NEW YORK - President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror.


Some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Bush for airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and for the president's political gain.


"With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well," Karen Hughes, a Bush campaign adviser, told "The Early Show" on CBS. "September 11th was not just a distant tragedy. It's a defining event for the future of our country. ... Obviously, all of us mourn and grieve for the victims of that terrible day, but September 11 fundamentally changed our public policy in many important ways, and I think it's vital that the next president recognize that."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=13&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_el_pr/bush_political_ads_9

I have NO problem with Bush using 9/11 photos in his ads.

He WAS the man in office when it happened. He WAS the man that dealt with it all. He WAS the man who garnered praise for his actions at the time by BOTH sides of the aisles.

He DESERVES to be remembered for it.

Its horse ****. He didnt do anything to prevent it from happening.

PREVENT IT!?

Don't be a MORON. He didn't do anything to CAUSE IT EITHER!

Originally posted by ColWTH
He WAS the man who garnered praise for his actions at the time by BOTH sides of the aisles
yeah, for about a month until half the country realized they were being scammed.

Originally posted by ColWTH
PREVENT IT!?

Don't be a MORON. He didn't do anything to CAUSE IT EITHER!

Moron? What the hell was Bush doing for the entire month August of 2001? NOTHING! He was on vacation!

An attack on the WTC was known for quite some time and nobody (Clinton or Bush) decided to do anything about it. Now in the name of 9/11 Bush has declared 2 wars in less than 2 years. Has the situation in the Middle East gotten any better? No.

Bush using the unfortunate events of 9/11 to help him get re-elected is shameful. Alot of people suffered that day.

Originally posted by ColWTH
PREVENT IT!?

Don't be a MORON. He didn't do anything to CAUSE IT EITHER!

That remains to be seen.
His campaign ads should also mention that one of his relatives was involved with security for the WTC, and that Dubya has personally stonewalled the official investigation into what really happened.

Originally posted by ColWTH
I have NO problem with Bush using 9/11 photos in his ads.


Of course YOU don't have a problem with it.

It's disturbing, and hopefully, most Americans will see right through it. I can't wait to meet the GNC when they come to my city in September. We're not happy about them coming, and the world will see it.

How dare they.

Originally posted by Volconvo



It's disturbing, and hopefully, most Americans will see right through it. I can't wait to meet the GNC when they come to my city in September. We're not happy about them coming, and the world will see it.

How dare they.

This from a liberal. The same group that brought us the star studded Paul Wellstone funeral. :rolleyes:

I have a huge problem with 9/11 being used as a defining moment for our nation's future.

Yes, it was a huge tragedy and was one of the saddest days in recent history for our country, and for the world. But it should have been an occasion for the United States to stand tall, as one nation in unity against terror and against violence, and to say in one voice that acts of terror, no matter how large in scope, will never cause the United States of America to fall. That we will not be ruled by fear and that the shadow of terror will not pass over our homes. This tragic event has been perverted and misused by the government since day one, and the continued rape of the memory of 9/11 makes me want to vomit.

Originally posted by DngrMse


This from a liberal. The same group that brought us the star studded Paul Wellstone funeral. :rolleyes:



LMAO!!!

Out of curiousity, did either of you two actually watch the Wellstone funeral?

Or Clinton staging that event at Normandy, making the cross out of rocks on the beach.

Originally posted by Stage Monster
Out of curiousity, did either of you two actually watch the Wellstone funeral?

Unfortunately, it was a Pay Per view event, and I could'nt afford it then. I understand it's coming out on DVD within the next couple months, and I'll try and get me a copy.




P.S. Yes, I watched it. It was a load of political noise from beginning, to end. Shameful.

Originally posted by Stage Monster
Out of curiousity, did either of you two actually watch the Wellstone funeral?


So are you telling us that all the reporting of it was incorrect?

I heard a lot of the footage, I read enough to know what happened there. I know it turned the stomach of a lot of people and turned the election in Norm Colemans favor because the people of Minnesota found it so disgusting..

So, your point?

DM and PB, don't try to change the subject. These Bush ads are disgusting and you know it, anyone with an ounce of common decency knows it. Some quotes from the article:

"Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters Union, called the ads disgraceful and said they should be pulled.


"We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders,"



Until Bush cooperates with the federal commission that is investigating the nation's preparedness before the attacks and its response "by testifying in public under oath ... he should not be using 9/11 as political propaganda," said Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, 39, died in the World Trade Center.

"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened."

I think the use of 9-11 images in a political commercial is repulsive, no matter who is doing it. In my opinion, not a single political leader did anything particularly extraordinary that day either before or after the attack, and they should all hang their heads in shame.

EXCELLENT QUOTES DRUNKEN HARTED MAN. right on the money.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/19720.htm

The commercials - which were previewed for the media yesterday and hit the airwaves today - mix real footage of firefighters, including a memorable image of the Bravest hauling a flag-draped casket out of the wreckage, with video of actors portraying firefighters.


Bush advisers defended the 9/11 references, saying they portray the most important event in the president's first term.

Bush's re-election slogan, which appears at the end of the commercials, is: "Steady leadership in times of change."

Democrats have been fuming that Bush and the GOP are trying to exploit the Sept. 11 tragedy for political benefit.

But Bush media adviser Mark McKinnon said, "We all felt strongly that 9/11 is the context for where we are in this country. It's a really important part of the dialogue."



Harold Schaitberger, president of the national firefighters union - which has endorsed Kerry - dismissed the ads as a "cheap trick."

The Bush commercials will begin running today in at least 16 states and across several cable outlets, like ESPN, CNN and Fox. The air time is costing the campaign about $4.5 million.

One of the 9/11 ads relies on images to tell the story, beginning with an American flag waving across the screen as Bush is sworn in as president. Later, the words "a day of tragedy" appear on screen along with wreckage of the World Trade Center, splashed with flashing emergency lights and sirens wailing in the background.

But Bush media adviser Mark McKinnon said, "We all felt strongly that 9/11 is the context for where we are in this country. It's a really important part of the dialogue."

Dialogue, fine. Propganda, not fine. Ok, so let's dialogue about it. How about we have an investigation first to know all the facts as well as we possible can before we dialogue about it. What's that? We can't? Why?

Making this ad must have involved some amount of the presidents time. I fond it ironic that he can spend the time doing this and yet only allow an hour for an interview with the 9/11 commission. His priorites sometimes baffle me.

http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2003/10/27/Opinion/Questions.Remain.About.Bush.Bin.Laden-539427.shtml

On September 20, 2001, the Boston Globe reported, "Boston-area relatives of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist who stands accused of masterminding last week's suicide hijackings, flew back to Saudi Arabia in the last two days." The article goes on to say that the plane with the members of the bin Laden family, along with "more than 20 Saudi citizens" has flown home out of Boston's Logan Airport with the approval of the FBI. Why was the U.S. government in a hurry to have these people leave the country? Were they concerned for its safety, or was there some other reason?

These questions are among many that remain unanswered in the aftermath of Sept. 11. If we are so concerned with preserving freedom and fighting terrorism, then these are questions that need to be answered. For anyone interested in learning more about these questions, visit the Web site http://www.unansweredquestions.org.

In Bush's State of the Union address in 2002 he said, "After America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves." Perhaps it is time to take another look in that mirror and try to better see just what we are really doing.

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
Making this ad must have involved some amount of the presidents time. I fond it ironic that he can spend the time doing this and yet only allow an hour for an interview with the 9/11 commission. His priorites sometimes baffle me.

Yep. In another thread it was pointed out by another poster (I forget who) that Bush allotted more time from his schedule (replete with a flight aboard AF1 at the taxpayers expense no less) to hobnob with a bunch of beer-bellied good ol' boys at the Daytona 500 than he'll be allowing for questioning into this most tragic and nation-altering event. It is nothing short of scandalous.

Under normal circumstances the use of such an event for partisan vote-getting would be disgusting. Given that he's hiding something and stonewalling the investigation into that very event graduates it to nausiating.

It is, though, not wholly unexpected.

Originally posted by Powerboss

So are you telling us that all the reporting of it was incorrect?


No, I'm not making any such point. I didn't watch it, nor was I interested in politics at the time it happened, so I have next to no knowledge of the event, but from what I've heard and read there was a lot of misrepresentation of it in the media, so I was curious as to whether you watched the funeral or just watched the media highlights.

Bill, I don't do subtle very often in these threads. If I was going to call you out on a lie, I would have done it. Stop being so paranoid.

I'm sorry, but those commercials sound disgusting.


Why is it neccessary to use those images for campaign commercials??? How many lives were lost that day, and they're reduced to a campaign??? Ugh.


Also, there were enough images of 9-11 on the news for the weeks after it happened. I really would rather not try to explain the images of 9-11 to my children (again) when they flash on the TV screen.


And for the record, I don't give a horse's ass if it was Bush, Kerry, or the neighborhood cat running for President...using the terrorist attacks as a "Vote for me!" sign is just revolting IMO, no matter who's doing it.

So what you are all saying is we should push 9/11 in the back ground and pretend it never happened!?

I would like to see 9/11 prefaced before EVERY public debate of the day. It is the CENTRAL issue of our lives at this time.

Slavery ... fuggedaboutit

The Holocaust... fuggedaboutit

The evils of FDR's communism ... fuggedaboutit

So, if I come to your house and rob you, you should just fuggedaboutit.

Short sighted, indeed.

No Col, using it as a means of making yourself look like a worthy leader is exploiting the event.

I don't care though, because like I said, people already see right through this ploy, and the firefighters support democrats. Bush cut their $$, and claims to be a hero.

Originally posted by ColWTH
So what you are all saying is we should push 9/11 in the back ground and pretend it never happened!?
Absolutely the opposite. Lets have a full investigation so we can know exactly what happened. Unfortunately we can't cuz George W. won't let it happen.

