[alphasubzero949]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

Discuss.

[shmerek]

Really classy

[Logic]

Anyone really surprised by this?

[John F. Smith]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

Discuss.

If you watch the commercials though you'll see that the WTC images are only featured for a second or so. Very brief. It's not as horrible as the critics are making it out to be.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Logic:
Anyone really surprised by this?

no, but I am amused at how up in arms republicans got when kucinich asked why the repatriated bodies from Iraq were not being shown, and their contention was it using the blood of the heroes for his own political gain.


.......hmmmmmm.


I've also heard the Repub convention is going to be held at ground zero.



......hmmmmmmm.

[gadster]

I guess the ads featuring Bush and the famous sign "Mission Accomplished" got nixed in focus group testing.

[zachs]

What's worse is the Right's response:

I'm sorry, but while I have a great deal of sympathy for the families of 9/11 victims, I think these complaints are nonsense squared. A lot more people died during Vietnam than on 9/11 and John Kerry has been running ads with footage from there for months. These families may have a unique relationship to 9/11 but they do not have ownership of that day, politically, culturally or otherwise and it would be absurd if this administration caved on this point, even though I'm sure the media will be delighted to exploit the personal tragedies of these families.

Yeah, that's the way to go. Attack the victims' families. What a scumbag.

With the 1 million+ people protesting in NYC this summer at the convention, I'd like to see Bush go down to Ground Zero. I'll be there demonstrating for sure.

[NYCFarmboy]

I think it is complete and total hypocracy to get upset over images of 9/11 in the President's television ads, especially after seeing Kerry thumping his chest over his Vietnam record, and subsequent anti-war activities.

9/11 is the most important event in American History since Pearl Harbor.

President Bush has made America safer, and the world a better place to live as a result of his actions concerning 9-11-2001.

FDR used WW2 as a reason to re-elect himself. "Don't change horses in mid-stream".

I saw the ads. They are done most tastefully. To be upset over them, is just to show your own personal hatred of the President Bush.

Which is fine...you are entitled to that.

But don't expect people to swallow your own hate-Bush views of the President in regards to 9/11.

I saw that the firemen who are all upset about Bush using the ads had already endorsed Kerry previously which really gives zero credibility to their views on this.

[Logic]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I saw that the firemen who are all upset about Bush using the ads had already endorsed Kerry previously which really gives zero credibility to their views on this.

So the people who were the real heroes of that day have no credibility?

Interesting.........

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
If you watch the commercials though you'll see that the WTC images are only featured for a second or so. Very brief.

Almost subliminal.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Logic:
So the people who were the real hero's of that day have no credibility?

Interesting.........

Not to attack the President for defending America.

[itai195]

Surely you can understand the difference between the slogan "don't change horses in midstream" and the politicization of a tragedy like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. That said, I think 99% of politicians would be willing to stoop this low, so it's not a shock to me that Bush is doing this. I'm not sure it's going to make anyone vote for him, though. If anything, I am surprised that he's pulling out the 9/11 card this early. Is the Bush camp worried?

[Logic]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Not to attack the President for defending America.

Perhaps if the President would have been defending America 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

The firefighters are probably the few select in America that have seen the effects of "war". That often makes you understand even better why you shouldn't choose that way without some serious thought about if that is the right choice. And what has W done to defend America? One retaliation attack, continued his very biased way of dealing with the root of the problem, attacked another nation and therefore given the terrorists one more reason to put on the recruitment leaflets, and continued to support the regimes that have caused much of this problem.

So I would say that you could perhaps say that W has tried to defend America, but has very much failed that important task.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by itai195:
Surely you can understand the difference between the slogan "don't change horses in midstream" and the politicization of a tragedy like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. That said, I think 99% of politicians would be willing to stoop this low, so it's not a shock to me that Bush is doing this. I'm not sure it's going to make anyone vote for him, though.

We all in our hearts, in our soul, and in our prayers would give everything we have in life to take back the events of that day.

The ONLY people making it a political issue now are the people attacking President Bush for his war on terror.

[zachs]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think it is complete and total hypocracy to get upset over images of 9/11 in the President's television ads, especially after seeing Kerry thumping his chest over his Vietnam record, and subsequent anti-war activities.

9/11 is the most important event in American History since Pearl Harbor.

President Bush has made America safer, and the world a better place to live as a result of his actions concerning 9-11-2001.

