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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Mar 09, 2004
I'm fine with the 9/11 images. But there's an awful lot of hypocrisy in banning televised coverage of the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, supposedly out of respect for the dead and their families, then showing a casket draped in an American flag being carried out of the WTC and using it in an explicitly political campaign commerical.
on Mar 09, 2004
Cheers to that vincible
on Mar 10, 2004
Perhaps you should relook then. Congress gave Bush authorization to conduct the war on terror. The Iraq action, btw, also had congressional approval.
on Mar 10, 2004

The whole situation is bizarre. We just went through what? a MONTH of media coverage of baseless accusations of Bush's National Guard Service from 30 years ago but the same people now get uppity because Bush tries to remind people of a major event that was 3 years ago? Good grief.

One can imagine that if Kerry were President, we would still be "consulting" allies about what to do about the Taliban. Come on, deep down most people know that. Remember, when people vaguely talk about "unilateralism" and Bush they really mean that the US didn't get explicit UN security council sanction which in reality means getting the support of China, France, and Russia. Do people realize that? Somehow I'm able to sleep fine at night knowing we didn't get explicit authorization to remove Saddam from those 3 countries.

on Mar 10, 2004
Perhaps you should relook then. Congress gave Bush authorization to conduct the war on terror. The Iraq action, btw, also had congressional approval.


So does renaming post offices in Wisconsin, but that doesn't make it a war.


We just went through what? a MONTH of media coverage of baseless accusations of Bush's National Guard Service from 30 years ago


Baseless? Good one!


the same people now get uppity because Bush tries to remind people of a major event that was 3 years ago?


No, it's because of the way he reminded us.


One can imagine that if Kerry were President, we would still be "consulting" allies about what to do about the Taliban.


Sure, one can imagine that, but it's not likely to represent realism.


Somehow I'm able to sleep fine at night knowing we didn't get explicit authorization to remove Saddam from those 3 countries.


Of course you can sleep; you're a red-blooded American and you're always right and to hell with the rest of the world! U. S. A.! U. S. A.!
on Mar 10, 2004
Another hypocrisy test: how would you feel if Democrats started running campaign ads showing the caskets of American soldiers being brought home after dying in Iraq? Are these principled stands or political ones you're taking here? ("You" not being aimed at anyone in particular.)
on Mar 10, 2004
Another hypocrisy test: how would you feel if Democrats started running campaign ads showing the caskets of American soldiers being brought home after dying in Iraq?


That would leave a bad taste in my mouth as well. Yay, I passed.
on Mar 10, 2004
"Another hypocrisy test: how would you feel if Democrats started running campaign ads showing the caskets of American soldiers being brought home after dying in Iraq?"


If they feel that this is an honest comparison, I would be fine with it. I don't think the American public would be nearly as receptive to the message, though, do you? I'm all for Kerry trying it out, though
on Mar 15, 2004
However, as much as Bush did show leadership and had the brightest moment in his presidency, he shouldn't exploit others, either.

Kerry uses his images from Vietnam. In those images, you see him saving a person and fighting for his country. Bush, however, used the body of a dead firefighter to convey it. There is no cause for it. I can see why the families would be upset. If that were my signifciant other shown being carried in the ad, I would be ticked off. If he had left that image out, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
on Mar 18, 2004
There seems to be evidence that the Bush administration had some knowledge of 9/11 before the fact. So he should be careful in using something like this to his advantage. It could well backfire and perhaps that's why he has not used it to date.

Second, any president would have handled the situation in a similar manner. If they could not, they should not be in the position of Commander-in-Chief. We have had many tragedies in recent years and each president who has had to deal with them - Dem or Rep - has handled them well.

Finally, we cannot simply look at one act that Bush has done and say that he deserves re-election based on that and that alone. Let's take a look at everything in toto. The economy, the seemingly Medicare cover-up reported on in this morning's New York Times, job losses, the environment; basic human and equal rights for a large segment of our population and the Bush constituency; and the list goes on and on.

