Using 9/11 As A Means For Political Advantage Appropriate?

[goofyfish]

So, someone in the RNC decided that the best way to promote a second term for Bush was to remind everyone that he was commander-in-chief, and thus presided over, one of the costliest intelligence failures in US history?
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. (Full text here (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html))The "Mission Accomplished" footage is pretty much out the window these days, and they had to use something. Footage of Bush calling off the predator drone search for bin Laden back in early 2001 would certainly been a more honest choice. There's a difference between a discussion of fighting terrorism as part of national policy, and taking everything from 9/11 and sticking a "Vote Bush" sticker on it. The first is part and parcel of governing, and the second is crass exploitation.

This is utterly tasteless, and it is exactly what I expected.

:m: Peace

[jps]

Ironically, images of 9/11 are really a good symbol for Bush. Thats what he stands for. Mass destruction here and abroad.
I'm hoping the massive demonstration that will greet the RNC in NYC will make this backfire on him to some extent. As I said in another thread, the choice of new york for the republican national convention can only be viewed as a hostile act given Bush's express disdain for New Yorkers.

[Undecided]

I hate Bush and his cronies as much as the next guy, but in my attempt to remain objective I see why the Bushies are going to be exploiting the 9/11 attack. Most Americans don't know or realize, or care that it was under Bush's reign that the intelligence failure occurred. So that ignorance or apathy works in favour of the RNC big time. There are Americans out there who probably still believe that Saddam had a hand to play on 9.11, and the RNC see's the connection. Looking from a RNC standpoint, they can't understand how we cannot see the correlation btwn Iraq and Al Qaeda. But of course we know that they are worlds apart. The 9/11 stunt, and that of the war is a deflector of the real issues biting the US. Economics, strain, and a country sick of tired of living under a veil. I do think that Bush will win this election; I have lost much hope for the American ppl. Bush exemplifies point blank American exceptionalism, and the "cowboy" attitude that America was "built on". The crass materialism that is the Bush administration rings bells of a nostalgia that never existed. Americans are in need of a hero, and to many Bush is just that man.

[Tiassa]

I feel badly hopping from one topic to another with the same point, but the short version of it is that Mounir al-Motassadeq has won his appeal in Germany against his conviction, and will be retried.

The judges think he's guilty.

Everybody acts like they know he's guilty.

The evidence just isn't there.

The evidence compelling a new trial comes from interrogations of Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

The United States is not being forthcoming with information to assist other nations in the prosecution and conviction of terrorists.

Quite obviously, campaign ads showing 9/11 footage couldn't possibly distract the discussion any more effectively.

Well-played, but a classic parlor trick of the Roving School. At risk of making this post too long for some, I should at least mention that, in relation to the propriety of exploiting 9/11 for political gains ... well, it's the Roving School of campaigning, which is even more vicious than the Atwater School. (Atwater recanted, as I recall, to cleanse his soul.) Of course it's not appropriate.

[daGUY]

There's a difference between a discussion of fighting terrorism as part of national policy, and taking everything from 9/11 and sticking a "Vote Bush" sticker on it. The first is part and parcel of governing, and the second is crass exploitation.

This is utterly tasteless, and it is exactly what I expected.

I completely agree. 9.11 is used as an excuse for EVERYthing, and this is just a continuation of that.

Bush loves to talk about how there have been no terror attacks on American soil in the past two and a half years, thanks to how he handled 9.11 (i.e., "occupation" of Afghanistan and a war with Iraq). What he fails to point out is that prior to 9.11, the last major terror attack on the US was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Which would be a six year span. There was no DHS, no Patriot Act, etc. and somehow we managed to not be attacked for six years!

He's pretty damn lucky that we HAVEN'T been attacked for two and a half years. I'm sure that launching a war against a country that posed no threat to us and had nothing to do with 9.11 will DECREASE hatred against the US. Yeah, ok.

[Don Hakman]

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushknew2.gif











may I remind you all my pics are originals.

[wesmorris]

This is utterly tasteless, and it is exactly what I expected.

Hey how about in comparison to "but I'm a vietnam vet"?

I haven't seen the ads though, for either side.

I think this is another battle for the lesser of two scumbags.

Actually, I think george is the lesser of the two scumbags for sure.

