Bush Ads Exploit 9/11 Victims

[subgenius]

The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."

Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.
.....
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
...

But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history."
...
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html

Totally inappropriate especially since he has done a lousy job of fighting terror. (See cites to articles in Bush Terror Fighter thread)
This fear of an outgroup threat is all they've got. He has done nothing that any president wouldn't have done.

 

[Brown]

This is not a surprise. The Bush folks have long planned to make the events of September 2001 a focal point of junior's campaign.

The Republican convention will be held in New York City. You can bet that the events that gripped that city about three years earlier will be mentioned again and again.

If Kerry were to run an ad showing the same images, but saying "Look what happened to our country while our commander-in-chief was planning to give bigger tax cuts to rich fat cats," Republicans would be quick to condemn such an ad as outrageous, and they would be right.

Exploiting those images for politcal gain is unwise, and it's unwise whether your favorite candidate is doing it or whether a candidate you oppose is doing it.

 

[subgenius]

And how ironic this is:

N.Y. City Council Passes Anti-Patriot Act Measure
By Michelle Garcia
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, February 5, 2004; Page A11

NEW YORK, Feb. 4 -- New York City, site of the country's most horrific terrorist attack, Wednesday became the latest in a long list of cities and towns that have formally opposed the expanded investigatory powers granted to law enforcement agencies under the USA Patriot Act.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A13970-2004Feb4&notFound=true
Surprised it went with such little notice here and everywhere.

The irony? "Don't pass that piece of dung in our names."

"Don't use our tragedy to get re-elected."

 

[specious_reasons]

I'm sure the Bush Team tried very hard to reference 9/11 without offending people. No way someone's not going to be offended, though. So, who cares?

Here's what offends me:

The success of the commercials that Bush campaign produced is inversely proportional to the level of critical thinking in the U.S.

[cynic]
Congratulations to Bush on '04!
[/cynic]

 

[DaChew]

How should the Bush team reference the most significant event in the last 4 years (if not more)? He was President and he did lead the country through that time. You may not like his style of leadership or where he lead the country to but that's a separate debate.

Additionally, the spot released today has a single, one second, scene from 9/11. That is hardly exploitation in my opinion.

 

[Brown]

I have a real hard time with the notion that junior Bush "led the nation" or exhibited "leadership" during that time of crisis. He was the chief executive, yes, and he didn't fall to pieces, but saying he exhibited "leadership" is really stretching things.

 

[subgenius]

DaChew: Your opinion is duly noted and respected.

 

[Grammatron]

I have a real hard time with the notion that junior Bush "led the nation" or exhibited "leadership" during that time of crisis. He was the chief executive, yes, and he didn't fall to pieces, but saying he exhibited "leadership" is really stretching things.

Not saying I agree or disagree with you, but what does it mean to "exhibit leadership?"

 

[HarryKeogh]

How should the Bush team reference the most significant event in the last 4 years (if not more)? He was President and he did lead the country through that time. You may not like his style of leadership or where he lead the country to but that's a separate debate.

Additionally, the spot released today has a single, one second, scene from 9/11. That is hardly exploitation in my opinion.

what he said

 

[Brown]

Not saying I agree or disagree with you, but what does it mean to "exhibit leadership?"

In my view, exhibiting leadership is more than simply being in a position of leadership. In other words, the fact that Mr. Bush is in a position of leadership does not mean that he exhibits leadership.

Exhibiting leadership is more than just selecting a course of action and pursuing it. It also involves drawing people to support your course of action and building consensus to unity of purpose.

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.

John F. Kennedy exhibited leadership to a lesser degree than Johnson, but what made Kennedy notable is the way in which he led. He demanded that his staff not be yes-man, he insisted that policies be debated and that prospective courses of action be challenged. And then, he would make a decision, and by golly, he was ready and able to win people to it, because he understood the issues thoroughly and could articulate the rationale for his decision. This technique is totally foreign to the Bush White House.

Franklin Roosevelt exhibited incredible leadership. He had his detractors, but he was able to bring people along with his ideas. Lincoln exhibited leadership, too, in legendary style.

But you don't see this kind of thing with Bush. Instead, you see a lot of "my way or the highway" thinking. Bush "led" the USA into Iraq, but he didn't establish unity of purpose among the community of nations, or even among his own citizens.

