Posted on 08/02/2004 6:21:09 AM PDT by livesbygrace
NEW YORK -- As the Republicans prepare to take their turn on the convention stage, Democrats are already urging them not to "politicize" the 9/11 attacks. It's not clear what would constitute politicization, but anything that reminds Americans that the perpetrator was Osama bin Laden and not George Bush would probably qualify.
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who usually spends his time prosecuting successful business executives, warned the Republicans last week: "Do not dare use 9/11 for political purposes…Do not go there. We will not allow it." (Will he subpoena Republicans who mention 9/11?) Spitzer then proceeded to go there, lambasting the President for opposing the creation of the 9/11 Commission and citing the intelligence and coordination failures described in the Commission's report.
Senator Clinton, too, warned President Bush that he better not talk about 9/11 too much, or show too many images. "It has to be done in a careful way or people will think he's exploiting it," she told the New York Post. She didn't indicate who these people were, but a fair guess would include Democrats and certain broadcast media outlets. You know, the People.
Hillary's warning comes at an unusual time, when 9/11 images seem to have all but disappeared from the public domain. As Byron York pointed out in a recent National Review article, you can get Abu Ghraib photos by the truckload, but good luck seeing broadcast footage of the worst attack ever on American soil.
In Boston, it was hard to find words alluding to 9/11, let alone images. Senator Clinton's speech mentioned the attacks in the context of the Democrats' favorite First Responders, a misnomer if there ever was one. With any justice to language, they would be called Last Responders. Clinton called for more homeland security funding and better pay for the military, police, and firefighters. Pay raises may well be justified, but only Democrats think higher salaries can prevent terrorist attacks.
Senator Kerry's speech was not much better. After spending the primary campaign talking about terrorism as primarily a law enforcement matter, he bowed to centrism and referred to the situation as a war. As Bob Dole would say, whatever. It was clearly just words; there was no explanation of why this war was different or what the enemy desired in starting it. Kerry mentioned 9/11 to evoke the unity that Americans had had for a time, a unity that was destroyed, he implied, by President Bush and his misadventure in Iraq.
Kerry may have called it a war, but his strategy for how to wage it is pure September 10th: "Today, our national security begins with homeland security," he said. It begins at the end, in other words. "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required," he insisted. When would that be? His answer: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." What a relief; he'll do something if they do something. But what would he do in the meantime?
THE BOSTON DEMOCRATS ONCE again lived up to the old joke: "A liberal is someone who won't take his own side in an argument." It's no surprise that they want to preempt a discussion of how this war started. For them, such a discussion is an imminent threat. Their eagerness to prevent it should be understood as an admission of weakness, akin to their slightly panicked demonstration of patriotism at the convention.
You don't keep insisting that you're patriotic unless there is some doubt that you are; and you don't plead for silence on one of the most momentous events in American history unless you have nothing effective to say about it.
This became clear last winter, when the Bush campaign unveiled its first set of ads, one of which used a brief image of Ground Zero. Immediately, the Democrats cried foul, and the ads were quickly pulled. If the Republicans are going to back down this easily, then the entire discussion of 9/11 will be on liberal terms: little or no reference to the monstrous deeds of al Qaeda, but plenty of talk about inadequate funding, intelligence failures, the mystical importance of France to our national security, and the evils of John Ashcroft.
The Republicans need to take the stage in New York and remind the country what happened on September 11th, and not just by invoking the date devoid of context, as the Democrats did. They're going to have to reawaken the horror of that day and make clear that we remain in grave danger. They should not shrink from showing pictures to the American people of what may well be the central event of this generation.
If Bush is a war president, then he should campaign like one. Democrats will accuse him of exploiting 9/11 no matter what he says anyway, so let the exploiting begin.
Paul Beston is a writer in New York City.
Can we talk about John Kerrys vast war experience?
Never, ever Forget:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/748497/posts
Where It's 9-11 All the Time...
Actually, having this idea (to NOT talk about 9/11) in the media could very well backfire (to them) and help Bush. People will still make the association of Bush being great for us at a time of crisis, even if the Pubbies themselves are fairly quiet about it.
The Democrats are the Party Of 9/10. They think the next day never happened and in the same breath, they have the chutzpah to demand Republicans refrain from "politicizing", e.g, mentioning the subject. Its like not being allowed to discuss Pearl Harbor during World War II. There was a time when the Democrats set aside politics for the sake of the country but this time they will not permit the country's welfare to be placed ahead of their narrow-minded quest for political advantage. And if they want to talk about division and hate, well we know who's been stirring that up for the last three and half years don't we? No, its time to talk about 9/11 and we certainly are allowed to remember who the real villains are.
Well at least Bush's bio film at the convention will be REAL footage.
Interpretation of Hillary-speak: If you remind people of the most tragic attack in US history, we will politicize this issue and attempt to damage you with it.
What a disgusting piece of debris she is.
I hope they plaster the WTC attacks over every media outlet!
But then, this is the new and sensitive GOP; I shouldn't get my hopes up, now should I?
bump to read later
We must apply the "Critical Thinking" skills that are taught in Government Schools. That means it is appropriate to Criticize everything about the current US policies, but inappropriate to point out anything good about those policies.
The Democrats would never politicize anything, with the possible exception of race, age, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, Max Cleland, health care, pollution, taxes, terrorism, North Korea, foreign policy, domestic policy, prison abuse, Iran, prescription drugs, body armor, corporate fraud, Israel, reproductive health, Joe Wilson, social security, Palestine, Osama Bin Laden, faith-based charities, medicare, China, the environment, health care, the economy, Saddam Hussein, the United Nations, National Guard Service, Vietnam, France, pharmaceutical research, and 9/11. Plus a few thousand more things.
Since they're going to sqwak anyway, how about if the official theme of the Republican National Convention is "A Vote For Kerry Is A Vote For Osama Bin Laden".
I am amazed that we don't see the images more frequently. What better way to maintain focus than to keep in mind the very image of why we are fighting?
"Remember the Alamo!" -- "Remember Pearl Harbor!"
But the advice of HRC is "Forgetaboutit!"
These are people who have no conscience. She places her party's desire for power above national security and above national resolve.
Take her to the woodshed.
It might even discuss things that Bush has accomplished THIS CENTURY.
And 1942 politicians should have completely ignored Pearl Harbor, I guess. Oh - that's right - the parties agreed to protect the US in those days, didn't they?
Actually, the GOP ought to go on the offensive with this one. Loudly proclaim the fact that Dims don't want to talk about 9/11. Put it up-front that Kerry's party sees 9/11 as a disadvantage because it emphasizes their weaknesses. And it seems their biggest regret about that day is that it disfavors them politically.
I believe Speaker No. 1, Hillary, the NY bag lady, highlighted 9-11 in her opening remarks and said it was THEIR efforts that brought about the 9-11 "BI-PARTISAN" Commission.
Gay marriage, 9-11, taxes, wouldn't it be nice for Dims if these issues just quietly went away? I wonder why the don't want them talked about???
BINGO
I'm rather sure 9/11 will be on everyones mind and in the air. I just hope we don't have new attacks overshadow the Rep Convention.
I'm series.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.