9-11 should not be used for political benefit or personal benefit in any way shape or form. The Repub. convention in NYC is bad enough but using 9-11 in a commercial is going way to far. Its an attempt at manipulation and I for one resent the hell out of it. Its cheap. What suprises me is that they would stoop so low or be so stupid as to do it. Mind you smart is not one of GWB's qualities.

Alright, then how DARE John Kerry use his service in VietNam as campaign fodder. Why people LOST THEIR LIVES in that war. How DARE he "politicize" that war.

Further, how dare people use tragedies like the Triagle Shirtwaist fire in New York to change fire safety laws. THOSE POOR WOMEN DIED IN THAT FIRE. How DARE someone make a political career off of that!

You people are simply anti-Patriotic! That is all.

There is NO disrespect of the people who died in 9/11 to have their memories used to remind us of the danger we face daily. To remind us of the great work Bush did in responding to this act of war.

Did FDR make a speech about that day of infamy? Did IKE run on his WWII record? Did Lincoln say, "Ah, just forget about this whole war thing. Whaddya think of my national railroad policy?"

You people are just Bush haters, and America haters. That is ALL. You have no legitimate argument.

I have absolutely no problem with Bush addressing 9-11 in his political campaign, and the work his administration has done in the wake of it.


I do have a problem with using the graphic images of that day in his campaign. Like I said earlier, I don't think my kids need to see all of that again. And I doubt that those images have been erased from people's minds anyway.

Many people suffered emotional trauma on that day. Isn't it possible that these images could trigger the trauma all over again???


If that makes me anti Patriotic, so be it. If it makes me a hater of our country to not want my young children to see the visual horror of 9-11 in a commercial, then chalk me up to a hater.

Did Bush's campaign ads show "horror"?

I would not agree with breaching good taste by showing "horror". But to object to using the event in a campaign ad at all is simply foolishness.

But as far as the "trauma" goes, the case can be made that we NEED the trauma! If we did not need to be reminded that our lives are in danger we would not be nominating a military hating, anti-American like Kerry for the Dem prez spot!! Obviously the Dem Party NEEDS to be REMINDED because they OBVIOUSLY think it is a meaningless event at this point in time.

By the way. You are off the hook. Your last post was reasonable.:p

Kerry is an ******* too, he has nothing to do with this.

You are not addressing a key point, colWTH.

BUSH IS USING 9/11 TO PROMOTE HIMSELF WHEN HE'S NOT EVEN ALLOWING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

Originally posted by ColWTH
Alright, then how DARE John Kerry use his service in VietNam as campaign fodder. Why people LOST THEIR LIVES in that war. How DARE he "politicize" that war.

Further, how dare people use tragedies like the Triagle Shirtwaist fire in New York to change fire safety laws. THOSE POOR WOMEN DIED IN THAT FIRE. How DARE someone make a political career off of that!

You people are simply anti-Patriotic! That is all.

There is NO disrespect of the people who died in 9/11 to have their memories used to remind us of the danger we face daily. To remind us of the great work Bush did in responding to this act of war.

Did FDR make a speech about that day of infamy? Did IKE run on his WWII record? Did Lincoln say, "Ah, just forget about this whole war thing. Whaddya think of my national railroad policy?"

You people are just Bush haters, and America haters. That is ALL. You have no legitimate argument.

John Kerry isn't using images of soldiers being gunned down in the jungle in his campaign commercials; if he did it would be equally disgusting and totally shameful. FDR made his "day of infamy" speech to address events that had just happened, he did not use images of Pearl Harbor to create campaign ads. There is simply no instance of a politician using such a tragedy as an image in a campaign ad, and you know it. It's alright though, go ahead and defend him, I guess all those victims' families and firefighters just aren't as patriotic as you. They must all be filthy Marxists.

So lefties....is this it? Is this the Kerry campaign? I hope you all know that if you follow this path, you're going to lose come November. Kerry comes off as cold, stiff, and uncharismatic. It won't be long before the Bush campaign begins examining Kerry's past, and his stance on many issues....either sell your candidate now, or prepare for another defeat.

If Bush did not use 9/11 imagery for his campaign ads, liberals would probably think that was evidence that he was involved with it and the planes were radio controlled and not really hijacked.

Anyone who has been to ground zero can feel the magnitude of the terrorist attack and the pain. I would prefer Bush's ad company show imagery of the subhumans Muslims responsible for terrorism also. Maybe, I am somewhat indifferent because of all the redundant financial gain that the relatives made out with. The angry relatives are trying to make an international Muslim terrorist tragedy their own despite all the cash they received at taxpayer expense.

Did the Republican ad agency decide to use the footage of Bush when he first learned about the Muslim terrorist attack and if not why not? Because he didn't look surprised and angry?

Originally posted by drunken hearted man


John Kerry isn't using images of soldiers being gunned down in the jungle in his campaign commercials; if he did it would be equally disgusting and totally shameful.


:werd:


If Bush did not use 9/11 imagery for his campaign ads, liberals would probably think that was evidence that he was involved with it and the planes were radio controlled and not really hijacked.



Personally I wouldn't think this at all. As I said earlier, I have no issue with Bush discussing 9-11 in his campaign; it's the imagery I have an issue with. I think he should discuss what his administration has done after 9-11 because it's a pivotal part of his presidency.


Anyone who has been to ground zero can feel the magnitude of the terrorist attack and the pain.

Exactly, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to use the images in his campaign spots. People are still hurting so much from it, and I can't see any benefit in having images of that day flash across their screens in a campaign spot.

I'm sure there are people who aren't bothered by it, and that's fine, but what about the people who are bothered by it???

>>>>but what about the people who are bothered by it???

Why should we care unless that group is a majority? If it is an ad campaign that fails they have their answer. But I think this group is a tiny minority.

As to this business of Bush not letting them find out what happened... pfft. It is not an issue with me which is why I ignored it the first time! It is Bush hatred writ large. That is all as far as I am concerned.

And DHM, if you think that no American prez ever used past conflict for campaign fodder you really don't know much about American history! Just about every Prez we ever had that was in a war used that as fodder in his campaign.

I even heard the dean of leftist "journalists", Sam Donaldson, say that it is perfectly OK for Bush to use 9/11 images in campaign commercials! As far as I am concerned, anyone who gets their panties in a bundle over this issue is doing one of two things 1) overreacting in the extreme, or (and this is the majority of the complainers) 2) just looking for a convienient club to hit Bush over the head with.

There is no legitimacy or substance to this complaint.

Originally posted by beatlebabe1972

I'm sure there are people who aren't bothered by it, and that's fine, but what about the people who are bothered by it???

Exercise the ON/OFF switch to the OFF position.




Ok, that was the smart ass reply, sorry.

In reality, should'nt we all be bothered by it? How is damage caused by reminding us of that pain?

TV is a graphical medium, I see no problem with using it as it was intended, and the Bush commercial that everyone is up in arms over was not that graphic....nor was it done in bad taste.

LOL this is such a low blow by the democrats. They have been doing everything from calling bush a nazi to vilifying him in the most extreme way, and now they are mad hes running a positive ad!?! LOL

BTW the groups that are protesting the ad are a very small collection of WTC windows that also happen to be bush haters and are organized by a partisan group. This is about politics.

...also the firefighters union. Guess who THEY are supporting?

Yep, Kerry!

Partisan hacks all.

I have a question for those who don't have a problem with the ads:


If John Kerry started running ads which had images of Vietnam, would you be OK with it??? I mean, his service there does seem to be an issue for many here, much like Bush's administration after 9-11 is an issue with others here. Shouldn't it be addressed??? And why or why not should he use images of Vietnam???


I can honestly say if Kerry did this, I would have a problem with it also. But then again, I'm not sure who I'm going to be voting for yet anyway.

Vietnam was a long time ago and has NOTIHNG to do with the current problems facing America. Bush was PRESIDENT when 9/11 happened, and it was HIS LEADERSHIP we have to thank for making this country a safer and better place since.
Bush IS the 9/11 guy. That is what defined his presidency.

I fully expect to see him in ads in photos from his old days. Why not? He was a legitimate soldier in that war. Why shouldn't he be allowed to put it in his ads?

I have no problem with Kerry doing so. It may make his post war career even more hypocritical, but that is HIS problem!

DM and PB, don't try to change the subject. These Bush ads are disgusting and you know it, anyone with an ounce of common decency knows it. Some quotes from the article:


I guess I'm lacking common decency then.

9/11 is the defining moment of his Presidency. It only makes sense that he uses the events of 9/11 in a tasteful and respectful manner.
The reason their is a big stink is because Democrats want it off the table in the campaign because of the high marks he has received for his actions post 9/11 and in the WOT.

That is what this is about. Furthermore, I contend that since 9/12/01 it is the Democrats who have politicised 9/11 and our entire national security with their "Bush Knew" "Bush concocted this war in Texas", "he's betrayed us", "he's murdering innocent civilians" garbage.

No, Sorry. This is just an attempt to take Bush's defining moment off the table because the Democrats know it relfects positively on him.

Yep. In another thread it was pointed out by another poster (I forget who) that Bush allotted more time from his schedule (replete with a flight aboard AF1 at the taxpayers expense no less) to hobnob with a bunch of beer-bellied good ol' boys at the Daytona 500 than he'll be allowing for questioning into this most tragic and nation-altering event. It is nothing short of scandalous.

Yes, well why don't we examine what percentage of votes John Kerry has actually been in the Senate to vote on in the past 13 months.

No, I'm not making any such point. I didn't watch it, nor was I interested in politics at the time it happened, so I have next to no knowledge of the event, but from what I've heard and read there was a lot of misrepresentation of it in the media, so I was curious as to whether you watched the funeral or just watched the media highlights.

What I heard were the statements made by various people clowns and some of the TV footage.
Along with all that they also booed out Republicans who came to pay their respects for the man.
It cost them his Senate seat.

Bill, I don't do subtle very often in these threads. If I was going to call you out on a lie, I would have done it. Stop being so paranoid.

Not an issue of paranoia. It is an issue of the selective outrage by Democrats and their willingness to politicise anything, including national security.

