POLITICS: Fury as Bush ad campaign 'exploits' terror atrocity

George Bush has angered families of the victims of 9/11 by exploiting the disaster to boost his election campaign in a new TV advertisement. The 30 second slot which is part of Bush's $6 million campaign shows the devasted towers as well as a body draped in the American flag, prompting on victims family member to say "It's a slap in the face of the 3,000 murdered people,"


mirror.co. uk
The 30-second slot - which will also be broadcast in Spanish to woo Hispanic voters - shows the devastated Twin Towers.

A shot of firemen removing a flag-draped body from the debris drew special anger.

"How heinous is that?" asked TV viewer Mindy Kleinberg. "That's somebody's loved one."

Fireman Tommy Lee added: "It's as sick as people who stole from the place." But the Bush campaign team defended the images. "It was the defining moment of these times," said a spokesman.

How much lower can the vile Bush Aminstration sink? Whether you are Republican or not surely it can be agreed that this is exploitation at it's worst, and that by scraping the barrel like this it shows how desperate they really are.

Related Links
Bush ads anger 9/11 families(cnn.com)

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by John Nada]

I almost expected this to happen. Does this really surprise anyone here? I mean really?

Didnt think so.......

No it doesn't surprise me, but the fact that it isn't surprising doesn't make it any less disgusting. You believe that these people will sink this low, but when they actually do it makes you feel sick to your stomach.

What does that say about the government when your low opinions of them are constantly proved right?

Kerry runs around touting his Vietnam Record and none of the families of the 58,000 that died in that war are up in arms. So then why is it that Bush gets slammed because he uses 9/11? The only difference between the two is that 55,000 more people died in Vietnam than on 9/11.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Kerry runs around touting his Vietnam Record and none of the families of the 58,000 that died in that war are up in arms. So then why is it that Bush gets slammed because he uses 9/11?

That comparison is rediculous to the point of being offensive.
Does Kerry have (yet anyway) TV ads showing dead bodies shipped back draped in American flags, then the ad implying that because he was there you have a duty to vote for the Democrats? I don't think so.

Kerry's military record was an issue to compare with Bush's record, which is still very much under scrutiny. The reason it is and issue is because in times of war you need a leader who knows about war. Do you want someone who is sending your sons off to die to know the true horrors of it before he makes his decisions? Of course you do, you don't want someone who's lived out of daddies pocket all of his life and has never had to make a hard decision. That made Kerry's military record very relevant.

How in any way, shape or form does this ad showing the disaster of 9/11 serve a purpose other than to exploit it to bolster Bush's campaign? There absolutely is no comparison.

No John Kerry has not made ad's but he sure as hell has made speaches

An Exerpt from John Kerrys: The Mission I found in Vietnam Speech that he gives every where he goes

And there was the anger I felt toward body-counting, face-saving leaders sitting safely in Washington sending to the killing fields troops who were often poor, black or brown. But that was Vietnam, where the children of America were pulled from front porches and living rooms and plunged almost overnight into a world of sniper fire, ambushes, rockets, booby traps, body bags, explosions, sleeplessness and the confusion created by an enemy who was sometimes invisible and firing at us and sometimes right next to us and smiling.

I found understanding only in the shared experience of those for whom the war was personal, who had lost friends and seen brothers lose arms and legs, who had seen all around them human beings fight and curse, weep and die.
.

Now if that is not politicizing Vietnam I don't know what is.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by BlackJackal]

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Now if that is not politicizing Vietnam I don't know what is.

No, that is showing his true experiences in the horrors of war, whilst pointing out Bush's lack of it.

I'll say again, How in any way, shape or form does this ad showing the disaster of 9/11 serve a purpose other than to exploit it to bolster Bush's campaign?

With Kerry there was a purpose, he was comparing himself to the current leader. What is Bush doing here? Nothing more than sinking to the lowest level of exploitation, and whilst Kerry could be accused of opportunitism there absolutely is no comparison.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by John Nada]

Its a old skull and bones trick. Good cop vs bad cop. Creating polarizations within society to secure a Kerry win. Anyone in their right mind would know not to exploit something like this,even Bush. Its all a script in the traditional Cain and Abel masonic playright. It is a fact John Kerry and George Bush are Skull and Bones. It is also a fact Bushs nickname given to him by his brothers in the class of 68 is "Temporary"

Look for more Bush failures and Kerry smelling like a rose.


