9-11 Images for Campaign Ads

[DRB]

The Bush Adminstration is using images of the the wrecked World Trade Center, Flags flying amongest the debris and firefighters searching the debris in TV ads that are going to run around the country.

Is that really appropriate?

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by DRB
The Bush Adminstration is using images of the the wrecked World Trade Center, Flags flying amongest the debris and firefighters searching the debris in TV ads that are going to run around the country.

Is that really appropriate?
based on just what I've read, no...

Bush...:nuts:...America

[Tenchiro]

I thought that they had said they wouldn't be using that for political gain, or was that just the thing about him landing on that carrier?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
The Bush Adminstration is using images of the the wrecked World Trade Center, Flags flying amongest the debris and firefighters searching the debris in TV ads that are going to run around the country.

Is that really appropriate? all's fair in love & war.

maybe not appropriate, but coming from karl rove, it is to be expected. Just ask john mccain about the effects of mr rove's push polls in the '99 primaries.

in fairness, i don't think the majority of ads will smack of paranoid jingoism. lookie here (http://www.georgebush.com/tvads/) if you want to waste the bandwidth & see what he's using for an opener

[zod]

Not real appropriate IMHO.......but that's campaign time for ya...

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by N8
I say its VERY appropriate!!!

No matter what the Dem's might wish, 9-11 is a matter of fact and a matter of history. It is revevent to a number of issues in this election.

The President's ad is a message that shows where we've been and where were going. 9-11 has forever changed the way we in the US feel about world affairs and our security.

Maybe if Bush was more cooperative with the 9/11 Commission, people wouldn't be so upset with him using the images.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by N8
..and what exactly is the misson of the 9-11 commission...???

They are investigating governmental failures that led to the success of the attacks on 9/11.

[derekbob]

9/11 was the best thing to happen to GWB's presidency, just like Saddam invading Kuwait was the best thing to happen to his dads presidency. Of course hes gonna use it to rally support to him again, but hopefully it wont work this time.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
lookie here (http://www.georgebush.com/tvads/) if you want to waste the bandwidth & see what he's using for an opener
I watched it... the questionable 9/11 material is a five second montage. While it's tasteless, it's not offensive.

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Looks like the families aren't too happy about the ad.
(Reuters) (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4500211)

Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri, said he was disgusted when he saw the ads. Willett, who lost his 29-year-old son, John Charles, when planes hit the trade center, said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush."

If I hire a security guard to watch my house, and someone shoots my dog on his watch - he get's fired. 9-1-1 happened on GW's watch and how that can possisbly make him look good is simply beyond me.


His administrations failure to cooperate with the 9-1-1 commission is just another example of their contempt for the American way of life. Openess in government is essential to democratic tradition ... but then:

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

[RhinofromWA]

So Kerry and the Dem's can attack Bush and use 911 in there ads and debates......

BUT, heaven forbid he make mention of it in his ad. :rolleyes:

Hypocrits. How fvcked up is that?

This is dumb.

From the spots (not even 5 seconds at a time it seemed) I have viewed they were not dissrespectfull. Of course that is my opinion but to people who really hate Bush I can see it being offensive...offensive against their campaign progress.

Are people over sensitive? Or being over partisian?

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
They are investigating governmental failures that led to the success of the attacks on 9/11.

Monday night quaterbacks at best......

When flights are canceled now people go ape sh!t becuase we "canceled them for no GOOD reason" But as soon as a plane drops from the sky they scream "Why the hell didn't you know about this....you should have."

Damned if you do damned if don't.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Are people over sensitive? Or being over partisian?
some people are, obviously partisan, but the others? I think calling them "over" sensitive is offensive. If you lost a loved one in the attack, you might feel like them.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I watched it... the questionable 9/11 material is a five second montage. While it's tasteless, it's not offensive. actually, isn't it less than 5? The image following the rubble isn't part of the WTC footage (adult at flagpole). At any rate, if this isn't appropriate, how should the ad go in order to represent our national security having been forever changed on 9-11?

certainly more tasteful than the dirty kuffar (http://www.ipnews.planetgac.com/videos/DIRTY-KUFFAR_Hi.wmv) video, eh?

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
some people are, obviously partisan, but the others? I think calling them "over" sensitive is offensive. If you lost a loved one in the attack, you might feel like them.

Sweeping it under the rug would piss me off. If I lost a loved one and people were telling others to not show the horror of that day I would be pissed. That is how I would feel.

It is history and should not be forgotten. People walk around on egg shells all the time these days.

I would ask family of lost loved ones from that day........do they want the country to forget? Also how are the images used in the campaign...."offensive" It is imagery (go figure it was a commercial for TV) to reflect the trying time of our nation and the bad things that have happened.

Please, don't insult me and the families that lost loved ones that as a country we can't look at the images.

:eek: Sorry that felt a little heavy after typing...

Again so Kerry/Dem's can attack Bush about 9-11 for their gain, but he can't talk about it? :mad: That is a steaming pile of horse pucky :D

[I Are Baboon]

This happened during GWB's presidency and it is something his administration has had to handle. I think that is what the message is, "Look what we've had to endure together."

Kerry and the Dems have been bashing the living schit out of GWB for the past year. It doesn't matter what GW said in his campaign ads, they were going to bitch about it. As far as the families go, they are overreacting.

I think it's funny that since Kerry has the democratic nomination now, he is asking GW to stick to the issues during campaigning. HELLO!? You just spent a year attacking GW personally and professionally, and now you want to stick to the issues? Oy!! :rolleyes:

[Silver]

Anyone remember the Simpsons where they end up with the Bear Patrol?

Lisa gives Homer a lesson on specious reasoning. Unfortunately, most of the American public is much more of a Homer than a Lisa.

I've felt safe ever since I saw Bush in a flight suit on the Lincoln with that big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner behind him...

[Tenchiro]

Just face it conservatives/republicans are stupid, it's not their fault I suppose so I am not blaming them or anything. I guess it is more of an inbreeding thing.

I don't know if it will do any good ot point that out, most of them will just furl their ape like brows in a confused look and just get angry and call you a homo or something.



:devil:

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
actually, isn't it less than 5?
ok, let's say 4 seconds... better?

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Sweeping it under the rug would piss me off. If I lost a loved one and people were telling others to not show the horror of that day I would be pissed. That is how I would feel.

It is history and should not be forgotten. People walk around on egg shells all the time these days.

I would ask family of lost loved ones from that day........do they want the country to forget? Also how are the images used in the campaign...."offensive" It is imagery (go figure it was a commercial for TV) to reflect the trying time of our nation and the bad things that have happened.

Please, don't insult me and the families that lost loved ones that as a country we can't look at the images.

:eek: Sorry that felt a little heavy after typing...

Again so Kerry/Dem's can attack Bush about 9-11 for their gain, but he can't talk about it? :mad: That is a steaming pile of horse pucky :D
wow, so much anxiety in your post. I'll break it down...

1. everyone is entitled to their specific feelings; however, you and I did not lose a loved one, so it's insulting to those who did to suggest how they should feel.

2. I agree that history should not be forgotten.

3. There IS a difference between Bush discussing how it affected the country and what he's done to try to make America safer -and- using it in a cheesy advertisement. I'm NOT saying it's wrong to use it, I AM saying there IS a difference.

4. Both parties can and will use whatever they can to their advantage.



You fvcking republicans need to stop this wounded pony act. You sound just as stupid and desperate as the democrats.


Down with Partisanship! Vote for the best person!


PS: I don't know who I'll vote for now that it's Kerry, but if it had turned out to be Dean vs Bush, I would've voted Bush.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
wow, so much anxiety in your post. I'll break it down...

1. everyone is entitled to their specific feelings; however, you and I did not lose a loved one, so it's insulting to those who did to suggest how they should feel.

2. I agree that history should not be forgotten.

3. There IS a difference between Bush discussing how it affected the country and what he's done to try to make America safer -and- using it in a cheesy advertisement. I'm NOT saying it's wrong to use it, I AM saying there IS a difference.

4. Both parties can and will use whatever they can to their advantage.

You fvcking republicans need to stop this wounded pony act. You sound just as stupid and desperate as the democrats.

Down with Partisanship! Vote for the best person!

PS: I don't know who I'll vote for now that it's Kerry, but if it had turned out to be Dean vs Bush, I would've voted Bush.

Yeah I felt I should appologize (and did) in the actual post.......

Re: #1 I can with all honesty say how I would feel if I lost a loved one. Not expereinceing it exacty like they did don't negate my opinion on the subject...and my opinion that their complaints of the use of fotage is wrong. In a non-PC move I say shut the hell up to the families complaining. They don't have a leg to stand on.....they are OVER Sensitive.
#2 Agreed
#3 You are arguing the medium he uses is different. Sit down. There is no differnece in Dem's using it to attack the Pres for their advantage, and him using it for his advantage.
#4 I guess.

Wounded Pony....maybe. I thought the attacks on Bush when cadidate hopefuls were debating to see which Dem candidate would be better was pretty sickening. Hello "head start on Bush" with the disguise of a debate for Dem candidate.

Kerry is an interesting beast....I don't know if I would vote for him, but he is interesting to say the least. He doesn't like gay marriage either....:eek:

Hey anyone catch that Dean actually won a state last Tues? :D lol Kerry lost to a guy who thew in the towel a few weeks prior. It is like losing to a dead person.

[Silver]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Hey anyone catch that Dean actually won a state last Tues? :D lol Kerry lsot to a guy who thew in the towel a few weeks prior. It is like losing to a dead person.

As opposed to our illustrious attorney general, the guy who put a curtain over the naked boob of the statue of justice, and gets anointed with Crisco by his father when he takes office so he can be just like King David.

He actually did lose the election to a dead man. As an incumbent.

God works in mysterious ways...

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
As opposed to our illustrious attorney general, the guy who put a curtain over the naked boob of the statue of justice, and gets anointed with Crisco by his father when he takes office so he can be just like King David.

He actually did lose the election to a dead man. As an incumbent.

God works in mysterious ways...

damn you quoted the one spelling mistake I tried to correct. :D

L_O_S_T

not "lsot"

A. G.? This man? :)
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ASHCROFT-med.jpg

[unusualpunk]

i got a question, why did bush go from saying he was going to find bin laden, to "operation iraqi freedom? I find that kind of funny? Plus bush said "saddam is going to kill my father". yeah we caught saddam, now what? And for these advertisements about 9-11. makes me sick! He's just feeding the emmotions of the american people. 9-11 was terrible thing that happend, and he is using it for votes. I am sorry if this post affends anyone. Its just all messed up. Open your eyes, and see whats in front of you!

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by unusualpunk
i got a question, why did bush go from saying he was going to find bin laden, to "operation iraqi freedom? I find that kind of funny? Plus bush said "saddam is going to kill my father". yeah we caught saddam, now what? And for these advertisements about 9-11. makes me sick! He's just feeding the emmotions of the american people. 9-11 was terrible thing that happend, and he is using it for votes. I am sorry if this post affends anyone. Its just all messed up. Open your eyes, and see whats in front of you!

Interesting take, and a relatively new person here. :D Welcome.

Iraq has been over a decade in the making.....it has nothing to do with 9-11. Though 9-11 may seem to blur into Iraq they are really different issues. We are still looking for Bin'ee and we are trying to turn Iraq over to it's people. Two seperate (yet geographically close) issues.

I am not clicking on the "kill my father" :think: other than wasn't there a plans set up to eliminate Bush Sr. we either found about later or stopped short of it's goal? I don't know enough to comment.....and how does this tie in to what we have been discussing? I probably just didn't get it.....

We should all open our eyes. Dem's are attacking bush for 9-11 for votes. It isn't magically one sided....9-11 is an issue. but the fact that bush used pictures in his add is in no way disrespectful to the ones that died. I guess I just don't see the disrespect that is claimed to be there by others. Both sides are using 9-11 for votes. Challenging and defending the events on and around 9-11.....both sides.

I think I am the only one typing heatedly....wasn't supposed to communicate that way, but it did.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I think I am the only one typing heatedly....wasn't supposed to communicate that way, but it did.
well, I think you kinda killed the thread cuz you're rather insensitive.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
well, I think you kinda killed the thread cuz you're rather insensitive.

*sniff* ;)

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
Anyone remember the Simpsons where they end up with the Bear Patrol?

Lisa gives Homer a lesson on specious reasoning. Unfortunately, most of the American public is much more of a Homer than a Lisa.

I've felt safe ever since I saw Bush in a flight suit on the Lincoln with that big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner behind him...

I hadto golook that phrase up :o:

Thanks for making me learn something today Silver! I was so close to making it.......

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
These ads have one significant accomplishment:

They've highlighted the divide between the real "two Americas":

1) Those who say "Never Forget". We responded to the wake-up call.

vs.

2) Those whose greatest regret about 9/11 was that it showed Bush's leadership qualities. Remember the Dems wringing their hands, whining, "if only Clinton had had such an 'defining moment'".

The sad thing is that such a tragic day is being hijacked for political gain by anybody.

I am currently reading a history of the Vietnam conflict covering the years from 1945 to 1990 and have just covered the presidential election where Nixon came to power. To see how the Vietnam situation was manipulated is a sobering reflection on this very topic. (And neither party comes out with any credit.)

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
These ads have one significant accomplishment:

They've highlighted the divide between the real "two Americas":

1) Those who say "Never Forget". We responded to the wake-up call.

vs.

2) Those whose greatest regret about 9/11 was that it showed Bush's leadership qualities. Remember the Dems wringing their hands, whining, "if only Clinton had had such an 'defining moment'".

You forgot the third type. Those who realized all along that the world is a dangerous place, (Tim McVay, first Trade center bombings etc) and are pissed that Bush has fed on "terror" and used 9-11 to his advantage more affectively than the terrorists.

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
Does you Tin foil hat need adjusting...???

:confused:

No conspiracy theory here. I just think Bush keeps reminding the worrying soccer moms out there to be afraid of Osama so they forget about all the other problems out there.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
The sad thing is that such a tragic day is being hijacked for political gain by anybody.
Agreed! :angry:

[Tenchiro]

It seems to me that using that event to sel and candidate is no different than if it was used to sell life insurance or any other product.

It shouldn't be used as a promotional tool of any sort.

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Should we all pretend that it didn't happend then?

No, simply stop trying to score political points from it.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
Should we all pretend that it didn't happend then?
:rolleyes: Originally posted by N8
Then there should be no critizism over the issue then. No debate neither pro nor con. No reflecting over the singular defining event that has brought the US to where it is today.

Nope, none. :rolleyes:

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Then there should be no critizism over the issue then. No debate neither pro nor con. No reflecting over the singular defining event that has brought the US to where it is today.

Nope, none.

No criticism of what exactly? Anything that has happened since 9/11?

Or actions pertaining to seeking to find the causes and stop it happening again?

Or invasion of Iraq?

What is the issue N8?

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
Applying your logic, no debate on any 9-11 related issues. :rolleyes:

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Applying your logic, no debate on any 9-11 related issues.

That's a strange application of logic. You have gone from political gain to debate.

Also;

Terrorism stands on it's own as a topic.

The invasion of Iraq is not a 9-11 related issue.

These can be discussed without trying to make political gain from 9-11.

[LordOpie]

N8 and anyone who thinks like him... just because some people feel that the 9/11 images should not be exploited for obvious politcal gain by ANYONE does NOT mean the topic is taboo... kindly remove your head from your anus, now. Please post responsibly, it has been our pleasure to flame you.

[Tenchiro]

Bush had to know that this would piss alot of people off. So he is most likely going for the sensationalist press coverage, under the assumption that no publicity is bad publicity. Which in my opinion is no way to run a campaign.

If he actually thought this would be cool with everyone, then quite simply he is an idiot.

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Been flamed by better...


:p

Not surprising...

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
N8 and anyone who thinks like him... just because some people feel that the 9/11 images should not be exploited for obvious politcal gain by ANYONE does NOT mean the topic is taboo... kindly remove your head from your anus, now. Please post responsibly, it has been our pleasure to flame you.

I think it is hilarious that people are up in arms about a few images of that day. I beleive most people are angry 'cuase a few people (direct victems) are not happy.... I am all for supporting the victems families but they are off on this, and I am not the only one who can see it.

These events used to slam Bush for a Dem's political gain......The Dem's aren't doing that? You are :confused: or blind. ;)

Basically it is Con-Bush camp looking to slap anything he does. Grow up. The use of the images was not done disgracefully. I can't believe you people are that blinded. It is simply amazing.....

If anyone needs to come up for air it is you :D

I think I slowed the thread down because I offered some balance to this Flame Bush tag team event being created. But by all means flame away.

[Tenchiro]

It isn't cool for anyone to do that not just Dubya. That event shouldn't be used as a promotional tool for anything.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Bush had to know that this would piss alot of people off. So he is most likely going for the sensationalist press coverage, under the assumption that no publicity is bad publicity. Which in my opinion is no way to run a campaign.

If he actually thought this would be cool with everyone, then quite simply he is an idiot. have you viewed the ads?
(http://www.georgebush.com/tvads/)

i have, and for the life of me cannot figure out what part is sensationalist. I found it to be rather tasteful as it relates to the most important plank of the candidate's campaign: nat'l sec

also, if using 9/11 is inappropriate/tasteless, then he can't talk about economic issues, or other corollaries of 9/11.

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

These events used to slam Bush for a Dem's political gain......The Dem's aren't doing that? You are :confused: or blind. ;)

Basically it is Con-Bush camp looking to slap anything he does. Grow up. The use of the images was not done disgracefully. I can't believe you people are that blinded. It is simply amazing.....


It depends if you are discussing a point of principle or this particular instance.

On the principle I think no one should try and use such a thing politically.

On this case, (having just watched the videos without sound) it seemed fairly innocuous but where would you draw the line?

[DRB]

These ads are about one thing and one thing only... getting Americans to focus on anything but the economy (trashed dollar, widening trade gaps, deficit spending that is apparently out of control, employment) or health care. Both of which are the two things that the majority of Americans are reporting as the two most important issues to them. Both of which they seem powerless to provide any direction.

Is it that Bush is nothing more than a one trick pony? If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.

As for remembering what happened on 9-11, I don't think that we need political ads reminding us about them to keep us from forgetting. So please don't act like these ads are the only thing that is going to keep us from forgetting what happened.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
It depends if you are discussing a point of principle or this particular instance.

On the principle I think no one should try and use such a thing politically.

On this case, (having just watched the videos without sound) it seemed fairly innocuous but where would you draw the line?

Dragging body parts out....people jumping for 40 stories up and hitting the ground...The bloodied mangled faces pulled fom the rubble....

You can't ingnore 9-11 and the Dem's using it to slam the president for their own political gain isn't any different that Bush using it in his add.

It is a part of his term and is brought up by both sides when discussing his term. Really it is an oversensitive group getting angry....at a tastefully done (regarding 9-11) commercial. That is unless someone is extreem enough to never want the pictures brought up at all. That is something of a personal nature and not something to persuade people from talking about it or showing it on TV.

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

You can't ingnore 9-11 and the Dem's using it to slam the president for their own political gain isn't any different that Bush using it in his add.

It is a part of his term and is brought up by both sides when discussing his term. Really it is an oversensitive group getting angry....at a tastefully done (regarding 9-11) commercial. That is unless someone is extreem enough to never want the pictures brought up at all. That is something of a personal nature and not something to persuade people from talking about it or showing it on TV.

I'll delete the emotive part of your post...

Terrorism per se is one thing and there must a be a policy and debate on it. Invoking the victims of 9-11 for political gain is (IMO) immoral.

And that applies to both parties.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
These ads are about one thing and one thing only... getting Americans to focus on anything but the economy (trashed dollar, widening trade gaps, deficit spending that is apparently out of control, employment) or health care. Both of which are the two things that the majority of Americans are reporting as the two most important issues to them. Both of which they seem powerless to provide any direction.

Is it that Bush is nothing more than a one trick pony? If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.

As for remembering what happened on 9-11, I don't think that we need political ads reminding us about them to keep us from forgetting. So please don't act like these ads are the only thing that is going to keep us from forgetting what happened.

Nice redirection....the president is not the one telling people he shouldn't use the material....other people are trying to sensor it.

I can only imagine this is not the only commercial in the next yearwe will see. One trick pony? Possibly. But probably unlikely. It is a long run to the polls in Nov and please correct me if I am wrong....this is his first campaign commercial. Not exactly one trick pony worthy....yet.

9-11 is part of what is our country now. The coverage wasn't done dissrespectfully, and it is his first commercial. WTF! Issue coverage is still to happen. For crying out loud......

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
I'll delete the emotive part of your post...

Terrorism per se is one thing and there must a be a policy and debate on it. Invoking the victims of 9-11 for political gain is (IMO) immoral.

And that applies to both parties.

Hold on! You asked what would be crossing the line.

On this case, (having just watched the videos without sound) it seemed fairly innocuous but where would you draw the line?

Nice.

Rhino

*edit* but yes I can see that as an opinion. It jsut doesn't pertain to this commercial we are discussing.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
These ads are about one thing and one thing only... getting Americans to focus on anything but the economy (trashed dollar, widening trade gaps, deficit spending that is apparently out of control, employment) or health care. Both of which are the two things that the majority of Americans are reporting as the two most important issues to them. Both of which they seem powerless to provide any direction.

Is it that Bush is nothing more than a one trick pony? If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.

As for remembering what happened on 9-11, I don't think that we need political ads reminding us about them to keep us from forgetting. So please don't act like these ads are the only thing that is going to keep us from forgetting what happened. now i'm convinced you haven't seen the ads. At least not the 3 on the site. The 2 which depict images of 9-11 are 2 seconds long (track it in the player - not by saying 1-mississippi...)
Here, read the text (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2287) of the ads, and quit being so partisan.

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Hold on! You asked what would be crossing the line.



Rhino

Ah, OK. Sorry, my bad.

Shouldn't have deleted it - I missed the reference. Apologies.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by $tinkle
have you viewed the ads?
(http://www.georgebush.com/tvads/)

i have, and for the life of me cannot figure out what part is sensationalist. I found it to be rather tasteful as it relates to the most important plank of the candidate's campaign: nat'l sec

also, if using 9/11 is inappropriate/tasteless, then he can't talk about economic issues, or other corollaries of 9/11.

It isn't that the ads themselves are done badly or in a distasteful manner, it is the fact that nobody should use the murder of 3000+ people as a promotional tool.

Especially when his idea of maiking America safer includes invading a country who posed very little (if any) danger to the US and killing thousands of innocent people.

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Rhino

*edit* but yes I can see that as an opinion. It jsut doesn't pertain to this commercial we are discussing.

Well, I've not heard the sound but the pictures were pretty mild, not really a problem but possible thin end of the wedge thingy?

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
It isn't that the ads themselves are done badly or in a distasteful manner, it is the fact that nobody should use the murder of 3000+ people as a promotional tool.

Especially when his idea of maiking America safer includes invading a country who posed very little (if any) danger to the US and killing thousands of innocent people.

Sounds good, I just think this is a mound hill (some victims families finding it offensive) being turned into a Mountain (The people jumping in line with them to denounce it)

When this really isn't worthy of that level of attack. It just wasn't done in a distastefully(subjective I know) way.

It could have been, but it wasn't.

Right messege....wrong application.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Especially when his idea of maiking America safer includes invading a country who posed very little (if any) danger to the US and killing thousands of innocent people. your assertion that they were of little threat runs against every well-informed democrat.

list your source for the thousands of innocents killed please. even iraqbodycount.com won't make that claim.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Well, I've not heard the sound but the pictures were pretty mild, not really a problem but possible thin end of the wedge thingy?

$tinkle posted a link to the script of the comercials. That may help. (a few above here)

Just typical political 30 sec spot. Especially for an initial ad. Very broad.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
It isn't that the ads themselves are done badly or in a distasteful manner, it is the fact that nobody should use the murder of 3000+ people as a promotional tool.
Exactly! The ads are fine (IMO), it's the fact that their being used the way they are.

And, as Fluff's been saying... NEITHER PARTY SHOULD DO IT. If and when the Dems do it, they need to be slammed too!




Don't be a partisan tool... vote for the best candidate.

[LordOpie]

"My tragedy is not background imagery for your commercial." ~ not sure where I heard that.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by $tinkle
your assertion that they were of little threat runs against every well-informed democrat.

list your source for the thousands of innocents killed please. even iraqbodycount.com won't make that claim.

That's ok, I'm not a democrat. ;)

I googled "Iraqi civilian death toll" and went through a bunch of the links. Most of them seem to think the count was between 3000 and 10,000. In the past I have seen credible sources (AP, reuters) report it in that range also, but I don't think anyone will ever come up with an exact figure.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
That's ok, I'm not a democrat. ;)

I googled "Iraqi civilian death toll" and went through a bunch of the links. Most of them seem to think the count was between 3000 and 10,000. In the past I have seen credible sources (AP, reuters) report it in that range also, but I don't think anyone will ever come up with an exact figure. ok, i should have qualified my question with "by US forces". In which case, i believe that number is in the hundreds. If that number is closer to what you claim, there needs to be hell to pay. plain & simple.

i'm sure there are a few mass graves & insurgent terrorists to account for quite a few.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
"My tragedy is not background imagery for your commercial." ~ not sure where I heard that.

Every one has a tragedy. Infact this tragedy was shared by more than (whoever it was)

So it is not somthing that gives them a final say.

[Tenchiro]

Here is probably the most credible source, ABC and the AP.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s877824.htm

The AP documented 3,240 civilian casualties during the one month after the war began. That number is not an estimate of how many people died, surely many more than that did die but those are the people that we were able to absolutely ascertain that they were civilians and they were killed as a result of the war.

Primarily we visited the hospitals all around Iraq and looked at their records. In some cases hospitals didn't have very good records and in those cases we didn't use any numbers from them at all.

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
now i'm convinced you haven't seen the ads. At least not the 3 on the site. The 2 which depict images of 9-11 are 2 seconds long (track it in the player - not by saying 1-mississippi...)
Here, read the text (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2287) of the ads, and quit being so partisan.

Partisan. Hardly. Kerry will get his due soon enough.

Of course I've seen the ads, I was the one that started the stupid thread. Watched 'em, read the text and then watched 'em again. And just again for your benefit.

Ask 100 people what they remember from the ads... the 9-11 images. He could have said in the voiceover "I have a big d!ck." and most folks wouldn't even notice. The phrase a picture is worth a 1000 words is more than appropriate.

And Rhino, I never said he shouldn't use it. My point is why he is using it. As for it being the first of many ads, watch what the constant theme of them is. Terrorism is going to have to be a central theme as it is the one aspect of his presidency that can be considered a success. But then again, it wouldn't have taken a brain surgeon to respond to such a horrific act. Very few even here questioned why Afghanistan was such an immediate target.

One trick pony doesn't refer to his reelection campaign, it refers to his presidency so far. If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Here is probably the most credible source, ABC and the AP.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s877824.htm also from this site:Witnesses said some civilian casualties were caused by Iraqi forces andIf we can understand what led to their deaths then perhaps we can get a better protections for civilians in the future.
so...
Originally posted by Tenchiro
Especially when his idea of maiking America safer includes invading a country who posed very little (if any) danger to the US and killing thousands of innocent people.i simply don't see the connection of these deaths to US forces...

[Tenchiro]

Well if witnesses said some of them were caused by Iraqi forces, then that goes to show that some were also cause by Coalition forces. Granted we will never know at what ratio, but if we hadn't invaded would they have died at all?

For example, if I were to pull a gun out in a crowded area and that action led to a shootout where bystanders were killed. Even if I personally did not hurt anyone, I would still be held responsible for their deaths, and charged with murder. No matter if I felt I was justified in my actions.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Well if witnesses said some of them were caused by Iraqi forces, then that goes to show that some were also cause by Coalition forces. Granted we will never know at what ratio, but if we hadn't invaded would they have died at all?so, you're saying if we didn't invade there would have been no deaths due to unnatural causes, like there had been in the previous decades (hint: mass graves)

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so, you're saying if we didn't invade there would have been no deaths due to unnatural causes, like there had been in the previous decades (hint: mass graves)

Which country encouraged a lot of those people in those mass graves to revolt and then refused to support them?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Which country encouraged a lot of those people in those mass graves to revolt and then refused to support them? wait, let me ask 'em

[LordOpie]

I'll help ya get back on topic :D

Originally posted by DRB
Ask 100 people what they remember from the ads... the 9-11 images. He could have said in the voiceover "I have a big d!ck." and most folks wouldn't even notice.
Gonna disagree with ya there :)

Remember, I think it's tasteless and inappropriate for anyone to use the images like Bush did; however, I think the presentation of said tasteless material was done in a tasteful and quick (~4 seconds?) fashion. I think only people looking for it or directly affected would actually see it.

[DRB]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I'll help ya get back on topic :D


Gonna disagree with ya there :)

Remember, I think it's tasteless and inappropriate for anyone to use the images like Bush did; however, I think the presentation of said tasteless material was done in a tasteful and quick (~4 seconds?) fashion. I think only people looking for it or directly affected would actually see it.

Come on why put it in there if they didn't think the majority of people were going to see it and react to it?

Most folks will see it and it will be the focal point of the add. I bet they focus grouped it until the point that people stopped noticing it as much and then that was the amount of footage they attributed to it. They aren't going to waste TV money without knowing that.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by DRB
Come on why put it in there if they didn't think the majority of people were going to see it and react to it?
I think people will "notice" it and it has the potential to generate some positive emotional response, but I don't think the average person will come any where near the level of analyzing it that we do. I think it'll just sit in most people's subconscious.

[DRB]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I think people will "notice" it and it has the potential to generate some positive emotional response, but I don't think the average person will come any where near the level of analyzing it that we do. I think it'll just sit in most people's subconscious.

That's exactly right and back to my orginial point, if you were to ask 100 folks that had seen it, they will remember the 9-11 footage. It is that poignant to most if not all Americans that its gonna stick.

Its like habaneros, you don't have to use a lot to get the affect.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
Its like habaneros, you don't have to use a lot to get the affect.

That or it burns goin in and come'n out. :D

Rhino "I hate Tobasco" from WA

-yeah I am a spicy wimp....but I am an accountant so it all fits.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by DRB
That's exactly right and back to my orginial point, if you were to ask 100 folks that had seen it, they will remember the 9-11 footage. It is that poignant to most if not all Americans that its gonna stick.
uhh, you keep saying "ask 100 people", but you don't say how many will remember. I'm thinking less than 30% would mention it if you asked them what they remember. I think maybe 2/3 will say they remember it if specifically asked. These numbers are based on everyone I asked here.

[JRogers]

A few things:

The logic of not using the 9-11 attacks as a promotional tool does not pan out very well. How about this: should Kerry be able to use his Vietnam service record as a selling point in an ad? How many Vietnamese died in that war? 3 million or so? How many Amercians? 50,000 or so? If your answer is "No, he shouldn't be allowed to use it" then you are being consistent and ridiculous. 9-11 was a tragedy, Bush was president at the time and, according to him, he reacted well. Why can't he make specific visual and verbal reference to it?

Personally, I despise Bush but I also am clearheaded enough to know that 9-11 was not the worst thing to ever happen to the US or any other nation. I think there has been a large-scale overreaction to the entire event on a certain level and through certain actions. Yes, the international and domestivc policy implications were huge and, as a result, the US changed its ways. However, as a small example, take a look at how much money 9-11 victim families recieved. Is the death of someone in a terrorist attack any more difficult on a personal level than, say, someone getting killed in a bank robbery or a car crash? No.

Also, to suggest the 9-11 and Iraq are "two separate issues" is, in a strict (read: in make-believe land) sense, correct. In reality the two issues are tied. Not through money or where the terrorists came from or anything else. They are tied inseperably by the cause and effect of general US policy and executive changes. Bush did not invade (or necessarily want to invade seeing as he refused the idea when suggested) Iraq before 9-11. In my mind, no 9-11, no Iraqi Freedom. Even if you don't want to take it to that length, one must admit that the issues are not, as some have said, completely "separate".

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by JRogers
The logic of not using the 9-11 attacks as a promotional tool does not pan out very well. How about this: should Kerry be able to use his Vietnam service record as a selling point in an ad? How many Vietnamese died in that war? 3 million or so? How many Amercians? 50,000 or so?
come on man, at least compare apples-to-apples. By your analogy and thinking, Kerry should be allowed to show him cruising in his boat while under fire while the little village he's floating by gets bombed.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by JRogers
Bush did not invade (or necessarily want to invade seeing as he refused the idea when suggested) Iraq before 9-11.
PNAC :rolleyes:

[JRogers]

Originally posted by LordOpie
come on man, at least compare apples-to-apples. By your analogy and thinking, Kerry should be allowed to show him cruising in his boat while under fire while the little village he's floating by gets bombed.


Nooooo....Nowhere did I say he can show graphic images of combat. That falls under other categories that the 9-11 images we are discussing do not. Did Bush's ads show the planes hit the towers? Did they show people jumping from windows? No. While I am mysef unsure of the strict moral state of that action, it would certainly be reprehensible and distasetful. The point I was making was this: by outlawing (or opposing) ALL visual (or other) reference to 9-11, other actions that have a similar character (mass death and destruction, contemporary relevance etc.) should also not be used. This would include the Vietnam War, Iraqi Freedom, Desert Storm and other conflicts. I see the root of this issue as a sort of "special treatment" and consideration given to 9-11 families and victims. I don't understand how one could condone images of Iraq wars, Vietnam or other things if 9-11 images are not allowed. If someone says that none of these things should referenced well, that's a different story. That person is wrong about things for other reasons. I feel that Bush did no wrong in including the 9-11 bits

As for PNAC, I don't know too much. In fact, I had not heard of it until now. So, I just read most of it. Tell me where it says that Bush had a clear objective of invading Iraq at the time of the writing of that document. The document was ridiculous, ethnocentric and reactionary but I do not think it showed an intent to invade without provocation or some other impetus outside of the events of the time of writing.

Bush had the cause and means to invade Iraq the minute he took office. The possibility of invasion was suggested to him and he refused for whatever reason. After 9-11, he went ahead. Granted, this does not establish causality, only some sort of vague correlation. However, when one considers the invasion of Afghanistan, general change in American public opinions and desires and the certainly revolutionary aspect of a foreign terrorist attack on the US, the case the 9-11 was part of the cause of Iraq is strong. I am simply not convinced that Iraq would have been invaded without 9-11. These events do not exist in a vacuum. At the very least, one must concede that public support for the war in Iraq was increased (possibly from the range of unacceptable to acceptable) by 9-11.

[LordOpie]

If someone says that none of these things should referenced well, that's a different story. That person is wrong about things for other reasons.
It's obvious that your pre-conceived notions are so rooted in you that you refuse to consider other viewpoints in this subjective topic. As such, it's pointless to respond. I suspected as much with your previous post...

...then you are being consistent and ridiculous. Also, to suggest the 9-11 and Iraq are "two separate issues" is, in a strict (read: in make-believe land) sense, correct.
However, my brilliant ex-g/f always said to take the opportunity to speak with someone if there's the slightest chance they'll listen. So...

What pictures from Vietnam could Kerry use, that'd be on the same level as the ones Bush used in his ad?

As for PNAC, search threads from nearly a year ago, it was discussed pretty heavily and you'll find your answers there.



I'm off to ski... fresh powder, w00t!

[Trond]

I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but the propaganda had me remind one of my history classes on WWII.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering
Adolf Hitler's Reich-Marshall
- speaking at the Nuremberg Trials following WWII

[JRogers]

Originally posted by LordOpie
It's obvious that your pre-conceived notions are so rooted in you that you refuse to consider other viewpoints in this subjective topic. As such, it's pointless to respond. I suspected as much with your previous post...


However, my brilliant ex-g/f always said to take the opportunity to speak with someone if there's the slightest chance they'll listen. So...

What pictures from Vietnam could Kerry use, that'd be on the same level as the ones Bush used in his ad?

As for PNAC, search threads from nearly a year ago, it was discussed pretty heavily and you'll find your answers there.



I'm off to ski... fresh powder, w00t!

I find your post obnoxious; you are making assumptions that you cannot infer through what I wrote.