FDR used WW2 as a reason to re-elect himself. "Don't change horses in mid-stream".

I saw the ads. They are done most tastefully. To be upset over them, is just to show your own personal hatred of the President Bush.

Which is fine...you are entitled to that.

But don't expect people to swallow your own hate-Bush views of the President in regards to 9/11.

I saw that the firemen who are all upset about Bush using the ads had already endorsed Kerry previously which really gives zero credibility to their views on this.

9/11 was an important event, yes. But that does not mean give anyone (Kerry -or- Bush) a reason to use images and video of bodies being carried from a gravesite. Because that's what it was, a gravesite. Of course 9/11 should be discussed. But you can talk about it without showing videos of our fallen heroes being carried out of the rubble. You can discuss it without cheapening a profound event that is still hard to talk or think about for many.

Remember, too, that it was President Bush who told us that he would not use 9/11 for political purposes. It was he who said, on Jan. 23 2003, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." So if you want to say that the President is justified in using those images for political purposes, then you should also realize that he is once again going back on his word.

In fact, it was not two weeks ago on Feb. 24 that Kevin Madden, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said "I can't believe [they] said that. They are playing politics with national security." (in response to those who have said Bush has been politicizing 9/11).

President Bush also continues to stonewall the 9/11 Commission's investigation by refusing to meet with them. And yet, on September 11th, he asserted that he had ordered the "full resources of the federal government" to investigate the attacks. And yet, although he says he will meet with them for 1 hour, he spent 3 hours fundraising in California the other day. What's more important? Raising money (he already has $200 mill, how much more does he need?), or investigating the most massive intelligence failure ever in U.S. history, which occurred on his watch?

These arent' just my "hate-views" of the President. They are clear and simple facts. And more and more Americans are beginning to realize them. That's why 55% say they have "doubts and reservations" about President Bush being a leader they can trust.

Edit: You said, "President Bush has made America safer, and the world a better place to live as a result of his actions concerning 9-11-2001."

The world is a better place...for who? The 10,000 Iraqis who have died? The hundreds of American soldiers killed, and thousands wounded? All of the Afghanis who have perished or been injured?

As for America...Osama has yet to be caught, and I recall being on "High" alert for weeks in December. If we're so safe now, why is it that we still have threats from al Qaeda?

In his 2004 budget, President Bush proposes to cut total Border and Transportation security by $284 million and provides no money for port security.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by zachs:
9/11 was an important event, yes. But that does not mean give anyone (Kerry -or- Bush) a reason to use images and video of bodies being carried from a gravesite. Because that's what it was, a gravesite. Of course 9/11 should be discussed. But you can talk about it without showing videos of our fallen heroes being carried out of the rubble. You can discuss it without cheapening a profound event that is still hard to talk or think about for many.

Remember, too, that it was President Bush who told us that he would not use 9/11 for political purposes. It was he who said, on Jan. 23 2003, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." So if you want to say that the President is justified in using those images for political purposes, then you should also realize that he is once again going back on his word.

In fact, it was not two weeks ago on Feb. 24 that Kevin Madden, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said "I can't believe [they] said that. They are playing politics with national security." (in response to those who have said Bush has been politicizing 9/11).

President Bush also continues to stonewall the 9/11 Commission's investigation by refusing to meet with them. And yet, on September 11th, he asserted that he had ordered the "full resources of the federal government" to investigate the attacks. And yet, although he says he will meet with them for 1 hour, he spent 3 hours fundraising in California the other day. What's more important? Raising money (he already has $200 mill, how much more does he need?), or investigating the most massive intelligence failure ever in U.S. history, which occurred on his watch?

These arent' just my "hate-views" of the President. They are clear and simple facts. And more and more Americans are beginning to realize them. That's why 55% say they have "doubts and reservations" about President Bush being a leader they can trust.

The world is a better place, more safe, and more free, despite your hatred of the President.

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The world is a better place, more safe, and more free, despite your hatred of the President.

Then what about gay marriage? Are you really voting for Nader?

[ambush]

Sad.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Almost subliminal.

good (Karl Rove) call

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
We all in our hearts, in our soul, and in our prayers would give everything we have in life to take back the events of that day.

