Bush Ads Exploit 9/11 Victims

[shecky]

The thing to remember is that the Bush political machine knows exactly what the reaction is going to be to this spot. This is not guesswork, but science. There would have been intensive focus group screenings and scripted responses to the anticipated grumblings. Bush, Inc. knows exactly what they can get away with.

For any political add, the goal is not to cause people to engage in critical thinking. It's about image and emotion. Remind people of the fear. Make them start to worry again about massive terrorist attacks on our land. When people are afraid, they will hesitate to change leaders, no matter what their other problems with his leadership. It's working. The debate is now about terrorism, not the economy or even the war in Iraq.

As for the expected criticisms, they know most of it will come from people who won't vote for Bush, anyway. The Bush team couldn't care less what Democrats and other critics think about their tactics. It's the big mass of uncommitted voters the add is speaking to. You know - the ones that are uninformed enough to still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11 in the first place, because Bush makes sure when the subject comes up, he mentions Saddam and 9-11 in the same sentence. His script writers have made certain to create a link in people's minds when none exists in reality.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Any exploitation of 9/11 will appeal to GWB's base and fence sitters already leaning in his direction. I think it's similar to flag-waving in general, a act that seems to carry quite a bit of symbolism and gravity with self-identified conservative "patriots".

The left tends to look at such actions, 9/11 exploitation and flag-waving in general, with cynicism or worse.

 

[shecky]

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. The Republicans will no doubt use some of their commercial money to ask this rhetorical question. If you cannot or will not answer it, the Republicans can, and will. Over and over again.....get used to it.

-z

I think rikzilla is a secret Osama supporter. Why else would he care what Bin Laden thinks?

 

[rikzilla]

I think rikzilla is a secret Osama supporter. Why else would he care what Bin Laden thinks?

Instead of answering the question you sling an ad hom....and SG just ignores it. But not to worry....it'll be asked and answered over and over again between now and November. Since we all know the answer, there's no need for you to try and spin one.

-z

 

[crackmonkey]

Didn;t Kerry mention rethinking the war on terror? Hasn;t he talked about using a crime-and-punishment model as opposed to a military one? How could this NOT be seen as being tremendously advantageous for terrorists?
For what it's worth, Kim Jong Il's advocating Kerry..
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1078381535832&p=1012571727088

 

[Brown]

Just photoshop Clinton's face onto Bush's body and watch the Democrats support the use of such pictures.

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.)

Here's another approach: Ask whether it would be appropriate for Bush to refer to the events of 9-11 under any circumstances. To suggest that Bush ignore this event completely is, in my view, ridiculous.

 

[subgenius]

Didn;t Kerry mention rethinking the war on terror? Hasn;t he talked about using a crime-and-punishment model as opposed to a military one? How could this NOT be seen as being tremendously advantageous for terrorists?
For what it's worth, Kim Jong Il's advocating Kerry..
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1078381535832&p=1012571727088

The terrorists are dancing in the streets already.
From the link:

"The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme.

But both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush are committed to North Korean disarmament. Mr Kerry, however, would renew bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, while Mr Bush has sought to manage the conversation with North Korea through multilateral talks. Mr Kerry has also been more forthright about setting out the economic rewards for North Korea if it disarms.

The Bush administration appears in no hurry to tackle the North Korea issue before the election, aware that a US compromise with Pyongyang would represent an embarrassing climbdown, while confrontation would risk a bloody - and electorally disastrous - war.

If North Korea is hoping that a Democratic victory would herald a return to Bill Clinton's policy of engagement with Pyongyang, then Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Centre for Pacific Affairs in Washington, cautions Mr Kim against expecting too much from Mr Kerry. "It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," he says."

 

[Ed]

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.

Since about 4PM, 9/11/01.

Think I am a cynic?

 

[rikzilla]

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.)

Here's another approach: Ask whether it would be appropriate for Bush to refer to the events of 9-11 under any circumstances. To suggest that Bush ignore this event completely is, in my view, ridiculous.

I rarely agree with Brown, but he's shown this thread's first inclination towards a balanced viewpoint.

