« good thing, because i was tired of getting my protein the other way | Main | and whatnot »

one man's amputee is another's 9/11

So, let me get this straight. John Kerry can trot Max Cleland around like a fucking stage prop during the primaries and Bush can't use the defining moment of his career in a campaign commercial? Spare me.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference one man's amputee is another's 9/11:

» Anger over Bush Commercials from The American Mind
Some families of Sep. 11th victims as well as Democrats are upset that President Bush used some clips of Ground [Read More]

» Rudy's A-OK With It from Late Final
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani on "the ad" with "the images:" "The reality is that President Bush played a very, very big role in bringing our country through the worst attack in our history," he said. "So it's an appropriate... [Read More]

» Being noted elsewhere, also... from Silent Running
Tom mentions he's shocked at the symbolism used in American politics. Calm down, old boy, part and parcel, as it were. Quite used to it around here. As some astute observers note, however, the use of symbolism doesn't have just... [Read More]

» Those Bush ads from Leaning Towards the Dark Side
God says it's all right to use the 9/11 images "The reality is that President Bush played a very, very big role in bringing our country through the worst attack in our history," [Giuliani] said. "So it's an appropriate thing... [Read More]

» Comment of the Week from Dean's World
Over in this thread, one M. Scott Eiland said the following:The Democrats just made a *huge* strategic error. To throw a shrieking temper tantrum about... [Read More]

» Pictures of 9/11 from Plum Crazy
The blogosphere is currently abuzz with the controversy over Bush using pictures of 9/11 in one of his political campaign commercials. I have two things to say about this. The first is about my feelings regarding the controversy prime. The second is ab... [Read More]

» I Have Significantly Less Game Than Parker Brothers from Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness
(1) Do you want to know more about gallstone pancreatitis, the disease that has temporarily incapacitated our Attorney General? Of course you do. (2) Remember, the John Kerry : Max Cleland :: George Bush : 9/11 footage analogy only works... [Read More]

» Bush Ad Brouhaha from Citizen Smash - The Indepundit
SOME REACTIONS to the media firestorm over the first round of Bush campaign advertisements, released yesterday. Joe Gandelman, a twenty-year... [Read More]

» The New Bush Ad from Late Final
You can view the new T.V. commercial from the Bush-Cheney campaign here. Entitled, "Troops," the ad takes Kerry to task for voting against $87 billion in defense and reconstruction spending requests from President Bush for Iraq. Considering he has not... [Read More]

Comments

That's actually a very good point. Neither one is appropriate.

They're both perfectly appropraite, Boz. Although the military service record is not my top criterion for selecting a president, nor even close, many people think it's quite relevant -- emphasizing one's record in this way may be slightly sleazy -- but it's certainly not beyond the pale, not in politics, not in the 21st century. Likewise, the desire to avoid another 9/11 is a crucial criterion for many, many votes, and understandably so. Bush empahsizing his handling of the aftermath, and reminding people just how awful that Tuesday morning was, especially as implicitly contrasted to Kerry's (imagined) handling of the same is entirely within bounds.

Should the 9/11 attacks be an issue in the campaign, or not? Kerry only mentions the attacks in the context of the U.S. squandering France's good will in their aftermath. Otherwise, he keeps his mouth shut about 9/11.

What's more repugnant: pretending 9/11 never happened, or never forgetting that it did?

Defining moment? Do you really think that Al Q'eda PLANNED to have this happen during a BUSH administration? Based on what we know about the events now, it was nothing more than coincidence that the terrorist attacks took place in a republican administration. Bush should get no more credit OR blame that this happened on his watch. Based on the 2000 election results (regardless of how you feel on THIS subject) it could have just as easily happened on AlGore's watch. For all that the terrorists had in mind, the guy in the oval office was just another lukewarm body.

You should know better....

Defining moment. How Bush responded to the crisis defined who and what kind of President really was.

Greg -

It was the defining moment as in it shaped the rest of his presidency. It changed people's view of him (mostly for the good). Everything that happened in his presidency after that was tinged with 9/11.

Do you really think that Al Q'eda PLANNED to have this happen during a BUSH administration? Based on what we know about the events now, it was nothing more than coincidence that the terrorist attacks took place in a republican administration. Bush should get no more credit OR blame that this happened on his watch

What post were you reading when you thought up that statement? Couldn't have been mine because I would never say anything as stupid as Bush should get credit for 9/11.

If you were reading between the lines, you read waaaay too much there, sparky.

Neither is precisely in good taste. One is being used to make people afraid, and so elect one person so that they don't have to feel afraid. The other is being used to make people feel guilty ("I didn't fight in the war...I fought, but I didn't lose any limbs...I was too young, but I'm healthy...") and to make the candidate look like a saint by comparison.

In each case, there are better ways to make the candidate look good - but they're only interested in making the voters feel small, afraid, isolated, and alone...and make the candidates seem to be the parent-protector-savior-safety blanket. It seems to be a common enough tactic in just about any arena, sadly enough; and the same advertising / rhetoric mentality has been around for a long time.

Had the terrorist attacks of September 11 never happened (now there's a happy thought), the candidates would have used other events, other symbols - but the psychology would have been the same.

What I find interesting about this is that of the four commercials the Bush campaign has released so far, only one of them references 9/11 at all, and it's perhaps a 2-second flash on the screen.

By the way, it would be perfectly appropriate so far as I'm concerned for Kerry to talk about 9/11 at every campaign stop, and in every speech, and in all his literature. And it would be perfectly appropriate for Bush to bring it up far more often than he actually does.

No problem either way for me. Nothing inappropriate about it at all.

I've seen the ads. I Bush said "I am a wartime President". These ads articulate his position quite well.

If you don't like his position, fine. Argue about the tastefulness of the ads. But if I sit here and analyze his message, whether you agree with it or not, it absolutely says what he intends it to say.

I see no effort whatsoever by the Bush administration in its campaign statements or campaign commercials that attempt to make people afraid.

And I repeat: it is not just in VERY good taste to mention 9/11 in the campaign. It is in HORRIFICALLY BAD TASTE NOT TO.

I invite Senator Kerry to mention 9/11 in every one of his campaign commercials, and in every one of his stump speeches. In fact, I crave it. I would be more likely to vote for him if he did.

I wish Bush would do it more often too. He certainly doesn't do it nearly as much as he should.

It's Max Cleland's choice to appear with Kerry, and it was the choice of other veterans to do the same.

I think showing the flag-draped remains of someone being brought out of the pit is revolting. I don't see how those two things are equivalent.

Laughing Muse, I don't think a lot of people are afraid. Coldly angered yes, but not afraid. I'm not. I sleep a lot better now.

Others have moved on and don't care.

Well, if Kerry is going stumping, who better than-

Oh, never mind.

(1) As Barry pointed out, the breakdown in the analogy is the consent issue. Pataki at least pre-screened his 2002 commercials which referenced the attacks.

(2) I would assume that the defining moment in his career would warrant more than one hour of interviews with only 2 out of 10 members of the independent 9/11 commission.

(3) To answer your original question, he can do whatever he wants with his commercials. I'm not a 9/11 family member or NYC firefighter.

My gift to you

WASHINGTON, March 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (IAFF), Harold Schaitberger, issued the following statement today after President Bush unveiled new political ads that use images of fire fighters in September 11, 2001 attacks for political gain:

-- As Bush Trades on Heroism of Fire Fighters, His Homeland Security Funding Cuts Hurt Fire Fighters and Communities --

"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks. The use of 9/11 images are hypocrisy at its worst. Here's a President that initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and now uses its first anniversary as cause to promote his re-election. Here is a President that proposed two budgets with no funding for FIRE Act grants and still plays on the image of America's bravest. His advertisements are disgraceful.

"Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign. Since the attacks, Bush has been using images of himself putting his arm around a retired FDNY fire fighter on the pile of rubble at ground zero. But for two and a half years he has basically shortchanged fire fighters and the safety of our homeland by not providing fire fighters the resources needed to do the job that America deserves.

"The fact is Bush's actions have resulted in fire stations closing in communities around the country. Two-thirds of America's fire departments remain under-staffed because Bush is failing to enforce a new law that was passed with bipartisan support in Congress that would put more fire fighters in our communities. President Bush's budget proposes to cut Homeland Security Department funding for first responders by $700 million for next year and cuts funding for the FIRE Act, a grant program that helps fire departments fund equipment needs, 33 percent by $250 million. In addition, state and local programs for homeland security purposes were reduced $200 million.

"We're going to be aggressive and vocal in our efforts to ensure that the citizens of this country know about Bush's poor record on protecting their safety and providing for the needs of the people who are supposed to respond in an emergency."

Bush can't use the invasion of two countries, to no result and the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen, as a campaign video? Perish the thought.

The Democrats just made a huge strategic error. To throw a shrieking temper tantrum about the fleeting reference to 9/11 that was in the first GWB ad is a glaring indication about how vulnerable they view themselves on this issue, in spite of their bravado about challenging him directly on security issues. Moderate voters are perfectly capable of noting the whining and what provoked it, and categorizing it under "crying wolf." The DNC will deserve little sympathy if the GWB campaign actually does step a little over the line regarding 9/11 in an ad and they repeat the temper tantrum, only to find that they've used up whatever sliver of credibility they had left.

What the hell are we discussing? We all know who we are voting for already. Stop sucking each others dicks. There is nothing that Kerry or Bush is going to say that will effect our opinions.

Lets just get it over with and vote and save the rich donation benefactors some money (more they'll spend in my retail store). Anyone who listens to the next 6 months of soundbites and then makes a decision, is buying a bill of goods.

Oh and I'm not voting. Bush is an asshole for his Patriot Act. Kerry is a moron for his supposed domestic policy. Our economy is recovering from the 2000 decline and 9/11 slowly but surely (hopefully, in NY we're finally seeing some business).

SSJPABS: So the fact that Harold Schaitberger, who has been pictured giving his pal, John Kerry, a t-shirt with his union's logo, is criticizing the ads means what? Perhaps that we have yet another Democrat regurgitating the same old sh*t about Bush? And beyond that, perpetuating the LIE that Bush is withholding money from first responders? Get a grip. The Bush administration has given 6 BILLION dollars for first responder issues. Yeah, I'm sure Harold's complaints hold water. With a yellow tinge, maybe.

Simply put here are the differences. Cleland is a decorated veteran who travels with Kerry and endorses Kerry's candidacy openly; given his physical condition it obvious why conservatives seek to negate his appearances by any means possible. I.E. the anguish expressed by you in seeing no difference by GW Bush using 9/11 as political endorsement.

9/11 occurred quite possibly as a result of Bush's Administration political purpose. If so, 3K citizens lost their lives as a result. Ownership of the act is not equitable to Cleland's appearaces. GW Bush has obstructed any fruitful investigation of 9/11 Intel failures, get this, if they include investigation him and his administration. The ownership GW Bush has to 9/11 is ridiculous on its face. As late as this week, while attempting to wrap himself in the anguish of 3K deaths and pretend anew to be thier avenging angel, GW Bush refused to openly and under oath testify about his knowledge of the 9/11 events. So, you can see, there is nothing at all about the affected citizens of 9/11 openly endorsing and traveling with GW Bush as Cleland does Kerry.

Understand the differences now?

"9/11 occurred quite possibly as a result of Bush's Administration political purpose."

What the heck are you smoking?

9/11 was inspired by Clinton's weak, ineffectual responses to the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1996 bombing of the USS Cole. That's straight from the Osama's mouth.

Really? Then there should be absolutely no reason at all to delay and deposition needed by GW Bush, correct? I mean if its Clinton's fault, lets get GW Bush testimony attesting to that fact and seek corrective measures. Wait a minute, maybe its not Clinton's fault. That must be the reason GW Bush has obstructed every attempt to investigate the events of 9/11. Then again, I mispeak, it is only those investigations which he and his administration are required to testify and to be investigated as well, that he objects too.

Know the differences between the WTC '93 events and '01 events? In less than 3 years Clinton's justice department had investigated, captured, placed on trial and had sentence carried out against those responsible. '01, Bush, if not complicit certainly he was inept, has used the events to invade a nation on a predicate of lies, killing over 500 of our girls and boys, in concert with Ashcroft's justice dept has played fouly with the Constitution, raided the national treasury, provided no bid contracts to his vice president former firm earning billions of tax dollars in that war, turned the nation into citizens of fear, and still has yet to capture Osama Bin Laden the accepted mastermind of 9/11, arranged to let Bin Laden's family members to escape the USA on 9/12/01, in short, everything but what Clinton and the justice department did in '93.

Tell me, why is GW Bush so alarmed about when it comes to investigating what he knew about the 9/11 events before they occured? Have any ideas?

Oh, I've got lots of ideas. Most of them involve the sure and certain knowledge that the more Bush testifies, the more his political opposition will seize upon every misplaced comma, every mispronounced word, every selective quote out of context that the combined perverted ingenuity of dozens of frustrated Democratic political operatives can fabricate in order to completely, maliciously, and sleazily politicize the issue beyond all recognition.

looks up at Bill's post

Wow, it's started already, and he hasn't even said anything yet.

9-11 never happened is the Democrat's new slogan. If Bush loses Bin Laden wins. Fundamentalist muslims and Arab nationalist hate Georgie The Tyrant Killer. He has destroyed the "great Arab hope" Bin Laden, destroyed the Taliban, destroyed Saddam pretty much without a fight, told the other Arab rulers democratize or disappear and exposed Arafat and the Palestinians as the nihilistic bloodthirsty murderers they are. America's enemies, the Jihadis and the Arab fascists and dictators will see a defeat of Bush as a victory. Even a pass to attack just like the good old days under Clinton when terror wasn't punished. I know my view is right. Just ask your Arab friends, if you have any. If you vote for Kerry, you vote for the enemy. It's as simple as that.

Bill: Know the differences between the WTC '93 events and '01 events? In less than 3 years Clinton's justice department had investigated, captured, placed on trial and had sentence carried out against those responsible.

Translation: Clinton sees terrorist acts as criminal acts, and not as acts of war. Clinton's punishments weren't obviously very effective in discouraging future attacks, or the '01 attacks woudn't have happened.

'01, Bush, if not complicit certainly he was inept, has used the events to invade a nation on a predicate of lies, killing over 500 of our girls and boys,

...if, by "over 500" you mean 343 U.S. soldiers in 2003. Funny how no one complains about the 599 U.S. citizens who were murdered in Chicago in that same time period.

BTW, in WWII, 343 soldiers would die in about 1.5 days.

in concert with Ashcroft's justice dept has played fouly with the Constitution,

Yet, strangely, no one can tell me what rights they no longer have since the Patriot Act went into effect.

raided the national treasury, provided no bid contracts to his vice president former firm earning billions of tax dollars in that war, turned the nation into citizens of fear, and still has yet to capture Osama Bin Laden the accepted mastermind of 9/11,

Perhaps if the press didn't keep blabbing about intelligence like the fact that we were using bin Laden's cell phone to track him, tracking him down could be done much more effectively.

arranged to let Bin Laden's family members to escape the USA on 9/12/01, in short, everything but what Clinton and the justice department did in '93.

You're right. Bush did the exact opposite of what Clinton did in '93. That's why, this time, no more attacks on U.S. soil have been inspired.

Bill is not making a serious argument.

Gee whiz, Vandal, that's the third time I've read that piece of boilerplate today.

Free hint: most of the people here already think that way. Heck, most of the people here (including the proprietress) wouldn't vote against Bush if he set their house on fire. You're not convincing anyone.

I was there on 9-11, I watched the bodies fall. I was there the night before, and was heading up there later that afternoon. I went to 6 funerals. Pardon fucking me, but it was the biggest moment in US history since the moonwalk. A president many people thought belonged in a group home has addressed the issue in a fashion that has prevented it from happening again. If he uses a brief screen shot in a campaign ad, well its fine by me. Sorry the douchebags at moveon.org and their buds at DNC aren't cool with it, well maybe there's a 12 step program for them.

P.S. Is he supposed to pretend 9-11 didnt happen....is he supposed to tout his agricultural policy?

It's nice to know that the people leading the charge against the use of 9/11 in ads are so impartial.

'93- Clinton arrested those involved with the first World Trade bombing (except Osama, eh?) where they can now pass messages to god knows who.

'01- Bush sends the military to kill those who are involved with the culture of hate that brought us 3000 dead, where they can give messages directly to Satan.

Now, why do you Dems prefer Clinton's way of dealing with radical Islam over Bush's?

Anyhow just like to also add that Cleland was 25 years ago, Bush's was 3 years ago. It's more raw in the public's mind.

Also, many of the familes of the victims have complained about. It's not just Kerry. I think really it's just too soon yet. Maybe in aother 5 years or so.

Thlalyi:

Heck, most of the people here (including the proprietress) wouldn't vote against Bush if he set their house on fire.

T, when are you going to give up this deranged fantasy of yours? You seem to disregard all my posts where I take Bush to task for one thing or another - I guess you also missed the part where I said I would not be voting for Bush with any kind of joy in November.

You're becoming the worst kind of idiot, T; The kind that repeats the same phrasing over and over without checking to see if that phrasing is the truth.

I spent way too much time already proving you wrong. I know you're a smart guy, T. Stop acting like you're stupid.

"Pardon fucking me, but it was the biggest moment in US history since the moonwalk. A president many people thought belonged in a group home has addressed the issue in a fashion that has prevented it from happening again. If he uses a brief screen shot in a campaign ad, well its fine by me."

Rod, may I PLEASE use this part of your comment the 6000 times I'm gonna have to talk about this today? Please?

the judge who oversaw the 93 WTC "criminal" case is under 24/7 police protection...has been ever since the trial. yep treating terrorists as a common "criminal" matter is a great idea.

no wonder the dems are going apeshit over an ad that reminds the public that while others want to treat terrorism like some communities treat DWI cases (hello John F'ing Kerry), Bush's desire is to crush them.

like what was said above, the dems should try to run with this as their motto: 9/11? Nope never heard of it.

ADB:

feel free of course. I'M flattered. Occasionally exhaustion infused with frustration at manufactured problems equals a rough sort of eloquence

best, Roddy

SMV Fun Quiz! Can you spot the differences?!?

- 9/11 was a day our nation was attacked, killing thousands and affectiong millions
- Max Cleland is a U.S. Senator and decorated Vietnam Veteran - in short, a person, not an event
- 9/11 was a day of horror and tragedy, the wounds of which are still fresh, and the line between somber rememberance and exploitation is mighty thin. It ought to be treated with great care and respect by both parties.
- Max Cleland is a Vietnam Vet and former U.S. Senator who supports Kerry and attends Kerry events of his own free will, which is not quite the same thing as being "trott[ed] around like a "fucking stage prop".

Boy, that was a tough quiz! How did you do?

I get it: one's an "event" and the other's a "person" - one's the symbol of the current President's political high-tide point, and the other's a symbol of the Democrat presidential candidate's - what?

Big differences, there - especially if you're an anti-Bush (as opposed to a pro-anything).

T, when are you going to give up this deranged fantasy of yours? You seem to disregard all my posts where I take Bush to task for one thing or another - I guess you also missed the part where I said I would not be voting for Bush with any kind of joy in November.