The ONLY people making it a political issue now are the people attacking President Bush for his war on terror.

ok...I'm a little confused now. Are you for Nader or Bush?

you have a Nader sig, but you are really, really, defending Bush here.

which is it?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, but I am amused at how up in arms republicans got when kucinich asked why the repatriated bodies from Iraq were not being shown, and their contention was it using the blood of the heroes for his own political gain.


.......hmmmmmm.


I've also heard the Repub convention is going to be held at ground zero.



......hmmmmmmm.

repeated for emphasis in regards to NYCfarmboy. Tell me, NYC: were you one of the ones complaining about the Kucinich ad a few months ago?

[zachs]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The world is a better place, more safe, and more free, despite your hatred of the President.

More safe? The fact that the Taliban is regrouping doesn't make it seem like the world is "more safe".

More free? For whom? You mean the over 500 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, some of whom have been held for more than two years without being charged or without access to a lawyer? Yes, the world is so much more free now.

As for the world being a better place, read my post again.

So, the world is not a better place, more safe, and more free, despite your unwillingness to look at the facts.

[zachs]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Not to attack the President for defending America.

What about for cutting funding for firehouses across the country?

Bush has often vowed "to make sure that our first responders, the brave police and firefighters and emergency management teams, get resources necessary to do the job you expect them to do." But he proposed an 18.4 percent cut in funds or first responders, an $805 million reduction the administration says is justified because it does not believe those funds are "targeted" to homeland security capabilities.

[saranwarp]

More safe? HA! Bush -- after 9/11 -- let the mastermind behind the latest terrorist attacks in Iraq go free.


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

...

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.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
Then what about gay marriage? Are you really voting for Nader?

I'm supporting Nader on the gay marriage issue. He is the only candidate who supports gay marriage.

I have a separate thread somewhere regarding that issue, and was at City Hall on Sunday at a rally for Gay Marriage, and this morning was at the Municipal Building next door where we watched the city turn away loving couples seeking their right to get married.

But that is a different thread....I have different views on different subjects.


You can attack me for being for gay marriage. And you can attack me for defending the President for defending America against terrorism.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think it is complete and total hypocracy to get upset over images of 9/11 in the President's television ads, especially after seeing Kerry thumping his chest over his Vietnam record, and subsequent anti-war activities.

9/11 is the most important event in American History since Pearl Harbor.

President Bush has made America safer, and the world a better place to live as a result of his actions concerning 9-11-2001.

FDR used WW2 as a reason to re-elect himself. "Don't change horses in mid-stream".

I saw the ads. They are done most tastefully. To be upset over them, is just to show your own personal hatred of the President Bush.

Which is fine...you are entitled to that.

But don't expect people to swallow your own hate-Bush views of the President in regards to 9/11.

I saw that the firemen who are all upset about Bush using the ads had already endorsed Kerry previously which really gives zero credibility to their views on this.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

[itai195]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
repeated for emphasis in regards to NYCfarmboy. Tell me, NYC: were you one of the ones complaining about the Kucinich ad a few months ago?

I don't think so...what was the ad? can you describe it?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok...I'm a little confused now. Are you for Nader or Bush?

you have a Nader sig, but you are really, really, defending Bush here.

which is it?

I'm really really for Nader for supporting full and complete Gay Marriage.

But I absolutely stand up for President Bush in defending America against terrorism.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by zachs:


As for America...Osama has yet to be caught, and I recall being on "High" alert for weeks in December. If we're so safe now, why is it that we still have threats from al Qaeda?

Osama will be "captured" in time for the election.

In the meantime, I'll be looking forward to seeing the aircraft carrier PR video cuts in one of his campaign ads.

[zachs]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Osama will be "captured" in time for the election.

In the meantime, I'll be looking forward to seeing the aircraft carrier PR video cuts in one of his campaign ads.

Yes, of that I am sure.

But, I don't know how much of a difference it'll make. First of all, it has to be announced at exactly the right time. Five days before the election...it's going to seem too suspicious and people will think something's up. Two months before the election, and the boost will have worn off. Remember how quickly Bush's boost after Saddam's capture lasted?

As for the aircraft carrier stunt, I can't wait either. I also can't wait for Bush to show up here in August. 1 or 2 million people, including me, are gonna give him a nice welcome.

[IceBreaker]

From CNN:

Giuliani defends Bush's use of 9/11 images

Thursday, March 4, 2004 Posted: 10:54 PM EST (0354 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who won worldwide acclaim for his handling of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that devastated his city, said Thursday that using images from that day in campaign ads for President Bush is both "appropriate" and "relevant."

