Bush ads outrage 9/11 families

[bradedit]

OOOOPS, He did it again!

The Associated Press

March 4, 2004, 11:40 AM EST


Some families of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack expressed anger Thursday at President Bush's use of ground zero images in his new campaign ads, accusing him of using the attack for political gain.

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."

The bipartisan panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks has requested private meetings with Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney about what the administration knew before the attacks, potentially a sensitive subject in an election year.

The first three campaign ads, unveiled at campaign headquarters in suburban Washington on Wednesday, will run on broadcast channels in about 80 markets in 18 states, most of which are expected to be competitive, and nationwide on select cable networks.

Two of the spots show pictures of the destruction at the World Trade Center and include pictures of an American flag flying amid the debris. They also feature images of firefighters working through the wreckage.

"I oppose anyone using it to promote their personal agenda," said Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son, Christian Regenhard, 28, died on Sept. 11, 2001. "While I certainly oppose the commercialization of ground zero, I have to say he's not the only one to further his political goals or to make money off it."

Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended the commercials.

"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."

The ads do not mention Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry but instead focus on improving Bush's image after lengthy attacks by Democrats in recent months.

[whitequeen96]

Wow! I, too, would find the use of Ground Zero for ANY kind of gain, political or not, very offensive!

[luvmetender]

Don't they try out campaign ads on test audiences first to get a general reaction to them? I heard that ad this morning and it made me sick to my stomach.

There is also an ad that has Bush using scare tactics by talking about the threat of more terrorist attacks.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

Don't they try out campaign ads on test audiences first to get a general reaction to them? I heard that ad this morning and it made me sick to my stomach.

There is also an ad that has Bush using scare tactics by talking about the threat of more terrorist attacks.

I watched the ads my self here. They didn't seem distasteful to me. I didn't know anyone personally that died. They don't really focus in on those images, it's just part of a montage of images.

But hey, anything is always going to offend someone.

[crazytimes]

Hmm, I watched the commercial and didn't find it offensive at all?

It showed maybed 2 seconds and all you saw a colored American Flag on the backround of a small piece of wreckage.

I don't see what the big deal is, he WAS President when it happened and he saw us through it. It's a big accompishment. The government has a done a lot for these Sept. 11th families of victims, including allowing them to get large amounts of money.

[luvmetender]

He saw us through it? What, exactly, did he do?

[crazytimes]

Well I can't think of too many other presidents that have had such devastating events happen...

Anyways, what do you think I mean?

He did his best to keep strong and encourage Americans. He also dealt with the issue: homeland security, war on terrorism, etc. There's not much more he could have done. And considering that we haven't had any more terrorist attacks in this country since, I feel he is doing his job when it comes to terrorism. I think he should be proud; it's not as if dealing like something like that could have been easy.

You know what this comes down to is personal opinions and views. I don't think the ads overdo it or "use" the situation. It's politics and the whole point is to make yourself look good. But there are people who do and thats fine. Just don't vote for Bush that's all you have to do.

[monkee]

I do find this whole situation interesting. On one hand, you have people who invoke 9/11 every other day, saying "Bush knew" and trying to use it against him for their own political (or ideological) gain. Then those same people complain that he makes reference to it in his ads. I would say, in my opinion, that it was a defining moment in his presidency, so I really don't see a problem with it. I also question why this would be so horrifying when I see John Kerry ads showing references to Vietnam. Didn't we lose a whole lot more people in Vietnam than on 9/11? Why is that perfectly okay?

[FUNdamental]

The Republicans are planning to milk 9-11 even more for political gain. They moved the Republican National Convention, slated for New York City, back to the end of August/beginning of September so they can do some 9-11 tributes.

I went to the last two RNCs, Philadelphia in 2000 was at the end of July and beginning of August, and San Diego in 1996 was the second week in August.

The September move is very suspect.