 

[RandFan]

How should the Bush team reference the most significant event in the last 4 years (if not more)? He was President and he did lead the country through that time. You may not like his style of leadership or where he lead the country to but that's a separate debate.

Additionally, the spot released today has a single, one second, scene from 9/11. That is hardly exploitation in my opinion.

Well put. Yes I do very much think he led during a very difficult period in our nations history. Saying he didn't "fall to pieces" is to minimize his actions and not at all accurate IMO.

With his leadership we found strength and we defeated the Taliban. The event was significant. Bush was our leader and we haven't been attacked since. Oh I know that there are a multitude of anecdotes that folks who don't like Republicans anyway will cite. That's fine. I'm guessing that those who are offended are Democrats and those who are not are Republicans.

Krauthammer

The single most puzzling -- and arguably most important -- question of the day is the one no one raises in public: Why have we not been attacked again?

We are coming up on 21/2 years since Sept. 11, 2001. Think back: On Sept. 11, everybody was waiting for the other shoe to drop -- within days or weeks, but surely within months. When nothing happened, it was said that al Qaeda works on 18-month cycles, with long planning and preparation.

Well, it is now almost a year plus 18 months. And while there have been terrorist attacks against generally soft targets in other (mostly Islamic) countries, we have not had a single attack, major or minor, in the United States.

...

The first is that al Qaeda has been so severely degraded and disrupted that it simply cannot do it. It has lost its Afghan base, lost much of its funding and is reduced to going back to where Islamic radicals were years ago: launching minor guerrilla operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and sending operatives out to hit soft targets such as synagogues in Tunisia and consulates and banks in Istanbul.

It's funny how some think that Bush should accept responsibility for the economy (I do) but refuse to give him credit for the fact that we have not been attacked since.

If perception truly is greater than reality then ideology must be greater than objectivity.

 

[subgenius]

I'll do my best to keep you wild animals corralled.
The topic is whether its appropriate to use 9/11 itself and the horriffic images in particular, in ads, or to my mind, the campaign at all.
For being a "uniter, not a divider" it is very polarizing to suggest that your loyal opponent wouldn't have done everything in his power. Would be far classier to say with modesty, "I didn't do anything any red blooded American wouldn't have done."
Bush would be better served to leave our national tragedy out of it. He only opens himself up to scrutiny and charges of exploitation.
Such as this interesting investigation into the timeline of Bush's actions on 9/11. A pro-Bush writer called him the "dawdler in chief."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

 

[Demigorgon]

Hmmm..... I haven't seen any planes running into any buildings lately.

 

[subgenius]

Hmmm..... I haven't seen any planes running into any buildings lately.

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

 

[DaChew]

But you don't see this kind of thing with Bush. Instead, you see a lot of "my way or the highway" thinking. Bush "led" the USA into Iraq, but he didn't establish unity of purpose among the community of nations, or even among his own citizens.

But what of his 80-90% approval ratings among his own citizens in the aftermath and leading up to the international coalition that was built going into Afghanistan? Was there no "leadership" involved in achieving these things?

 

[clk]

But what of his 80-90% approval ratings among his own citizens in the aftermath and leading up to the international coalition that was built going into Afghanistan? Was there no "leadership" involved in achieving these things?

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

 

[Attrayant]

Hmmm..... I haven't seen any planes running into any buildings lately.

Haven't seen herds of wild elk stampeeding through the streets either. Can we thank Bush for everything that hasn't happened?

 

[subgenius]

The country united after 9/11. The same thing would have happened regardless of who the President was.

Beat me to it. Its the phenomenon of the outgroup threat.
Now back to the topic. Is it appropriate to use images of, or even the event at all?
There are pictures of firefighters that aren't even from NYC.

 

[Grammatron]

Haven't seen herds of wild elk stampeeding through the streets either. Can we thank Bush for everything that hasn't happened?

I got a rock that protects me from tigers.

 

[Grammatron]

Beat me to it. Its the phenomenon of the outgroup threat.
Now back to the topic. Is it appropriate to use images of, or even the event at all?
There are pictures of firefighters that aren't even from NYC.

Is there a place where one can view this ad? I don't feel I can accurately comment until I have seen the ad(s) in question.