Bush 9/11 Ads

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 5, 2004, 3:14 pm

Well, sorta old news now but hasn't been mentioned here. Or has it!

George W. Bush tripped over the wreckage of the World Trade Center and stumbled into controversy yesterday as he tried to take the high road with an expensive advertising campaign for re-election but was immediately attacked for playing politics with tragedy.

Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks lashed out at the President's first major TV ad campaign, saying it was both insensitive and inaccurate.

Four ads, with the slogan "Safer. Stronger" were designed to lift Mr. Bush's image above the partisan anger that defines the early days of the election campaign. They began running yesterday, with a $10-million (U.S.) budget, in 16 key states.

One commercial begins with Mr. Bush strolling toward the camera. A moment later, the wreckage of the World Trade Center appears on the TV screen, followed by firefighters and grieving victims.

Then come some U.S. flags, and the motto: "Safer. Stronger. President Bush: Steady Leadership in Times of Change."

The juxtaposition drew angry responses from several groups connected to relatives of victims of the attacks.

"I find it offensive that he has used 9/11 as a pretext for the election," said Colleen Kelly, whose brother, Bill Kelly Jr., died in the World Trade Center and who has become a leader of the victims' movement. For her, "9/11 was a failure of this President to act."

Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Mo., was quoted by Reuters as saying he was disgusted when he saw the ads. Mr. Willett, whose 29-year-old son John Charles was killed, said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush."

The pro-Democrat International Association of Fire Fighters condemned the ads as "hypocrisy at its worst." The union had already endorsed Democratic Senator John Kerry in his bid for the presidency.

The quick and furious reaction put Mr. Bush's staff on the defensive for much of the day and led some of his most prominent allies to step forward with support.

Karen Hughes, the President's long-time communications adviser who left the White House in 2002, appeared on ABC's Good Morning America to defend the commercials as "tastefully done."

"Sept. 11 is not some distant event in the past," she said. "It's also important to recognize the impact it had on our national public policy."

Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has been touted as a possible running mate for Mr. Bush should Vice-President Dick Cheney step down, issued a statement through the Bush-Cheney campaign defending the commercials.

"His leadership on that day is central to his record and his continued leadership is critical to our ultimate success against world terrorism," Mr. Giuliani, who was mayor at the time of the attacks, said in the statement.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended the use of Sept. 11 as a campaign device, saying it "changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed the world. The President's steady leadership is vital to how we wage war on terrorism."

The Republican Party will hold its election-year convention in New York in late August, and there has been talk of Mr. Bush returning to the World Trade Center site as part of his appearance.

However, the first wave of campaign ads was an inauspicious start to the eight-month campaign that will see an evenly divided U.S. public vote for a President on Nov. 2. Although Mr. Bush has raised an unprecedented $150-million in campaign funds, his public-approval rating has slipped below 50 per cent for the first time this year.

An Associated Press poll yesterday showed Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry evenly matched with 46 and 45 per cent of voter support, respectively, and independent Ralph Nader receiving 6 per cent.

With the race so tight, both parties are aggressively trying to portray their candidate as something other than what most voters think them to be.

Both men are well-bred sons of wealthy and powerful East Coast families; both were educated at Yale and were admitted to its most exclusive secret society; both spent their childhood rubbing shoulders with the leading figures in business and politics.

But Mr. Bush has the advantage of speaking with an accent, picked up during his youth in Texas, that doesn't sound terribly East Coast. This, and his informal style of oratory, have helped him to be seen as a down-home boy. Republican officials now worry, however, that he is being seen as a bumbling cowboy and are using the expensive ads to give him a more "presidential" countenance.

Mr. Kerry has made considerable efforts to appear as less of an upper-crust elite. Although educated at private schools in Switzerland and top U.S. prep schools (facts that the Republicans have begun repeating), he has recently made a point of appearing in public in denim shirts, referring to his military service in the 1960s rather than his Yale experience, and donning skates and playing hockey.

"For all our egalitarianism, Americans like the narrative of the dauphin turned man of the people," said David Greenberg, a Yale historian who specializes in the presidency.