When you vote for the lesser of 2 evils,your still voting evil.

Your view point is that 9/11 in untouchable while Kerry can speak of all the horrors of Vietnam without reproach? Seems hypocritical to me.

If today was 9/11/2001 and you were told that in 2004 when bush ran for re-election that he would have prevented anything else like the WTC or the pentagon from happening again would you be happy? If you would not be happy then I don't think your a true American to begin with. Also if someone asked you your opinion of using images of 9/11 for his campaign to remind you of what had happened would you be upset? I think not. You just need to put yourself back on 9/11 thats all.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Your view point is that 9/11 in untouchable while Kerry can speak of all the horrors of Vietnam without reproach? Seems hypocritical to me.

No, no and no. The power of the spin is strong in this one, but I can see through you.

I've answered you twice now BJ and twice you've given a different slant to your same exact point which I've already shot down. Do you want to know what amazes me most?
I have raised the point of Bush exploiting 9/11 and the first thing you did is bring up what Kerry has done. What's that all about? A little threatened are we? It amazes me that you are so corrupted to do whatever the Bush Admin thinks that you can't even answer the simple question of whether this is exploitation of 9/11 without bringing Bush's opponent into it. Bush is in control of his own actions isn't he?

All I wanted to hear from you is was this right or wrong? Is Bush exploiting 9/11 and victims families regardless of what Kerry has done (that is a seperate topic)? A simple yes or no will do with an explaination for your choice, no spin is necessary.

The answer is that Bush should bring up 9/11 because it was his finest moment.

The answer is that Kerry should bring up Vietnam because it was his finest moment

The answer is that America in the United States of the Offended that gets hurt by every little cotton-picking thing that is said.

No spin how is that.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
No spin how is that.

Thank you very much, now we are getting somewhere.

I disagree, but at least we've finally got back on topic.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by John Nada]

Also, I fail to see how 9/11 was Bush's finest moment. What did he do other than crap his trousers at the first sight of terrorists and run for cover on Air Force One?

Oh, you mean start an illegal war against people who had nothing to do with 9/11? I'd hardly call that anyone's finest moment unless you're a facist.

However, that is seperate subject so we wont go there, but you see my point...

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by John Nada]

Actually before everyone gets all bent out of shape over this, has anyone checked to see who is actually doing the complaining here and just whom politicized the 9/11 tragedy first? - no I did'nt think so.

Well heres what I've found so far;

Monica Gabrielle, quoted from NYT editorial letter last July,

"Lest we forget, the responsibility of our leaders is to protect our citizens from harm. On Sept. 11, 2001, our leaders failed miserably. The reason for the failures has yet to be fully determined.Our recovery will not be enhanced simply because the Republican Convention will be held near ground zero"

I hear axe grinding in backround


Mindy Klienberg, along with Kristen Breitwieser are members of The Family Steering Commitee for the independant 9/11 commision. Breitweiser quoted from a Salon. com article back in September of 2003;

"Remember the aircraft-carrier photo op? Bush is a man of action; in fact, he is an action hero. Except, of course, when it really counts, like in those early morning hours when this country was under attack and our commander in chief was drinking milk and eating cookies with second graders."

Axe grinding noise is getting louder

Jeff Zack & Harold Schaitberger are the spokesman and president of the International Association of Fire Fighters Union who "gave Kerry an early endorsement in the presidential race". The same union that Tommy Lee belongs to.

From "Firefighters for Kerry" at the IAFF site;
As co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign and President of the first union to endorse John Kerry, Schaitberger�s visit generated significant press coverage(New Hampshire)
Referencing an AP story on Bush campaign use of 9/11 that quotes Schaightberger, So they're quoting a "co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign" in the article without even telling their readers about it? Could AP be any more deceptive?