[telos2000]

Originally Posted by monkee

I do find this whole situation interesting. On one hand, you have people who invoke 9/11 every other day, saying "Bush knew" and trying to use it against him for their own political (or ideological) gain. Then those same people complain that he makes reference to it in his ads. I would say, in my opinion, that it was a defining moment in his presidency, so I really don't see a problem with it. I also question why this would be so horrifying when I see John Kerry ads showing references to Vietnam. Didn't we lose a whole lot more people in Vietnam than on 9/11? Why is that perfectly okay?

It doesn't fit their agenda. They want to point fingers, but resist any finger pointing back.

[Taxman]

Some questions:

1. Was Bill Clinton's use of the Oklahoma City bombing to attack conservatives and talk radio "politicizing" a tragedy?

2. How about the awful James Byrd ad run by the NAACP against George W. Bush? Was reenacting Mr. Byrd's 1998 dragging death for the camera a politicization of his murder? Was that fair?

3. Is an ad that says, "So when George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation it was like my father was killed all over again" politicizing a tragedy?

4. How about using church arsons as a political issue? Is suggesting that "when you don't vote another church burns" politicizing a human tragedy?

[mayor]

This is a major hypocritical yawn if ever I saw one.

1) The dems are just jealous that they have nothing to run on.

2) The dems have been politicizing the war AGAINST GWB since it started. But he isn't supposed to remind the American people how well he handled the situation?

3) John Kerry is politicizing the tar out of his Vietnam record. Lessee.. Over 50,000 people died there. Seems to me a lot more people should be upset over this.

I just don't understand what anyone sees in the Democratic party.

[mayor]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

The September move is very suspect.

Or very smart. As if the Dems would do anything less.

You realize that the Repubs can't win on this item no matter what. The dems will pick them apart and criticize them regardless of their motives.

[Jwelch111]

Well, mayor, I see HOPE in the Democratic Party: HOPE for our country's future.

HOPE to replace THE FEAR that this President fosters and encourages. IMO

And it is sad that the 'defining moment' of Bush's Presidency is one of neglect. HE was President on Sept. 11, 2001; this shared experience (or whatever Karen Hughes chose to call it) was on HIS watch.

Four more years of Bush? Well, I fear what our Country will look like, on the other side. Another war in the Middle East for young Americans to fight (for the benefit of oilmen and military bases in the Middle East, to replace bases in our own country)?

So let Bush use 9/11 for his political benefit. President Bush, return to the WTC site and give your acceptance speech there, during your convention in September.

But expect some people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, to be greatly offended by your insensitivity.

IMO.

[bassmount]

I saw the ads on one of the "realplayer" things on CBS or ABC, can't remember which one. But to be honest I saw nothing wrong with it. I think to a certain extent since these images are widely used I have become desensitized to the "images" and relate more when I here the families talk or I see pictures of the actual people who have lost their lives. Now I still cry at memorial ceremonies and seeing the hole in the ground, but the brief shot did not upset me. In fact I had no emotion during that ad, good or bad. BUT I did start thinking....

OK, I am not a democrat or a republican, BUT has anyone thought about what happens after Kerry wins, if he wins? I mean 4 years to the next election? It is widely speculated that Hillary Clinton would run in 2008. Do the Dems realize (or at least the Dems that support Hillary), that Kerry would have to literally step down and not run for a second term in order for her to go in as the Democratic candidate? AND if he didn't step down and was doing a good job, and she challenged him, do you think that the majority would actually say "Kerry you are doing an awesome job, but we want Hillary" and that would be the end of it? In my mind that would split the democratic party, thus weakening it. Would it not be better to live with GWB for one more term, thus allowing someone whom the Democrats seem to want more than anything a clear shot?

See here is what I think, and I may be very wrong, but OH WELL. LOL I think that the Democratic party is looking 4 years ahead and that things will come out, via the Republican party, funneled to them via an outside source, that will make Kerry look horrible, thus giving GWB one more term in a close election. Then they will play on an 8 year "failure" of GWB and have a full female Democratic ticket in 2008.