"The reality is that President Bush played a very, very big role in bringing our country through the worst attack in our history," he said. "So it's an appropriate thing for him to point out as part of his record, just like Democrats are going to attack parts of his record and say, 'We think it should have been done differently.' "

Giuliani is a Republican and a supporter of Bush's re-election.

The ads, which began airing Thursday, outline a series of challenges that the United States has faced since Bush became president, including the 9/11 attacks. The tag line is that Bush presents "strong leadership in times of change."

Some family members of people killed in the terrorist attacks object to the use of images from the tragedy in montages in the ads, including a brief shot of a firefighter carrying away a flag-draped victim.

"We can't help but look at the failures of that day," said Patty Casazza, whose husband died in the World Trade Center. "We lost loved ones, and anyone in our shoes would have to have a more critical view of the president."

But other victims' families said they see nothing wrong with the ads.

"It shows you firefighters carrying a brother out, and it shows you the American flag waving over the Trade Center," said Joe Esposito, a firefighter who lost both a brother and a cousin in the attacks. "I have no problem with that."

A local firefighters union, which has endorsed presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, also charged that the ad goes too far.

"I don't think the death of any citizen, particularly firefighters, should be used in anyone's campaign," said Capt. Peter Gorman of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association.

But Giuliani told CNN "It would almost be false to list the challenges that President Bush had to face and not list as one of those challenges the worst attack in this country."

Asked if he would use similar images if he ran for office again, Giuliani said "that would be hypothetical" -- but he added that his record in handling the tragedy would be a legitimate matter for voters to consider.

"September 11th is part of my record," he said. "It would be unrealistic, if I was ever evaluated, for someone not to look at that."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan also defended the ads Thursday.

"It is vital to our future that we learn what September 11th taught us," he said. "September 11th changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed our world, and the president's steady leadership is vital to how we wage the war on terrorism."

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents of both parties, said using September 11 in campaign ads is acceptable within limits.

"They have to be careful not to exploit the emotions of the families," Gergen said. "But how can you tell the story of the Bush administration and leave out 9/11? That's the core of what happened. If he's re-elected, the single reason why is because of the days and weeks following 9/11."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I'm really really for Nader for supporting full and complete Gay Marriage.

But I absolutely stand up for President Bush in defending America against terrorism.

And I can respect someone that has the gonads to admit to such a thing. Agree with you or not politically.

[zachs]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I'm really really for Nader for supporting full and complete Gay Marriage.

But I absolutely stand up for President Bush in defending America against terrorism.

I agree with you about gay marriage, and I am sure many other things as well.

But.

Care to demonstrate how President Bush has defended America against terrorism? I've provided examples to the contrary, but nobody has yet contradicted me.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by zachs:
I agree with you about gay marriage, and I am sure many other things as well.

But.

Care to demonstrate how President Bush has defended America against terrorism? I've provided examples to the contrary, but nobody has yet contradicted me.

You have made that point yourself.

You said the al qaeda is on the run.
You said that Saddam has been captured.


I think that is the definition of a safer world.

[Zimphire]

"BUSH LIES 10,000 dies"

I wonder how many more died in Iraq because of Clinton lying and then not doing anything about it.

That sig says more about the person displaying it than it does about Bush.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
"BUSH LIES 10,000 dies"

I wonder how many more died in Iraq because of Clinton lying and then not doing anything about it.

That sig says more about the person displaying it than it does about Bush.

Yes...there should be a law against political sigs.

disgusting.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Yes...there should be a law against political sigs.

disgusting.

Nothing wrong with political sigs.

BTW who teaches hate as a family value?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by zachs:
With the 1 million+ people protesting in NYC this summer at the convention, I'd like to see Bush go down to Ground Zero. I'll be there demonstrating for sure.

I also can't wait for Bush to show up here in August. 1 or 2 million people, including me, are gonna give him a nice welcome.

You aren't saying you are going to hurt the President are you? you might want to be more careful of what you say about him. I am sure that merely posting that could be considered a threat...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nothing wrong with political sigs.

BTW who teaches hate as a family value?

"Hate is not a family value" is an expression the Gay Community has picked up on to fight intolerance.

Who teaches it?

