calculation being that terrorist attacks on Americans will push the county in a conservative direction. It is simple provocation.
Click to expand...
So what if we get pushed in a conservative direction? I really don't think they have calculated anything of the sort. I think they whish to do the opposite. I think they truly believed the attacks would undermine the confidence of the American people and would lead to its eventual downfall. Not that we would get more conservative that would lead to "C" and "C" would lead to "D" and so on and so on. You are over thinking this thing and I don't believe your contention is supported in anything OBL has said.

There is no notion that Bush's bible thumping sent Muslims into hysterics. The real danger is the U.S. adopting foreign policy based on religious principles or simple retributon for past attacks, and the Bush administration has moved us further down that path. By definition, OBL et. al. are going to hate any American president and portray them in a bad light, but it is pretty obvious that Bush is the one person that gives them the most ammunition.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that we will simply have to disagree. I just don't see the importance here. What ammunition? It is demonstrable that it can be produced out of thin air. Much of what is said about us is lies. So what if Bush believes in the Bible. Or talks about it in public. I don't think that there is any evidence whatsoever that Bush's ideology has any impact on the state of Muslim sentiment towards the United States.

This reminds me of Europe in the early days of Hitler. No one wanted to piss him off. I'm not worried about moving down some path of religious principles imagined or real. I want to let the world know that we are not going to kiss ass and appease others because we are afraid that things might get worse. History doesn't favor appeasement. And I don't think we should live our lives to please OBL and people who have no freedom.

We should decide as a nation what direction we whish to go based upon what we want as a representative Democracy. The courts should uphold the constitution and protect minorities. If religion is being improperly injected into our government then we should stand up and demand the courts to stop it because it is wrong. Molding our thoughts and actions to please a group of idiots is a fools game.
 
If I read the baove correctly, the terrorists will attack until we retaliate.


. . .


Doesn't that mean that if we don't retaliate, they'll just keep killing more and more people until we pay attention to them? ("Well, 9/11 wasn't enough -- this time we'll really get their attention!")


I'm a little lost on what is being advocated as a policy, here. (?)
 
NoZed Avenger said:
If I read the baove correctly, the terrorists will attack until we retaliate.


. . .


Doesn't that mean that if we don't retaliate, they'll just keep killing more and more people until we pay attention to them? ("Well, 9/11 wasn't enough -- this time we'll really get their attention!")


I'm a little lost on what is being advocated as a policy, here. (?)
Click to expand...

You may be lost because no policy is being advocated. All that is being answered is the assumption as to who OBL would rather see as president. I think he'd favor escalation of the conflict over short term ease of operation, and others seem to disagree. Key to this was the assumption that Bush would in fact more actively "hunt down the bad guys" as it were. Plus my assumption that Bush would be more likely to cause an escalation and nudge the country towards a more evangelical bent by framing this whole thing in terms of good and evil rather than being pragmatic.

Anyway, this isn't an "until we strike back" situation. They will attack to their full ability no matter what we do. They aren't exactly the German army circa 1941, so they aren't going to be able to launch renewed attacks over and over. On the other hand, they are a bit more fluid than the nazis, and by attacking them we may create more of them than we eliminate. We can remove their present capacity to launch attacks, but if we do nothing about the motivation we can either perpetually hold these people subject by destroying their ability to attack, or relax for a while and act suprised when Pittsburgh gets nuked. This gets complicated by the fact that reducing the ability to attack seems to increase motivation to attack. Grudge holding it a traditional pastime in some cultures, and they measure time in centuries, not years. They can wait.
 
Suddenly said:


You may be lost because no policy is being advocated. All that is being answered is the assumption as to who OBL would rather see as president.
Click to expand...

Ah. Got you. I think the "OBL wants X to win" argument you are countering to be . . .um . . . how shall I say . . . maybe not very good, so I kinda zoned out on the context.

Ok, I'm with you, now -- sorry for the confusion.

Thnaks for the reply, though.

N/A
 
Rush Limbaugh attacked some of the 9/11 widows with his usual vile lies. Link goes to transcript.
Here's a response from one of them.

"Mr. Limbaugh,

For your information, I am one of the widows you are wrongly accusing of being "schooled" by the Democratic Party.

My name is Kristen Breitweiser. I am not a Democrat. I voted for President Bush. So did my husband who was killed on 9/11.

I would encourage you to educate yourself on who I am, prior to your making erroneous statements about me on your radio show.

I would also encourage you to visit the website of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee(911independentcommission.org) of which I am a founding member.

The members of the Family Steering Committee (a non-partisan, completely self-funded organization) have been tireless advocates working to get answers as to why our loved ones were killed on the morning of 9/11 and why this nation was so very vulnerable to terrorism on that horrible day. In order to make this nation safer and to ensure that our loved ones were not killed in vain, we believe that we must learn from the tragic failures that occurred leading up to and on 9/11.

The only way we can be safe in the future is to learn from the past. The only way we can have a thorough examination of the past is with a cooperative government. Sadly, President Bush has been our biggest adversary in trying to find out what happened on 9/11. And, after voting for him in the last election, I am gravely disappointed in his behavior in fighting this commission and their noble efforts to explain why we as a nation were so vulnerable to terrorism on 9/11.

I look forward to your apology.

Many thanks,

Kristen Breitweiser.

And, as an aside, you failed to mention the following actual fact in your show: that Mayor Giuliani, Police Commissioner Kerik, Former Fire Commissioner Von-Essen, and 9/11 Widow Deena Burnett were "BOOKED" BY THE GOP to go on those shows. (See Washington Post article on Friday). I, on the other hand, was "booked" by no one other than myself. Frankly, Mr. Limbaugh, I expected better from you."

