« Meat Loves Us All | Main | site news »

On Campaigns, 9/11 Widows, the Media and Reading Between the Lines

[This post has been edited for clarity and general typos] Ezra at Pandagon has the most coherent non-conservative reaction to the Bush-9/11 ads: bq. but it boils down to a 1-second picture of Ground Zero in Bush's advertisments being crucified by 9/11 Victim's Associations and the Firefighter's Union for insensitivity and bad taste.
To be honest, it would be quite ridiculous for Bush to run this campaign without mentioning 9/11. The most shocking thing about the ads was how tasteful they actually were. The Bush Campaign merely dipped their toe in the water of 9/11 invocations. The media, of course, is covering how their toe looked. The real story here is that the toe immediately got bit by a shark.
The coordinated response to these ads has been absolutely spectacular. Well, just go read the whole thing before I blockquote it all. I'll wait. I want to address one area of Ezra's post: a 1-second picture of Ground Zero in Bush's advertisments being crucified by 9/11 Victim's Associations and the Firefighter's Union for insensitivity and bad taste There's a whole lot I want to say here - and have been meaning to say - but I've held off for personal reasons. However, Robert Prather wrote a post on this subject today and it just cranked that old emotion train up again.
In Robert's post, he cites a Newsday article about the big fuss over the use of 9/11 imagery in Bush's campaign ads. While I've seen the articles where the firefighter's union (IAFF) rants against the ads, I've not seen this story anywhere but Newsday: bq. More than a dozen families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks released an "Open Letter to America" Saturday declaring their support for President Bush and his use of images of the destroyed World Trade Center in campaign ads.
"There is no better testament to the leadership of President Bush than Sept. 11," the letter states. "In choosing our next leader we must not forget that day if we are to have a meaningful conversation."
"In the November election we will have a clear choice laid before the American people," the letter reads. "President Bush is rightly offering us that choice and the images of Sept. 11, although painful, are fundamental to that choice. The images in President Bush's campaign television ads are respectful of the memories of Sept. 11."
Jimmy Boyle, former president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, spearheaded the letter, signed by 22 people who lost loved ones _ mostly firefighters _ in the Trade Center attacks.
Boyle, who said he will be voting for a Republican president for the first time in November, said he decided to ask other families to sign the letter after hearing that the president was being criticized for using Sept. 11 images in campaign ads.
"I don't think he's taking advantage of Sept. 11 and I feel that he's given us the leadership that we need," Boyle said. This is the comment I left on Robert's post: bq. I know Jimmy Boyle and this doesn't surprise me at all. The difference between Jimmy and some of his IAFF brothers is that Jimmy will be voting with himself and his family in mind; not according to the desire of his union.
My father lost many friends on 9/11. He is a retired member of the IAFF and, in fact, lectures them on fire safety and other subjects around the country. He's pleased with Bush's campaign and disgusted with the union and those widows who, despite their claims to the contrary, are politicizing their victimization.
I can tell you stories about the behavior of some of these "terror widows" that would make your jaw drop. The Bush video is just another example of them, and the union, thinking that the world needs to stop for them and their needs.
I'm sure if Jimmy searched around, he could find a lot more than 22 people to sign his letter. Has anybody asked the widows, widowers, parents and children of the non-firefighter victims of 9/11 how they feel? Why is this just centered around how the IAFF feels? The media picks and chooses their quotes so they can result in the most controversial, paper-selling, agenda-carrying story. The only reason that Newsday, generally a liberal paper, is giving both sides of the issue is because so many of the victims of 9/11 were from Long Island. Newsday needs to play both sides of the fence so they can both carry the message from those who oppose the ads and help voice the opinions of those who don't. John Hawkins came up with some interesting facts regarding the two major groups that oppose not only Bush's use of the ads, but Bush's re-election run as well. For instance, many media outlets have been running the story of IAFF president Harold Schaitberger. What those stories have not revealed is that Schaitberger is co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign. Another interesting thing John uncovers is this: Apparently Peaceful Tomorrows has received millions not only from US taxpayers -- which is mind-blowing in and of itself -- but it has also received "4.3 million...from the Howard Heinz Endowment". Yes, Heinz as in Theresa Heinz-Kerry. Just an interesting fact. Even Newsday's mostly