9/11 victims angered by bush ads

[Corn]

I want someone to post a link to this supposed claim that Bush made that he wouldn't reference 9/11 in any of his campaign literature.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Its pretty fvcking simple why it happened. In the 7+ years from the WTC attack to 2000. Clinton did nothing. We had 5 attacks on american soil. Clinton did nothing, except gut and handcuff the CIA, lob a few missles at Saddam, and blow up a couple Asprin factories.

Anyone trying to blame Bush for 9/11 SHOULD BE CONDEMING Clinton.

your a funny sob. bush takes office after all this supposed blundering and what does he do? ah yes, take a long string of vacations on his ranch.

you might say clinton was negligent for just shooting at tents, well ATLEAST HE TRIED!! he wasn't on vacation playing cowboy on the ranch.

what do you call a president who ran on the idea that clinton had ruined everything, all the military etc, yet takes ranch vacations once he takes office? either he's negligent or a liar, choose one or both.

and your wrong anyways, ramzi yousef, abdul hakim murad, and wali kham amin shah ring a bell? how quickly you forget, it must be the limbaugh effect. these were all terrorists responsible for the first attack on the towers,AND THEY ARE BEHIND BARS. oh, blame clinton!! oh yes.. please do!

attacks planned on the YN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la and boston airports, the lincoln and holland tunnels, and the george washington bridge, thwarted.... blame Clinton!!


he tripled the counterterrirusn bydget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. his crime bills contained antiterrorism legislation, he sponsored simulations to see how well different institutions would react to attacks, he created the national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, 40 million doses of smallpox vacine.... blame clinton...

he was the first president to undertake a systematic anti terrorist effort. and bush was the president to go on massive sprees of vacations his first months in office after running on the idea that everything was desperatly broken...


negligence of the highest order...

You know, I'll bet that no one responds to your post as people here don't like to respond to well worded factual posts, they prefer to ignore well worded factual posts and continue arguing with their stupid opinions.

The cleric buddy of Bin Laden who was a planner of the first WTC attack mostly likely helped plan 9/11 from prison. His lawyer was found to be passing information back and forth.



Linky

Great, one of our own people was helping these terrorists. The only way to have stopped that was to deny these animals a right to have a lawyer - that's an issue I won't touch with a 20 foot pole.

 

[AEB]

you liberals better be careful or this non-issue may distract you enough to let bush "steal" the election again!!

 

[sxr7171]

I just saw the ad today and I didn't really care, I guess he has the right to claim stability under distress.

 

[DoubleL]

9/11 victims angered by bush ads

The topic is a little miss leading when over 5500 people say-14% say they are angered and 86% says they are not

Should say 9/11 Victims approve of Bush's ads

 

[Oneness]

another point to consider... Bush is using images from 9/11 in his campaign and yet FORBIDS our supposedly free press from releasing any imges of caskets containing our dead soldiers returning from Iraq.

So the lesson is, it's ok to exploit people's suffering when it benefits you, while at the same time preventing an utter truth about war to be seen and felt by the public. because it might affect his approval ratings.

 

[DealMonkey]

Some interesting analysis of the Bush ads:

Like its commercial cousin, this sort of political advertising relies heavily on clichéd images of Americans going about their jobs and lives. With a bit of re-jiggering, the 60-second spot called "Lead" would work as an uplifting commercial for General Electric or AT&T.

...

Amid this wash of feel-good Americana, the president and first lady enumerate the incumbent's leadership qualities: optimism, strength, focus, and "belief in the people of America." One can't dispute the accuracy of anything in this ad because, as the New York Times tartly notes, it "makes no verifiable claims." If you think Bush is a great president, you will probably like it. If you dislike him, you will think it massively evasive of all the issues in the campaign. I'm in the latter category, but I also dislike it as a critic of political advertising. It's saccharin political sludge.

The two other Bush ads, "Tested" and "Safer, Stronger" (which also has a Spanish version) are hardly substantive, but they are somewhat more assertive. Both juxtapose the stereotyped pictures of "Lead," with emotionally charged images of Sept. 11. In "Safer, Stronger," an American flag waves in front of the ruined World Trade Center; a worker raises a flag on a flagpole; New York City firemen carry a flag-draped body at ground zero; a flag waves behind Bush's name.

...

Again, the effort is one of positive association: Bush with flags, Bush with heroic firemen, Bush with America after Sept. 11. But the display text implicitly makes a more tendentious point, depicting the president's first term as the story of him being handed a country in deep economic crisis, exacerbated by the terrorist attacks, and now finally "turning the corner" thanks to his leadership.