[Don Hakman]

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushson.jpg

[Undecided]

Kerry running on the Vietnam card is also politically expedient, but unlike Bush he did something for America. You must consider how powerful that Vietnam thing could be, when Kerry was fighting in Vietnam the President of the United States was hardly showing up for duty in Alabama. Is that a legitimate attack on Bush? No, but it is effective. The same thing that is going on with the 9/11 thing, Bush will lose much credibility on the 9/11 attacks if families start speaking out against the use of their family members lives as a political tool. If you want to be really political you have to ask what has Bush do? It was under Bushes watch that 9/11 happened it wasn't under Clinton. Frankly Clinton was pursuing OBL as much as he could in the circumstances of the time. Bush ignored OBL threat, and it is Bush who is exploiting his own ignorance. Who is the scumbag? All of them.

[grazzhoppa]

Bush's ads remind of what political ads looked like 40 years ago....an atomic bomb blowing up, and the viewer getting the idea that if he/she didn't elect that candidate, the world will end. It's a slime ball move for Bush to actually support those ads. It's not like he thought them up himself, but for him to support showing them is disgraceful.

I hope Bush also puts out an ad that shows him inside a deep, dark bunker somewhere underneath a mountain in Montana with a calendar that shows "September 2001" to compliment his "Ground Zero" ads.

[15ofthe19]

If there was anything suprising about this strategy, it might be news, but considering how often it has been employed througout history, I'm surprised it gets so much attention.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030504/content/roll_2.Par.0001.ImageFile.jpg

[15ofthe19]

What he fails to point out is that prior to 9.11, the last major terror attack on the US was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Which would be a six year span.

That brings up a great question. Consider that when you are on the grounds of any American embassy, aren't you technically considered to be on American soil. If you attack an American embassy, aren't you in fact attacking American soil? I know it's largely semantics, but hey, if you took away semantic arguments most of the posters on this forum wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I think the hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded victims of Al-Qaeda's attacks against the embassies of Kenya and Tanzania, and the families of the soldiers killed and maimed in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole would take issue with the notion that 9/11 was somehow the only impetus for the War on Terror. Clinton fiddled while Al-Qaeda grew emboldened by their continued successes. Shoulda seen it comin' guys. Can't dispute that, regardless of your political stripes.

[Bells]

I know it's largely semantics, but hey, if you took away semantic arguments most of the posters on this forum wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

No, most of us sit down to type up our posts.


I think the hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded victims of Al-Qaeda's attacks against the embassies of Kenya and Tanzania, and the families of the soldiers killed and maimed in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole would take issue with the notion that 9/11 was somehow the only impetus for the War on Terror. Clinton fiddled while Al-Qaeda grew emboldened by their continued successes.
Images from 9/11, are at the moment, probably the only impetus for Bush to try to win this election. The visual from 9/11 of the planes crashing into the twin towers makes a better back drop for Bush as people can continue to see the horror of those events. Bush sees it as reminding the people of who was leader on that day. It's all purely politics. 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to illegally attack Iraq, so why wouldn't he use it to try and win another term? The whole thing is disgusting. Politics has taken an even worse turn by the use of such images in political campaigns and for political gain.


Shoulda seen it comin' guys. Can't dispute that, regardless of your political stripes.
You're right, should have seen it coming and many did. Many said that US interference in the politics of other States and their imposition of their political beliefs on other States would lead to trouble and they were right.

[Persol]

Images from 9/11, are at the moment, probably the only impetus for Bush to try to win this election.
Unfortunately, tax cuts seem to convince may people of who is right.

[Clockwood]

Hey, if Bush is going to get yelled at for using 9-11 to his political advantage, then I am going to yell at those who use it as a weapon against him. Aren't those who blame it on him for one reason or another using it to their political advantage?

[15ofthe19]

Aren't those who blame it on him for one reason or another using it to their political advantage?

Of course they are, but consider that those who would attempt to lay the intelligence failures, and more importantly, the political hamstringing that led to 9/11, at the feet of the Bush Administration are completely ignorant of the facts of the story, and quite often by their own volition. For a few mental midgets, the story of 9/11 begins with the inauguration of Bush43. They know nothing of the history of the story, but unfortunately, that doesn't preclude them from voting based on their own ignorance. Should be an interesting campaign.

[Clockwood]

*sigh* I guess this is one of the downsides to the democratic process.

Nobody seems to take into consideration the sheer amount of garbage even the best intelligence service will inevitably get on a daily basis... along with falsified information leaked to us just to make us go batty and to disguise whatever is really going on. Nobody seems to know that sometimes the neurosis and paranoia of the enemy pays off and we sometimes never get certain pieces of information. Nobody seems to notice that Bush was new to the office and the 9-11 plot had been in the works for a number of years and Clinton didn't do jack either. Nobody seems to care that there is a filtration process and that every single piece of information collected by the government dosn't fall upon the president's desk.