postive article has a little touch of spin: Reactions were especially strong by some in the wake of controversy over Bush television commercials released last week, which showed -- some say inappropriately -- firefighters carrying shrouded remains from Ground Zero. If you haven't seen the ad, the wording firefighters carrying shrouded remains from Ground Zero might make you gasp in horror. When you see the ad and the whole three seconds in which the 9/11 appears, that phrase loses some of its shock value, no? President Bush is coming to my little town - East Meadow, NY - on Thursday. He'll be at the groundbreaking of a 9/11 memorial and then hold a fundraiser at a restaurant that is located in the same park as the memorial. bq. Joanne Lehman doesn't care that President George W. Bush is holding a fund-raiser right after he attends a groundbreaking ceremony for the Nassau County 9/11 Memorial Thursday. She doesn't care that Democratic presidential contender John Kerry is accusing Bush of capitalizing on the tragedy to jump-start his re-election campaign.
What matters to the Sept. 11 widow is that the president of the United States this week will acknowledge what she lost 2 1/2 years ago, and come to her community to do it.
"The bottom line is that this happened during his presidency, and it changed our lives forever," said Lehman, 43, of Glen Cove, whose husband Edward, 41, died in Tower Two of the World Trade Center. "He's taking the time to do this -- to acknowledge us and our efforts to keep the memories alive." Look for most media who report on this story to leave out this crucial phrase: Ian Siegal, president of the Nassau County 9/11 Memorial Foundation, said the president already had scheduled the fund-raiser when the foundation invited him to attend the groundbreaking. It makes sense to me. This area is a huge Republican stronghold. The $2,000 a plate fundraiser will put just a bit of cash in the president's coffers. I'm going to attempt to get to the memorial groundbreaking on Thursday. Local news stations say it's expected that there will be protests from those who don't support Bush's use of 9/11 in his ads. So, families of 9/11 victims and other anti-Bush advocates will disrupt what is supposed to be a solemn, poignant moment to make their point about Bush politicizing 9/11. What's wrong with this picture? Then there's yesterday's New York Times article, which has this statement: But a group of families who lost loved ones held a news conference in New York on Friday to say they found the advertisements offensive. Officials at Moveon.org., a liberal advocacy group, said they paid for the event. A liberal advocacy group? Try an organization, funded by socialist interests, whose main purpose seems to be convincing the public that Bush is Satan in disguise and whose current agenda is to back John Kerry. You would think these 9/11 organizations would be careful about who they align themselves with. The Peaceful Tomorrows group has aligned themselves with Democracy Now!, a tv show created by Amy Goodman and which features such partisan stalwarts as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. This is not to say that relatives of 9/11 victims can't be anti-war advocates. What I am saying is that the anti-Bush and anti-War movements need to be separated from the 9/11 advocacy groups. Why? Because the association taints the message of groups like Peaceful Tomorrows and the 9/11 Victims Association. It makes them appear to be activists not for the families of the victims of that day, but as agenda-driven, partisan political groups. Kristen Breitwieser especially has aligned herself with groups that subscribe to all the tin foil conspiracy theories about 9/11. Everyone has a right to their opinion. In this case, the public has been made aware of most of the opinions, but has been mostly sheltered from the dissenting views. Back to the ads, I repeat my view on this again: In my eyes, it was Bush who gave the country hope and comfort in the weeks after 9/11. We looked to him, we trusted in him and, from my end, he delivered. Everything about his presidency after September 11, 2001 revolves around that day. Why shouldn't he use it? How is different than Kerry trotting out one of the most devastating times in our country's history - the Vietnam War - for his political gain? Politics is a world of double standards, hidden agendas, bias and negative activism. It's an ugly place, that world, but the media does not have to contribute to that ugliness by printing/televising more of those components and printing less of the truth than is available to them. Ah yes, once again I ramble. If you've gotten this far, I think you get my point, though. You may not agree with it, but I think you got it. Update: I should add this; Bush's presidency has been defined by September 11, 2001 and therefore, I think he deserves the right to bring it up in his campaign. Personally, I would rather he brought it up again and again than not address it all. I would find that offensive. We should never forget, nor should we ever pretend to forget.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Campaigns, 9/11 Widows, the Media and Reading Between the Lines:

» 1 second to impact from Inoperable Terran
Michele is all over the latest Terror Widow controversy.... [Read More]

» Sunday Roll Call from drowning at 2 feet sea level
You know me; I'm the lazy bum that likes to foist the real work off on other people. This is why at least one day a week I travel the blogroll to pick off some tidbits of far more... [Read More]

» What She Said from blogoSFERICS
Michele slam-dunks the pinheads tut-tutting over President Bush's campaign ads and the 9/11 imagery contained therein. My comment: "Indeed."... [Read More]

» More On The Bush Ads from Insults Unpunished
Michele has a good, detailed post on the Bush ads, the widows with ideological axes to grind and more. Read it all.... [Read More]

» 911 Pictures from Freedom Lives
There has been a lot said recently about the President using pictures from the 9/11 in one of his TV spots. Michele chimes in as does John. I agree with Michele in that I think it woul dbe stranger if... [Read More]

» How Many Degrees Of Separation? from Insults Unpunished
You know the old thing about there being six degrees of separation among people? I know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone,who knows someone,who knows someone who knows me, or something like that. I think the internet has changed that, at ... [Read More]

» Aww, isn't that cute? from it comes in pints?
It's so funny when two-year-olds stamp their little feetsies and throw little hissy fits and temper tantrums. I've no doubt that the organization Military Families Speak Out represents actual military families in the same way that the 9/11 Victims Asso... [Read More]


The media slant on just this first salvo from GWB in this campaign has me concerned over what shennanigans they will pull in the last 60 days thanks to the McCain-Feingold BS.(MF Reform,)Kerry plans on using this to his full advantage,I'm sure.

Politics is a world of double standards, hidden agendas, bias and negative activism. It's an ugly place....

The problem with "terror widows", as you describe them, and this whole issue in general, is that 9.11 has brought out the worst in many people. I suppose unbearable grief, combined with the fear of the future, and unfathomable amounts of money will do that to some folks.

Given that reality, why would the Bush campaign run the risk of picking at that scab. Why politicize those images that have scarred the psyche of so many of us? I understand that people are going to come down on both sides of this issue, but I cannot understand why a political candidate would be so crass and callous as to use the images of 9.11 for political purposes.

Yes, I may be a Liberal Democrat, but I would be saying the same thing if John Kerry had done this. George Bush may feel it is to his advantage to tout his "strong leadership", but it could have been done without using 9.11 as a political tool.

I think you missed the point of this post, Jack.

It was very well expressed. A signficant, horrible tragedy happened during a presidents term. Ignoring that event would almost be like saying it never happened. To NOT mention it, even breifly, would be a disservice.

Re-read the post, I don't know how much clearer it could be made for you. I got it and I'm an independent.

I can only repeat what I read on Pandagon: it would be ridiculous of Bush not to use them. I don't see how he can avoid mentioning 9/11 in some way and run a coherent campaign. Frankly, his war effort is the only thing he has going for him -- his domestic agenda is the usual mess. I don't think his domestic policies are particularly more horrible than that of any other president's, and better than some -- cough Jimmycarter cough -- it's just that they aren't anything I'd like to run on, were I he. Fortunately for him and us, the war is the most important issue. A little recession or whatever it is that is supposed to be so frightful about the economy is piffle next to what would happen if we decided to go back to our previous policy of letting the Middle East fester and stew.

As for the sensibilities of fragile Americans still traumatized by 9/11, so much so that they can't bear to be reminded of the horror of That Day -- well, call me heartless, but I think it's time they grew a spine and bucked up and in general got on with life. Or they can just turn off the teevee and quit reading the papers; I have, and it's done wonders for my blood pressure.