This is a selective version of the past four years, to say the least. Where'd the Iraq war go? And how did Bush become a victim of a weak economy, rather than the perpetrator of one? There is also some explicit dishonesty. The text of "Safer, Stronger" begins: "January 2001, The challenge: An economy in recession. A stock market in decline. ..." In fact, as Bush acknowledged quite recently in his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert, he did not inherit a recession from President Clinton. The recession began two months after he arrived, in March 2001.

This is the only demonstrably untrue statement to be found in these three ads. Tellingly, it is also nearly the only statement of fact in any of them.

...

Interesting that there would be an outright lie in Bush's first salvo of ads. Those pesky historical revisionists work both ways I guess.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Oneness
another point to consider... Bush is using images from 9/11 in his campaign and yet FORBIDS our supposedly free press from releasing any imges of caskets containing our dead soldiers returning from Iraq.

thats been SOP since Viet NAm. Find somethign to cry about thats actually Bush's fault

 

[SuperTool]

At least we in CA will be spared viewing Bush's shameful use of 3000 deaths for political gain.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Oneness
another point to consider... Bush is using images from 9/11 in his campaign and yet FORBIDS our supposedly free press from releasing any imges of caskets containing our dead soldiers returning from Iraq.

thats been SOP since Viet NAm. Find somethign to cry about thats actually Bush's fault

Are you sure about that? It's my understanding that, even though this 'rule' has been in the books for a long time, Bush just recently (the Iraq war) became the first prez to enforce it. There's a difference between SOP and something that's in the books but not enforced.

I may be wrong about this but I think I remember reading a while ago a story about Bush becoming the first to enforce it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

At least we in CA will be spared viewing Bush's shameful use of 3000 deaths for political gain.

Lets see....no shame over Kerry running an ad for President using Vietnam and dead soldiers (50,000) as a backdrop? no outrage over Clinton and his walk on the beach at Normandy to create a "photo-op" during D-Day observances (9,000 on Day alone, 55,000,000 dead in wwII)..Nope, no shame, no outrage, because these complaints about Bush are all political theater, and not based on ANY moral issues at all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

At least we in CA will be spared viewing Bush's shameful use of 3000 deaths for political gain.

Lets see....no shame over Kerry running an ad for President using Vietnam and dead soldiers (50,000) as a backdrop? no outrage over Clinton and his walk on the beach at Normandy to create a "photo-op" during D-Day observances (9,000 on Day alone, 55,000,000 dead in wwII)..Nope, no shame, no outrage, because these complaints about Bush are all political theater, and not based on ANY moral issues at all.

Nope. As a person who values rational thought over partisan spin, I have no trouble at all differentiating between the two. The only political theater is your attempts to pretend they are comparable.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow! No one cares about the lie in Bush's first ads? Heartsurgeon? Cad? Anyone? Here, let me repeat myself:

There is also some explicit dishonesty. The text of "Safer, Stronger" begins: "January 2001, The challenge: An economy in recession. A stock market in decline. ..." In fact, as Bush acknowledged quite recently in his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert, he did not inherit a recession from President Clinton. The recession began two months after he arrived, in March 2001.

Wait, I'm sorry, not a "lie" -- rather, "explicit dishonesty."

 

[etech]

Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

Thursday, January 22, 2004

The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.

The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

"We have discussed it already and there seems to be some inclination to move the date" to some time in the last three months of 2000, said Victor Zarnowitz. He is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, which determines the widely accepted start and end dates to U.S. recessions.

The seven-member panel had earlier decided that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. President Bush took office in January 2001.

NBER is a private, nonprofit economic research group. Zarnowitz, an economist with the Conference Board, another private research group, said the dating decision will be nonpolitical, based solely on recently revised government economic data.

"Presidents don't have so much to do, in my opinion, with when recessions start," Zarnowitz said. "Clearly the boom happened under Clinton, and the boom generates the bust. And no administration has the power to change that."

NBER President Martin Feldstein said, "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late," but he did not offer a different date. "We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment," said Feldstein, a Harvard University economist. "Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."

The Wall Street Journal story quoted Robert Hall, a Stanford University economics professor who chairs the dating committee, saying that "a reasonable look at the numbers" could lead one to decide that the recession started some time between November 2000 and February 2001.

Zarnowitz said he will look further at the data, but thinks now that "the recession started maybe November or December 2000 and lasted to November of 2001." If so, that would be an average duration for a post World War II recession, changing the perception up until now that the last recession was shorter than average.

Zarnowitz said he does not know when the committee will meet to make an official decision.

The panel picked March 2001 as the beginning of the recession primarily because that was when U.S. payroll employment began to drop seriously. Since then, the economy has lost some 2.4 million jobs.

But the economists look at other indicators as well. The group defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP [inflation-adjusted gross domestic product], real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough."

In previous recessions, the payroll jobs number was a pretty good proxy for economic growth, rising and falling as the economy expanded and contracted, although often with a bit of a lag. But the two have diverged dramatically in recent years, with payrolls continuing to shrink more than two years after the end of the recession. Meanwhile the nation's output of goods and services, or GDP, declined in the first three quarters of 2001, but started growing again in the fourth quarter of that year and has continued to rise since then.

This has been possible because businesses adopted new technology and management methods to boost production while shedding workers. The growth in productivity -- the amount of goods and services produced for each hour worked -- rose through the contraction and recovery since.

Zarnowitz said the NBER dating committee closely follows an index that combines measures of industrial production, total demand, personal income minus government transfer payments, and the number of nonfarm payroll jobs--giving more weight to the jobs component. According to recently revised data, the index "started falling in December or November 2000," he said.

"Three of the four components would definitely point to an earlier date" for the beginning of the recession, he said. "Only one lagged."
_____________

DealMonkey


You really should stay up with the current news.

 

[DealMonkey]

Hmmmm etech, let's recap. I see a lot of "...The last recession may have started..." and "...economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date ..." in your link. Did they actually do it? Or are they still thinking about it?

Let's take a quick look-see at the Meet the Press interview on 2/8/04:

Russert: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion ? up 23 percent.

Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?

President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead ? that would enhance recovery. Let me review the bidding here. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it happened as we showed up here.

So is Bush ill-informed? Did he and his re-election campaign just not syncronize their stories? Hmmmm?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmm etech, let's recap. I see a lot of "...The last recession may have started..." and "...economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date ..." in your link. Did they actually do it? Or are they still thinking about it?

Let's take a quick look-see at the Meet the Press interview on 2/8/04:

Russert: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion ? up 23 percent.

Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?

President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead ? that would enhance recovery. Let me review the bidding here. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it happened as we showed up here.

So is Bush ill-informed? Did he and his re-election campaign just not syncronize their stories? Hmmmm?

OK DealMonkey, what day, hour and minute did the recession start. You seem to believe that one minute everything was fine and the next, boom, we are officialy in recession.

Of course it doesn't work that way at all, but I'm interested to see how you spin your way out of the hole you have dug yourself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Until I hear differently, the recession started in March 2001 and lasted until November of 2001. It doesn't really matter what *I* think, however because my point is that Bush's dates are all over the board. If you notice in the Russert interview, Bush claims it started in March of 2000. In the Bush re-election ad, the economy is in recession as of January 2001.

See? You're missing my point, which is really quite obvious. Isn't it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Our 9/11 - The attacks happened to us all.

It is one thing for individual family members to invoke the memory of all 3,000 victims as they take to the microphone or podium to show respect for our collective loss. It is another for them to attempt to stifle the debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of 9/11 should be off-limits in the presidential race, and to do so under the rubric of "The Families of Sept. 11." They do not represent me. Nor do they represent those Americans who feel that Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the history of our country and who want to know how the current or future occupant of the Oval Office views the lessons of that day.

Written by "Ms. Burlingame, a life-long Democrat, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001."

CkG

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Until I hear differently, the recession started in March 2001 and lasted until November of 2001. It doesn't really matter what *I* think, however because my point is that Bush's dates are all over the board. If you notice in the Russert interview, Bush claims it started in March of 2000. In the Bush re-election ad, the economy is in recession as of January 2001.

See? You're missing my point, which is really quite obvious. Isn't it?

So, there isn't a firm date and the board that dates it is moving it back. You're learning.

Next. Does the economy boom one minute and than be in a recession the next? I'll make it easy on you, no it doesn't. It takes time for it to happen.

The only point that I can see you making is how damn desperate you are to try and find something, anything to bash Pres. Bush with. It seems like even you could find something better than this.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Until I hear differently, the recession started in March 2001 and lasted until November of 2001. It doesn't really matter what *I* think, however because my point is that Bush's dates are all over the board. If you notice in the Russert interview, Bush claims it started in March of 2000. In the Bush re-election ad, the economy is in recession as of January 2001.

