Posted on 03/04/2004 12:21:22 PM PST by The_Victor
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks voiced outrage on Thursday at President Bush (news - web sites)'s first ads of his re-election campaign that use images of the devastated World Trade Center to portray him as the right leader for tumultuous times.
"Families are enraged," said Bill Doyle, 57, of New York, who is active in several Sept. 11 family groups. "What I think is distasteful is that the president is trying to use 9/11 as a springboard for his re-election."
"It's entirely wrong. He's had 3,500 deaths on his watch, including Iraq (news - web sites)," said Doyle, whose 25-year-old son Joseph died at the trade center.
Long time Bush adviser Karen Hughes defended the four commercials -- which began running on Thursday in at least 16 important battleground states -- as "tastefully done."
"September 11 is not some distant event in the past," Hughes told ABC's "Good Morning America."
"It's a defining event for our future and important that we learn the lessons of that day. All of us feel deeply that tragedy but it's also important to recognize the impact it had on our national public policy," she said.
Two ads refer to the hijacked airliner attacks as the Bush campaign seeks to present him as a leader who rose to the challenge. One ad shows World Trade Center ruins behind an American flag. Another shows firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim.
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 (news - web sites) before I would vote for Bush."
"I think it is an atrocity," his wife, Lucy, added. "He should not be allowed to use those images at all."
STAY AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO
With Republicans holding their political convention in New York in late August, victims said they hope Bush does not make it worse by speaking at the site now known as Ground Zero, which many view as sacred.
"If he does, there will be a protest and it could get ugly," said Doyle.
Several family members said their annoyance at Bush's using the emotional images stems in part from his refusal to testify in open session before the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"There is really a hypocrisy here. The Bush administration will not cooperate fully with the 9/11 commission and at the same time they are trying to invoke and own 9/11 and use it for his re-election," said Stephen Push from the Washington office of "Families September 11th." His wife died on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon (news - web sites) that day.
The International Association of Fire Fighters, which endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), also denounced the campaign spots as "hypocrisy at its worst."
"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the president would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters," the union's general president, Harold Schaitberger, said.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he had not yet seen the ads but had no objections.
"I haven't a problem in reminding people in the country and the world of the sacrifices that the New York City fire department and police department and civilians made," Bloomberg said.
And not all relatives of victims were upset by the ads.
"I don't have a problem with his pointing to his leadership at that time. He helped us weather it. To me it was a tasteful ad," said Patricia Reilly, who sister Lorraine Lee died in the New York attacks. (additional reporting by Larry Fine)
The democrats couldn't wipe their own arse without the news media on hand to do it for them.
Heck, let's not just stop there. If two recipients of Social Security think it's wrong for Bush to make any reference to SS, should that be off limits, too? Under the idea that the US Constitution contains a clause that guarantees the "freedom not to be offended," ANY subject that ANY two people object to, should be off limits for President Bush's campaign and its commercials.
Should Bush start appearing in public with a piece of duct tape across his mouth, regardless of where he is, what the audience is, and what subject they want him to talk about?
In short, this is an exceptionally stupid article, that was written by a reporter who is incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, much less the ability of seeing any fact IN CONTEXT. And BTW, the editor on this piece had to be "a maroon" also, not to notice the gaping holes in this story as written.
Congressman Billybob
Your mileage may vary, but statements like "I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush." and "It's an atrocity!" push any validity right off into the margin.
I've lost friends and family over the years as well, both in and out of wartime. It's the way the world turns.
James Brady, James Brady, James Brady, James Brady...
That was then. Now they're supporting Kerry. Those unions will stick together and vote as they are told.
Exactly what I thought. An earlier story on FR quotes similar persons, who, once googled, show up with constant tirades against the administration, and most of them from behind the banners of various organizations. Typical empty reporting from the media.
It has been the lead story on the top-of-the-hour radio news all day. Straight from the DNC fax machine to your radio. They have long ago quit even a pretense of objectivity.
Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri, said he was disgusted when he saw the ads.
How are these people seeing the ads? Are they even on TV yet? Is this a case where the reporter drives up to their house, "can I show you Bush's latest ad?", and then puts a mike in their face to get a reaction? I just have a hard time believing this is some kind of spontaneous reaction. The ads were just announced!
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 (news - web sites) before I would vote for Bush."
Well, now we know how much weight to attach to his opinion.
Two can play this game: Let's take this quote from Mr. Willett and show it to a bunch of Iraqians with family members killed by Hussein (not killed "on his watch" but killed by him), and see how *they* react.
"I think it is an atrocity," his wife, Lucy, added. "He should not be allowed to use those images at all."
Now a political paid advertisement is an "atrocity". Good to keep things in perspective isn't it? Meanwhile just a few days ago some 240+ people were blown up while attending a religious celebration. But this TV AD is an "atrocity"!
...victims said they hope Bush does not make it worse by speaking at the site now known as Ground Zero, which many view as sacred.
Ok, this may not be a popular opinion, but 'sacred'? That's going too far. Are we going to build a religion around 9/11 now?
There's no objective reason on earth why the sitting President at the time of a major violent event should be somehow forbidden to speak at the site of those deaths. In fact, all other things being equal, one would expect nothing less. (Where, I wonder, was the "Gettysburg Address" delivered?)
"I don't have a problem with his pointing to his leadership at that time. He helped us weather it. To me it was a tasteful ad," said Patricia Reilly, who sister Lorraine Lee died in the New York attacks.
Ok, so some people have one opinion about the ads, others have the opposite opinion. FASCINATING NEWS FLASH! Film at 11.
---
I don't know why but these almost-ridiculously-biased news articles tend to really get to me lately. It's just that they're so transparent and I start to see the same pattern repeated over and over. In fact they're so easy to do, you could write one yourself, on any issue, pushing any opinion you want:
1. Interview a few people (go to a mall, or call them up, whatever) of some Important Subgroup X (X = blacks, 9/11 families, whatever) until you get three opinions on each side of the issue: at least 3 who hold opinion A, and at least 3 who hold opinion B. (Typically you should be able to do this rather easily, interviewing no more than at most 10 people.)
2. If you, personally, agree with A, here's your headline: "[Group X] believes [A]". Of course, if you, personally, agree with B, you can just go ahead and write the opposite headline: "[Group X] believes [B]". It's entirely up to you, because now that you've got the requisite 3 opinions on each side, each headline is equally valid.
3. First sentence: "[Members of Group X] are increasingly voicing their belief that [A or B]." Give a little context setting up the issue, spinning it in your side's favor as much as possible.
4. Supporting quotes: "For example, [person 1] says: 'I believe [A or B]'." Repeat at least twice, or as needed.
5. Finally, the token opposite view goes at the very end: "Not all [members of Group X] believe [A or B], however. Token person says, 'I believe [B or A].'" (Pick the token opposite-view-holder who gave you the weakest quote in step 1.)
This is how every such article goes. It's just so easy to write.
And you can do it from either point of view of any given issue. So what this kind of article really is, is little more than a stealth editorial from its author. For example, this article can be summarized in one sentence, as follows:
"Reuters reporter Mark Egan is disgusted by Bush campaign ads."
and that's news.
The howling from the fifth column will be epic.
Ja, und zey haff gespellt his name wrong too: It's actually Scheissburger.
I suspect he's in the DNC's rolodex and donors list as well.
Fercryinoutloud. Everyone is SOOOOOOOOOOO quick to be offended in this freakin' country any more. Nation of wimps, I swear.
What ridiculous twaddle...MUD
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.