I can't add anything to Michele's comments - except to reinforce her clearly articulated point that the people making an issue out of this are the ones who are attempting to score points.

These terms "politicize 9-11", "use 9-11 as a political tool" and "using the political images of 9-11 for political purposes".... Aren't these phases almost paradoxically hypocritical?

How much time has been given to the opposing political 9-11 view versus the 0 to 3 secs of 9-11 references in these few commercials. Aren't these advocates "picking that scab" "that have scarred the psyche of so many of us"?

(BTW, Jack, interesting metaphorical phrases, except that scabs to me seem to ring of minor abrasions, and shallow cuts; not deep wounds that many of us feel).

This should be fair game... if Bush's policies had lead to increased violence in the streets of the Muslim world, more terrorism, and surge in violence against Muslims, that would also have been fair game. If Afganistan and Iraq turned into (or will turn into) "quagimires" that's also fair game. No one "owns" the rights to historical events. This includes any conservative that objects to Kerry calling out his military service.

SOSO from the 02 campaign, anyone remember?


Let me paraphrase James Lileks here...expecting the Bush campaign not to make any mention of 9/11 is like expecting FDR in 1944 to run his campaign strictly on domestic issues.

Thanks for the segue, Darleen! I was just about to point out this post of mine which links to two posters from FDR's 1944 campaign. The first suggests that Hitler and Tojo do not want you to vote for Roosevelt; the second shows Uncle Sam himself urging FDR to stay and finish the job.

I was a little surprised, but those were the only two I uncovered in my googling.

It's too bad that Bush intends to honor the 9/11 victims by dedicating One Hour to the 9/11 Panel.
That's approximately one and a half seconds for each of the two thousand eight hundred and twenty three that died that day.

Ah, well. Not like I'm going to vote for Kerry, either.

words words words. It seems as if america is a divided place these days. People not able to accept other opinions anymore. Wanting to force there opinions upon others while talking about freedom of speech. Attack attack attack. Well I think AMericans have done some great things like saving us from german and japanese terror regime domination and the USSR plans for communist domination. But nowadays they overreact to regimes that not compare to these historical enemies. What about 50000 traffic deaths in the USA every year and the same in western europe. Nobody talks about that and to little is done about it.
Ofcourse 3000 people killed in a terrible terror attack is too much, way too much but it is not the end of the world. Things move on. Live goes on. Terrible wars are going on in other places of the world western africa, sudan, kongo, rwanda ( where were the countries of the world when 800.000 people where slaughtered in 1993 in about 60 days. They left the slaughterhouse willingly. ), colombia, Sri Lanka and so on and so on.
well what is there to say more words words words somebody certainly will be offended.
Greetings from denmark ( which must be communist since we pay about 49% in income tax, but I must say I am a happy man )


I'm sorry, did I miss something, like al Qaeda calling off its little war of annihilation? No? Well, then, on the off chance that 9-11 was not just a one-off thing, and that the threat is ongoing and real (or perhaps you believe the Iranians really DO need nuclear power for making toast and other "peaceful" uses), we'll just go about our business of turning over rocks and killing whatever we find under them.

As for liking to kiss half of your paycheck goodbye each week, hey to each his own. That may be why no private citizen in your country is allowed to carry firearms. Who knows?

As for the terror widows and such like addressed by the original post, God am I sick of this shit. Someone needs to tell these people that, while they suffered more than most that day, they do not OWN 9/11, nor are they at liberty to censor everything said and done relating to it forevermore. Bush bent over backwards for those people, doling out millions in compensation directly from the treasury. No one else has ever suffered? Well, from now on, if you suffer in NY, you deserve a big fat check, I suppose. And to paraphrase Woody Allen, "such small portions" too.

NYC is a stalwart Dem. town, so I suppose it is inconceivable that people there might recognize that 9/11 was planned and made possible on Clinton's watch, and while Bush deserved no medals for averting it, he did step up to the plate immediately thereafter. As a native New Yorker, I'm a bit embarrassed.

Amusingly, actors were used in the ads instead of actual fire-fighters.