I'll just leave it that it has been very upsetting to watch the extreme hatred by those who oppose President Bush. Or for those who hate the idea of a loving gay couple's wish to simply live there life together without being treated as second class citizens.

Hate either way is wrong and should be condemned.

Bush is WRONG on gay marriage. So is Kerry.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Bush is WRONG on gay marriage. So is Kerry.

We should not be forced to accept or acknowledge this. Isn't there another thread where this is being discussed? I think I will go speak my mind...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by djohnson:
You aren't saying you are going to hurt the President are you? you might want to be more careful of what you say about him. I am sure that merely posting that could be considered a threat...

There will be mass demonstrations of course... I think it will be good for the hate-Bush folks to get outside and scream to let some of their hatred out (in terms of yelling..not anything violent). I hope they scream their rants of hatred for a week solid. If that makes them feel better....then great! Its NYC.... we can handle that no problem.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
There will be mass demonstrations of course... I think it will be good for the hate-Bush folks to get outside and scream to let some of their hatred out (in terms of yelling..not anything violent). I hope they scream their rants of hatred for a week solid. If that makes them feel better....then great! Its NYC.... we can handle that no problem.

Scream and rant and rave is a great idea! Not that they will be heard, but they might feel better... yeah right! I just feel sorry if they get a little violent. A million people being crowd controlled??? Glad I live in Texas!

[tie]

Originally posted by Logic:
And what has W done to defend America? One retaliation attack, continued his very biased way of dealing with the root of the problem, attacked another nation and therefore given the terrorists one more reason to put on the recruitment leaflets, and continued to support the regimes that have caused much of this problem.

Has he or has he not defended Halliburton?

I think the reason people so often talk past each other in these forums is that they start with different definitions.

Real American soldiers being killed apparently don't count when Bush talks about national security. He says that what counts is that we successfully secured the make-believe WMD program. But how can securing a fantasy help national security? The truth is that for Bush, security for Halliburton and defense contractors == American security.

On the other hand, real security threats -- like Pakistan selling nuclear weapons material to North Korea -- apparently aren't worth Bush's attention. The right business plan for profiting from this security situation hasn't yet emerged.

If you don't agree, please give me an explanation for why Iraq's fantasy WMD program was worth going to war for, while Pakistan's real WMD exportation is not.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by djohnson:
We should not be forced to accept or acknowledge this. Isn't there another thread where this is being discussed? I think I will go speak my mind...

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

By denying gay marriage you are denying equality.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Scream and rant and rave is a great idea! Not that they will be heard, but they might feel better... yeah right! I just feel sorry if they get a little violent. A million people being crowd controlled??? Glad I live in Texas!

Actually..I'll be screaming/ranting and raving as well, but for Gay marriage.... your're welcome to come and join in the protest! (and fyi..there will also be protests at BOTH the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to voice opposition to both Kerry and Bush's opposition to gay marriage.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by djohnson:
You aren't saying you are going to hurt the President are you? you might want to be more careful of what you say about him. I am sure that merely posting that could be considered a threat...

I WISH he was dead. Does that count? I won't do it but I WISH HE WAS DEAD. I would never do it. I'm a liberal Pussy. Oh wait, I'm registered as a Socialist. I don't want anyone to die except Bush. I wouldn't shed a tear if Bush was dead. -->I'm not going to Kill Bush. The party at my house would have tons of KEGS if Bush choked on a pretzle. Something silly like that. A fun death like pretzled.

I want him to die. I have no plans on involvment. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I want him to die. I have no plans on involvment. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I want him to die. I have no plans on involvment. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I want him to die. I have no plans on involvment. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I want him to die. I have no plans on involvment. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
I want him to die. I have no plans on involvment. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.

[Ayelbourne]

The President has been foreshadowing this approach in his public remarks for several weeks, with his "Three days later, I stood in the ruins"-style lines. I found it somewhat crass and tasteless then, and I still do now - but I certainly don't find it unexpected. It's about his speed.

He's nothing if not predictable.

As for the thread title, it's arguable that President Bush has been leveraging the events of September 11th for his own political gain since they occurred.

So, what else is new?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Osama will be "captured" in time for the election.

In the meantime, I'll be looking forward to seeing the aircraft carrier PR video cuts in one of his campaign ads.

I think it will be a good thing for Osama to be captured no matter when it happens.