It's simple: in Thayli's fanatical mind if you are not completely against Bush then you are a blind worshipper of Bush.

Think of it as less something that hurts you and more something that hurts Thayli since anyone familiar with your blog has seen you berate the president before for acts you disagreed with. So Thayli claiming you wouldn't vote against Bush if he set your house on fire only proves that Thayli is the one with the problem. (And it isn't bad breath.)

Thing is, if Thayli's like others of his ilk, pointing this out only seems to encourage him to do more.

"Know the differences between the WTC '93 events and '01 events?"

Yes, in the 2nd one many more were killed.

"In less than 3 years Clinton's justice department had investigated, captured, placed on trial and had sentence carried out against those responsible."

Yes, he did for that act. Terrorists would live on to do embassy bombings, the bombing of the Cole and then 9/11. Also in response to Clinton's Justice Dept incineration of American citizens, a nutjob decided to blow up a bunch of people. I don't blame Clinton for the above because because bad shit can and does happen. I wasn't crazy about his response in terms of cracking down on talk radio and the boogie man of the militia movement.

"'01, Bush, if not complicit certainly he was inept, "

Complicit? Get thee back to DU/Indy. The compentency is certainly up for questioning though.

"has used the events to invade a nation on a predicate of lies,"

You are correct...it is likely we would not have invaded Iraq if not for 9/11, though regime change has been our stated policy since 1998. Remeber Desrt Fox? When we bombed the shit out of Iraq also apparently based on lies since reports are surfacing now that Iraq was disarmed in 1994 or at least 98 when the inspectors left.

"killing over 500 of our girls and boys,"

Every loss is a tragedy...no matter the statistical data. One of my closest childhood friends is in Kuwait right now.

"in concert with Ashcroft's justice dept has played fouly with the Constitution,"

As much as I dislike the Patriot Act because of possible future consequences, can you point to rights abridged for ordinary citizens? And don't bother with freespeech zones they have been around since Carter. In fact I believe the Patriot Act was first drafted during Clinton's term was it not?

"raided the national treasury,"

Agree in a different manner. You do not cut taxes and the propose billion dollar expeditures expanding government.

"provided no bid contracts to his vice president former firm earning billions of tax dollars in that war,"

Guess who has done most of the support service contracts for America in the past 20 years including but not limited to Beirut, Granada, Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Afganistan, and Iraq? Could it possibly be that there are very few companies that can actually handle such massive logistical undertakings?

"turned the nation into citizens of fear,"

Immediately post 9/11? Yes...many were fearful...not so much now as our major concern seems to be whether a minority group should be allowed to marry...It's Jacko! Kobe! & Petersen!
Does that strike you as a nation in fear? I would argue the nation more likely is tired of flexing its muscles, feeling a bit like a bully but fearful?

"and still has yet to capture Osama Bin Laden the accepted mastermind of 9/11,"

So if Osama is captured, you'll give Bush a pat on the back? Or will you immediately declare an end to the threat of terrorism?

"arranged to let Bin Laden's family members to escape the USA on 9/12/01,"

Escape? Should we have held his family hostage? I am curious why those on the left bring this up as that doesn;t seem the position they would espouse.

BTW, this has been pretty throughly debunked. While members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly WITHIN the US during the travel ban, they didn't leave the country until a week later or so. Shocking I know but Michael Moore lies, distorts and makes a pretty nice buck off the gullible. See Ann Coulter for an example from the right for the same phenomenon.

"in short, everything but what Clinton and the justice department did in '93."

Not really, Clinton got the guys involved directly in the 93 bombing. The group still existed and carried out further attacks. I believe we have killed or captured most of the identified leadership though of course that doesn't mean it's over.

“Defining moment. How Bush responded to the crisis defined who and what kind of President really was.”

He flew to Nebraska and phoned Washington. Defining indeed.

“I invite Senator Kerry to mention 9/11 in every one of his campaign commercials, and in every one of his stump speeches. In fact, I crave it. I would be more likely to vote for him if he did.”