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=42
 
Dammit, the problem is not that the ad is in bad taste, the problem is that Bush screwed the firefighters in a famous case of his favorite bait-and-switch tactic, and now he has the chutzpah to exploit them anyway and that, my friends, is gall. Bait, switch and then claim credit anyway.

For those of you who have forgotten what happened (apparently including the entire Bush campaign) shortly after the 9-11 attacks, President Bush promised a $3.5 billion aid package to provide equipment and training in dealing with such attacks to local police and fire departments. For over 18 months, no money appeared, and when money finally did appear, it was nowhere near the promised levels (hey, he had to cut those taxes on the richest 1 percent of Americans).

Furthermore, the New York City firefighters who worked Ground Zero were specifically screwed. They were promised $90 million to monitor the long-term health effects of breathing in all that ash for months while they cleaned up. The money was to have been included in the overall post 9-11 aid package for New York City, but it got shifted to another bill that Bush rejected the following August. About half the workers screened before the money ran out suffered from respiratory problems.

Republicans in Congress twice voted down first-responder money. New York's congressional delegation, led by Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, put up a huge battle before the long-promised $90 million was finally pried out of a reluctant Congress and White House, but the responder money is still not fully funded to this good day.

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv
 
subgenius said:


Frankly, Mr. Limbaugh, I expected better from you."

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=42
Click to expand...

From that same article:

VOICE I: I think for someone like President Bush who has not cooperated with this commission, who has stonewalled this commission.

VOICE II: This president and his administration blocked the creation of the commission, have stonewalled the commission.

VOICE I: If this was realistic from the morning of September 11th, it would show President Bush before a group of school children listening to them read, while the twin towers were burning.

VOICE II: If he wants to show a picture of 9-11 depicting what he was doing, it should be a picture of him sitting and reading in a classroom to school children. That's where he was on 9-11.

VOICE I: And we need to find out why 3,000 people were murdered on his watch.

VOICE II: Well, you know, this happened on his watch.

I'm glad she denied her comments were scripted by the democrat party. So, who did script the comments then?
 
subgenius said:
Dammit, the problem is not that the ad is in bad taste, the problem is that Bush screwed the firefighters in a famous case of his favorite bait-and-switch tactic, and now he has the chutzpah to exploit them anyway and that, my friends, is gall. Bait, switch and then claim credit anyway.
.................
Republicans in Congress twice voted down first-responder money. New York's congressional delegation, led by Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, put up a huge battle before the long-promised $90 million was finally pried out of a reluctant Congress and White House, but the responder money is still not fully funded to this good day.

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv
Click to expand...

So where did Bush do the bait-and-switch? You Bush haters need to go talk to the old Clinton bashers and collectively get a life.
 
Some history:


"How many battleships would a Democratic defeat be worth to Tojo? How many Nazi legions would it be worth to Hitler? . . . We must not allow the American ballot box to be made Hitler's secret weapon."

~ Sen. Samuel Jackson of Indiana, permanent chairman of the Democratic Convention
Click to expand...
 
From the link:

Item: FDR did not go to the Democratic convention in Chicago where he was nominated for a fourth term. A few days before it opened, he sent a letter to the chairman of the Democratic Party explaining his availability for the nomination. And what an explanation!

"All that is within me cries out to go back to my home on the Hudson River, to avoid public responsibilities and to avoid also the publicity which in our democracy follows every step of the nation's chief executive."

But, he wrote, "every one of our sons serving in this war has officers from whom he takes his orders. Such officers have superior officers. The President is the Commander in Chief, and he, too, has his superior officer -- the people of the United States. . . . If the people command me to continue in this office and in this war, I have as little right to withdraw as the soldier has to leave his post in the line."

Item: Roosevelt delivered his acceptance speech to the convention by radio from where? From the San Diego Naval Station, because, he said, "The war waits for no elections. Decisions must be made, plans must be laid, strategy must be carried out."

Item: If FDR's politicizing of his wartime role seems blatant, what does one say of the main speakers at the convention? Keynoter Robert Kerr, then governor of Oklahoma, declared that "the Republican Party . . . had no program, in the dangerous years preceding Pearl Harbor, to prevent war or to meet it if it came. Most of the Republican members of the national Congress fought every constructive move designed to prepare our country in case of war."

So much for bipartisanship!

Item: Kerr was restraint personified compared with the convention's permanent chairman, Sen. Samuel Jackson of Indiana. As he contemplated the possibility of a Republican victory, he was moved to ask: "How many battleships would a Democratic defeat be worth to Tojo? How many Nazi legions would it be worth to Hitler? . . . We must not allow the American ballot box to be made Hitler's secret weapon."

If you accept President Bush's premise that this nation is at war with terrorism, then you have to applaud the restraint his campaign has shown so far in exploiting the attack that began that war.

Far better than criticizing his ads, ask why Bush is not calling on comfortable Americans to make any sacrifices for the war effort and why he refuses to raise the revenue to pay for what he calls a life-and-death struggle.

Those are the legitimate issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48122-2004Mar10.html

I find the two situations to be highly distiguishable.
There was world wide combat going on. I don't get a sense of politization from his explanation of why he didn't go to the convention (I think he actually had a son on active duty).
If its similar to Bush why is he often at fund raisers and rodeos and NASCAR events than at the helm? I'm not saying that our current security issues require that level of attention, but that WWII did.

The other thing is that Kerr's statement accurately reflect the Republican Party's opposition to the war. FDR had to almost secretly fund aid given to England. Lindburgh was vehemently opposed. There were constant financial issues throughout the war.
Broder is much smarter than me but I disagree with him on this analogy.
I do agree with his last point.
Thank you for sharing a thoughtful column.

Edited to add: I did find Jackson's comments to be over the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom