You forgot to add this:

As regards the ads themselves, I think their imagery from 9/11 is somewhat tame - I half expected to see a fade out just before a jet impact on one of the towers, followed by Dumahu standing on the ruble with a blow horn. Blow hard with a blow horn.

My problem is with the defenders of the Bush ads. I've heard one Repuliscan mouthpiece after another comparing this "War-Time President" and his "re"election effort with those of FDR and Lincoln during the wars they faced on their watches. Comparing this pretender, this installed, selected, person, to the greatest "War-Time Presidents" we have ever had disgusts me.

FDR and Lincoln mobilized the Country and demanded real sacrifice of our citizens for goals above and beyond what we are. As a comparison, the current "War-Time President" has asked us to go shopping.

I don't understand why W thinks it's a good idea to pimp the 9/11 tragedies in his commercials. I mean, they happened ON HIS WATCH, not Clinton's. Using the firefighters' images also is perverse; they're union men and women, and he's virulently anti-union, and then he pushed to cut the rapid response funding he'd promised for them and the police (also in unions).

Then, he's also claiming in the ads that he inherited the recession, but even his own economists--I mean, the real, trained ones, like Drs. Hotz-Eakin and Mankiw--say without hesitation that the recession began AFTER W took office, not before. Even if GOPers pin that on Clinton, which is just outright false, W has still presided over the loss of 2.3-2.7 million jobs, and at the present job-creation rate wouldn't catch up to the number he inherited until 2010!

He also isn't saying that once again, his administration has had to revise the economic numbers from December and January downwards. I guess that's why these feel-good, fuzzy pieces of gauze don't offer up too many facts at all. Because the facts--the truth--are damning.

The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Clinton's watch. Since Clinton did not effectively deal with the problem someone else (Bush) had to. His effective fight on terrorism is his strongest point, and the reason why Democrats so desperatly want him to keep his mouth shut about it.

The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Clinton's watch. Since Clinton did not effectively deal with the problem someone else (Bush) had to. His effective fight on terrorism is his strongest point, and the reason why Democrats so desperatly want him to keep his mouth shut about it. [/QB][/QUOTE]

But has it been effective?

We have lost potential allies - which is where this thread started - as well as start trade wars with them. We are continually put on various alerts, we are loosing soldiers daily, etc.

That on top of being (perhaps potentially) spied upon, facing possible dangerous environmental changes (prudence would at least dictate great care), facing potential economic disaster and loss of social programs, increasingly divisive politics over social issues (the constitutional ammendment), facing a possible meltdown in the Arab world, etc.

And we still have no idea what went into the energy policy, what really went on on 9/11, etc. White House blocking all the way.

That doesn't sound safer to me.

Perhaps Bush has done better than Al Gore might have - or perhaps not. The president is surrounded by very right-wing thinkers - ideologues - who have shown very little flexibility and are tied to some very scarey people who believe in the whole Christian millenial/end-times theology - and none of that makes me feel very safe!

Perhaps he manages all these things better than Kerry might. But I, personally, do not think so.

Nat

[ March 06, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Nat ]

[quote]Nat:
The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Clinton's watch.  Since Clinton did not effectively deal with the problem someone else (Bush) had to.  His effective fight on terrorism is his strongest point, and the reason why Democrats so desperatly want him to keep his mouth shut about it. [/quote]But has it been effective?
[/QB][/quote]

Has there been another terrorist attack in the US?

Has there been another terrorist attack in the US? [/QB][/QUOTE]

No, you're very right there - there hasn't. But my question is whether with someone else on the watch - atfter the last election or the up-coming one - the results wouldn't have been the same, but with so many fewer problems - perhaps even better, but using all that good will be had after 9/11, instead of squandering it?

I believe it could all have been handled much better, and would be, with another administration. The whole debate about Democrats being "soft" on defense is a red herring, I think. But on top of that, we're is so much difficulty in so many other areas...

Nat

[quote]Nat:
Has there been another terrorist attack in the US? [/quote]No, you're very right there - there hasn't. But my question is whether with someone else on the watch - atfter the last election or the up-coming one - the results wouldn't have been the same, but with so many fewer problems - perhaps even better, but using all that good will be had after 9/11, instead of squandering it?

I believe it could all have been handled much better, and would be, with another administration. The whole debate about Democrats being \"soft\" on defense is a red herring, I think. But on top of that, we're is so much difficulty in so many other areas...

Nat [/QB][/QUOTE]

Nat, we just have differing views on this one. Our nation was physically attacked on 911. Thousands of civilian lives were lost to an enemy combatant. The President has an obligation to defend this country and the lives of its citizens. If that means France gets mad at us, who cares! Nothing is to be gained by begging other countries to "PLEASE PLEASE like us!"

This country is the most generous country on Earth, we are peaceful, free loving people. The only nations that seem to truly hate us are those that try to repress their people. I have heard that North Korea is speaking positively about John Kerry, I wonder why???? Clinton let Kim Jung Il build nuclear weapons (on his watch); Bush is (peacefully) doing the best he can to fix another Clinton problem he was left with.

As for the Democrats being soft on foreign policy: well, Clinton let North Korea build nuclear weapons (noted above), he reacted like a wimp to the first World Trade Center bombing, and told the Sudan "no thanks" when they tried to give him Bin Laden! Now these same Democrats want to criticize Bush because he hasn't found him! Hello!! If Clinton would have taken him to begin with we wouldn't be looking for him now! And what about John Kerry?? He has voted against almost every defense project that has come his way. The only thing terrorists understand are action. When someone gives you a bloody nose you have to fight back, if you don't they come after you again. You cannot be wimpy and expect our enemies to leave us alone. With Kerry's record it is obvious he would be the wimpiest President we have had in my lifetime. Let's even go back to Carter; remember the fiasco with the Iran hostage crisis? The disasterous rescue attempt? And finally the release of the hostages the very day Reagan took office????

How soon we forget. frown

Excuse me, but the first World Trade Center attack happened in 1993. Clinton was president from 1992-2000. The other terror attacks on American soil during his tenure came from domestic sources. Agents averted a horrific attack that nearly struck Los Angeles airport. Terrorists struck American targets outside the U.S. on several occasions during those eight years.

During W's tenure nearly 4 year tenure, we've had the 9/11 tragedies, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed, and our PENTAGON was bombed; the anthrax attacks; a near bombing by the Shoe-bomber; and ricin sent to the Senate majority leader. We've also seen numerous horrific attacks by Al Qaeda outside our borders (in Morocco, in Turkey, in Saudi Arabia, in Indonesia, in Tunisia, etc.) on U.S. and non-U.S. targets, as well as spectacular attacks IN Iraq on American troops and Iraqi and non-Iraqi installations (like the U.N.).

Are you saying we should give W 4 more years to see if he can equal Clinton's record at least in preventing another foreign terrorist attack? I hope not.

[ March 06, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fantomas:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by timber07:
[qb]Has there been another terrorist attack in the US?
[/qb

That quote was taken in the context of my previous post. I was stating that there have been no domestic terrorist attacks since 911.

Really? I heard that Bush is a shape-shifting member of the Illuminati with reptilian DNA.

Now show me your source.

Ahem.

Rummy's North Korea Connection

First WTC bombing was 2/26/93. After that, Clinton was in charge for about 7 years, 11 months with no more attacks from foreign agents. So if you want to claim Bush's war has been effective, see me in 2009 and I'll consider it.

Then why haven't we attacked Saudi Arabia?

[ March 06, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Because the Saudi government is not the problem, in fact they are helping us fight the war on terror.

That's like saying we should refight WWII because the world has Nazis again.

:confused: :confused: :confused: You couldn't possibly be serious, right?

[ March 06, 2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

The Saudi people have become the target of these terrorists as well. It's most likely a reaction to the Saudi goverment's cooperation with the Bush administration.

What planet do you live on? The 9/11 attackers weren't Iraqis.

How? By running fuzzy-wuzzy TV ads claiming they're "America's friend in the war on terror" while at the same time funding one terrorist or another?

Time to invade Saudi Arabia, seize their oil, and lower the price of our nation's gas prices. And maybe we can remodel Mecca and build a bunch of strip clubs there. eek!

I CANNOT believe I am hearing this. I thought I was the Outsports Conservative here????