[Arditezza]

People also fail to realize that it was Clinton who slashed our military, and pulled us out of a lot of places that were giving us good information. He reduced military spending, which includes military intelligence. Bush was barely in office when the attack happened, and he did a pretty good job keeping things together right afterwards. I'm not a Bush supporter, mind you... I just get tired of hearing all the ignorant reasons to vote against him. If you don't like him, that's okay but don't criticise him for doing the best he could with the rest of the tools the Clintons didn't steal from the White House.

[Undecided]

Arditezza

Let's say you build up a fort around your house to protect you from your neighbors who is your enemy. That neighbor dies, and there is no threat, and that fort consumes 60% of your income. Would you continue to fund a useless fort? That was the situation that Clinton was in after the end of the Cold War. You know that massive economic boom that you had under Clinton? Well that was greatly assisted by the cuts in the outrageous military spending, known as the peace dividend. You see the war in Iraq was won by the Clinton military not the Bush. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a country that has decreasing social spending, and increasing military spending for...? Some reason... Terrorism is not a "war" at all; rather it is an underground battle that doesn't really require huge military assets, and one we really don’t see on CNN . Bush made America into a state that is more threatened from international hatred then Clinton could have wished for. Clinton did you a favor, Bush did you a dis-service.

[Arditezza]

Arditezza

Let's say you build up a fort around your house to protect you from your neighbors who is your enemy. That neighbor dies, and there is no threat, and that fort consumes 60% of your income. Would you continue to fund a useless fort? That was the situation that Clinton was in after the end of the Cold War. You know that massive economic boom that you had under Clinton? Well that was greatly assisted by the cuts in the outrageous military spending, known as the peace dividend. You see the war in Iraq was won by the Clinton military not the Bush. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a country that has decreasing social spending, and increasing military spending for...? Some reason... Terrorism is not a "war" at all; rather it is an underground battle that doesn't really require huge military assets, and one we really don’t see on CNN . Bush made America into a state that is more threatened from international hatred then Clinton could have wished for. Clinton did you a favor, Bush did you a dis-service.

Yes, I would still keep my wall up because you never know who is going to move in and my children are more precious to me then saving a few dollars by tearing it down. We lost more money in Clinton's tear down of the military than we were spending in the years he was in office. We sold off everything at rock bottom prices and even junked perfectly good equipment. We gave away buildings we had built in other countries... for free. We pulled out of valuable places, and we downsized to a point that threatened the general public.

Secondly, Clinton rode the economic wave that was started by the Reagan/Bush era, and not one he created himself. Downsizing the military did nothing for our economy, but it did jepordize our economy and our lives. Bush is living the effects of the Clinton era. Economics do not usually present themselves during a presidency if the term only lasts 4 years.

I don't believe that we are at war against terror, I think we are fighting for our freedom. The freedom to not worry about being attacked by fundementalists and zealots of any kind, foreign or domestic.

[Undecided]

Yes, I would still keep my wall up because you never know who is going to move in and my children are more precious to me then saving a few dollars by tearing it down.

Interesting, awfully incorrect, but nevertheless interesting. You see having 20,000 nukes against no one is not an effective use of money. The US had threats of course it does, but it doesn't need a Cold War military to fight it. That is where "defense supporters" don't get. You are maintaining a military complex that is totally incompatible with the reality of the war today. Having thousands of M1 tanks means nothing to an Al Qaeda cell next door...

We lost more money in Clinton's tear down of the military than we were spending in the years he was in office.

??? Not sure what you are trying to say, but do you care to rephrase.

We sold off everything at rock bottom prices and even junked perfectly good equipment.

Which was not needed in this modern context, it was sound policy.

We gave away buildings we had built in other countries... for free. We pulled out of valuable places, and we downsized to a point that threatened the general public.


Whoa there do you know what you are saying? I don't think so, Americans are in more places now then they were in 1990:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/usaworld.htm

Do review please...

Secondly, Clinton rode the economic wave that was started by the Reagan/Bush era, and not one he created himself.

Again that is questionable; sure the Reagan economic reforms did much to create what were the 90’s. But the Bush administration did nothing to solve the economy, Clinton created a Budget surplus in excess of $200 billion. That is no small feat from a deficit of around $320 billion that he inherited from Bush.

Downsizing the military did nothing for our economy,

Whoa! I am loving this unsupported positions, go on...

but it did jepordize our economy and our lives.

???Yes??? Why do you think OBL attacked the US in the first place?

[goofyfish]

Howard Sterns' take (http://www.praesentia.us/archives/howard.stern.bush.ads.horklog.com.mp3).