"We like our leaders' elite pedigrees, as long as they are worn lightly."

Safer? Stronger? Funny, I don't feel safer. Bush needs to GTFO.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 5, 2004, 3:25 pm

i dont think that it is a problem to use 9/11 in a certain way in campaign ads. you cant talk about the national security picture or the economy in Bush's tenure without mentioning 9/11.

it has to be carefully dealt with though. i think you can avoid using certain imagery. In fact i think we all know what happened, so images are not necessary. One could say "in response to the events that impacted our country" or something.

anyway, its a tricky area, i don't think these will hurt Bush that much

What will hurt him is the 21,000 new jobs created in February. if you remove government jobs from that number....it is ZERO.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 5, 2004, 3:44 pm

I see nothing wrong with it and I think Bush handled himself very well during the crisis.

Terrorists didn't suddenly pop into existence the day Bush took office. He handled an attack that was in the works during Clintons administration. Just as you can't give Clinton credit for the stock market boom, you can't blame Bush for 911. What you can do is acknowledge he handled the situation very well during the day of the attack and the following weeks when everyone was clueless as to what would come next.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 3:50 pm

I feel safer. I don't travel on planes or go to major city, but my parents do for their jobs and they feel safer. They like the increased security and recent attetion to national security since 9/11. It sucks it took a tragedy like 9/11 to make the country wake up to the fact we have slacking and taking for granted that there wouldn't be an evil doers out there who would want to harm us.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 5, 2004, 3:51 pm

Winnow wrote:I see nothing wrong with it and I think Bush handled himself very well during the crisis.

Terrorists didn't suddenly pop into existence the day Bush took office. He handled an attack that was in the works during Clintons administration. Just as you can't give Clinton credit for the stock market boom, you can't blame Bush for 911. What you can do is acknowledge he handled the situation very well during the day of the attack and the following weeks when everyone was clueless as to what would come next.

this forum is actually getting more stupid.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 3:57 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Winnow wrote:I see nothing wrong with it and I think Bush handled himself very well during the crisis.

Terrorists didn't suddenly pop into existence the day Bush took office. He handled an attack that was in the works during Clintons administration. Just as you can't give Clinton credit for the stock market boom, you can't blame Bush for 911. What you can do is acknowledge he handled the situation very well during the day of the attack and the following weeks when everyone was clueless as to what would come next.
this forum is actually getting more stupid.

yup.....every time you post

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 5, 2004, 3:57 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:evil doers

haha, evil doers

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 4:08 pm

Xouqoa wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:evil doers
haha, evil doers

I thought someone would enjoy that

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 5, 2004, 4:15 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Winnow wrote:I see nothing wrong with it and I think Bush handled himself very well during the crisis.

Terrorists didn't suddenly pop into existence the day Bush took office. He handled an attack that was in the works during Clintons administration. Just as you can't give Clinton credit for the stock market boom, you can't blame Bush for 911. What you can do is acknowledge he handled the situation very well during the day of the attack and the following weeks when everyone was clueless as to what would come next.
this forum is actually getting more stupid.

Explain yourself then instead of punching in a quick dimwitted response. That's my gig. Get your own!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 5, 2004, 5:03 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I feel safer.

Ignorance is bliss. You're the most blissful motherfucker I've ever seen.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 5, 2004, 5:12 pm

Winnow wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Winnow wrote:I see nothing wrong with it and I think Bush handled himself very well during the crisis.

Terrorists didn't suddenly pop into existence the day Bush took office. He handled an attack that was in the works during Clintons administration. Just as you can't give Clinton credit for the stock market boom, you can't blame Bush for 911. What you can do is acknowledge he handled the situation very well during the day of the attack and the following weeks when everyone was clueless as to what would come next.
this forum is actually getting more stupid.
Explain yourself then instead of punching in a quick dimwitted response. That's my gig. Get your own!