This is so basic its scary: You want to condemn an entire nation for the actions of some of it's citizens? Maybe you want to round up all the Saudis in the US and put them into internment camps too?

You know there are a LOT of people that still say all gay men are limp wristed, purse carrying sissies. Your line of thought is in this same vein.

I'm in total shock here; for once I am taking the Liberal side of an issue in this forum!

Damn MIB
thats harsh, I'm Jewish and no big fan of the Saudis at all, but I cant believe what your saying. I hope your just talking in jest, I just got back from Afghanistan, and did see some personnel die there and war is no joke at all. Theres more to war than gas prices and building strip clubs in Mecca. Its also very wrong in my opinion to talk bad about other religions, I've heard it enough about my own.

Getting back to the subject at hand. I am already sick of his ads. Lets see some balance and soon. Shrub and his cronies must be worried sick, because suddenly we are going after Bin Laden like never before, and then Shrub wants to rush the prosecution of Saddam before the election. Gee, I wonder why? Pretty telling. Whats the rush George?? Must be sweating bullets or something. Once again, he has a horrible record to run on, so is hoping in a big way that Bin Laden's capture or Saddam's trial, will propel him into office for another 4 years. Don't think so.

I think the ads are very inspiring. But, from what I have heard so far I have to agree with you on Bin Laden. Why the sudden urgency? I am a Bush supporter and even I think this is suspicious.

No, I want the truth and consistency from the Bush administration for a change. Don't claim they're winning the war on terror when they're only going after enemies who pose no real threat and let other enemies continue to get away with murder.

Has anyone gotten the Bush/Republican POP UP ads?????????

Is this coming from the same party (and President) that was taking credit for anti-spam bills??

He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If Bush doesn't step up efforts to get Bin Laden, he's blasted by the Left for "ignoring" Osama. If he does intensify efforts to get him, he's blasted for doing it for politically expedient reasons. Personally, I'd choose the latter and to hell with what people think. Just getting Osama is good enough for me.

BTW, az, reread my Saudi post and you'll see what I originally placed at the end. But can we at least nuke Saudi Arabia? eek! eek! eek!

This next election should be extremely interesting. Seattle of coarse is an extremely liberal city and it wouldnt surprise anyone to hear any open hatred of the president here from political people. But what is interesting lately though is that people who you wouldnt expect to talk politics, I think most people are like me and really avoid the subject unless you know someone well, but I'm hearing people everywhere, even in more conservative or non-political areas of the regoin openly speaking about a hatred for this president. It is like Bush has became a bad word, and now instead of people afraid to say anything bad about the president for fear of appearing unpatriotic, people appear now afraid to say anything good about him, if they do have something good to say of him.

Well, I'm not going to criticize W for going after Osama bin Laden, Ahman al-Zawahiri (let's not forget this creep, who was one of the chief masterminds behind the 9/11 massacres) and Mullah Omar, who played host for the murderers and enacted the sort of government that some on the wacko Far Right would like to enact here (so long as very rich and powerful people are exempt from this Christianist "shari'a"). The war in Iraq was an unnecessary (at least at this point) interruption of this effort, and has served primarily to cut off a source of funding for the Palestinians' battle against Israel, avenge W's father's embarrassment at allowing Saddam to retain control in 1991, secure lucrative contracts for the energy lobby, and eventually install a pliable government to ensure a stable supply of oil and higher profits (if not lower prices) for oil companies and their friends.

Saudi Arabia's citizens have suffered attacks primarily because its leaders are among the most culpable in spawning the plague of Islamofacism. They funded the extremist, Wahhabist madrassahs in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in the United States (yes, even here). [Pakistani Islamicists have tended to be more obsessed with Indian Hindus than the United States--and since the U.S. was long hostile to India, which was a Soviet client, we weren't on their radar screen.] Osama bin Laden, let's not forget, is Saudi. He initially received praise and funding from the U.S. as a leader of the mujahedeen, although he was not an Afghan. His relatives are close associates of the W family, and were spirited out of the country, by request of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and a member of the Saudi royal family, after 9/11. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia by birth; none came from Iraq, as others have pointed out. Saudi Arabia's money and dangerous influence have helped to bring extremist Islamic elements from its own soil, as well as from pockets in Egypt, Yemen, and elsewhere throughout the world, and so they--as opposed to other countries that are predominantly Muslim, like Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco, Senegal, or Algeria--where the extremist elements were long localized and until recently focused on battling the socialistic military dictatorship as opposed to external foes--are greatly to blame for the mess the entire world, including all the Islamic countries, now find itself in.