Axe grinding noise is almost overbearing

Heres a few more that have been quoted in the press;
Like Colleen Kelly and David Potorti who are part of an anti-war group called Peaceful Tomorrows. Here's a quote from an interview Potori did at Buzzflash back in October of 2003,

"I feel like the foreign policy of the Bush Administration is almost like a second assault on us. We had this terrorist attack and now it's almost like we have this other attack from our own government which is doing things which clearly are not in our interests, and clearly are not reducing the chances of another terrorist attack happening again. Sometimes I feel quite assaulted from all quarters. And it's just a very odd place to be -- to feel like your own government is not operating in your best interest."

Axe grinding is excrutiating;

Come on folks, this article is a joke! We don't have any polling data, we don't know how the reporters chose these people to quote, we don't know how many pro-Bush quotes weren't included, all we have are several people who the reporters MUST HAVE KNOWN were going to trash Bush before they even talked to them.

This piece is liberal bias at its worst and if the reporters had any integrity, they'd issue a public apology for putting out this sort of slanted bilge.

Bush has every right to point out the difference between himself and his challenger based on his record - which is we have not suffered another history changing attack like 9/11 due to his policy considering us at war with terrorists, unlike Kerry who believes it just a law enforcement issue.

Going by the logic used on the left Roosevelt should be condemed for running on war success after Pearl Harbor in 1944 election, instead he should have limited himself to domestic concerns.

If newsroom editors had instead said to their reporters "go find me six people who like what Bush has done in relation to 9/11 you would be reading that today. But no it was more like this "I want you to find six people against Bushs ad so we can run that angle"

When news does not identify what organizations people are connected with when supposedly getting anecdotal people from the street quotes - they do everyone a disservice.

Who politicized 9/11 first - clue its not Bush

I want to add these democrat rules for the campaign that I came across - kinda explains why all the panties are in a wad;

Democrats are trying to write a rather remarkable set of rules for this election season. They are doing so with the complete and almost unanimous support of the media. Thus far we have:

1. Inasmuch as John Kerry served in Vietnam, any negative reference to John Kerry's voting record during his 19 years in the Senate of the United States shall be deemed to be an attack on Kerry's patriotism.

2. Any images of Vietnam used in Kerry campaign commercials are not only appropriate, but serve as proof positive of John Kerry's fitness to serve the country as its president.

3. Any images of 9/11 used in Bush campaign commercials are not only inappropriate and exploitive, but shall also serve as proof positive that George Bush is unfit to serve the country as its president.

4. Any group of people who support the reelection of George Bush shall be deemed a "special interest." Any group of people who support the campaign of John Kerry shall be deemed a "constituency."

(From Boortz site)

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Phoenix]

It seems that if you follow the money here in America you can somewhat determine motivation behind politically charged media stories.

Before someone points out newsmax as a right wing source - I have found this story reported elsewhere, this one is concise thats all.
www.newsmax.com...
Heinz foundation(Kerrys wife) bankrolls group protesting Bush 9/11 ad

Snippet:
The group Peaceful Tomorrows, which bills itself as an independent group of 9/11 victim families and whose members have led the charge to force the Bush reelection campaign to yank ads citing the Twin Tower attacks, has direct financial ties to the Heinz Foundation, the charitable trust administered by the wife of likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. On its Web site, Peaceful Tomorrows identifies itself as "a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization." A Dec. 2003 report in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review detailed the financial relationship between the Tides Center and the charitable foundation controlled by Mrs Kerry/Heinz.

Again the major media does everyone wrong by not disclosing the bias of quoted sources.

Obviously you have not bothered to read this thread Pheonix, or my earlier discussion with BJ. I don't give a crap what Kerry has done, not done and will do. All I care about on this thread is whether Bush and his cronies have exploited 9/11 and the victims families, to which I believe is a definate yes.

What Kerry has done is irrelevant and not in relation to this thread. Why is it that when Bush does something wrong the first thing Republicans do is point out what Kerry (was Clintion) done that was similar. Can't Bush think for himself? If Kerry put his hand in the fire would Bush follow suite? How old is the guy, 4?