What does she have to explain? It should be obvious that the terrorists threw that kind of coordinated attack together in under a year's time in response to Dubya becoming president. Yuos are teh stupids!!!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2004, 6:13 pm

Wether he did good or not in the aftermath of 9/11 can be discussed. The security in general might have gone up slightly, but don't fool yourself into believing that anything has really changed. If people want to hijack a plane, they will and can do so. If they want to shoot one down with a SAM, they will and can do so. If they want to contaminate your drinking water, they will and can do so. A person or group of people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause can do pretty much anything.

How can I say this? Well it is pretty simple really. People still walk onboard planes with weapons, some by accident and some intentionally. People working at airports will still be open for bribes. And as for the "anyone being willing to sacrifice their life can do anything" part look at Israel. They have had their police state going for quite a while and can do nothing to stop attacks.

Other than that, Bush did what anyone would have done when it came to Afghanista. Of course, he didn't finish the job there and the country has gone to hell. The Iraqi situation can be discussed wether was good or bad, but they are struggling with finishing the situation there as well. How much has he really done for the economy? How are schools doing? The environment?

So just how good a job did he do?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 5, 2004, 6:18 pm

From what I understand from last nights news. The issue with these ads, is that he's using 9/11 to campaign for president, and he apparently promised he wouldn't exploit 9/11 for political reasons after 9/11.

I don't know if there's anything to back it up. but that was the story.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 6:19 pm

Kelshara wrote:Wether he did good or not in the aftermath of 9/11 can be discussed. The security in general might have gone up slightly, but don't fool yourself into believing that anything has really changed. If people want to hijack a plane, they will and can do so. If they want to shoot one down with a SAM, they will and can do so. If they want to contaminate your drinking water, they will and can do so. A person or group of people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause can do pretty much anything.

How can I say this? Well it is pretty simple really. People still walk onboard planes with weapons, some by accident and some intentionally. People working at airports will still be open for bribes. And as for the "anyone being willing to sacrifice their life can do anything" part look at Israel. They have had their police state going for quite a while and can do nothing to stop attacks.

Other than that, Bush did what anyone would have done when it came to Afghanista. Of course, he didn't finish the job there and the country has gone to hell. The Iraqi situation can be discussed wether was good or bad, but they are struggling with finishing the situation there as well. How much has he really done for the economy? How are schools doing? The environment?

So just how good a job did he do?

We won't truly know for many years. Plus is things work out he can't really take all the credit, nor should he bare all the blame if it doesn't or even now a measley 2 years later.

With the security thing, yes, we will never ever ever ever be 100% safe. All you can do is try and prevent the things that can be, and do what you can to reduce the risk of those things you cannot. I believe the Patriot Act, etc. are a nice start.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 5, 2004, 6:24 pm

911 was a huge part of the past four years and there's no reason to not have that and the cause of it play a big role in the election.

Bush isn't staking claim to anything he didn't do. It's not like he's claiming he invented the internet or something.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 6:28 pm

Winnow wrote:911 was a huge part of the past four years and there's no reason to not have that and the cause of it play a big role in the election.

Bush isn't staking claim to anything he didn't do. It's not like he's claiming he invented the internet or something.

How could he? We all know Al Gore did.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2004, 6:48 pm

I believe the Patriot Act, etc. are a nice start.

I can't believe somebody still defends the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » March 5, 2004, 6:54 pm

I'm so tired of people parroting the old "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet" line. It is false, a lie, he never said it. Get over it already. Sure, sure, you can claim your comment was only a joke, that you truly knew that Gore never made that claim, but the vast majority of people I hear talking about the Gore/Internet myth actually believe he said he invented the internet.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Stretch what he said how ever you want, it still doesn't equate to a claim of inventing the internet. Did he stretch the truth, sure, the same as every politician trying to slap themselves on the back.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 6:55 pm

Kelshara wrote:
I believe the Patriot Act, etc. are a nice start.
I can't believe somebody still defends the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act.

Not everyone just regurgitates what they hear on TV.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2004, 7:00 pm

I don't watch tv much but nice try

However I can imagine you being a huge fan of Fox News..