Anyhow, if he really wanted to make a solid add asking people to remember the circumstances of that day, how about that speech to the nation that night? That was an excellent speech challenging all Americans to rise to the task.

I was going to say what he said.

With a budget as big as BushCo's, they couldn't use REAL firefighters? Those who still have jobs, anyways?


Denmark, eh? Aren't you guys having a spot of trouble with radical Islam?

Hi Angie

Good find! I hadn't run across the Hilter/Tojo poster yet. Certainly FDR made the war part of his political campaign. Here's another war era poster, a portrait of FDR surrounded by flags and over a convoy of naval ships.

The hoopla, or kerfuffle, over GW's ads is disengenious, at best.

BSTI - When the firefighter's union is so actively anti-Bush, you'd be hard pressed to find a fireman who would risk the wrath of the IAFF by appearing in the ad.

Why didn´t the republican George Bush end the reign of Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf war ?
ALready then they knew he had chemical weapons. He used them on the kurds and killed a lot of them. The human rights question was not very high priority at that time like when the shiites resistance started in 1991 ( I think ) and saddam Hussein brutally crushed it. They were on there own. American interests were not in danger.
( I must say I believe Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and developed others, I dont think he was very effective in developing them in a way that he had lots of them but he had them )
Has Kuwait become more democratic ? ( Clintons war in haiti hasn´t been so succesfull either and in Kosovo we can also ask that question I think )
I don´t think the Iranians have nuclear power for making toast, well maybe they want to toast the israelis and that is bad enough as it is. But honestly do you think they are going to use nuclear weapons on the usa knowing the usa will answer ( and the usa having 1000´s of those nuclear weapons ). they are fanatic, but I don´t think they all have a deathwish like some terrorists have. Giving them to terrorists is a possibility and a risk. maybe it should be solved like the israelis did with the iraqi atomic center somewhere inthe 1980´s )
Plenty of weapons in denmark. Just get a huntinglicense and you are allowed to buy a huntingweapon. ( ofcourse you have to have a criminal free record ) You can also become a member of the hjemmeværnet and become a weaponowner. hjemmeværnet is an organisation created after world war 2 to involve citizens actively in the defense of there country ( something Denmark certainly failed miserably in at the start of world war 2 which led to Nazi occupation. Allied forces had to free denmark from this nazi occupation which was a great job something to be very proud of. I sometimes visit a memorial site for allied flyers at a place called svinø to pay my respect) Ok it is not Ok in denmark to go around with a handweapon.
But then I want to ask how much criminal acts are stopped in the USA by people owning a handgun ?
How many people are shot by people owning a legal handgun with that legal handgun ? ( I think I know lots of murders are commited within families with weapons they own themselves But I can be wrong ) Maybe it is incorrect what I am telling you ? Please tell when it is. How many people are robbed or otherwise assaulted despite the fact they have a handgun ? All the money used on handguns could be used on a more effectice police. Professionals able to fight criminals.
As for the taxes in denmark. We have free doctor and free hospital. And when we need a wheelchair or other remedies to compensate handicaps its financed by the city after a proper examination if your claim you need it is justifiable. We have a good library system. A good transportsystem. Financed with this money. And I still have enough money to support my family.
Something I always ask myself about american politics is it always sounds like no mistakes are made by the politicians at least the try to give that impression replublicans and democrats alike. Vote for me and I have all the solutions. Well can we be sure about that. It is very popular politics.
By the way the 9/11 terrorists had lived in the USA for some time before attacking. the planes didn´t come from european airfields. they came from american airfields. Now the european airfields have to tighten there security. But it was from american airfields the 9/11 terrorists attacked or am I incorrect here. Some of the terrorists even got a new visa after the 9/11 attacks and after they were dead. Why not tighten security inside america ? European airfields have tightenend there security for a long time ago cause of all the plane hijackings we had in europe some years ago. I think taking Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing to do, but I ask myself why not do the same in algeria, sudan, chad, pakistan ( they also have nuclear weapons ) syria, myanmar and many more states.

GJF: the only one indulging in too many words (or "words words words") is you.

