Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Reminding a nation that Bush has already passed the test of true leadership in a crisis
Published on March 5, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

Some people have complained that Bush doesn't have the right to make use of any 9/11 related images in his campaign commercials.  I disagree. But I also strongly believe that he needs to tread carefully as to not seem to be exploiting a national tragedy. 

The reason I think he can and should bring up 9/11 is because it was the defining moment of is presidency. I remember thinking as the months passed after 9/11 how thankful I was that Bush had won and not Gore. I could imagine the over-engineered response Gore would have put together. Would Gore have taken out the Taliban? Would some other President have managed to topple the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda with so few losses? Who can forget Bush standing at ground zero with his arm around the weary fireman? It was a defining moment in our country's history and Bush was the right man at the right place. He not only should remind us of those times, he has an obligation to remind us of what we've been through and how he handled a dire situation.

Those who cry foul are being hypocritical, to say the least. We don't know a lot about Kerry but we damn well know that he served in Vietnam. That he got a silver star, a bronze star, and two purple hearts. I know this off the top of my head. Why? Because he is constantly making a big fuss about the defining moment of his life. I don't have a problem with that though. Those events demonstrated that in a crunch, Carry is a brave and heroic figure.  Would someone argue that Vietnam was a "national" event that should therefore be hands off? Of course not.  9/11 was a national tragedy as well. And it is important for people to realize how effectively Bush handled that crisis.

Obviously Bush critics won't like that. Their strategy has been to try to make it so that Bush can't talk about anything.  If you try to point out Kerry's deplorable voting record on national security issues, his supporters claim that's off limits because he's a war hero.  Now they're trying to create a scenario where Bush can't speak about what he accomplished.  Honestly now, if I told you on 9/12/2001 that as we enter 2004 the United States would not suffer a single follow-up terrorist attack would you have believed it? Be honest now.  Nearly 3 years later and we've not suffered any additional attacks. Before 9/11 we had been routinely attacked by Al Qaeda -- the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first WTC attack. And yet after 9/11, nothing. No matter how you slice it, you have to give some credit to Bush for this. Because, make no mistake, if we suffered a terrorist attack he would almost certainly get blamed for that. We can't have it both ways.

His ads needs to remind us what we've been through. Not just for political purposes but because too many people have already forgotten what happened on September 11. Four airliners were hijacked at the same time. Two of them were rammed into the world's largest building, the WTC and destroyed. The WTC, if you hadn't ever been in it, was the size of a small city. The twin towers could comfortably fit over 100,000 people in them (that's how many people could potentially have died incidentally if the planes had struck about an hour later and at the same time and a bit lower on the buildings). A third hijacked airliner rammed into the Pentagon. The fourth was retaken by the passengers and crashed into the ground while it was on its way to Washington DC. Its target believed to have been the White House (think about that for a moment - if the passengers hadn't done what they did, the White House might have been destroyed). Or maybe the capital building!  Think about that. 

We need to be reminded that we are at war. And that like Kerry in Vietnam, when Bush had his crunch time, he showed that he was a man of integrity and effective leadership.


Comments (Page 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Mar 06, 2004
Why don't we just pass new laws and have 9/11 stricken from every television and radio program, stricken from every book, newspaper and magazine, forbidden to come from the lips of anyone who did not lose a loved one that day... Why don't we just sweep it under the rug and pretend it never did happen?
The people that are making such a big deal over Bush showing images of 9/11 are themselves exploiting 9/11. They are in a sense just like the pharisees of ancient times who loved to pray on the street corners just to be seen and they would disfigure their faces when they fasted to gain the attention and sympathy from others around them.
I would think that after 2 or 3 years the mourning process would be over and done with. Do the families of 9/11 victims bury their faces in the ground and begin weeping over their loved ones everytime they see a plane pass over head or see a highrise or hear the word terrorist on T.V.?
Its time people take their hearts off their sleeves and move on. GCJ
on Mar 06, 2004
The loss of loved ones has many ways of hurting, and the unexpected is the worst,only time heals all wounds and wounds all heels[crud]Anyone of these people can cry on my shoulder anytime and I will console them for as long as it takes.....charlie poore
on Mar 06, 2004
I would think that after 2 or 3 years the mourning process would be over and done with.


Maybe you're wrong. Did you ever lose a family member? A child or a spouse?


Do the families of 9/11 victims bury their faces in the ground and begin weeping over their loved ones everytime they see a plane pass over head or see a highrise or hear the word terrorist on T.V.?


Maybe they do. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if some of them did.
on Mar 06, 2004
I believe my point is that using a national tragedy, by any person, to gain votes is bad taste. If Bush put in his commercials all the things he had done to counteract terrorism, that would be great, but playing on basic emotions is a cheap shot, no matter who does it.

Cheers
on Mar 06, 2004
"If Bush put in his commercials all the things he had done to counteract terrorism..."


... the democrats would have lambasted him for using the military as advertising, or would have screamed that he shouldn't capitalize on civilian casualites, or... or...

You guys really think any of this is based on kind concern? No matter what he does they will spin it, it is an election year. If Kerry had done anything constructive in that regard, he'd be using them too. He didn't, so the only thing he can do is try to take away their effectiveness for Bush.
on Mar 06, 2004
the democrats would have lambasted him for using the military as advertising, or would have screamed that he shouldn't capitalize on civilian casualites


You're grasping at straws. Showing images of the destroyed World Trade Center has NOTHING to do with any of Bush's accomplishments. If you disagree, explain to me exactly how showing me a picture of an annihilated national landmark does anything to say "Bush is good."
on Mar 06, 2004
"Showing images of the destroyed World Trade Center has NOTHING to do with any of Bush's accomplishments."