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2004, 7:00 pm

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Yeah I don't understand how people could think he was saying that he invented the internet. /boggle

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » March 5, 2004, 7:03 pm

If you can really read that quote and think it equals "I invented the internet" then I'm surprised you even have the mental capacity to type the ever witty "uh huh" responses I keep reading from you.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 5, 2004, 7:05 pm

definitely was poor word choice.

he was referring to the fact that he was on the Senate Appropriations Committee that funded a major expansion of DARPAnet (orwhatever it was called at the time), if i recall correctly. He claimed he took some sort of leadership role in prioritizing that funding.

I dont know if that is true or not.

so people who understand those facts understand what he was trying to say, which was not "i invented the internet". but in politics you live and die by the words that come out of your mouth, so its his own fault.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 5, 2004, 7:09 pm

Voronwë wrote:definitely was poor word choice.

he was referring to the fact that he was on the Senate Appropriations Committee that funded a major expansion of DARPAnet (orwhatever it was called at the time), if i recall correctly. He claimed he took some sort of leadership role in prioritizing that funding.

I dont know if that is true or not.

so people who understand those facts understand what he was trying to say, which was not "i invented the internet". but in politics you live and die by the words that come out of your mouth, so its his own fault.

Gore Apologist! : )

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 5, 2004, 7:59 pm

I agree that I really don't see a problem either as long as it's used tactfully, he was a part of it, he was our leader during the crisis and I think he did a good job in regards to that... I don't know if I would show the images of the individuals w/o their permission though... my only concern on that.

I do travel a lot to major cities. I was actually at Chicago Midway last year when the guy tried to get onboard with the kinves and stuff, I was very glad for the extra security. I do feel more safe because of them and some of the other HL security policies as well.

However at the same time I'm very scare of some of the other more "Fatherland" like policies. There are currently numerous individuals in the country, some citizens, being held without a trial and without even being charged with a crime, possibly indefiniately! They are just suspected of "terrorism." THAT SCARES ME! We have a Bill of Rights in the Country for a REASON... to subjugate that goes against EVERYTHING this Country is built on IMHO. What's next? Drugs? We are all against drug use right? we have a WAR on Drugs right? are we going to start holding people "suspected" of drug use as well? Don't kid yourself it couldn't happen...

Marb

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 6, 2004, 2:04 am

He IS exploiting 911, irrelavent to if you do or dont support the ads. He handled the situation (which he did not have that much control over) just like anyone else would have in his position. He has the right to do so but i find that ad fucking tasteless, he is no better then the guy selling "i survived 911" t-shirts on the street corner

...that and he emphasises firemen in the 911 scene which are overwhelmingly supporting kerry

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2004, 5:10 am

Xzion wrote:He IS exploiting 911, irrelavent to if you do or dont support the ads. He handled the situation (which he did not have that much control over) just like anyone else would have in his position. He has the right to do so but i find that ad fucking tasteless, he is no better then the guy selling "i survived 911" t-shirts on the street corner

...that and he emphasises firemen in the 911 scene which are overwhelmingly supporting kerry

Just saw the ad tonight at work. It's only tasteless and exploitative if you already hate Bush. I thought it was done very well. And is all true.

Like Bush wrote in his diary on 9-11, it was the Pearl Harbor of today. Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor in his re-election efforts because he handled it well. He was just in doing so, and so is Bush. You Bush haters don't like it because you want him out no matter whether he did well or not. The truth stings to you people.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » March 6, 2004, 5:11 am

Ummm....Hijacking will not be near as easy after 9/11 no matter how crazy the hijackers are....Even that day you saw security go up 1000% fold.

Its called flight 93.........The passengers are the best and final line of defense to hijackers...and after 9/11 atleast on large American comercial planes I dont see hijackers taking over them and flying them into anything except maybe what there over right after the passengers kick there ass. The only way I see it possible is to break security and have a hijacker as a pilot and no one know what happened until it does.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 6, 2004, 2:02 pm

How would you feel if the dead body of a relative was used in an ad campaign?

How would you feel if you were a fireman working at 'ground zero' to dig out bodies and your image was used for Bush's political advancement?

