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 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Mar 08, 2004
That's the problem with Clinton and Kerry: They look at the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a war.
on Mar 08, 2004
but it is a policing issue, the problem with terrorists is that they can blend into the population.
on Mar 08, 2004
Oh man, can I link my comment in the first blog about the Ad campaign crap or is that linking?
on Mar 08, 2004
That's the problem with Clinton and Kerry: They look at the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a war.


I don't remember a declaration of war from Congress...
on Mar 09, 2004
FDR had a pin in his reelection that said "I remember Pearl Harbor". So I guess the Democrats can use Pearl Harbor for their reelection but Bush can't use 9/11 for his reelection? Typical liberal double standard don't you think?
on Mar 09, 2004
FDR had a pin in his reelection that said "I remember Pearl Harbor". So I guess the Democrats can use Pearl Harbor for their reelection but Bush can't use 9/11 for his reelection? Typical liberal double standard don't you think?


FDR did not have a pin with a picture of Pearl Harbor being blown to bits. Did you read ANY of what everyone else has written so far?
on Mar 09, 2004
Bush could have a pin that said, I remember 9/11, and that would be fine by me.

Cheers
on Mar 09, 2004
jeblackstar : You really think that reaction would have been less negative had Bush used words instead of images? I think this would have happened regardless of the format. IMHO, the Bush opposition was waiting for any reference to 9/11 in his campaign with baited breath.
on Mar 09, 2004
jeblackstar : You really think that reaction would have been less negative had Bush used words instead of images? I think this would have happened regardless of the format. IMHO, the Bush opposition was waiting for any reference to 9/11 in his campaign with baited breath.


I disagree entirely. The whole objection was to images of the destruction that made no mention of the President or his policies or actions. So yes, I really think that reaction would have been less negative, and if you were to stop for a second and think instead of immediately accusing every liberal of wanting to attack Bush for anything at all, you would realize that.
on Mar 09, 2004
Bulboushead: My God, it is like you are Bizzarro me. You couldn't possibly be more annoying...

A) I said "Bush opposition" not "every liberal". Not everyone that opposes Bush is liberal, ( This is where I decided not to say "you twit" ).
It is utterly naive to think that the Bush opposition isn't going to use every detail they can as propaganda, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. I would expect the same from the Bush Camp.

How do you people picture these political campaigns? Like something from Mayberry? They will mischaracterize and twist every bit of angst toward the other candidate they can get, with little regard for ethics. I prescribe a bit of Machiavelli to go with all your "issues" propaganda Mr. Head. How you run the country and how you attain power are two different things.
on Mar 09, 2004
I do apologize; it's Brad's job to accuse every liberal of wanting to attack Bush for anything at all.

Meanwhile, you did ask whether the reaction would be less negative. I think you have to admit that the reaction would be less negative if the ad were just words on a screen telling us that September 11 was bad.

Also, it's "bated" breath, not "baited."
on Mar 09, 2004
" I think you have to admit that the reaction would be less negative if the ad were just words on a screen telling us that September 11 was bad."


Nope. Actually I already said that I did think it would be just as negative. Looking over you post I don't see any attempt to change my mind...

and bated wasn't in my spellchecker dictionary. Sometimes I blindly bang the replace button. It's fixed.
on Mar 09, 2004
Nope. Actually I already said that I did think it would be just as negative.


If you mean "the reaction of the media machinery of the anti-Bush forces," then perhaps you are right. But if you mean "the reaction of the average American who was offended," use some common sense. jeblackstar and I are opponents of Bush, we would both have little problem with just words on a screen, and I don't think that difference is unique to the two of us. Plenty of people who took umbrage at the seemingly wanton use of September 11 imagery would be less quick to flip out if it were white words on a black screen telling us not to forget what happened. Would the Kerry camp find equal cause to jump down Bush's throat for any little thing? Maybe. Would the average Democrat? No.
on Mar 09, 2004
Must be the word "opponent" that is throwing you off. I said "Bush opposition". I don't consider the average Democrat on the street to be active "Bush opposition" at this point in the election. They are the audience for either side, at least until election day. Again, I'll say:

I think this would have happened regardless of the format. IMHO, the Bush opposition was waiting for any reference to 9/11 in his campaign with bated breath.

Wow, back to where I started.
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6