No Col, using it as a means of making yourself look like a worthy leader is exploiting the event.

LOL. No, it was his defining moment of his Presidency and you don't want him to use the 9/11 issue because you know that it reflects on him in a positive manner.

Why not just not worry about it and let the voters decide if you all think its so horrible?

In fact, if it is so horrible, why be outraged? Let him continue to do it and kill himself.

I don't care though, because like I said, people already see right through this ploy, and the firefighters support democrats. Bush cut their $$, and claims to be a hero.


Wrong. The UNION leadership supports Democrats. The rank and file is generally siding with Bush.

Absolutely the opposite. Lets have a full investigation so we can know exactly what happened. Unfortunately we can't cuz George W. won't let it happen.

What is he not letting happen?

Alright, then how DARE John Kerry use his service in VietNam as campaign fodder. Why people LOST THEIR LIVES in that war. How DARE he "politicize" that war.

Yeah. Right on. How DARE HE. How tasteless.


So lefties....is this it? Is this the Kerry campaign? I hope you all know that if you follow this path, you're going to lose come November. Kerry comes off as cold, stiff, and uncharismatic. It won't be long before the Bush campaign begins examining Kerry's past, and his stance on many issues....either sell your candidate now, or prepare for another defeat.



Exactly. They went and voted for an extremist who is going to take theri party down the road of Mondull and Dukaka which are slamming defeats. Once we are through with his pathetic voting record, he's going to be toast for the moderates.

And that is the issue. Kerry has to attract the people in the middle and Edwards ran neck and neck with him and beat him in some instances in the primary regarding the independents and moderates.
Kerry can't win with the liberals alone.

But, we see what their plan is. They have no vision for America, they have no issues. All it amounts to is attack Bush.
They aren't going to win on that platform.

Originally posted by contra
Vietnam was a long time ago and has NOTIHNG to do with the current problems facing America. Bush was PRESIDENT when 9/11 happened, and it was HIS LEADERSHIP we have to thank for making this country a safer and better place since.
Bush IS the 9/11 guy. That is what defined his presidency.

If Vietnam has nothing to do with John Kerry & his bid for the Presidency, why are so many people MAKING it an issue???? Just look at all the threads started on it. It seems to be quite the issue here.

For better or worse, 9-11 is what defined his presidency. But there are other issues also, and again, do we really need to see images from that horrid day to know what happened??? I think it's safe to say we all remember that day all too well without being shown painful reminders of it for a campaign ad.

Originally posted by ColWTH
I fully expect to see him in ads in photos from his old days. Why not? He was a legitimate soldier in that war. Why shouldn't he be allowed to put it in his ads?

I have no problem with Kerry doing so. It may make his post war career even more hypocritical, but that is HIS problem!


Thank you for your honesty, and even though we don't agree here, I think your consistency is cool :cool:

Well, it is a legitimate part of one of Kerry's life sucesses. He was a good officer from most accounts.

I don't see why we cannot allow a president (or candidate) to tout his sucesses. 9/11 was one of Bush's biggest sucess stories.

Yup, anotyher low from the Bush administration..

Using 9-11 for their campaign when they did everything to ignore all the warnings that it was going to happen and have been stonewalling an investigation from day 1.

This will backfire on them BIG TIME, the firemen are pissed about this, as should everybody who isn't a partisan hack, and you gotta wonder what's with those people?!?

If the American people stand for this **** than they are far dumber than ever thought..

Yeah... THERE is an unbiased reporter...

:rolleyes:

What Bush is doing is pure self-serving opportunism.

Originally posted by DngrMse
So lefties....is this it? Is this the Kerry campaign? I hope you all know that if you follow this path, you're going to lose come November. Kerry comes off as cold, stiff, and uncharismatic. It won't be long before the Bush campaign begins examining Kerry's past, and his stance on many issues....either sell your candidate now, or prepare for another defeat.

This forum is not for party mouthpieces or campaign volunteers to sell their candidate. We are discussing an issue that relates to a subject somehwat independent of a specific race, namely the exploitation value of 9/11 for campaign ads. "Kerry comes off as stiff cold, and uncharismatic", lol, I agree.....and what's your point? What in the hell does that have to do with Bush's TV commercials?

I suppose Kerry could run images of soldiers being gunned down in Iraq, of bombs detonating and killing hundreds of people after Saddam was caught....he could show pictures of soldiers coming home in bodybags on his commercials, but that would be disgusting and shameful, because people's deaths simply should not be used that way. Period.

And DHM, if you think that no American prez ever used past conflict for campaign fodder you really don't know much about American history! Just about every Prez we ever had that was in a war used that as fodder in his campaign.

BS. Who did this and how? Name me a president that actually showed images of attacks on Americans as part of their re-election campaigns, and give me proof. I don't believe what you're saying. I believe that president's have used wars as selling points in debates perhaps, or even their own military service, etc. things like that. But I'd like to see an instance of someone actually showing Americans dying with their image superimposed over it as a TV ad.

Why should we care unless that group is a majority? If it is an ad campaign that fails they have their answer. But I think this group is a tiny minority.

So people's opinions don't count unless they are a majority? And you say that WE are unAmerican? Such sentiments as you have expressed are the antithesis of democracy.

It doesn't bother you that some family members do not want the death of their loved ones used in a political ad? Their feelings are not important because they are not a majority? That's pretty callous I'd say. If it bothers them then the ads should stop period. Who did Bush lose in the 9/11 attacks? He can't find anything better to run on than images of death and destruction that are painful to people who were affected? That says a lot about his record as President.

...also the firefighters union. Guess who THEY are supporting?

Yep, Kerry!

Partisan hacks all.

haha, you don't know what you're talking about. The firefighters union has donated quite a bit of money to the Republican party up until quite recently. They had already withdrawn support of Bush over a year ago because he has cut funding for first-responders even as he spends billions on his foreign policy misadventures and exploits images of firefighters for his publicity photos and commericals. This incident has only exacerbated a long-standing dislike of Bush by firefighters.

Political commercials should be illegal all over. It's dumbing, and I'd even say; undemocratic.

Originally posted by ColWTH
Yeah... THERE is an unbiased reporter...

:rolleyes:


Coming from you that's worth a laugh..

When we hear news story after news story about Bush STONEWALLING the 9-11 investigation nobody wants to talk about 9-11.

But when Bush decides to use the deaths of 3000 people, the same 3000 people of which they don't want their murders investigated then it's "ok" to talk about 9-11.


They should broadcast ads showing what a complete, utter failure the Bush administration was and is, ads that show them ignoring the Hart-Rudman report and the dozens of specific warnings leading up to 9-11 while Bush was partying in Texas. And how he was reading about Goats on the morning of and how routine hijacking procedures mysteriously were not followed on that day even though the country should have been on high alert.

But since the truth is uncomfortable, it's best not to talk about it, just wave your Chinese made flag and support the failures that are now exploiting the deaths which they failed at preventing..

Originally posted by drunken hearted man


This forum is not for party mouthpieces or campaign volunteers to sell their candidate. We are discussing an issue that relates to a subject somehwat independent of a specific race, namely the exploitation value of 9/11 for campaign ads. "Kerry comes off as stiff cold, and uncharismatic", lol, I agree.....and what's your point? What in the hell does that have to do with Bush's TV commercials?

I suppose Kerry could run images of soldiers being gunned down in Iraq, of bombs detonating and killing hundreds of people after Saddam was caught....he could show pictures of soldiers coming home in bodybags on his commercials, but that would be disgusting and shameful, because people's deaths simply should not be used that way. Period.



BS. Who did this and how? Name me a president that actually showed images of attacks on Americans as part of their re-election campaigns, and give me proof. I don't believe what you're saying. I believe that president's have used wars as selling points in debates perhaps, or even their own military service, etc. things like that. But I'd like to see an instance of someone actually showing Americans dying with their image superimposed over it as a TV ad.



So people's opinions don't count unless they are a majority? And you say that WE are unAmerican? Such sentiments as you have expressed are the antithesis of democracy.

It doesn't bother you that some family members do not want the death of their loved ones used in a political ad? Their feelings are not important because they are not a majority? That's pretty callous I'd say. If it bothers them then the ads should stop period. Who did Bush lose in the 9/11 attacks? He can't find anything better to run on than images of death and destruction that are painful to people who were affected? That says a lot about his record as President.



haha, you don't know what you're talking about. The firefighters union has donated quite a bit of money to the Republican party up until quite recently. They had already withdrawn support of Bush over a year ago because he has cut funding for first-responders even as he spends billions on his foreign policy misadventures and exploits images of firefighters for his publicity photos and commericals. This incident has only exacerbated a long-standing dislike of Bush by firefighters.


Well said..:nice:

February 28, 2004, 3:47 PM EST


WASHINGTON — Who was most scared of the truth?

Was it House Speaker Dennis Hastert? He was the latest Republican standing in the way of the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The commissioners had asked for two extra months to conduct some crucial interviews and track down some late-breaking leads. Until he relented Friday afternoon, Hastert was refusing to bring the short extension up for a vote.

Or is George W. Bush the one with the most to hide?

While voicing support for the 9/11 probe, he and those around him have been working diligently to undermine the commission's work, going all the way back to before the investigation began.

So was Hastert's latest roadblock really just a political favor to his good friend the president, who'd just as soon not have an explosive report dropped into the late-July heat of a re-election campaign? It sure is looking that way.

The mission of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, despite the highfalutin name, is really quite straightforward: Explain what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 — and why.



No one knows exactly why George W. Bush seems so reluctant to let the truth come out. Had someone tried to warn him about an imminent attack? Were there embarrassing predictions in the daily presidential briefing? If Sept. 11 was truly a life-altering experience for the nation, shouldn't all of us know the cold, hard facts?

If you listened only to Bush's rhetoric, you'd think he was a major booster of the inquiry. Indeed, he said he supported the extension.