Anyway, I do not want to get involved in your spin, it's getting very old now. Please keep this on topic, if you can't make a comment on whether this was exploitation without bringing Kerry up then don't post. If you want to talk about who Kerry has exploited start a seperate thread.

Where the complaints about the exploitation originated and the affiliations seem very relavent,
but if all you want is a NARROW discussion thats fine by me - Bush has every right to use the 9/11 incident and his response to it to convince the electorate he is the one to elect as president! - Its not exploitation to point out he's the one who has lead while no other attacks have happened like that have occured.

BTW - its not spin to dig into the source of the very story you provided link to in your post - the problem here seems to be that sourcing is compromised. Yes I will start my own thread so the truth may be known.



[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by Phoenix
Where the complaints about the exploitation originated and the affiliations seem very relavent,
but if all you want is a NARROW discussion thats fine by me - Bush has every right to use the 9/11 incident and his response to it to convince the electorate he is the one to elect as president! - Its not exploitation to point out he's the one who has lead while no other attacks have happened like that have occured.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Phoenix]

No, wrong again. This thread is about the families of the victims of 9/11 who are deeply angry and feel exploited. It's asking whether they are right to be so upset?
There's another thread discussing the actual adds and the meanings behind them here. So please, go and do your spin there.

In response to your NARROW post, it absolutely makes no sense. He only did what ANY president would have done under the circumstances of the tragedy. Just because he happened to be President at the time of 9/11 doesn't make him special. About the only thing he did on that day was make a run for it to his safe surroundings until he knew those "bad terrorists" had gone.

There is another reason why this doens't make any sense. 9/11 was one of the first MAJOR terrorist attacks on US soil that wasn't committed by a US citizen. Under nearly every other President this kind of thing has not happened, so actually it shows that Bush was not doing his job properly to let something happen that so many other Presidents had not let happen.

So obviously it makes no sense to use 9/11 in this way, although he WANTS people think of it this way. Even though people like you have bought it, it doesn't make it any less exploitation.

JN, I have taken a full day to reflect on this ATSNN story and the basis of the question's posed in the story.

One question was posed; "How much lower can the vile Bush Adminstration sink?"

Then a conclusion (editorialising)(opinion misrepresented as question)(forgone conclusion prevents honest discourse) was presented, misread as a question by most others, me included at first glance.; "Whether you are Republican or not surely it can be agreed that this is exploitation at it's worst," basically this is an imflammatory statment, nothing more.

And editorialising (statment,unsupported);
"and that by scraping the barrel like this it shows how desperate they really are."

JN, If the sources of the original "Mirror" story that has been used to pose the question, conclusion and editorialising in this ATSNN story is impugned by the now proven connections to the Heinz foundation and the IAFF union - both being political. there can be little veracity given to the story or question posed. It is therefore relevent to point this out because it has everything to do with my answer and opinion that you ask for.

Obviously your real and only question is one of politics,
"How much lower can the vile Bush Adminstration sink?"

I have answered that question by stating the Bush campaign has right to reference 9/11 and no their not vile, you disagree and thats ok you have a right to opinion.

I believe that I have enrichend your posting by educating others about the falsity of the outrage as used for basis of the "mirror" story,many others and likewise this one.

ATS is all about finding the truth to me and I am disheartend that instead of welcoming discourse, even though it is opposite of your political opinion - censorship is attempted.

In answer to the "conclusion"- "Whether you are Republican or not surely it can be agreed that this is exploitation at it's worst.",
On the information currently available, no one can truthfully conclude that exploitation is felt by most 9/11 families, further unbiased information gathered in the future may provide a different answer when a large sampling poll of 9/11 families is completed.

The statment;
"scraping the barrel like this it shows how desperate they really are.",
This actually indicates the opposite, coming from one of your seemingly political pursuasion - it is a desperate statment in and of itself.

I hope no offence is taken in what I believe is a very clear and concise answer to both the question posed in the post and further response to later comments - I have a right to an opinion also.

No Phoenix, you have decided to continue something that finished long ago. I've already told you where to go if you want to take this further.

I would like to say I am very flattered that you would take a whole day to mull over something I said, I didn't realise I was that important to you, or so popular.

Thank you.