See? You're missing my point, which is really quite obvious. Isn't it?

So, there isn't a firm date and the board that dates it is moving it back. You're learning.

Next. Does the economy boom one minute and than be in a recession the next? I'll make it easy on you, no it doesn't. It takes time for it to happen.

The only point that I can see you making is how damn desperate you are to try and find something, anything to bash Pres. Bush with. It seems like even you could find something better than this.

No you misunderstand. Again. The economists right now believe that the recession started in March 2001 and lasted until November 2001. The article you linked me to pointed out that they ARE THINKING about moving it back, however have NOT decided yet. You claim the "...board is moving it back..." as if it's a foregone conclusion. So yes, there IS a firm date and that date is March 2001.

etech, I have no idea if you're being purposely obtuse but I can plainly see why Bush would say "March 2000" in the Meet the Press interview. That's an entire YEAR before the recession is thought to have started. Hmmmm, how would it behoove Bush to move the recession back so that it's clearly in Clinton's presidency? Maybe you should ask yourself that question.

Then on top of this blatent lie during the Meet the Press interview, you have the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign now claiming in their ad on national TV that the recession started "January 2001." So now it's only been moved back two months. A lie, but still it's closer to the truth. Are you really so partisan that all of this manhandling of the truth is no big deal? I guess so.

It's very possible for the economy to be doing well one quarter and then not so well the following quarter. That's well within the realm of possibility. The very definition of a recession is 3 or more consecutive quarters with a decline in the GDP among other factors. So, yes, the economy can being doing OK and then falter for the next 3 quarters whereupon it would be considered a recession in retrospect. Frankly, I don't understand what there is to disagree on here. Facts are facts.

 

[EXman]

You gotta be a retard to think a president would not use his defining moment in an ad. Not to mention I think it memorailizes and shows that we have not forgot those who were Murdered by radical Saudi asswipes.

Wake up and smell what your shoveling.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: EXman
You gotta be a retard to think a president would not use his defining moment in an ad. Not to mention I think it memorailizes and shows that we have not forgot those who were Murdered by radical Saudi asswipes.

Wake up and smell what your shoveling.

That is a good point. We should remember how Dubya helped his buddy radical Saudi asswipes flee the country on 9-12. We should remember he chased them all the way to Bagdad. We should remember Dubya censored 30 pages about Saudi Arabia in the 9-11 report. Bring it on.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: EXman
You gotta be a retard to think a president would not use his defining moment in an ad. Not to mention I think it memorailizes and shows that we have not forgot those who were Murdered by radical Saudi asswipes.

Wake up and smell what your shoveling.

That is a good point. We should remember how Dubya helped his buddy radical Saudi asswipes flee the country on 9-12. We should remember he chased them all the way to Bagdad. We should remember Dubya censored 30 pages about Saudi Arabia in the 9-11 report. Bring it on.

Since when do you have the clearance and need to know to view classified documents? Yours is the weakest argument yet.

 

[EXman]

We should remember how Dubya helped his buddy radical Saudi asswipes flee the country on 9-12.

what are you talking about? I don't remember him letting them borrow the Texas rangers Plane. Also if you were a Saudi and Saudi Extremist did this wouldn't you fear reprisals. Send all them F'ers home anyways. That is what a good portion of what Americans felt anyhow. Like that Place in NewJersey where people were dancing in their neighborhood after the planes hit the towers.

We should remember he chased them all the way to Bagdad. We should remember Dubya censored 30 pages about Saudi Arabia in the 9-11 report.

And that means what? We are already cutting ties with them. And do you know why we blanked them out? No. And niether do I. Maybe because it was sensitive material that wasn't legal to even release. Maybe it was just so we Wouldn't pay $5 a gallon of gas at the pump. So you want to Pay $5 a gallon and go to war with Saudi? Don't be niave the public cannot know everything we already have a hard enough time with intellegence w/o divulging all our information.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: EXman
You gotta be a retard to think a president would not use his defining moment in an ad. Not to mention I think it memorailizes and shows that we have not forgot those who were Murdered by radical Saudi asswipes.

Wake up and smell what your shoveling.

That is a good point. We should remember how Dubya helped his buddy radical Saudi asswipes flee the country on 9-12. We should remember he chased them all the way to Bagdad. We should remember Dubya censored 30 pages about Saudi Arabia in the 9-11 report. Bring it on.

Since when do you have the clearance and need to know to view classified documents? Yours is the weakest argument yet.

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.