"We have given extraordinary cooperation," he told Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago. "I want the truth to be known." Bush told Russert on "Meet The Press" that he'd be pleased to testify and was turning over his daily briefing reports.

That's what the president said. Now follow the trail of what he has done.

At first, Bush was opposed to the whole idea of the commission. Under strong pressure from Republicans and Democrats, he ultimately relented. But he never seemed too enthusiastic about the probe.

Commission members wanted the right to subpoena witnesses. The White House opposed that, relenting only when the subpoena rules were tightly limited.

Bush told Russert he'd release those daily-briefing forms. Then, that too was tangled up in restrictions: Only to the chairmen, not to be shared with other members, only summaries. That is still being wrangled out.

Then there was the question of whether Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would testify. Security adviser Condoleezza Rice agreed to speak only briefly, in private and on a weekend. Bush told Russert he'd love to appear. Then he began dragging his feet.

Only in private, he said.

Only with the chairmen.

Only for an hour.

We'll see if it happens at all.


http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/nyc-henn0229,0,4159853.column?coll=ny-news-columnists


This is precisely why it's disgusting that they are using it for campaign ads.,.

I saw one of the commercials ( the one with the flag draped body) and while it is a very short peice I didnt think it was appropriate. Images of 9-11 flag ruins etc I have less of a problem with but if I was a person who lost someone I would have a problem with the flag draped body. I have a huge problem with the convention in NY that is just a cheap tactic to gain sympathy. But for GW to avoid mentioning 9-11 entirely I think is asking too much. Flag draped bodies tho is just simply tasteless.

Originally posted by Powerboss
I guess I'm lacking common decency then.

9/11 is the defining moment of his Presidency. It only makes sense that he uses the events of 9/11 in a tasteful and respectful manner.

No, what makes sense is that he allow the commission instituted to get to the bottom of the failures in procedure, intelligence and leadership that led directly to allowing those aircraft to go about their business unmolested. That Bush invokes the images of that day that came about as a result of failures of both the intelligence agencies and quite possibly his leadership before the full story is known is just absolutely sickening.

Yes, well why don't we examine what percentage of votes John Kerry has actually been in the Senate to vote on in the past 13 months.

Nice deflection.

But sure...why doesn't Bush stop the deplorable use of the 9/11 events (events that his leadership skills may have been able to prevent or mitigate had they been up to par) to his own political advantage and stick to the issues like this?

History has not yet shown that this "defining" moment of Bush-43s presidency was not in part his fault. For him to be simultaneously stonewalling the investigation and using the event to his advantage is absolutely filthy politics and a disgusting display of his true character.

Just for one instance, FDR had campaign buttons when running for his last term that said, "Remember Pearl Harbor".

Same thing.

But we have had presidents and wars FAR longer than we have had TV.
In fact we have had only a tiny fraction of our military conflicts in the age of TV, so your desire to compare TV ads with every other presidential campaign is idiotic!

I don't know if FDR is the best example. FDR was a filthy commie.

Originally posted by contra
Vietnam was a long time ago and has NOTIHNG to do with the current problems facing America.

How typically naive. The Old Boy Network behind the Vietnam "War", which includes Halliburton, is still in power and calling the shots.

Bush was PRESIDENT when 9/11 happened, and it was HIS LEADERSHIP we have to thank for making this country a safer and better place since.
How is it "safer and better"? The official patsy, OBL, is still at large, the borders are wider open than ever, and we have troops dying daily.

Bush IS the 9/11 guy. That is what defined his presidency.
When the truth finally comes out, that statement will be more true.

No, what makes sense is that he allow the commission instituted to get to the bottom of the failures in procedure, intelligence and leadership that led directly to allowing those aircraft to go about their business unmolested. That Bush invokes the images of that day that came about as a result of failures of both the intelligence agencies and quite possibly his leadership before the full story is known is just absolutely sickening.


Back to this garbage again?

Try as you might, you and Weasley Clarks argument of trying to blame 9/11, Meaning POLITICISING 9/11, is what is absolutely sickening.


Nice deflection.

But sure...why doesn't Bush stop the deplorable use of the 9/11 events (events that his leadership skills may have been able to prevent or mitigate had they been up to par) to his own political advantage and stick to the issues like this?

No, it just points out that leftists like you have no criticism when Kerry is not doing his job. You give him a pass on not showing up for work but are outraged if Bush took a few moments to make a commercial

Its hilarious to watch people like you.

But sure...why doesn't Bush stop the deplorable use of the 9/11 events (events that his leadership skills may have been able to prevent or mitigate had they been up to par) to his own political advantage and stick to the issues like this?


9/11 is an issue as it revolves around our security. It defines his leadership through difficult times.

Admit it, you just don't want him using the issue because the Democrats cannot use the issue of their strong leadership because they have none.
The Democrats would pounce on this issue if they could, but they can't.

History has not yet shown that this "defining" moment of Bush-43s presidency was not in part his fault. For him to be simultaneously stonewalling the investigation and using the event to his advantage is absolutely filthy politics and a disgusting display of his true character.

LOL. Keep on hoping. How pathetic that the left has nothing but conspiracy theorys to campaign on.

Hey, keep attracting attention to it though. It's free advertising for Bush.

If you think its so horrible, let him hang himself with it.

Originally posted by Powerboss
LOL. Keep on hoping. How pathetic that the left has nothing but conspiracy theorys to campaign on.

I do hope. I hope the people of the United States wake up and connect the dots:

"One could forgive McKinney for gloating when the news came out that the Bush administration indeed had some advance knowledge that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist group was planning some sort of attack. But being right is the best revenge.

"It now becomes clear why the Bush administration has been vigorously opposing congressional hearings," McKinney said on May 16. "The Bush administration has been engaged in a conspiracy of silence. If committed and patriotic people had not been pushing for disclosure, today's revelations would have been hidden by the White House."

It is definitely time for a thorough, robust and credible investigation into what happened before, during and after Sept. 11. James Ridgeway of The Village Voice neatly laid out the case in an online column on May 16.

"Consider the bare facts: The attacks happened on George Bush's watch. He was in charge. And now he admits to having known in general what was going to happen. Terrorists were slipping into the country. They were studying at American flight schools. They intended to hijack planes. They were financed by Osama bin Laden. Knowing all of this, Bush still left us totally undefended. And for this performance, his approval ratings soared."

Ridgeway asked that if President Bush had known all this during the summer, why didn't he tell Congress or warn the FAA and the airlines so airport security could be improved? And if President Bush knew so much about a potential attack before Sept. 11, how come he didn't do more on Sept. 11 to take charge of the situation?

We now know the answer. Instead protecting the nation, President Bush protected his political power instead. It is a testament to the power of spin control that such a stunning failure could be turned into his finest hour and that he could be transformed into a latter-day Churchill.

The Republicans and their allies in the press have tried to blame what happened on Sept. 11 on President Bill Clinton. A comparison is in order.

Think of the run-up to the millennium celebrations on Jan. 1, 2000. Security was tightened around the country. Some -- including myself -- thought it was an overreaction, but several terrorist plots were foiled due to the stepped-up security and advance knowledge based on intelligence gathering that something could happen. New Year's Eve celebrations around the nation went off without a hitch.

Now compare that to the Bush administration's response to what it knew prior to Sept. 11. FBI agents in Arizona issued warnings last summer that a large number of Arab men were seeking pilot, security and airport operations training at American flight schools. Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th hijacker," was arrested by the FBI in August in Minnesota after suspicious activity at one of these schools.

The German intelligence agency BND warned the U.S. and Israel that terrorists were planning to hijack planes to fly them into buildings. That was echoed by Russia's intelligence services; they told the CIA last August that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions. Also in August, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad warned the FBI and the CIA that up to 200 al-Qaida members were planning a major attack on American targets.

Did anyone connect the dots? Remembering the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1995 and 1996 bombings of U.S. military facilities in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole -- all linked to bin Laden -- did anyone take any of last summer's information seriously? Or was there simply a failure of imagination; a refusal to believe that 19 men could almost simultaneously hijack four airliners and use them as weapons to kill more than 3,000 people?

The answer is clearly, no.

The responsibility for all this falls squarely on President Bush. He has to own up to the fact that there was ample intelligence in the weeks leading up to the attacks, but no steps were taken to act upon the information to perhaps prevent them.

The president's people have been saying the threats they received were too vague to be acted upon. But how do you account for these two stories from last July?

The G8 economic summit in Genoa, Italy, last July -- which President Bush attended -- featured extraordinary security, including ground-to-air missile batteries. According to a report in the The Times of London that month, "the Italian Defense Ministry ha(d) taken the precaution after a tip by 'a friendly foreign intelligence service' that Islamic suicide bombers might try to attack the summit in a small aircraft or helicopter."

During that same month, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped taking commercial flights. CBS News reported at the time the reason Ashcroft started flying exclusively in private aircraft was because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI.

Here were two instances where threats were received and acted upon. But no one thought to notify other Americans that something might be up? "

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0205a/911carlyle.html

Defend against that PB. I dare you...

Again, the arrogant, beady-eyed chimp allocates more time in his schedule for a NASCAR race than he does to the commission analysing the sickening failures that led to the 9/11 tragedy.

And you give Bush a pass. Sickening.

So you go ahead, sicko, and keep up the smarmy little "lol"s and calling facts garbage in your rabid & futile defense of the pretzel-choking chimpoid that's got the blood of 3000 American citizens and 10,000 Iraqis on his hands. Keep trying to deflect Bush's despicable behavior by, just like the chimp you so vigorously defend, hurling feces and hoping it sticks to someone else.

"Deflection & evasion", thy name is "Powerboss".

I do hope. I hope the people of the United States wake up and connect the dots:

Defend against that PB. I dare you...


LOL. People are concerned with facts and truth, not conspiracy theory.

They had warnings, its obvious. Nobody is disputing that.
No, the burden lies on you to show evidence supporting your claim that Bush knew. You can't therefore you attempt to turn the tables on people and force them to be defensive about it.