Sorry, you’ll have to vote for Bush, Kerry is looking FORWARD.

“9/11 was inspired by Clinton's weak, ineffectual responses to the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1996 bombing of the USS Cole. That's straight from the Osama's mouth.”

Actually it was from his playbook, but it was Ronald Reagan’s failure to respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Beruit, Lebanon that you were feebly trying to recall.

“Is he supposed to pretend 9-11 didnt happen....is he supposed to tout his agricultural policy?”

No he just shouldn’t pretend that it says anything about him. BTW, does he have an agricultural policy?

“It's nice to know that the people leading the charge against the use of 9/11 in ads are so impartial.”

Even you’re entitled to an opinion.

“A president many people thought belonged in a group home has addressed the issue in a fashion that has prevented it from happening again”

How, exactly, did Bush do that Nostradamus?

“the judge who oversaw the 93 WTC "criminal" case is under 24/7 police protection...has been ever since the trial. yep treating terrorists as a common "criminal" matter is a great idea.”

Beats spending a couple hundred billion dollars invading a secular Arab state that had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, killing scores of American soldiers, thousands of innocent Iraqis and pissing off the entire Arab world.

(well said – quizzed – jasond)

Max is a brave man who rightfully was decorated and honored as a soldier who give it his all. Neither of the candiates can hold a candle to him in that regard. What bothers me is the shameful way that Kerry play Max for a fool, trotting him out like some stage puppet. Lest we all forget, the real reason Max is no longer my Senator was that he did not represent the views of the majority of Georgians, including a lot of Democrats. Max is not a campaign issue, September 11th is. The use of that event is central to who should be elected in Nov., not the defeat of Max's re-election bid.

This is all cowsnot, anyway. The primary difference between Bush and Kerry is the Bush understanding that there are bad people in this world that will not be detered from harming the Unites States and U.S. interests by any combination of treaties and laws, and the Kerry understanding that the enemies of the United States can be adequately controlled by a return to the old failed ways.

"Beats spending a couple hundred billion dollars invading a secular Arab state,"

Who says they were secular? Because they didn't have Sahria laws?

"that had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism,"

Nice try....you can make a case for Al Queda but Saddam is on record offering bounties to Plaestinian suicide bombers.

The biggest issue I have with Bush's use of 9/11 images in the ad is the fact that the administration said it would not use 9/11 for political purposes. And yet, straight out of the gate, they are doing that. Just another lie from an administration that has a real issue telling the truth.

But, in reading through the comments here, it is apparent that a certain percentage of the population either cannot see through the lies, chooses to believe them despite knowing better, or will stick with the liars no matter what they say.

Pretty sad commentary on the state of the nation when the truth really doesn't matter.

Is that really the biggest issue, or is it the fact that you're worried the ad will be effective in getting Bush re-elected?

It seems like the only people who are offended by the ad are people who aren't voting for him anyway. Reminds me of Claude Rains in Casablanca.

Do you only vote for politicians who have never told a lie? That's quite a litmus test.

My feelings about this issue are most definitely not political, not that it should matter really. They are from experience - we lost a loved one on 9/11 - and I find the ads offensive from a purely humanistic view. Our loved ones were not murdered so Bush can use our losses as a campaign platform. To invoke the memories of 9/11 as part of a campaign strategy is inhuman and cowardly. Don't pull on the nation's heartstrings this way - it was the nation's worst disaster in history and deserves far more respect than this. We live with the personal images every day - we don't need to see them "pop up" while we are trying to enjoy some semblance of normal life.

On the other hand, I also don't believe the President should ignore what he did to lead us thru our nation's darkest hours. But he could do so without all the imagery. Sometimes a blank screen with a meaningful message is more powerful than anything else.

And to everyone reading this post - please don't forget that it was 3,000 INNOCENT lives that were taken from all of us on September 11th. Aside from the political ranting about the ads - pro and con - the fact is people ARE starting to forget, and that's a crime all by itself. Let's keep our eyes on the ball.