Here's another point; "The Passion of the Christ" has been clobbering all other movies at the box office. Why? One word: "Controversy". It seems to me that the Dems have now reacted precisely as Repub strategists might have expected. The insuing controversy means more people are wanting to sit through Bush's ads to see the "controversy" for themselves. If the Repubs have had the time to run these ads past focus groups (and you know they have) they know there will be a mostly favorable reaction to them. Therefore, more people will see these ads because of Dem complaints,....and the ads are engineered to give a warm fuzzy feeling towards Bush. Sounds like; "heads, the Dems lose,...tails, the Dems lose"

In other words....Bush's first salvo is right on target.

-z

 

[Cleon]

PAU. Politics As Usual.

Of COURSE Bush was going to use 9/11 to push his reelection, and of COURSE the Democrats would complain that he was exploiting it. The same thing would happen if the situation was reversed. There's no doubt about it--that's how the political game is played.

It makes sense from a campaign standpoint; Bush's approval ratings pre-9/11 were mediocre, and immediately afterword shot up to around 80%. Last time I saw, it was back in the low 50s. If I was his campaign manager, you're damn right I'd want to do everything possible to get people back in that post-9/11 mindset and remind them of how they "stood behind" Bush.

I am a *little* surprised; I thought Bush would wait longer before bringing up 9/11. Wait a little while, until August or September, taking the "high road," then mentioning it casually at a debate or two. The fact that he started out on the 9/11 foot is a little surprising. But that's just me.

 

[specious_reasons]

Rik,

Sometimes I just don't like your style.

I posted a response to Demigorgon, but you chose to respond to Zep's. I think Zep's response is easier to attack.

I also don't like the fact that in another thread, you were adamant that the terrorist threat to America has been reduced, but I pointed out the same things. It's a similar response I gave you on that thread, so I'll quote myself so you can see it.

This is a fallacious argument.

1) There have been attacks on US military and non-military targets by terrorists (presumed to be Al-Qaeda) since 9/11/2001. In fact, throughout the history of Al-Qaeda, the majority of attacks on US targets have been overseas.

2) As the public, rarely do we see terrorist plots foiled. To have an objective measure of how well the Bush Admin is doing, we'd have to know how many terrorist plots are known, and how many of them were stopped. To be completely objective, we'd also need to know how many are actually planned, too.

So far, I haven't seen absolute proof that Bush is more successful at fighting domestic terrorism, see #2. One could reasonably evaluate his policies for their presumed effectiveness. However, calling Bush's measures successful because there haven't been attacks on Americans in America is not very reasonable.

Assuming the voters might vote based on that logical fallacy is reasonable, IMO.

Hey Zep,

I'm looking on my big map o'USA here and I just can't find Jakarta on it! Darn!

See, Americans are not voting for a President that will end all terrorism all over the world. Which candidate is, or has ever, promised this?? GWB has done his level best to insure it won't happen again in the USA.

 

[shecky]

I am a *little* surprised; I thought Bush would wait longer before bringing up 9/11. Wait a little while, until August or September, taking the "high road," then mentioning it casually at a debate or two. The fact that he started out on the 9/11 foot is a little surprising. But that's just me.

I, too am a little surprised how early the 9/11 references come. My guess is that they'd be saved for last minute when passions are highest, saving the emotional punch for the apex of the election.

My guess is that the Bush campaign might lay off the references until that time comes. Because if he continually flogs the 9/11 tragedy, folks will be rolling their eyes by August whenever 9/11 is brought up.

 

[specious_reasons]

PAU. Politics As Usual.
(snip)

I am a *little* surprised; I thought Bush would wait longer before bringing up 9/11. Wait a little while, until August or September, taking the "high road," then mentioning it casually at a debate or two. The fact that he started out on the 9/11 foot is a little surprising. But that's just me.

No disagreement about PAU from me.

I suspect we won't hear or see any direct 9/11 references for a while now.

First, my the news reports I heard, Bush is going on the offensive after these commercials have run. Second, I agree that 9/11 will be more effective just before the end of the campaign, rather that in the middle of an 8(!!!) month campaign.

Who knows, though, maybe they want to hammer the point home, and there will be subtle 9/11 references for the next 8 months. I'm no expert campaign manager.

 

[corplinx]

I just saw the advertisement in question today and all I have to say is WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.

Really, all the news media is doing by giving ear to these ridiculous claims that 911 is being exploited is giving ammo to the "liberal media" crowd.