GJF, keep the comments on topic, please. And try to clock in at under 200 words, thanks.

I have no problem with President Bush using 9/11 in his campaign for presidency. 13 words.

Concise and to the point. A+, GJF.


Glad you got the fax to drive home the fact that Bush is only dedicating one hour to the 9-11 commission. Tell me what information a the CinC could possibly supply that his staff and administration couldn't?... Unless of course this is a fishing expedition or a way to gain political points.

I find it offensive that you and others like you would "politicize" a commission that's trying to find the truth about 9-11 so it won't happen again. Having Bush appear is as big a joke as it is for Clinton and Gore appearing. Any information that these people had was heavily filtered before it got to them... In this case, there'd be smoking guns which would have already made news by now.

I have to wonder if the efforts of MoveOn.org and others who support Kerry will eventually undermine his campaign- His people can't possibly control all of the factions and blogs and groups out there who subscribe to the "Bush = evil" doctrine, and who will exploit anything and everything they can in order to further their cause.

I think it's all going to blow up in Kerry's face - especially since it's only March. All Bush needs to do is continue to overlook the feeding frenzy instigated by these types of items.

I'm a little late here because I had no net access for the past day. I had a conversation about this with my mother last night, about the least political person I know. She wanted to know what I thought about the ads (she must have been drunk, she never asks me political questions) and I told her that while I understood the point of those who are upset, that incumbents highlight their achievements in office when running again, and that Bush's achievement include his reaction to 9/11 and all that followed. She countered that people really don't need to be reminded of it all the time, at which point I exploded on poor mom. Not only do people need to be reminded of it all the time, but some of us cannot AVOID being reminded of it. Those who lost people, those who look over the site every damn work day, as I do and as do thousands if not millions of others, and a few seconds of an ad (which I admittedly have not seen), are nothing compared to what all those people are living with.

While not perfect, Bush stepped up to the plate on this one, and that's not something to be swept under the rug when considering who to vote for in 2004.

Why didn´t the republican George Bush end the reign of Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf war ?

Because He listened to world opinion.

I just went back and read a few of the comments left on Pandagon.

:::whew::: talk about the fever swamps!

They want Kerry to be as dirty as possible in this campaign, they are applauding the attacks on GW's ad campaign..one poster looks forward to Kerry being elected and the word "conservative" becoming an epithet ... there's even some gleeful predictions that the Republicans will go anti-Semite on Kerry!!!

What kind of Kool-aid are these people drinking??

Sure he should use the 9/11 stuff. He's the one that let it happen. Maybe he should also include how he immediately went on the run in the to hide in Nebraska somewhere? Besides, it's not like he has a lot of other stuff to run on. Unless he plans on selling us on all of those Wal-Mart cart handing out jobs he created.

Bush wants to ‘exploit’ 9/11? I have no problem with that, except if you are going to show a flag-draped casket in a campaign ad, you should be able to show one on the news.

Two can play the ‘exploit’ the 9/11 game. Here’s what Kerry should do:

1. Exploit the Rumsfeld/Hussein photo.
2. Show 9/11 firefighters, and their disgust at Bush.
3. Highlight the business dealings between Osama bin Laden and the Bush family.’
4. Ask why the Bush administration is stonewalling the 9/11 commission. What does Bush have to hide?
5. Portray the President as a coward, specifically what he did the morning of 9/11.

Like I said, Darleen....they will self-implode at this rate.

Why stop them?

Vince - still not allowed to post at IMC do to your over the top (for IMC) anti semitism?

But to your idiotic points:

1) most people understand the Saddam/Rumsfeld pix for what it is - at a time when Iran/Iraq was at war we backed superficially Saddam - big whoop;

2) do you even know any firemen? i do. i've yet to find one that WON'T vote for Bush;

3) tin foil hat time;

4) you tell me: what does he have to hide? oh i know, he and Sharon planned for the Mossad to brainwash a bunch of poor Arabs to hijack and fly planes into US bldgs. silly me.

5) enlighten me....

God whenever i read one of your posts i feel i need to shower.