The fact is that nothing you have proves that Bush knew.
Nothing.
That is the bottom line. Keep spinning your wheels.



Again, the arrogant, beady-eyed chimp allocates more time in his schedule for a NASCAR race than he does to the commission analysing the sickening failures that led to the 9/11 tragedy.

And you give Bush a pass. Sickening.

I know its hard for you to imagine but there is no pass to give here. I base my decisions on the evidence and the fact is that all you keep rambling about, you have no evidence to support your assertions.

Keep spinning your wheels though. Its good entertainment.

So you go ahead, sicko, and keep up the smarmy little "lol"s and calling facts garbage in your rabid & futile defense of the pretzel-choking chimpoid that's got the blood of 3000 American citizens and 10,000 Iraqis on his hands. Keep trying to deflect Bush's despicable behavior by, just like the chimp you so vigorously defend, hurling feces and hoping it sticks to someone else.

Sicko?


"Deflection & evasion", thy name is "Powerboss".


LOL. What am I deflecting and evading? I seem to be engaging you.
I've read all the information there is on 9/11, all those websites with all the links to articles. Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit back and say "we should've known" because there were enough warning signs.
9/11 was one of our greatest governmental blunders in history, across the board on many government agencies and levels.
To point the finger at one person is just laughable and simplistic. LOL.

Originally posted by Powerboss
LOL. People are concerned with facts and truth, not conspiracy theory.

They had warnings, its obvious. Nobody is disputing that.
No, the burden lies on you to show evidence supporting your claim that Bush knew.

There is ample evidence Bush knew. It's all in the public domain. What I want to know, and what the commission needs to determine, is why wasn't anything done to protect America by the Bush administration in the face of the myriad warnings.

The fact is that nothing you have proves that Bush knew.
Nothing.
That is the bottom line. Keep spinning your wheels.

Bush was warned. The outgoing administration warned him. The Russians, Germans & Israelis warned him. He knew PB. The question is "why didn't he act?"

I know its hard for you to imagine but there is no pass to give here.

Yes, it is a pass. You were willing to allow the stonewalling for the specious "separation of powers" issue and after that was blown out of the water you revert to calling the questioners conspiracy theorists while simultaneously ignoring the salient facts:

- Bush was warned
- Nothing was done
- Bush heavily stonewalled the commission set up to investigate what happened
- Bush grudgingly caved, if you can call it that, by granting a whole hour out of his day to the commission, in sharp contrast to all the time he gave the fat-assed beer-bellies in Daytona

You consider the above to be normal operating procedure I suppose and therefore issue a pass to Bush for being a petulant little chimp.

I base my decisions on the evidence and the fact is that all you keep rambling about, you have no evidence to support your assertions.

The ample and multiple warnings given the Administration are a matter of public record. The lack of any defensive actions on the part of the air national guard, air force or any other branch of the military is also a matter of public record. Bush's stonewalling of the investigation is embarrassingly - for him - public.

What's he so eager to hide?

Sicko?

Yeah. You give a murderous criminal like Bush a "pass" for what appear to be partisan reasons. He's the closest thing to "right" in the upcoming elections and therefore, in your eyes, cannot do any wrong as regards the illegal war in Iraq or the 9/11 fiasco. It's just sick. What other adjective fits?

LOL. What am I deflecting and evading?

Funny how you somehow managed to once again interject the name "Kerry" into the discussion about Bush and his specious use of the 9/11 imagery:

"Yes, well why don't we examine what percentage of votes John Kerry has actually been in the Senate to vote on in the past 13 months."

Or "Or Clinton staging that event at Normandy, making the cross out of rocks on the beach."

Or continuing the tangent DngrMse brought up about Wellstone:

"So are you telling us that all the reporting of it was incorrect?

I heard a lot of the footage, I read enough to know what happened there. I know it turned the stomach of a lot of people and turned the election in Norm Colemans favor because the people of Minnesota found it so disgusting..

So, your point?"

Diversion and evasion.

I seem to be engaging you.

You're baiting, and nothing more. You're not arguing the points raised but are just "engaging" purely for the sake of argument. You do not counter discussion about what he knew or did not know, you simply assert, without basis, that he did not in fact know.

I've read all the information there is on 9/11, all those websites with all the links to articles. Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit back and say "we should've known" because there were enough warning signs.

How many warnings from how many governments did Bush need? If nothing else, the leadership was woefully and perhaps criminally negligent.

9/11 was one of our greatest governmental blunders in history, across the board on many government agencies and levels.

"But let's not support a commission intended to find out who ****ed up and to make sure it never happens again. Oh no...not while a Repubican is in the Oval Office", right? Everyone is at fault except Dumb?Ya, right?

To point the finger at one person is just laughable and simplistic. LOL.

He's the Commander In Chief. It's a natural to want to question him about this "greatest {of** governmental blunders" as you put it. His attempt to isolate himself from the investigation, to prevent it from getting answers that may incriminate him is maddening. I cannot understand how you, as a patriotic American, aren't outraged by this, especially in light of your now obviously & transparently partisan and hypocritical bleatings a while ago about the primacy of law and good behavior when we discussed the Clinton impeachment issues.

I must congratulate you on derailing this thread.

Congratulations.

There is ample evidence Bush knew. It's all in the public domain. What I want to know, and what the commission needs to determine, is why wasn't anything done to protect America by the Bush administration in the face of the myriad warnings.


Show us this evidence that Bush Knew.

What would you have them do?

Bush was warned. The outgoing administration warned him. The Russians, Germans & Israelis warned him. He knew PB. The question is "why didn't he act?"

Bush was warned that on 9/11/01 that jets would be hijacked and crashed into the WTC and Pentagon?

Yes, it is a pass. You were willing to allow the stonewalling for the specious "separation of powers" issue and after that was blown out of the water you revert to calling the questioners conspiracy theorists while simultaneously ignoring the salient facts:


No. I am following the law and constitution. I know people like you like to throw the law and constitution away whenever it suits you but I do not.


You consider the above to be normal operating procedure I suppose and therefore issue a pass to Bush for being a petulant little chimp.


What you typed above is incorrect on several levels.

The ample and multiple warnings given the Administration are a matter of public record. The lack of any defensive actions on the part of the air national guard, air force or any other branch of the military is also a matter of public record. Bush's stonewalling of the investigation is embarrassingly - for him - public.

What's he so eager to hide?


Sorry. The burden lies on you to prove guilt.

Yeah. You give a murderous criminal like Bush a "pass" for what appear to be partisan reasons. He's the closest thing to "right" in the upcoming elections and therefore, in your eyes, cannot do any wrong as regards the illegal war in Iraq or the 9/11 fiasco. It's just sick. What other adjective fits?


Its a personal attack and against the rules. You deserve a warning for it.

No, thre is no pass because your argument is partisan and political, not to mention shaky on the facts.

Funny how you somehow managed to once again interject the name "Kerry" into the discussion about Bush and his specious use of the 9/11 imagery:


I know you don't like your hypocracy to be outed but if you are going to be such a political hack then be prepared for it.

You're baiting, and nothing more. You're not arguing the points raised but are just "engaging" purely for the sake of argument. You do not counter discussion about what he knew or did not know, you simply assert, without basis, that he did not in fact know.


LOL. No, Im asking you to PROVE that he knew. You are all huffy and puffy because you can't and you know you can't.
All you have managed to do is find some newspaper articles, put them together, and say that amounts to equalling that Bush knew.
That doesn't cut it in the real world. Maybe to you and some of your internet buddy's that threshold suffices but not to me and not in the real world.

How many warnings from how many governments did Bush need? If nothing else, the leadership was woefully and perhaps criminally negligent.


Do you know how many threats and warnings our country gets daily?

You see, this is the entire problem. We are dealing with people like you and your band of radical leftists, that have absolutely no knowlege about intelligence or intelligence gathering and how it is processed.

"But let's not support a commission intended to find out who ****ed up and to make sure it never happens again. Oh no...not while a Repubican is in the Oval Office", right? Everyone is at fault except Dumb?Ya, right?

We already know who ****ed up. It was a complete across the board meltdown of law enforcement, intelligence, preparation, procedure, and a whole lot of other crap.

He's the Commander In Chief. It's a natural to want to question him about this "greatest {of** governmental blunders" as you put it. His attempt to isolate himself from the investigation, to prevent it from getting answers that may incriminate him is maddening. I cannot understand how you, as a patriotic American, aren't outraged by this, especially in light of your now obviously & transparently partisan and hypocritical bleatings a while ago about the primacy of law and good behavior when we discussed the Clinton impeachment issues.

He's not isolated himself. That is the problem here. They have cooperated with the commission. Because they will not do what you want them to do, which has never been done before, does not mean they are not cooperating.
Your extreme bias will not allow you to look at the facts as they are. The facts don't matter to you. You have your mind made up in regards to the facts and motives and anything that contradicts your belief system is somehow criminal.
Its sad to watch.

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/courage_final_real_modem.ram

Vietnam imagery?

Wasn't he telling us not to divide nation on Vietnam?

Originally posted by 302Riz


Moron? What the hell was Bush doing for the entire month August of 2001? NOTHING! He was on vacation!

.

You're right..them evil bastards were just waiting for Bush to go on vacation!!!

.

Without 9/11 there's no question that Bush would in fact be considered one of the most mediocre Presidents since his dad and Carter.

He has used 9/11 to further an agenda that was planned before he was even elected.

He flew members of the Saudi royal family out of the country immediately after 9/11.

His family and the Bin Laden family are close business associates.

He has stonewalled any attempt to investigate the attacks.

Now he's using images of American bodies killed in the WTC for commercials in his re-election bid.

I think these facts are enough to raise suspicion at the very least. I can't understand why someone would immediately dismiss significant information like this just because Bush is a republican. I don't know what happened just like none of us know, but how can someone say that all the facts surrounding 9/11 are without a doubt simply a coincidence? I mean, the victims families had to sue to get an investigation into the largest attack on American soil in 60 years. That is pretty shameful. Why would someone defend such actions by the Bush administration? I believe partisanship must be some kind of psychological disorder in some people.