This is the biggest non-story since the moveon.org hitler ad. However, now that morons, tools, and shills are going around saying bush is exploiting 911 it is being artificially perpetuated.

Really, I expected a debunk thread on this more than a shilling one.

 

[rikzilla]

Rik,

Sometimes I just don't like your style.

I'm hurt.

I posted a response to Demigorgon, but you chose to respond to Zep's. I think Zep's response is easier to attack.

I skim threads...maybe I missed it?

I also don't like the fact that in another thread, you were adamant that the terrorist threat to America has been reduced, but I pointed out the same things. It's a similar response I gave you on that thread, so I'll quote myself so you can see it.

Well, after 9/11 everyone was in shock. We were waiting for the next hit. We're still waiting.

The way I see it, we were hit because of our foreign policy...blah...blah....hated because of this, or that. Since 9/11 we have seemingly gone to extraordinary lengths to make these people hate us ever more deeply. Right? I mean, isn't it safe to assume that those who hated us over there have even better reasons for hating us now? So the motive is more intense rather than less. And yet......where's the follow up attack? We're expecting it,....they believe we deserve it.....so where is it?

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.

So far, I haven't seen absolute proof that Bush is more successful at fighting domestic terrorism, see #2. One could reasonably evaluate his policies for their presumed effectiveness. However, calling Bush's measures successful because there haven't been attacks on Americans in America is not very reasonable.

Yet if there were attacks it would certainly be reasonable to show those right? So if I pray to Jesus, and nothing happens,...it's unreasonable that I cease to believe in Jesus?

Assuming the voters might vote based on that logical fallacy is reasonable, IMO.

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.

It's called a democracy my friend. Most people in America also believe in an invisible man in the sky,...and hold that no one who doesn't believe in the invisible man may hold the highest of offices. Personally, I find that fact to be far more distressing. You and I may disagree, but to most voters in America we're just a couple of guys who are going to roast in hell.

I'm rambling I know..... Democracy has it's faults, but it's the best we have right now.

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

 

[subgenius]

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.
But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say.
Top administration officials discussed the mission to kill bin Laden as late as one week before the suicide attacks on New York and Washington, but they had not yet resolved a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators and whether the missiles would be sufficiently lethal, officials told The Associated Press.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/worl...ator030624.html

(CBS) Of all the places in the United States that you'd think would be prepared to defend against a terrorist attack, the nine nuclear weapons factories and research labs - operated by the Department of Energy - would be at the top of the list.
But a recent investigation by the government's General Accounting Office found that the Department of Energy may not be up to the task – and that security at these sites is inadequate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain599957.shtml

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

 

[Grammatron]

Sub, you keep bringing those links up and I'll keep telling you how utterly meaningless they are

 

[subgenius]

Sub, you keep bringing those links up and I'll keep telling you how utterly meaningless they are

Keep telling yourself until you believe it.
Slow to act letting 2 terrorists escape to kill again. Not protecting nuclear facilities.
Quite meaningless.

 

[Grammatron]

Keep telling yourself until you believe it.
Slow to act letting 2 terrorists escape to kill again. Not protecting nuclear facilities.
Quite meaningless.

Clinton had a chance to capture Bin Laden, where's your thread on how he failed?

The link to nuclear facilities security does not work so no comment, but I hope they are securing them.

The last link is HIGHLY questionable if only because to accept it one must accept there were WMDs in Iraq (which there is no evidence of), A clear connection between Saddam and Al-Queda (which there is no evidence of). Of course, there's another point that our intelligence was perfect just that one time apparently and the rest of the time you seem to question it.

Either A you accept everything else in the story thus and agreeing with Invasion of Iraq or B the story needs a heck of a lot more proof to be taking seriously and you have not offered any so it stands it's false. Which is it?

 

[Tmy]

Didn;t Kerry mention rethinking the war on terror? Hasn;t he talked about using a crime-and-punishment model as opposed to a military one? How could this NOT be seen as being tremendously advantageous for terrorists?
For what it's worth, Kim Jong Il's advocating Kerry..
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1078381535832&p=1012571727088

How is this an advantage to terrorists?? Whats the implication. Our justice system doesnt work? Its a fraud? Ask Martha Stewart if our system is an advantage.


Its kinda funny Bush is using 911. Whats the message? "Hey while I was on watch this happened! Vote for me!!!"

 

[reprise]

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.