No, I must agree with many of the others. Four years of this particular president is enough. It is time for a change and Kerry will hopefully be a breathe of fresh air (or as fresh as it can be, given the environment under Bush).
on Mar 22, 2004
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Humans are inherently evil. Politics prove this. "What's in it for me" is the only insurance one has that a person will do any given thing. That's why we pay high traffic fines for speeding and other "immoral" and "unsafe" activities.

Link: "What's in it for me?" I want a president that lets me keep more of my money! I want a president that will take up for the majority of the country and it's collectively embraced morals without iminging on minority RIGHTS (there's a word that needs to be defined) to the utmost degree. I want a president who I believe has a good record of doing his best in serving our country in as many opportunities as possible while giving him the chance to be human at times and no more perfect than I am. I want a president who doesn' t let other countries have undue influence over our policy and procedure! What's in it for me?!

I want people who accuse Bush of destroying a national ecosystem in four years singlehandedly to show me the evidence! I want those same people who blame a solitary man for something so complex as an ecomomy to take a few economic courses and learn how congress, too, influences economy, as well as local and state governments! I want people who think the New York Times to be saintly to start reading other papers additionally! I want those who say on one hand, "he acted the way anyone as president would have" and on the other "he did a worse job than others" to make up their minds!!!!
on Apr 02, 2004
Well said Shulamite! It is easier to point fingers and blame and pass the buck. The buck stops at the top, the President. Blame him for all your woes whether or not you understand what is going on in your government. Yell "Time for a change!" at the top of your lungs. Change can be good but change for change sake is not.

I don't believe either man to be evil or stupid. I don't believe our country will go to hell either way. People need to stop forming political opinions with their guts and start using their brains. Wade through the propaganda and harvest the facts. Look at cause and effect. Try to come up with an unbiased conclusion. Identify what your priorities are and pick the candidate that will best suit them. Most people are not currently doing this. It is much easier to just get pissed off and point fingers and hate.

Back on subject, President Bush has a very valid reason to use these images. History has shown how quickly people forget. Oh, I know, noone has actually forgotten what happened but their passion for what happened has dwindled. The appreciation of how Bush and Guilliani handled things has waned. This was a huge national experience that happened during his presidency. I think that is why he should use it.
on Apr 02, 2004
100% Correct. When President Bush stood atop what was our Worldtrade center buildings, now reduced to rubble, and said "Who ever is responsible for this horrific act YOU WILL be hearing from us THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA !" Well I could not have been more proud that he was our president or relieved . In addition, it has been two and a half years since that sad sunny spring morning, that my fellow Americans died putting in another sixty hour work week. If someone asked me, wait a second, someone did ask me If I thought their would be another terrorist attack and I said definately. I'd say within a year. KUDOS to PRESIDENT BUSH and his administration . Now GOD forbid if we had had an attack the democrats would have been all over my hero. Sincerly a HARD working republican with four kids who pays too many taxes... 50% when the year is said and done.
on Apr 02, 2004
50% taxes? Good God man, how much do you make to fit into that income bracket. My wife and I make more than the president of the US used to make, before the last pay raise, and we don't pay fifty percent taxes. Let's see, that income bracket would be, and I apologize, I'm using 2003 numbers, in excess of $311,000, in fact, the only state where it's actually possible to pass 50% income tax, federal and state combined is.... Rhode Island

311,000 dollars... Hmmm, you're clearly not one of those people suffering a great deal in the world. I think your problem is you picked the wrong state to live in. In Oregon, the state in which I live, now this is using 2004 numbers, it's impossible to reach 50% taxes, because the highest state tax rate is 9%.

Now I suppose it's possible if you buy enough things and buy enough gas, and own a large enough house, for the gas tax, sales tax, and property tax to make up the difference, and if you do, then you still aren't hurting because you can afford to buy all those things. I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just saying when you make that much it sounds really hypocritical to complain about it.

Cheers
on Apr 03, 2004
Brad:

Kudos to a great article. I reflected the same way on our choice of President when the towers fell. I question how any Democrat who worries about the International community over the safety of Americans would fare. Including Kerry. He did something about it and it is hard to second guess without historical precedent. In life you can define the moment, or the moment can define you.

good stuff
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6