Seems like exploitation to me.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 6, 2004, 4:20 pm

Is the campaign slogan "LET'S ROLL!!"?!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 6, 2004, 4:58 pm

heh Midnyte your whining "waaah you all hate Bush and therefor dislike the ads!" can simply be turned around at you. You wouldn't think Bush did anythin wrong if he used the goatse.cx picture and claimed it was Kerry.

And Sirton, can you please post more "leet inside infoz" directly from the white house again?#er all, it was all oh so correct!

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » March 6, 2004, 7:44 pm

"Bring it on!" Just seems so much more peaceful tho.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 6, 2004, 8:09 pm

Markulas wrote:"Bring it on!" Just seems so much more peaceful tho.

i believe the reason Kerry uses the "bring it on" slogan is because it is a parody of what Bush said in regards to Islamist insurgents who may operate in Iraq post occupation. When originally asked about how he felt about US soldiers being targets of suicide bombers, etc, his reply was something like "if they want to do [this or that], we'll be ready. bring it on".

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2004, 8:54 pm

miir wrote:How would you feel if the dead body of a relative was used in an ad campaign?

How would you feel if you were a fireman working at 'ground zero' to dig out bodies and your image was used for Bush's political advancement?

Seems like exploitation to me.

It wouldn't bother me. I would feel honored. But, I'm not one of these modern day over sensitive mother fuckers pussifying the world more by the minute.

You know what offends me? People who get offended so fucking much.

I'm sure there are plenty of families of 9/11 victims who are mature enough to look beyond their little world and see the big picture. You won't seem them reported on CBS, CNN, MNBC, ABC, NBC, CNBC, or even FOX for that matter, because they weren't asked if they weren't offened. Media only wants to know who was so they can make a fucking story and continue to warp the puny little mins of those who watch and read their garabge then come onto message boards and puke it all up.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 6, 2004, 11:20 pm

Of course the amusing part is that Bush uses firefighters in his ads, and the firefighters support Kerry and want no part of the ads.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 7, 2004, 2:29 am

If you have ever worked in Television, at least the times I have, you must get permission to use someone's image... I don't see where that is too much to ask. If the Firemen don't want to be one it, then he shoudl take them out. If he is showing someone's picutre who died, they should be an ok from the family... hell that's just being curteous if nothing else.

Again, other than making sure those IN the ad are ok with it, I don't see a problem.

Marb

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 7, 2004, 9:17 am

Bush said he wasn't going to use 9/11 during his campaign but he is.
He lied
again
about something far more important to the nation than a blowjob
end of story

But, I'm not one of these modern day over sensitive mother fuckers pussifying the world more by the minute.

Yes, I'm sure you have had to show great resolve and inner strength out there in Wilkes-Barre, Mr. Toughguy. Make sure you don't snap your neck kissing your own ass.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 7, 2004, 11:32 am

Chidoro wrote:
Yes, I'm sure you have had to show great resolve and inner strength out there in Wilkes-Barre, Mr. Toughguy. Make sure you don't snap your neck kissing your own ass.

Yeah, that makes sense. /shrug

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » March 7, 2004, 5:09 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You Bush haters don't like it because you want him out no matter whether he did well or not. The truth stings to you people.

What exactly did Bush do well, regarding 9.11? AFAIC, the only thing I'm grateful to Bush for is simply staying alive. Losing the president would have only shaken the nation even more, and omg look who would have replaced him.

So what did he do well?

Present a confident face to the country? Hell, even Jimmy Carter could have done that in his sleep.

Visit Ground Zero for a photo op? Again, presidents often tour major disaster areas (e.g. flooding, tornados), and I can't imagine any president passing this one up.

Topple the Taliban? Another good thing that any president would have done. EXCEPT, a smarter man would have seized the opportunity to galvanize NATO who, for the first time in its history, united behind an attacked member nation. Instead, Bush just said 'Get out of my way' and, acting unilaterally, fractured a once airtight alliance.

Turn Afghanistan into a peaceful democracy? Yes, this one belongs at the top of Bush's resume.