>>>Without 9/11 there's no question that Bush would in fact be considered one of the most mediocre Presidents since his dad and Carter.


Hey, lookie everyone. DHM can read the "truth" of parallel universes!!! Cool that he can assure us that without 9/11 Bush is a loser! Neato.

Can we also assume that without Monica, Clinton would have been considered a paragon of virtue?

Originally posted by ColWTH

Can we also assume that without Monica, Clinton would have been considered a paragon of virtue?

Well what you Republican party stooges can't understand is that most Americans still don't care about Bill Clinton's character even WITH Monica. People knew he was a philanderer before he was elected to his first term.

It's not my opinion, I personally think Clinton was a class 'A' scumbag. It's just the sad truth; the American people simply don't care.

The only good thing Bush has done is cut taxes. Aside from that he has not done one thing to improve this country, and the fact that the economy slowed under his watch would have guaranteed his defeat were it not for 9/11. You know it and I know it. His approval rating went from 90% to less than 50% even after fighting a succesful war (depending on how you define "succesful").

And all this from a President who didn't even win the popular vote to begin with. You know as well as I do that without the 9/11 attacks Bush wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being re-elected.

I cannot read those tea leaves, myself. I would not speculate on how well he might have done without 9/11 and the war on terror because he, in fact, DOES have those things.

I find such speculation a waste of time. We can easily claim that FDR would have lost his third and fouth bids for the presidency because all his messing with the economy was an abject failure. Most of his programs were being thrown out by the Supreme court and the economy was worse in America than in ANY other country of the world (All of which were suffering from the great depression).

However, this would completely ignore his great magnatism and political accumen! So, it is impossible to claim we "know" FDR would have lost. Remember, the economy was far, far worse under FDR than uder any other president and he did more to make it worse than any other president. But still, he DID have WWII to drag his ass out of destruction and save his career and he DID get 4 terms in office.

Let's stick to what IS and not try to devine the what ifs!

Originally posted by Powerboss
I must congratulate you on derailing this thread.

This from the master of diversion and evading. We're discussing Bush's disgusting use of the 9/11 imagery for his own advancement in the context of his culpability for that very day. What's the problem?

Show us this evidence that Bush Knew.

Tell me PB, even without the massive amount of evidence in the public domain that Bush was warned months in advance and had access to information of warnings dating back years before the events, even if Bush had not been such a stonewaller of the commission from the get-go, do you not think it would be prudent of the commission to engage Bush in a session to find out what exactly what he knew and when?

Further, if someone in a court of law evokes a form of stonewalling called "taking the fifth", do you not think that it looks bad on him? If he opts not to answer questioning from a prosecution or defence attorney, well why do you think he's doing this?

By effectively taking the Fifth and interfering with the commission's investigation, I'm sorry for your ego but it really does make Bush look bad. As if the evidence available to all on September 12th, 2001 wasn't enough to make people wonder why he was asleep at the wheel, now we have 2-1/2 years of stonewalling, evading and now this petulant "one hour" issue as evidence supporting those who claim the Chimp is hiding something.

Bush was warned that on 9/11/01 that jets would be hijacked and crashed into the WTC and Pentagon?

Bush was warned multiple times that AQ was planning to hijack US airliners:

"President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday."

Now, on 9/11, four simultaneous airliner hijackings occurred in aircraft heading out of Logan. All the aircraft veered suddenly off their original courses and began heading toward the New York and DC areas. Do you think Bush thought Project Bokinka was just a video game he played on his XBox? In a climate of intelligence chatter about AQ plans, Bush being briefed on the possibility of AQ hijacking planes and four planes being hijacked that day you'd think Bush would have been a bit more prepared, right?

No, Bush just sat like a dolt in front of a room of kids looking chimpish. Some Commander In Chief. And you want him there another 4 years.

Sorry. The burden lies on you to prove guilt.

:shrug: There's enough evidence abounding to bring the suspect in for questioning.

Its a personal attack and against the rules. You deserve a warning for it.

It'd be worth it. I call 'em as I see 'em.

No, thre is no pass because your argument is partisan and political, not to mention shaky on the facts.

Such as what, exactly? All you've got is the feeble "Prove he knew" when what's backing me up is clogging the Internet.

I know you don't like your hypocracy to be outed but if you are going to be such a political hack then be prepared for it.

Prepare for what? You to evade and dodge? LOL.

LOL. No, Im asking you to PROVE that he knew. You are all huffy and puffy because you can't and you know you can't.

The evidence is in. Bush was warned and did nothing. He needs to explain (a) why he did nothing to protect Americans, (b) why he was so keen to spirit the Bin Laden and Saudi royals out of the country on pivate jets even as thousands of Americans were stranded around the world because their aircraft weren't allowed to fly and (c) what is he attempting to hide by stonewalling the 9/11 investigation.

All you have managed to do is find some newspaper articles, put them together, and say that amounts to equalling that Bush knew.

At least these "articles" are based in fact. You've got nothing but conjecture. :rofl:

Do you know how many threats and warnings our country gets daily?

Bush probably can't play connect the dots in a kid's game book let alone connect the dots laid before him.

You see, this is the entire problem. We are dealing with people like you and your band of radical leftists, that have absolutely no knowlege about intelligence or intelligence gathering and how it is processed.

omfg. You have got to be kidding me!?! Bush failed utterly on 9/11 and faked and manipulated the intelligence in justifying his murderous rampage through Iraq. And you have the gall to attempt to call the left on its understanding of intelligence & its gathering in regards to 9/11? You kill me! :rofl: :rofl:

We already know who ****ed up. It was a complete across the board meltdown of law enforcement, intelligence, preparation, procedure, and a whole lot of other crap.

Of course Bush is completely immune from implication though. "Across the board" except where the Chimp In Chief is concerned, right? Tenet falls on his sword at the pleasure of the Chimp but the Chimp himself is coated in Teflon?

He's not isolated himself. That is the problem here. They have cooperated with the commission.

Geez...you're not even on the same planet here. A debate with the delusional is an exercise in futility.

Bush never risked his life running into the burning towers to save people. Bush didnt pull 18 hour shifts cleaning up the WTC site or look for peoples remains. Bush never went to any one of the 343 firefighters funerals.

It was a tough time for all of us NYers. I know people who cant even set foot in downtown Manhattan. It just brings up horrible memories.

http://www.museumofworldwarii.com/images/TourPictures/08a_Roosevelt-plaque_lge.jpg

Originally posted by 302Riz
Bush never risked his life running into the burning towers to save people. Bush didnt pull 18 hour shifts cleaning up the WTC site or look for peoples remains. Bush never went to any one of the 343 firefighters funerals.

It was a tough time for all of us NYers. I know people who cant even set foot in downtown Manhattan. It just brings up horrible memories. http://www.museumofworldwarii.com/images/TourPictures/08a_Roosevelt-plaque_lge.jpg

Fireman Mike MOran had His Brother killed in one of the towers. What does HE think??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091491/posts

THAT BEAST!!

Originally posted by ColWTH
THAT BEAST!!
Can you imagine?

taking over the issue which happened during his presidency??

Using that issue? Using the lives of those men who died??

What those families must have thought!

Well, I never defended FDR.

The bottom line is that some families are upset by the use of those images in Bush's ads, and that should be considered. Aren't you a Christian, Banky? Doesn't compassion mean anything? You're saying that Bush's re-election campaign is more important than the suffering that might be caused by showing the burning wreckage and bodies being carried out to the families of those killed in a TV commercial?

Again, if Bush can not run a "positive ad" that doesn't show images of Americans being killed, that says a lot about his record as President.

I just found out Kerry DID use images of himself in his uniform during Nam in a campaign ad in New hampshire!

The BEAST!

Imagine, him capitalizing on the deaths of so many people!!!!!

Originally posted by ColWTH
I just found out Kerry DID use images of himself in his uniform during Nam in a campaign ad in New hampshire!

The BEAST!

Imagine, him capitalizing on the deaths of so many people!!!!!

:shrug: In Kerry's case I'd say it's a valid use of his history in the military proving him experienced in military affairs and leadership and, sure, even acting under extreme pressure.

Bush's use of the images of 9/11 reflects nothing other than his willingness to leverage the heartstrings of America for an event he may have been at least partially culpable in causing.

If one buys into the stories of what FDR knew before Pearl, which I do, they should judge him a dirt-bag for using Pearl for his political gain. I do judge him thusly. Even allowing for the massively different sensibilities of 60 years ago, he's still a douchebag. Just like Bush is today...

This from the master of diversion and evading. We're discussing Bush's disgusting use of the 9/11 imagery for his own advancement in the context of his culpability for that very day. What's the problem?

Let me simplify for you. The subject was Bush "exploitation". It was appropriate to note others "exploitation" of other events and the lack of outrage among those who are now outraged.

You've gone off on an entirely unrelated tangent here. Your posts are oozing with hatred and contempt for anyone who dares disagree with your opinion which are based on some newspaper articles that when pieced together STILL do not rise to the level of Bush knowing about a terrorist attack on 9/11.

You don't have the good and it infuriates you that people won't buy into your pathetic little conspiracy theory.
Prove it or shut up about it about it. I've asked you a few times now. PROVE IT. Prove that he knew that we would be attacked on 9/11/01 by Islamic terrorists in the WTC, Pentagon and Capital Bldg. You are the one who seems to be exploiting the deaths of people for political gain here.
It's as sickening as anyting I've seen and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Prove it.


Tell me PB, even without the massive amount of evidence in the public domain that Bush was warned months in advance and had access to information of warnings dating back years before the events, even if Bush had not been such a stonewaller of the commission from the get-go, do you not think it would be prudent of the commission to engage Bush in a session to find out what exactly what he knew and when?

Further, if someone in a court of law evokes a form of stonewalling called "taking the fifth", do you not think that it looks bad on him? If he opts not to answer questioning from a prosecution or defence attorney, well why do you think he's doing this?