The other main problem nations, of course, are Iran, which overtly funded Islamic terrorism, mainly in terms of its desire to push through the kinds of religious extremism as a governmental model, that flowered in Afghanistan and which has attempted to take root in countries like Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, etc..; and Libya, which underwrote Islamic nationalistic terrorism (more so than extremist religious terrorism, since Qaddafi had socialist leanings, like Saddam Hussein, and was hardly anybody's model of a religious fanatic). Iran is now wracked by its own internal struggles, between a religious elite that wants to retain control, and the majority of people who want a more moderate, representative, democratic system, while Libya, after being a pariah state for so long, has been agitating for several years to be brought back into the global family (primarily so that Qaddafi can again make some money to spend on his lavish lifestyle and placate that country's impoverished masses).

You see, in Osama bin Laden's formation, two different ideas come together--one is Islamic nationalism, which is to see, all Muslims, beyond ethnicity or race or specific national origins, constitute a NATION, and all others are outside the nation, so democracy, tolerance, etc., are not viable options in any state in which his ideas take root; and two, religious purity, which is to say, the most extreme and literal reading of Islam, so that any progressive or liberal or even moderate interpretations of the Qu'ran or Shari'a must be thrown out, and only extreme, purist versions hold sway. So key for anyone attempting to address the problem of Islamic terrorism is 1) how do you address the issue of Islamic nationalism, and can attempting to improve both local conditions and also combatting this idea of a transnational unity beyond religious affiliation work; and 2) how do you promote the diverse traditions and versions of Islam, especially those that flowered during its golden ages, and which encompassed tolerance, openness, and considerable social and political liberty (or even the more mystical versions, for example, which also provide considerable social space, for women, for non-Muslims, etc.), versus the very literal-minded and extreme versions that are flourishing today.

[ March 08, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Interesting post by fantomas. A couple thoughts provoked by it:

All this Middle Eastern mess goes back to America carrying the water of corrupt European Empires of the past.

To mix the metaphor, let these echo’s die.

The United States should present an "American View," (which would play well in any stump speech), instead of the "Status Quo - Increase the GDP at any cost" mentality. America should advocate a policy that doesn’t focus on keeping Middle Eastern dictatorships in power. I know it's an "idealistic" perspective, but I still have hope for what I would call " The American Footprint” in the History books.

To be specific, if we actually played our cards right (utilizing all the means at our disposal), the situation in Iran could work to our extreme favor - if students and middle class come to power attempting a Representative form of Democracy.

[ March 08, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

Well, ain't this interesting...

This morning ABC News reported that those WTC family members complaining about the Bush ad are members of a Democratic political organization and were recruited by the DNC to publicly complain about this ad. ABC ran some clips from the different family members' appearances on the various morning shows, and wouldn't you know it, each relative said literally the same thing. It was sadly obvious the whole thing was scripted.

Now who's trying to politicize 9/11?

BTW, why was it acceptable for FDR supporters to wear buttons that said, "Remember Pearl Harbor" when he ran for re-election, yet unacceptable for Bush to discuss what is the single most defining moment of his presidency? Some of these buttons apparently even had the photo of the listing (and eventually sunk) Arizona on them.

Thank you so much MIB...couldn't of said it better myself.

but there is one thing you could HAVE said better...

How about this...soldiers sign up for the military knowing they might die in an attack someday...but people do not get dressed for work each morning thinking there might be chance for them to be blown out of their windows 1,000 feet above ground. The Punk Ass Chimp (or his handlers) should STOP airing commercials showing footage from ground zero. Hell, just take the flag off the corpse and let us see it all.

These ads are [edited--I meant to say that the coverage of these ads is] a bad start to the campaign. There's a fair bit of "War and terror are good for George W. Bush--he's using your fear to get re-elected because he has nothing else to run on" to this.

