Bush Campaign ads should show 9/11 images

Reminding a nation that Bush has already passed the test of true leadership in a crisis

Some people have complained that Bush doesn't have the right to make use of any 9/11 related images in his campaign commercials.  I disagree. But I also strongly believe that he needs to tread carefully as to not seem to be exploiting a national tragedy. 

The reason I think he can and should bring up 9/11 is because it was the defining moment of is presidency. I remember thinking as the months passed after 9/11 how thankful I was that Bush had won and not Gore. I could imagine the over-engineered response Gore would have put together. Would Gore have taken out the Taliban? Would some other President have managed to topple the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda with so few losses? Who can forget Bush standing at ground zero with his arm around the weary fireman? It was a defining moment in our country's history and Bush was the right man at the right place. He not only should remind us of those times, he has an obligation to remind us of what we've been through and how he handled a dire situation.

Those who cry foul are being hypocritical, to say the least. We don't know a lot about Kerry but we damn well know that he served in Vietnam. That he got a silver star, a bronze star, and two purple hearts. I know this off the top of my head. Why? Because he is constantly making a big fuss about the defining moment of his life. I don't have a problem with that though. Those events demonstrated that in a crunch, Carry is a brave and heroic figure.  Would someone argue that Vietnam was a "national" event that should therefore be hands off? Of course not.  9/11 was a national tragedy as well. And it is important for people to realize how effectively Bush handled that crisis.

Obviously Bush critics won't like that. Their strategy has been to try to make it so that Bush can't talk about anything.  If you try to point out Kerry's deplorable voting record on national security issues, his supporters claim that's off limits because he's a war hero.  Now they're trying to create a scenario where Bush can't speak about what he accomplished.  Honestly now, if I told you on 9/12/2001 that as we enter 2004 the United States would not suffer a single follow-up terrorist attack would you have believed it? Be honest now.  Nearly 3 years later and we've not suffered any additional attacks. Before 9/11 we had been routinely attacked by Al Qaeda -- the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first WTC attack. And yet after 9/11, nothing. No matter how you slice it, you have to give some credit to Bush for this. Because, make no mistake, if we suffered a terrorist attack he would almost certainly get blamed for that. We can't have it both ways.

His ads needs to remind us what we've been through. Not just for political purposes but because too many people have already forgotten what happened on September 11. Four airliners were hijacked at the same time. Two of them were rammed into the world's largest building, the WTC and destroyed. The WTC, if you hadn't ever been in it, was the size of a small city. The twin towers could comfortably fit over 100,000 people in them (that's how many people could potentially have died incidentally if the planes had struck about an hour later and at the same time and a bit lower on the buildings). A third hijacked airliner rammed into the Pentagon. The fourth was retaken by the passengers and crashed into the ground while it was on its way to Washington DC. Its target believed to have been the White House (think about that for a moment - if the passengers hadn't done what they did, the White House might have been destroyed). Or maybe the capital building!  Think about that. 

We need to be reminded that we are at war. And that like Kerry in Vietnam, when Bush had his crunch time, he showed that he was a man of integrity and effective leadership.

39,581 views 84 replies
Reply #1 Top
I think in 100 years when they look back on Bush's first 4 years in office, that is gonna be the defining event. That said, it seems silly to think how he handled it and his later response wouldn't figure in when he tells people why he thinks he should be re-elected.

The Democratic party doubtlessly wouldn't like it to be mentioned at all. They didn't do anything in the 8 years previous to prevent it, they didn't take much inititiative in responding to it, and now all they want to do it point fingers and gain as much politically as they can from it. They were 'the brakes' in almost every effort, so they probably don't feel comfortable with the contrast.

I dunno, I sat a while ago and watched the party atmosphere at Tom Daschle's press conference concerning the latest economic numbers. I don't think, were I someone who was suffering, I would appreciate the shit-eating grin with which the "Senior Senator" announced the gloom. Everything that oozes out of them seems geared for political gain, and so who wouldn't expect a big deal to made about any kind of ad Bush's campaign came up with.
Reply #2 Top
Woah now, I have a problem with Bush using the images of 9-11 in his campaign ads because he's exploiting a national tragedy. I know they didn't have TV ads in the forties but I can't really see FDR using images of Pearl Harbor to help win votes.

Cheers
Reply #3 Top
And Kerry is okay with his constant talk about his Vietnam experience?
Reply #4 Top
Regarding FDR - his campaign strategy in 1940 and 1944 were both not to change Presidents in the middle of a crisis. In fact, his campaign button read "You don't change horses mid-stream." The first and only President to violate the 2 term limit I might add.

So you can bet your butt he would have used Pearl Harbor images.

Reply #5 Top
I have no problem with President Bush using September 11 images of himself or of things that he did. How does seeing the debris of the fallen towers communicate anything about Bush? You want to show him at Ground Zero, you want to show him talking to the firefighters, you want to show him meeting with Giuliani, whatever, that's all fine. But just to throw a picture of the destruction itself on the screen is a bit much [michael moore]unless Bush is claiming responsibility[/michael moore].
Reply #6 Top

BulbousHead: I do agree with you that Bush needs to be very very careful about the images. They could backfire on him. But he certainly should use images pointing out what HE did as President. And reminding the country of that is a good thing.

Reply #7 Top
But he certainly should use images pointing out what HE did as President


I agree completely; he has every right to recall his handling of the situation. My only objection is the wanton use of any old image of the destruction just to stir up bad memories. Showing the collapse of the towers (just as an example; he didn't actually do it) would be over the line since it has nothing to do with Bush. Showing him with the megaphone addressing the crowd at the scene would be A-OK.
Reply #8 Top
The first and only President to violate the 2 term limit I might add.


'Course he wasn't the first president to try, and for that matter, except for historical precedent, at the time there was no two term limit.

Cheers
Reply #9 Top
"...FDR using images of Pearl Harbor..."


I couldn't begin to name the number of campaigns in US history that relied on war, death and destruction. "Remember the Maine" is a good example for the previous Roosevelt. "Tippecanoe and Tyler too", gosh, there are tons of them. The term "waving the bloody shirt" comes from post-civil war politics. Like I said, I think it would be grossly uncharacteristic if Bush didn't use 9/11 in his campaign.
Reply #10 Top
It's not a question of using past war efforts, it's a civilian target that was attacked, and to my knowledge no previous president has used a massacre of civilians as part of his reelection campaign.
Reply #11 Top
I think kerry should show videos of his wounded brothers from vietnam bleeding and crying.  Would be good press i think.
Reply #12 Top
...no previous president has used a massacre of civilians...


Oh, I apologize, I thought the previous comparison was to FDR and Pearl Harbor.

I seem to remember lots of early campaign mention of horrors on the frontier, Indian massacres, war of 1812, etc. I can't remember any offhand, but that would be where I would start if I was gonna look for civilian deaths used as campaign propaganda.
Reply #13 Top
Listening to Rush earlier today, he asked the same questions of the use of war in a campaign ;as to FDR, a campaign button was referenced "I remember Pearl Harbor " with FDR's face ( he was a dem., right? ) I think Bush has to remind the country what we've been thru, and what he's done/doing to prevent it in the future, and I believe it was calculated to come out early with these images to gauge the Dems response.
Again, referencing El Rushbo, His major concern today was the seemingly orchestrated interviews of several 9/11 widows. He played their interviews from CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC all aired within 12 hours of the debut of the Bush commercial. They were obviously rehearsed, talking points...." Bush was reading to kids in Fla when 3000 people were murdered on his watch",......... "his administration has stonewalled the 9/11 commission". I'm sorry, but this was a sham, designed to use the emotions of widows for political gamesmmanship.
The gauntlet has certainly been thrown down with vigor, makes you wonder when some conservative PAC will start airing spots showing Kerry with long hair protesting the Vietnam war, sitting in a park with JANE FONDA.......( I've seen the photo somewhere)
It's gonna be a long, drawn out battle, mud, blood, and guts are sure to be thrown in all directions, I only hope that when Bush wins, the country can come together and truly support him.
I'm really not all that worried about Kerry however, seems he doesn't have the backing of Willy ( not that ANY nominee would, this year is a given to Bush, 2008 is gonna be Billery's.......)and if that is not enough to make you think twice I read in the National Enquirer that Osama has been in Gitmo since 2002 just waiting to be "captured" in Oct, 2004 ( you know some people really believe that. They believe Bush was AWOL too, and little green men carjacked the Mars rover ( ok, too much...)
Reply #14 Top
It's one thing to defend Bush's use of 9/11 images and quite another to swipe at Gore who pretty much would have reacted in similar manner--that's what the commander in chief is all about. Soon we'll be seing his exploits on the aircraft carrier which is all fair in war. 
Reply #15 Top
Brad is absolutely right,tragidies should be shown its a part of history,and president Bush was shown to be the right person for that particular time,we only know what we saw.The problem countries that we deal with do not allow their mistakes to be shown to their people,so nothing is learned.America should not be so hesetant in showing the world how we hurt and how we react to it,and they should be careful not to repeat their mistakes.....Good thoughts Incidentally, Ike set the two term limit....charlie poore
Reply #16 Top
Why don't we just pass new laws and have 9/11 stricken from every television and radio program, stricken from every book, newspaper and magazine, forbidden to come from the lips of anyone who did not lose a loved one that day... Why don't we just sweep it under the rug and pretend it never did happen?
The people that are making such a big deal over Bush showing images of 9/11 are themselves exploiting 9/11. They are in a sense just like the pharisees of ancient times who loved to pray on the street corners just to be seen and they would disfigure their faces when they fasted to gain the attention and sympathy from others around them.
I would think that after 2 or 3 years the mourning process would be over and done with. Do the families of 9/11 victims bury their faces in the ground and begin weeping over their loved ones everytime they see a plane pass over head or see a highrise or hear the word terrorist on T.V.?
Its time people take their hearts off their sleeves and move on. GCJ
Reply #17 Top
The loss of loved ones has many ways of hurting, and the unexpected is the worst,only time heals all wounds and wounds all heels[crud]Anyone of these people can cry on my shoulder anytime and I will console them for as long as it takes.....charlie poore
Reply #18 Top
I would think that after 2 or 3 years the mourning process would be over and done with.


Maybe you're wrong. Did you ever lose a family member? A child or a spouse?


Do the families of 9/11 victims bury their faces in the ground and begin weeping over their loved ones everytime they see a plane pass over head or see a highrise or hear the word terrorist on T.V.?


Maybe they do. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if some of them did.
Reply #19 Top
I believe my point is that using a national tragedy, by any person, to gain votes is bad taste. If Bush put in his commercials all the things he had done to counteract terrorism, that would be great, but playing on basic emotions is a cheap shot, no matter who does it.

Cheers
Reply #20 Top
"If Bush put in his commercials all the things he had done to counteract terrorism..."


... the democrats would have lambasted him for using the military as advertising, or would have screamed that he shouldn't capitalize on civilian casualites, or... or...

You guys really think any of this is based on kind concern? No matter what he does they will spin it, it is an election year. If Kerry had done anything constructive in that regard, he'd be using them too. He didn't, so the only thing he can do is try to take away their effectiveness for Bush.
Reply #21 Top
the democrats would have lambasted him for using the military as advertising, or would have screamed that he shouldn't capitalize on civilian casualites


You're grasping at straws. Showing images of the destroyed World Trade Center has NOTHING to do with any of Bush's accomplishments. If you disagree, explain to me exactly how showing me a picture of an annihilated national landmark does anything to say "Bush is good."
Reply #22 Top
"Showing images of the destroyed World Trade Center has NOTHING to do with any of Bush's accomplishments."


You see there Bulb, there's another opinion. You gotta learn that opinions do not refute other opinions. I don't have to refute your opinions, because they do nothing to refute mine. We end up at this point in every conversation. You just invite me to elaborate so you can make more little yellow boxes and ask me to elaborate again. In the end, though, we are still left with two points-of-view.

As far as "annihilated national landmark", he is reminding people what all the hubbub has been about for the last 4 years. With all the petty finger-pointing, people forget. You may feel differently, but that would be another of your opinions.
Reply #23 Top
Tell me, then, would you have any objection to the tastefulness (as opposed to the politics) of an ad that features a video of the collapse of the Towers, followed by a voiceover: "This happened while Bush was President"?


As far as "annihilated national landmark", he is reminding people what all the hubbub has been about for the last 4 years.


Since the President himself has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 (NOTE: NOT MY OPINION! ACTUAL FACT!), how do you figure?
Reply #24 Top
"Tell me, then, would you have any objection to the tastefulness (as opposed to the politics) of an ad that features a video of the collapse of the Towers, followed by a voiceover: "This happened while Bush was President"?"


I don't see tastefulness entering into it, honestly. It was a defining moment and how people reacted to it is relevant to their public service. It wouldn't be any different than showing the same image and saying "This happened while Kerry was in office." I doubt either one of them could have prevented it in the 8 months previous, though Kerry had many, many more years in office to address national security.

One could easily make an ad like:

Because we did nothing about this: (image of the first World Trade Center bombing, followed by images of the USS Cole and the African Embassy bombings)
We were forced to do something about this: (Image of 9/11)

Tasteless? Maybe, but true.

Since the President himself has admitted...


Is there something in the 9/11 ad that references Iraq? If Bush isn't correlating the two, I'm not sure why we need to. There's been a lot more done in the last four years other than Iraq.


Reply #25 Top
I don't see tastefulness entering into it, honestly.


Thanks for not answering the question. I specifically asked you not to address the politics of my hypothetical (since it is obvious that Bush could not have prevented the attacks) but only the tastefulness.


Tasteless? Maybe, but true.


In other words, it's okay to be tasteless as long as what you say is true.


Is there something in the 9/11 ad that references Iraq? If Bush isn't correlating the two, I'm not sure why we need to.


Conceded, but then tell me: What else has happened in the last four years that has to do with images of the World Trade Center?