By effectively taking the Fifth and interfering with the commission's investigation, I'm sorry for your ego but it really does make Bush look bad. As if the evidence available to all on September 12th, 2001 wasn't enough to make people wonder why he was asleep at the wheel, now we have 2-1/2 years of stonewalling, evading and now this petulant "one hour" issue as evidence supporting those who claim the Chimp is hiding something.

I am asking you to prove his guilt.

Please do so.

Bush was warned multiple times that AQ was planning to hijack US airliners:


That is not in dispute.

Now, on 9/11, four simultaneous airliner hijackings occurred in aircraft heading out of Logan. All the aircraft veered suddenly off their original courses and began heading toward the New York and DC areas. Do you think Bush thought Project Bokinka was just a video game he played on his XBox? In a climate of intelligence chatter about AQ plans, Bush being briefed on the possibility of AQ hijacking planes and four planes being hijacked that day you'd think Bush would have been a bit more prepared, right?


What EXACTLY was he supposed to do? Tell everyone that they ahve threats of AQ attacking America?
LOL. Look at the responses we get when warnings are issued from folks like you AFTER a terrorist attack.

No, Bush just sat like a dolt in front of a room of kids looking chimpish. Some Commander In Chief. And you want him there another 4 years.


What was the correct thing to do? Jump up in front of everyone and run out of the classroom?
Would it have made a difference in anything if he had done that?

Your arguments are so pathetic. You attack everything he does, or doesn't do. You just attack everything.


There's enough evidence abounding to bring the suspect in for questioning.


Take him to court and force him to testify.

It'd be worth it. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Keep on attacking me then. Please.
I think it just displays your seething, irrational, anger and hatred for those who don't buy into your conspiracy theory.

I understand that you would be frustrated and that you cannot prove what you believe but you shoudn't be lashing out at those who are simply telling you that you don't have the evidence.

Such as what, exactly? All you've got is the feeble "Prove he knew" when what's backing me up is clogging the Internet.



Then prove it! Prove me wrong! Show me exactly where Bush knew that on 9/11/01 Islamic terrorists were going to smash airplances into the WTC, Pentagon, and Capital.

Show us all!

Prepare for what? You to evade and dodge? LOL.

Prepared for us to scoff and laugh at you and your seething rage.

The evidence is in. Bush was warned and did nothing. He needs to explain (a) why he did nothing to protect Americans, (b) why he was so keen to spirit the Bin Laden and Saudi royals out of the country on pivate jets even as thousands of Americans were stranded around the world because their aircraft weren't allowed to fly and (c) what is he attempting to hide by stonewalling the 9/11 investigation.


Actually, he owes you nothing. We know what the facts were, they are clogging the internet, even you say this.

The FACTS say that Bush did not know of the specific attacks on 9/11/01 and there is no evidence to suggest this.

Try as you might you cannot convict someone on your seething rage and hatred.

At least these "articles" are based in fact. You've got nothing but conjecture.

Show me the factual article that proves Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11/01 using jetlines into the WTC, Pentagon and Capital bldg.


Bush probably can't play connect the dots in a kid's game book let alone connect the dots laid before him.


Reverting back to the "he's stupid" argument.

That was the very first DNC talking point.

Tell us, what is it like to be nothing but a parrot of the DNC?

omfg. You have got to be kidding me!?! Bush failed utterly on 9/11 and faked and manipulated the intelligence in justifying his murderous rampage through Iraq. And you have the gall to attempt to call the left on its understanding of intelligence & its gathering in regards to 9/11? You kill me!

Bush and the US did their best, given the intelligence.

Most people understand what intelligence is and how it works. Your attempts to politicise national security is a turn off to most voters and it will be reflected at the ballot box.


Hey, if Bush knew, then why aren't the Democrats flooding the TV with TV adds stating this?

Of course Bush is completely immune from implication though. "Across the board" except where the Chimp In Chief is concerned, right? Tenet falls on his sword at the pleasure of the Chimp but the Chimp himself is coated in Teflon?


Please show us where ANY government agency knew of a terrorist attack on 9/11/01 using jetliners to smash into the WTC, Pentagon, and Capital.

Show us.
When you're done showing us call the DNC and the Kerry Campaign and show them. I bet they'd be interested.

Geez...you're not even on the same planet here. A debate with the delusional is an exercise in futility.

More attacks from you.
This only demonstrates your frustration on not being able to prove what you are being asked to prove.

For those of you who think like this:

>>>In Kerry's case I'd say it's a valid use of his history in the military proving him experienced in military affairs and leadership and, sure, even acting under extreme pressure.

This MUST then hold true for the same qualities in a president who faced HIS crisis! ... even acting under extreme pressure!

>>>Bush's use of the images of 9/11 reflects nothing other than his willingness to leverage the heartstrings of America for an event he may have been at least partially culpable in causing.

This is simply Bush hatred with no valid basis.

>>>If one buys into the stories of what FDR knew before Pearl, which I do,

Hey, for once there is a statement this poster made that is correct!

>>>they should judge him a dirt-bag for using Pearl for his political gain. I do judge him thusly. Even allowing for the massively different sensibilities of 60 years ago, he's still a douchebag. Just like Bush is today...

Again, just hatred with no basis. I feel FDR is a scum bag too, but not because he used WWII as an issue. There was no problem with such. Even though I feel he was one of the most destructive presidents in our history, it would have been worse still if we changed horses in mid stream during WWII more than likely. When a new administration comes in they are in the dark about everything. Look at how little Truman knew of what was going on in WWII and HE was in the same PARTY as FDR and had all the same people in position still! Imagine how in the dark a Republican (Dewey) would have been with an all new cabinet and all the patronage jobs to fill, etc.!

Sorry, I will have to firmly disagree that using a president’s past experience as a campaign selling point is fair game REGARDLESS of what it was.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Prove it or shut up about it about it.

The overwhelming evidence is that Bush was warned a month in advance of AQ hijacking airliners. This corroborated with previous intelligence indicating the same thing. In fact, Condi Rice was made to look like the fat ass she is by saying:

"I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center."

by this kind of thing:

"A 1993 Pentagon study raised the possibility that an airplane could be used as a bomb to a national landmark. There were four known efforts to fly airplanes into buildings in 1994, one was by an Al Qaeda related group that tried to send a plane into the Eiffel Tower. A massive plan, called “Project Bojinka,” was unearthed in the Philippines which included an option for flying planes into “key structures” in the United States. Among them were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Sears Tower, the White House, and the Transamerica Tower. One of the captured pilots had been trained in the U.S. and said he was to fly into the CIA headquarters. In his 1995 World Trade Center bombing trial, Ramsi Youse talked about flying a plane into the CIA headquarters, and he had earlier mentioned to FBI agents the possibility of doing this to the Pentagon. The intelligence community knew in 1998 that Bin Laden had plans to fly airplanes into a U.S. airport. CIA agents reported in August , 1998 that terrorists were planning to capture a plane in a foreign country and fly into the World Trade Center. In 1999, the National Security Council learned, based on information gathered from a Pakistani arrested in the Philippines that “suicide bomber [s] belonging to al-Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash land an aircraft packed with high explosives ( c-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, (CIA), or the White House. There were other intelligence reports of plans to fly bomb-laden planes into various targets the Egyptian Presidential Palace and U.S. airports. Vladimir Putin had warned in August the US that 25 Islamic terrorists were in the US on a major mission, and that number included suicide pilots who were to attack U.S. targets. Jordan accurately provided the name of the Al Qaeda mission to attack U.S. targets, “Big Wedding.” Israel warned in mid-August that 50 to 200 Al Qaeda terrorists were in the U.S. and gave the CIA a list 19 terrorists who were to be involved in the initial attack. It is known that four of the names were accurate, but the full list was never released."

and

"A 1999 NSC report had noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House. Between October 24 and October 26, 2000, the Department of Defense staged a full-scale mass casualty exercise for the aftermath of just such a disaster. It was reported in U.S. Medicine magazine that the Department of Defense trained medical personnel in early 2001 to deal with the situation created by a plane crashing into the Pentagon. An internal Pentagon newspaper reported: Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash site. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid ... Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment." Information that the attack could occur had been obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a top al Qaeda terrorist."

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/106450.php

I could go on and on and on. There is ample evidence that Bush and Co. knew about a massive threat, knew the form it would likely take and that morning, when the planes were hijacked, nothing approaching a defensive posture was taken.

I want to know why. Further to this, from the same link above:

"The Bush administration repeatedly interfered with the efforts of the joint congressional committee to obtain information, and it also attempted to hamstring the independent investigative commission. Former Senator Max Cleland resigned from the commission, calling its operations a “whitewash.” . He objected the commission’s reluctance to issue subpoenas and to negotiating with potential witnesses over what subjects could be broached and whether then they would testify under oath. At that time, national security advisor Rice was negotiating the conditions of her appearance. Cleland told Wolfe Blitzer, “ This is a scam, it's disgusting. America is being cheated... We shouldn't be making deals. If somebody wants to deal, we issue subpoenas. That's the deal." The full truth of what went wrong before 9-11 will never be known. The great efforts the Bush White House to withhold information from both the joint congressional committee and the independent commission suggests that at the least the Bush administration wants to hide any information that would make it even clearer that it had placed counterterrorism on the back burner before 9/11."

Why the whitewashing and stonewalling of this? What is Bush hiding? What is he afraid of? Prove your Commander In Chief faithfully and properly executed the duties of the office that day.

You are the one who seems to be exploiting the deaths of people for political gain here.

Ah yes, the ol' switch-a-roo. Suddenly it's not about Bush using images of the 9/11 tradgedy to try to gain political points... The firefighters and victims families aren't fooled PB.

Good read:

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816

"So afraid is the Bush administration of what could be revealed by inquiries into its failures to protect Americans from terrorist attack, it is unabashedly using Kremlin tactics to muzzle members of Congress and thwart the current federal commission investigating the failures of Sept. 11. But there is at least one force that the administration cannot scare off or shut up. They call themselves "Just Four Moms from New Jersey," or simply "the girls.""

and

"This concerns the refusal of the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the failure to execute its most fundamental responsibility."