Don't like "steady leadership in times of change" either--sounds weak and even condescending for some reason. I wonder why they didn't get more tough and go with "Keep America strong" or something about pride. "Steady leadership in times of change"--bleurgh.

[ March 09, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

So FDR and his handlers should not have shown the sunken wreckage of the Arizona, in which over a thousand men were entombed, or other such destroyed ships? Or other such damaged areas of Pearl Harbor? Oh, wait. He was a Democrat, and that's OK. But for a Republican like Bush to discuss a calamitous event that defines his presidency--good or bad--well, can't have that, can we? After all, this must be avoided so the Democrats can take advantage of negating such important issues.

Oh! The hypcorisy!

[ March 10, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

why, oh why, are we discussing an election campaign which took place decades before most of us were born? and worse, why would anyone here be asked to defend said campaign? perhaps it's time to start a new forum -- history!

as for the defining event of bush's presidency, we do not know that the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be that event. right now, i'd say there's a good chance that the intelligence failures that allowed the attacks in the first place are more likely to define this administration's tenure ... if the 9/11 commission is ever allowed to finish its work.

another likely definer is the delay until election time to find osama.

while pictures of osama in captivity would make great campaign ads, since the "mission accomplished" ads aren't likely to be aired anytime soon, at least not by the republicans, one can't help wonder if taking the time to conduct an entire war before getting serious about the manhunt will come back to haunt us in the form of future terrorist attacks? when your enemy is clearly on the run, it should take a pretty compelling reason to stop chasing him to pursue personal foreign relations grudges.

nope, it's too soon to say what will define this administration, but as of now, it's not likely to be positive.

MIB wrote:
So FDR and his handlers should not have shown the sunken wreckage of the Arizona, in which over a thousand men were entombed, or other such destroyed ships? Or other such damaged areas of Pearl Harbor? Oh, wait. He was a Democrat, and that's OK.

In 1944 the United States was fighting a World War on two fronts (three if you count the enormous quantities of material we were giving Stalin to support his effort against Hitler), had millions of men in uniform, and the entire country was focused on one thing - winning the war that would dictate the future of mankind.

If George Bush was mobilizing the country, drafting millions of men to fight on terrorist fronts throughout the world, rationing everything from meat to rubber, while the country was practicing terror reaction drills - then maybe just maybe comparing him and his "War-Time Presidency" to FDR's would be valid.

MIB wrote:
But for a Republican like Bush to discuss a calamitous event that defines his presidency--good or bad--well, can't have that, can we? After all, this must be avoided so the Democrats can take advantage of negating such important issues.

The Bush Presidency seems to be redefined every year - first it was how he came to power, then 9/11, then America goes preemptive and attacks another country based on mistaken paranoia and perhaps even outright lies, then a roaring economic “recovery” without any jobs because they’ve been “outsourced” while the destruction of one of the greatest achievements in the history of man, the American Middle Class, accelerates due to his economic policies - Historians will have lots of “defining” events to chose from when the discussion turns to this man.

MIB wrote:
Oh! The hypcorisy!

Comparing Mush and his "War-Time Presidency" to FDR - that's hypocrisy.

[ March 18, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

Undercenter, well said! Shrub's presidency is being redefined almost every day. Personally I think his Iraq policy is going to be his biggest detriment come election time. Things over there seem to be getting uglier by the hour.

229 days until our regime change, boys and GatorJamie!

Did you all catch that new ad Bush has out? It's the one with Kerry "explaining" how he voted for a defense bill and then against it; very hard hitting. It shows what a two faced joke Kerry really is.

Two-faced? You mean like Bush who has flip flopped on any number of positions??? Most recently, North Korea.

The thing with ads is they take a basic fact, take it out of context, and distort the truth.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/..._14.html#002710

It might be hard hitting but it is not the truth, now, is it? This is one issue, among many, that cannot be accurately portrayed in a 30 second spot. This ad does not convery truth, it just adheres to an age old adage in salesmanhip, using fear and ignorance to get a "buyer".

Both sides use it and we, as thoughful, engaged citizens, should look deeper to get the truth and make our own decisions.

Both sides are guilty of this. That's why I don't base my opinions on ads. I resent being manipulated by spin doctors.