Dear Peat:

I have heard this "run to Nebraska" argument before. And again, as always, I am a bit amazed at the ignorance displayed by such a thing.

Do you know what is in Nebraska? An airforce base.. a strategic command center. SAC. Makes sense to me to go somewhere with top radar, in the smack middle of the country giving the most time for air scramble.


Dear Gem
I live in Nebraska. I know what is here, and mostly what isn't here (Beaches, ocean...) So the President was coming here to look at the radar?

Peat - are you serious? Bush "let it happen"? Bush was going to Nebraska to "look at the radar"?

Post 9/11 there are two types of people: Serious and Silly - you are the latter (and by calling you silly i am being nice).

On 9/11, when we didn't know what the hell was happening, I was glad that Air Force One was headed west, away from Washington. I thought they were heading for Cheyenne Mountain, and I approved. When the news announced that they were heading back to DC, I leapt up from the couch and cried aloud, "No!"

I did not vote for Bush. Before 9/11, I thought Bush was a buffoon. But on 9/11, the buffoon was President of the United States, and so I wanted him safe. We didn't know what would happen to Washington and the rest of the line of succession that day.

Anyone who thinks he was a "coward" for staying away from Washington that day is a damned fool, and not worth listening to. (This still pisses me off because of all the pig-ignorant British and Australian damnfools I had to listen to that day.)

Dear Peat:

I am also from Nebraska. I also know the lack of water/beaches, people, outside entertainment, name your pick, we could go on all day.

I did not say he was "going to look at radar." Since you want to try to twist my words, I will use the words of the Official site of SAC.


>>>United States Strategic Command

Our Mission

Establish and provide full-spectrum global strike, coordinated space and information operations capabilities to meet both deterrent and decisive national security objectives. Provide operational space support, integrated missile defense, global C4ISR and specialized planning expertise to the joint warfighter.

Furthermore...>>>USSTRATCOM is the command and control center for U.S. strategic forces and controls military space operations, computer network operations, information operations, strategic warning and intelligence assessments as well as global strategic planning. The command is responsible for both early warning of and defense against missile attack and long-range conventional attacks.

It's kind of weird to be in the first days of a war, innit? The uncertainity, not knowing what's going on, what's coming next.

I will remain polite as long as you extend me the same courtesy. Otherwise, I will no longer adress your comments.


You linked to Partygirl's 9/11 entry. She happens to be a friend of mine and she wrote a guest entry in my blog against the Bush ad. This is about respect for the dead. Not politics.

Sullivan, are you implying that I have no respect for the dead? Or that the relatives of the victims who give Bush their blessing with this as have no respect for their dead family members?

First off, did you read Partygirl's entry in my blog? Second, do you want to talk to me on or off your comments section?

I will say this, I think the Bush ad was in bad taste. I felt the same way about Dennis Kucinich using the names of dead American soldiers in an internet commercial. I even said so last year. At the very least, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you place greater importance on Bush than the families and firefighters. Partygirl would probably feel the same way. You can e-mail her about the guest entry and her feelings towards the Bush ad and Glenn Reynolds post if you don't believe me.

This isn't a matter of believing you, Sullivan. There are no absolute truths here, or wrong and right.

I don't know how in the world you can say I'm placing more importance on Bush than the firefighters. For one, this stopped being about Bush - for me, at least - days ago. It's about the dishonesty of the people going around claiming they speak for the families of 9/11.

How me or you or Partygirl feel about the ads is totally irrelevant here. This is about agendas.

Did you read any of the previous posts I wrote about this, about the firemen and widows who don't want to be spoken for by the Families of 9/11 organization? Did you read the one about Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow being funded in part by Kerry's wife?

Do you remember that I lost people that day?

Frankly, I don't care what Partygirl thinks about my stance on this. She's pretty much irrelevant here.

Frankly, I don't care what Partygirl thinks about my stance on this. She's pretty much irrelevant here.


She lost friends at the World Trade Center. This coversation is over.

So did I, Sullivan. It's all documented right on this site, if you care to find out.