What EXACTLY was he supposed to do? Tell everyone that they ahve threats of AQ attacking America?

The military couldn't have been put on alert? Fighters ready to scramble? Airport security could not have been increased? Those people the FBI were following could not have been picked up?

What was done?

What was the correct thing to do? Jump up in front of everyone and run out of the classroom?

The chimp was well within his rights to stand calmly after the agent leaned in and say "Well boys and girls, I have to go now. It's been a pleasure to read with you.", wave and walk out. Instead, the trembling little chimp just sat there looking dumber than the 5 year olds in front of him.

Your arguments are so pathetic. You attack everything he does, or doesn't do. You just attack everything.

This is in stark contrast to you tactic. Forget the bad stuff Bush has done. He isn't a leftie and therefore gets a pass on the very worst of the worst. "Cleland lost his arms and legs in Vietnam but it's his fault, the dumb ****. Kerry went and fought there and killed a Vietcong soldier point blank so he's a war criminal. Bush knew about a terrorist threat but failed to prepare for it resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans but he's my hero."

:rolleyes:

Take him to court and force him to testify.

Be nice to. The chimp would probably flee the country before submitting to such a thing though.
Show us all!

Already proven, long ago and beyond a doubt, that Bush knew. What we want to know is why wasn't he prepared and why were no measures in place to deal with the threat corroborated from multiple sources months in advance.

But you don't give a ****; Chimp is your hero and can do no wrong.

Prepared for us to scoff and laugh at you and your seething rage.

"Us"? You and your multiple personalities? I see the likes of "Denial" Banky and perhaps ColWTH backing you up. That all you got? Far, far more people think Bush is hiding something and needs to come clean than believe he's clean as a whistle and without culpability in this issue.

Actually, he owes you nothing. We know what the facts were, they are clogging the internet, even you say this.

Indeed: He was warned multiply and did nothing to protect Americans. Indeed, he spirited Bin Ladens and Sauds out right after.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was something like this: "Go find me a way to do this" was Bush's credo after attaining office with his PNAC cronies. While they're searching around, chatter is increasing about an AQ strike. Bush likely figures it'll be small scale; an embassy bombing, a "routine" hijacking and decided to let it play out to give the reasoning to respond with massive force against Iraq and Afghanistan, giving him "his way to do it". Thing is, bush massively underestimated the threat and the damage that would be inflicted. It caught him off guard; sure, he had his ammo, assured by Rumsfeld who was himself asking if the results of the attacks were enough to get SH as well as OBL. He allowed an attack to happen thinking it would be small-scale to use to advance his PNAC agenda but it spiraled out of his control and was much larger and destructive attack than he anticipated.

There. This scenario far outstrips anything you've asserted (note I didn't say "proven" because you've proved nothing) in terms of credibility and likelihood of having a shred of truth to it. Is this the kind of thing he's hiding?

LOL...and you wonder why I more often find myself coming down on the side of guys like CA than you. :rofl:

Bush and the US did their best, given the intelligence.

Another fallacy. Bush and Cheney picked and chose what they wanted, ignored and threw away what didn't support their war and outright fabricated.

That's the kind of "best" you support in a Commander In Chief? :scratch:

More attacks from you.
This only demonstrates your frustration on not being able to prove what you are being asked to prove.

No, the frustration, such as it is, comes from making a solid case that Bush is hiding something and needs to come clean and having dimbulb replies like "Prove it". That's all they've got. No real defense of their chimpion's innocence, no facts countering mine, no evidence to the contrary, no worthy debate...just the usual insults and baiting.

It's already proven PB: Bush is hiding something. The question is does the Chimp In Chief have the balls to come clean to the public?

The same Chimp In Chief that is now using the disaster he may indeed have had a hand in creating for his own political advantage. Sick.

Originally posted by ColWTH
For those of you who think like this:

>>>In Kerry's case I'd say it's a valid use of his history in the military proving him experienced in military affairs and leadership and, sure, even acting under extreme pressure.

This MUST then hold true for the same qualities in a president who faced HIS crisis! ... even acting under extreme pressure!

No, it doesn't hold true. If Kerry started the Vietnam war and then used images of it to show how big a man he was then it'd be the same. As it stands right now, right at this time, Bush is very likely at least partially if not wholly, as the Commander In Chief, responsible for not averting or reducing the magnitude of the 9/11 tragedy by not adequately preparing added security measures despite massive amounts of warnings in the weeks and months leading up to September 11th.

When you are potentially responsible for a tragedy, using it to your own advantage a few years later is absolutely despicable. You would no doubt expect any other president to have the buck stop with him but like others here, the culpability just slides off the Teflon Chimp as far as you're concerned.

>>>Bush's use of the images of 9/11 reflects nothing other than his willingness to leverage the heartstrings of America for an event he may have been at least partially culpable in causing.

This is simply Bush hatred with no valid basis.

You cannot say this without knowing for sure that Bush holds no culpability for the events of 9/11. If he's even remotely responsible for the towers falling, for the airliners crashing, for the deaths of 3000 people either by wanton disregard for his duties leading up to 9/11 then it is hateful for him to be using the heart-wrenching images of a disaster he might have averted had he performed the duties that come with the office.

Hey, for once there is a statement this poster made that is correct!

More baiting from the one guy on the board that can't figure out how to use the quoting system properly.

Like I've said before...

I REFUSE to use that clumsy and bulky "quote" system.

Don't like it? Do us all a favor and stop responding to my posts.

Originally posted by drunken hearted man
Well, I never defended FDR.

The bottom line is that some families are upset by the use of those images in Bush's ads, and that should be considered. Aren't you a Christian, Banky? Doesn't compassion mean anything? You're saying that Bush's re-election campaign is more important than the suffering that might be caused by showing the burning wreckage and bodies being carried out to the families of those killed in a TV commercial?

Again, if Bush can not run a "positive ad" that doesn't show images of Americans being killed, that says a lot about his record as President.
KNock it off

Bush has been attacked for his service record from day one.

Did you ever dream of telling the Dems to stop because of their negative ads or begative lies and distortions?

I didnt think so, you just complain that he uses a positive ad of things that happened since he became president.

Kerry trumps around in HIS uniform, why dont you call that ad bad? I mean your boy admitted killing innocent women and children and wounded VC, isnt that using the dead to further yourself?

Or would that be a liberal being consistent?

Now, now Bankster!

You are expecting moral consistency from someone on the left? You know that is a forlorn hope!

My favorite, though, is that poster's claim that the people who agree with you should be discounted apparently just because they agree with you.

Snarf!!

Banky, have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? What in the hell makes you think I support John Kerry? I thought your overuse of capitals and exclamation points was just for effect, but perhaps you really are so frantic when you write your messages that you do not bother to read anything posted by anyone else. If you did then you would know that I do not align myself in any way, shape or form with john kerry or the Demoratic Party.

Now how about you answer my questions?

Should the families of 9/11 victims have their feelings considered when Bush uses images of dead Americans and the WTC burning in his campaign commercials?

Is it right for him to use those images when the families have clearly stated that they are upset by it? I guess the victims of 9/11 are no longer important now that it's election time and they are no longer politically useful.

Does Bush have nothing else to show for his tenure as President besides a horrific day of tragedy?

Originally posted by drunken hearted man
Banky, have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? What in the hell makes you think I support John Kerry? I thought your overuse of capitals and exclamation points was just for effect, but perhaps you really are so frantic when you write your messages that you do not bother to read anything posted by anyone else. If you did then you would know that I do not align myself in any way, shape or form with john kerry or the Demoratic Party.

Now how about you answer my questions?

Should the families of 9/11 victims have their feelings considered when Bush uses images of dead Americans and the WTC burning in his campaign commercials?
Should FDR have done that? NO, it was a NATIONAL emergency, not just a NYC emergency. Besides, notice that NOT ONE PERSON who AGREED with the ad was interviewed? Only DEMOCRATS?

Is it right for him to use those images when the families have clearly stated that they are upset by it? I guess the victims of 9/11 are no longer important now that it's election time and they are no longer politically useful.
Yes, because it affected the COUNTRY. In fact, we need to show the people jumping out of the WTC to avoid burning to death every week so we never forget what a horrible thing those people did when they started this war on terror, and why we ned to thank GOD that GWB was president instead of AlGore!

Does Bush have nothing else to show for his tenure as President besides a horrific day of tragedy?
Other than being the worst president I ever liked?...

no...

The overwhelming evidence is that Bush was warned a month in advance of AQ hijacking airliners. This corroborated with previous intelligence indicating the same thing.

Nobody disputes this. I asked you to prove that they knew Islamic terrorists were going to crash jets into the WTC, Pentagon, and Capital Bldg on 9/11/01.

You've failed again. Stop wasting peoples time and using up bandwidth for things nobody asked you about.

I could go on and on and on. There is ample evidence that Bush and Co. knew about a massive threat, knew the form it would likely take and that morning, when the planes were hijacked, nothing approaching a defensive posture was taken.


Yes, you have a habit of doing that and not saying much, like Malcolm.

Once again, YES or NO. Did Bush know that Islamic terrorists were going to crash jets into the WTC, Pentagon, and Capital Bldg on 9/11/01?

Ah yes, the ol' switch-a-roo. Suddenly it's not about Bush using images of the 9/11 tradgedy to try to gain political points... The firefighters and victims families aren't fooled PB.


Whats sad is that you don't even understand what you are talking about. If Bush were saying in his commercial "Bill Clinton and the Democrats didn't do $hit for 8 years and I finally did.", now that would be politicising the war on terror.
That is exploitive, that is not classy or respectful for the President to use in advertising.
His steady leadership, guiding the country through those tough times needs to be pointed out because he did such a stellar job of it.
And that is why you don't want him using 9/11 in any way. It