Just because I say someone is "wrong" does not mean I am not listening. Simply, it is a statement of my position and what I see as its relationship to reason. I read the entire thread before I responded and made up my mind. Maybe you are confusing my writing style with arrogance. My posts have been formal, confident and strongly stated. I do not ignore other positions. What are you basing your assumptions on? I find your attitude insulting.

What "preconcieved notions" are you talking about? Certainly, I had some opinions and ideas before I started reading this. Who did not? I do not blindly make up my mind. I educate myself and try to reason things out.

In that vein, I quickly read the PNAC document and now I have read the threads that came up in a search for it and the links you provided in that thread. I still do not see evidence that Bush wanted to invade at the time of the writing of the document. I think to make that leap requires a reader to make assumptions that are not explicit and to invoke some creative interpretation. Based on what is there, I find your position on PNAC, at the least, to be overstated. The burden of proof is on you: show me where these plans were laid out. There is general talk of troop strength, spending, deposing dangerous aggressors and the like but I found nothing along the lines of what you seem to be advocating. Further, it is inconclusive whether that document would be any proof of intentions anyways. But, even if it were, I cannot find what you want me to see. If it's there, show me. There's a good chance I missed something as I read quickly.

Also, it is important to note that I am not denying the genuine nature of the emotional reaction of families. What I am contesting is their right, in the hypothetical or the concrete, to demand that Bush not use the images.

As for your question about Kerry, I am unsure of how to answer. In my mind, a video of him walking through a villiage would suffice. I am not sure how to anwers; I don't know what you're getting at here.

[ito]

Didn't Ebay shut down sales that tried to profit off of the 9-11 attacks? I'm pretty sure that a lot of people looked down on those who used the tragedy to promote business and make money. How is it then that Bush, or anyone for that matter, is allowed to use images from 9-11 to benefit him/herself?

I'm not sure I think what Bush is doing is "wrong", distasteful perhaps, but I do know that there was a lot of outrage at people who tried to profit off of 9-11. Is there any difference in what they are doing and what the Republicans are doing with these ads? Would it be like saying that it is ok to sell pieces of the WTC as collector memorabilia, or is that going to far?

The Ito

[JRogers]

Originally posted by ito
Didn't Ebay shut down sales that tried to profit off of the 9-11 attacks? I'm pretty sure that a lot of people looked down on those who used the tragedy to promote business and make money. How is it then that Bush, or anyone for that matter, is allowed to use images from 9-11 to benefit him/herself?

I'm not sure I think what Bush is doing is "wrong", distasteful perhaps, but I do know that there was a lot of outrage at people who tried to profit off of 9-11. Is there any difference in what they are doing and what the Republicans are doing with these ads? Would it be like saying that it is ok to sell pieces of the WTC as collector memorabilia, or is that going to far?

The Ito

Just curious: what were people trying to sell on ebay? Was it pieces of the WTC? I don't remember hearing about it.

Anyways, it's a good point. Also, you distinguish between wrong and distasteful (moral vs. social obligation type of conflict). I think some of the disagreement on the issue might come from a misunderstanding of these two concepts: people not knowing which one they mean or not knowing which one someone else means.

I don't think you really went too far in your analogy but I'd have to think about it more. In response, one could point out the utlimate differences between the two situations. There are similarities but I think there are also important differences specifically regarding the relationship of the event to the one who profits (Bush/ebayer), the purpose/medium of the profit, the fact that one is selling a physical object and one a message (one is more directly profiting from the disaster) and other things.

[ito]

Originally posted by JRogers
Just curious: what were people trying to sell on ebay? Was it pieces of the WTC? I don't remember hearing about it.

I didn't hear about pieces of the WTC being sold, though it may have happened(as it did with the fall of the Berlin Wall), but shop memorabilia started hitting Ebay shortly after 9-11. I heard some other stories, but not sure of the validity. Tried to find the piece on Ebay sellers, but as soon as you type 9-11 into a search engine you get a million different things to scroll through.

N8, thanks for the link there, pretty incredible. Here's another similar one:
http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/media/tribute/tribute.html

The Ito

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by Trond
I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but the propaganda had me remind one of my history classes on WWII.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering
Adolf Hitler's Reich-Marshall
- speaking at the Nuremberg Trials following WWII



i was looking for that for a while.

its very true, and been like this since the romans.

the romans, according to themselves, never fought an offensive war. all their wars and conquest were defensive.

[Repack]

To me, its like boasting, "Hey, look at us! We are reactionairy instead of proactive! We didn't stop it, but we sure as hell realize now that we f*ed up!"
With all the crap about a complete lack of interagency cooperation that came out afterwards, I find the ad out of place to say the least.

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Given the recent SELF-SERVING nonsense in the media;
CLICK HERE (http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A price paid not just so you and I can vote and pray, but also so we can sit on the couch, watching TV, having 30 minute pizzas delivered to our doors. Even if you don't vote or pray, there is still plenty left worth fighting for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30 minute pizzas are worth invading other countries for?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A price paid not just so you and I can vote and pray, but also so we can sit on the couch, watching TV, having 30 minute pizzas delivered to our doors. Even if you don't vote or pray, there is still plenty left worth fighting for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30 minute pizzas are worth invading other countries for? you have no idea.
we're becoming a country of mr creosotes (all but us monkies, mind you)