You see there Bulb, there's another opinion. You gotta learn that opinions do not refute other opinions. I don't have to refute your opinions, because they do nothing to refute mine. We end up at this point in every conversation. You just invite me to elaborate so you can make more little yellow boxes and ask me to elaborate again. In the end, though, we are still left with two points-of-view.

As far as "annihilated national landmark", he is reminding people what all the hubbub has been about for the last 4 years. With all the petty finger-pointing, people forget. You may feel differently, but that would be another of your opinions.
on Mar 06, 2004
Tell me, then, would you have any objection to the tastefulness (as opposed to the politics) of an ad that features a video of the collapse of the Towers, followed by a voiceover: "This happened while Bush was President"?


As far as "annihilated national landmark", he is reminding people what all the hubbub has been about for the last 4 years.


Since the President himself has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 (NOTE: NOT MY OPINION! ACTUAL FACT!), how do you figure?
on Mar 06, 2004
"Tell me, then, would you have any objection to the tastefulness (as opposed to the politics) of an ad that features a video of the collapse of the Towers, followed by a voiceover: "This happened while Bush was President"?"


I don't see tastefulness entering into it, honestly. It was a defining moment and how people reacted to it is relevant to their public service. It wouldn't be any different than showing the same image and saying "This happened while Kerry was in office." I doubt either one of them could have prevented it in the 8 months previous, though Kerry had many, many more years in office to address national security.

One could easily make an ad like:

Because we did nothing about this: (image of the first World Trade Center bombing, followed by images of the USS Cole and the African Embassy bombings)
We were forced to do something about this: (Image of 9/11)

Tasteless? Maybe, but true.

Since the President himself has admitted...


Is there something in the 9/11 ad that references Iraq? If Bush isn't correlating the two, I'm not sure why we need to. There's been a lot more done in the last four years other than Iraq.


on Mar 06, 2004
I don't see tastefulness entering into it, honestly.


Thanks for not answering the question. I specifically asked you not to address the politics of my hypothetical (since it is obvious that Bush could not have prevented the attacks) but only the tastefulness.


Tasteless? Maybe, but true.


In other words, it's okay to be tasteless as long as what you say is true.


Is there something in the 9/11 ad that references Iraq? If Bush isn't correlating the two, I'm not sure why we need to.


Conceded, but then tell me: What else has happened in the last four years that has to do with images of the World Trade Center?
on Mar 06, 2004
Thanks for not answering the question


*sigh*

No, I wouldn't object to the 'tastefulness'. When I said that tastefulness doesn't enter into it, I mean I don't see tastefulness being an issue in *any* political ad. Only pertinence. If someone had a valid reason to show images of the holocaust, or hardcore pornography, fine. If you do, though, you better have a damn good reason. Like I said, taste doesn't enter into it.

In other words, it's okay to be tasteless as long as what you say is true.


True and pertinent. I wouldn't show 9/11 and say "Kerry was wearing a green tie that day".

"What else has happened in the last four years that has to do with images of the World Trade Center?"


Afghanistan? The Patriot Act, all the national security efforts (that, granted, you don't like much)? Honestly, I would guess that Bush deals with something, no matter how small, every day that he wouldn't have had to had 9/11 not occurred.

I'll ask you. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 hadn't occurred? Whether you call it an 'excuse' or 'related', it still figured into the political environment that brought about the invasion of Iraq. I, for one, was less thrilled with the "containment" after 9/11, especially when Hussein was actively donating money to terrorist organizations and paying the families of suicide bombers.

P.S. I don't have a problem with opinions, I promise. It's just when I say "Yes", and you say "NO!", it is customary to explain why you say no, instead of asking me to reiterate why I say yes, lol. I don't owe you reiteration if you don't put forth something to refute. I dig ya, bulb, don't get the wrong idea.
on Mar 06, 2004
Like I said, taste doesn't enter into it.


How about an ad supporting gay marriage, showing two men having anal sex, with the caption, "Is this really hurting you?"


Afghanistan? The Patriot Act, all the national security efforts


Conceded, but I think of those as a direct extension of the September 11 events. Besides, if I were Bush, I wouldn't want to remind us of Afghanistan TOO much. Where's Osama again?


Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 hadn't occurred?


Of course not, and since Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, we shouldn't have even after September 11 did occur.


it still figured into the political environment that brought about the invasion of Iraq


Only because President Bush, through deception and fear-mongering, made an actual issue out of a non-issue.


I dig ya, bulb, don't get the wrong idea.


Insofar as my programming allows me to like someone, I like you. [beep beep, buzz, whirr]
on Mar 06, 2004
"with the caption, "Is this really hurting you?""


LMAO... we'd be back to pertinence on that one. There's plenty of objections to gay marriage to address before you work your way to that.

"Where's Osama again?"


Supposedly in a basement in Texas, waiting to be "captured" around September. Funny thought.

"Insofar as my programming allows me to like someone"


I'd check with my handlers. You lefties aren't supposed to consort with the enemy. You have a job to do...


on Mar 06, 2004
If Bush wants 9/11 imagery, let him put up a photo of him sitting in a classroom and reading for his photo op while his Staff were being moved into bunkers, a national emergency being activated, and pilots requesting permission to go supersonic and stop the second jet in NYC. He caused the delays necessary to allow the second jet to impact by his deliberate neglect and failure to act in his only true role as Commander-in-Chief. Then he says he never knew until later, despite witnesses testimony of seeing and hearing him told BEFORE he even entered the school building.
Anyone who wants the list of the timeline which proves he did so, can go to: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline and find the minute by minute account of that date.
on Mar 06, 2004
BUSH NEW 9\11 WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND LET IT, GOT NO USE FOR HIM, THE SCUM
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last