Invade Iraq? WTF is this doing in the list, since it has nothing to do with 9.11?

Land on an aircraft carrier under the banner "Mission Accomplished" with bin Laden still loose? OK, I'll grant you this one. We should re-elect him in a landslide based on this alone.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 7, 2004, 11:11 pm

What has Kerry done well besides vote on both sides of every issue that's come up over the years, have a nice photo op with Jane Fonda protesting Vietnam, ass fuck some guy* (_()_) and then say he's against gay mariages.

Of course you'll like him! At one point or another he's voted for everything you want.

Oh, I'm shocked that Richardson announced that he won't be the running mate of this wishy washy assclown.

*allegedly

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » March 8, 2004, 1:28 am

Winnow wrote:What has Kerry done well besides vote on both sides of every issue that's come up over the years, have a nice photo op with Jane Fonda protesting Vietnam, ass fuck some guy* (_()_) and then say he's against gay mariages.

*allegedly

By changing the subject away from Bush's inadequacies, you seem to concede the point. Would you like to try again?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 8, 2004, 3:02 am

Chidoro wrote:Bush said he wasn't going to use 9/11 during his campaign but he is.
He lied
again
about something far more important to the nation than a blowjob
end of story

Quoting you Chidoro because I think some folks didn't hear the first time. Or, they just CHOSE to not hear you.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 8, 2004, 3:56 am

Mplor wrote:
Winnow wrote:What has Kerry done well besides vote on both sides of every issue that's come up over the years, have a nice photo op with Jane Fonda protesting Vietnam, ass fuck some guy* (_()_) and then say he's against gay mariages.

*allegedly
By changing the subject away from Bush's inadequacies, you seem to concede the point. Would you like to try again?

I concede nothing you nincompoop. That's right. I called you a nincompoop! Bush handled himself well and if you want to spout off alternate plane of existence speculations and hypothesize what others may have done then knock yourself out but I won't be playing your foolish games!

Happy Monday peeps!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 8, 2004, 6:25 am

I feel safer. I don't travel on planes or go to major city

But, I'm not one of these modern day over sensitive mother fuckers pussifying the world more by the minute.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 8, 2004, 9:59 am

Chidoro wrote:Bush said he wasn't going to use 9/11 during his campaign but he is.
He lied
again
about something far more important to the nation than a blowjob
end of story

This needs to be quoted again, but i doubt someone like midnyte would have the balls to respond to that statement directly

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 8, 2004, 10:17 am

He lied.
If there was someone better running, I would vote for him or her, regardless of party.
There isn't.
End of story.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 8, 2004, 11:24 am

Dog poop would be better. And Winnow.. please.. that post was ridiculous.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » March 8, 2004, 11:56 am

Land on an aircraft carrier under the banner "Mission Accomplished" with bin Laden still loose? OK, I'll grant you this one. We should re-elect him in a landslide based on this alone.

That carriers Mission was Accomplished and it was returning home. That is what the banner was for, not about the hunt on bin Laden.

Other than that, Bush did what anyone would have done when it came to Afghanista. Of course, he didn't finish the job there and the country has gone to hell. The Iraqi situation can be discussed wether was good or bad, but they are struggling with finishing the situation there as well. How much has he really done for the economy? How are schools doing? The environment?

Last I heard we are still in Afghanastan, we have not left that country so your right that the job isn't finished. But it isn't because it was given up on. As for the country going to hell, it was already in Hell, but at least there are people there that are trying to pull themselves up and attempting to rebuild.
Hopefully Bin Laden will be found, if not under Bush's watch hopefully the next president will not give up on finding him. We wouldn't be looking for the asshole had he been taken seriously years ago.

Gore would never have even tried to find him.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 8, 2004, 1:39 pm

Kelshara wrote:Dog poop would be better. And Winnow.. please.. that post was ridiculous.

Which one? I have lots of ridiculous posts.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » March 8, 2004, 1:53 pm

Gore would never have even tried to find him.

Conjecture, your honor, please strike that from the record.