Bush ads offensive to families of 911 victims

[yellowwing]

By Kathryn Buckstaff
Missouri New Leader Staff (http://www.news-leader.com/today/0305-Bushadsoff-31757.html)

Ron and Lucy Willett of Walnut Shade woke up to a nightmare Thursday morning.
The violent images of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, filled their TV screen. Their only son, 29-year-old John, died that morning on the 101st floor of the World Trade Center.

Seeing those pictures in President Bush's campaign commercial — airing for the first time Thursday — made them livid.

The Willetts weren't alone in their horror over the ads. Victims' families across the country were outraged, and a firefighters' union that has endorsed Democratic rival John Kerry demanded the ads be pulled.

The White House defended the commercials, which show images of the skeletal remains of the World Trade Center with an American flag flying amid the debris and firefighters bearing a stretcher through the rubble.

"When they show all that smoke and fire and pictures of the buildings, I can't stand to see it," Lucy Willett said.

The ads project Bush as a candidate offering "steady leadership in times of change." Bush has said he would not use the attacks for political gain, but his aides defended the use of the images.

"Sept. 11 changed the equation in our public policy," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "It forever changed the world. The president's steady leadership is vital to how we wage war on terrorism."

Ron Willett said he was so upset by the ad that he would vote for Saddam Hussein before he'd vote for George Bush. Not that he would want Hussein to be president, he added.

"If I voted for him, I'd be trying to send a message," he said.

Family struggle

The Willetts' scars go deep. Initial TV reports showed John Willett's name on a list of survivors. At the time, Lucy Willett paced the floor in their rural home near where she was born, clutching her cell phone, waiting for John to call. Ron Willett wore his rosary around his neck.

Later in the day, they learned from John's friends in New York that he had been on the telephone at the time the second plane hit the south tower. The phone had gone dead. The building collapsed 47 minutes later, time enough for John to escape, his father believed for days as friends searched New York hospitals.

John graduated from Branson High School and later earned a master's degree in economics. In 1995, John was appointed by Gov. Mel Carnahan to fill a vacant position as Taney County treasurer. At 23, he was the youngest state treasurer. He had worked in New York City for about a year.

Eventually, the Willetts had to give up hope. Now they have a death certificate, but no trace of John was found. "He's still in the landfill with the rest of them," Lucy Willett said.

In 2002, they went to the memorial service at Ground Zero. They were offered the opportunity to visit the medical examiner's office where body parts found in the rubble are stored. "We couldn't handle that," Lucy Willett said.

Identification would have been impossible anyway because they have no DNA from their son, they said.

"We got his razor and his comb, but that wasn't enough," Ron Willett said.

Health problems

In the past two years, both have suffered serious health problems they feel are related to the stress and grief of losing their son.

On their trip to the first memorial service, the Willetts weren't allowed to go down the ramp into the lower level. "We were denied going down because Bush and his entourage were all there," Ron Willett said.

That evening, he collapsed against the wall in their hotel room. He'd had a stroke and spent three days in a New York hospital. Recovery has been slow, he said.

They did get to the bottom of the site when they attended the ceremony last September. Three months later, Lucy Willett had a heart attack and underwent a quadruple heart bypass. She now has taken disability retirement from her job as a para-professional for handicapped students at Branson High School.

Not long after the Willetts saw the ad Thursday, they received e-mail from the office of the 911 Coalition, an organization of families who lost loved ones in the attacks. They asked the Willetts if they would talk to a reporter for a national press service. John Willett called.

After his comments were released online, they received dozens of calls applauding their stance, Lucy Willett said.

Only one caller, who blamed 9-11 on former President Bill Clinton, was angry over Willett's comment about Hussein.

"They have no idea of what the families have been through," Lucy Willett said.

Fellow victims

But Colleen Kelly knows. She lost her brother, Bill Kelly Jr., in the attacks and now heads a victims' families group called Peaceful Tomorrows.

"It makes me sick," Kelly said of the ads. "Would you ever go to someone's grave site and use that as an instrument of politics? That's truly is what Ground Zero represents to me."

In Bal Harbour, Fla., the International Association of Fire Fighters union approved a resolution asking the Bush campaign to pull the ads, said spokesman Jeff Zack. The resolution also urges Bush to "apologize to the families of firefighters killed on 9-11 for demeaning the memory of their loved ones in an attempt to curry support for his re-election."

Some relatives of victims praised the ads.

"These images honor those whose lives were lost," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon at the hands of hijackers.

And Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who lost 23 officers that day, said Bush has a right to use the images to show his leadership just as Kerry has used footage of his military service in Vietnam.

"It's comparable," said Kerik, who has a $140,000-a-year contract with the Defense Department to help establish security and stability in Iraq.

But Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breit-weiser, died in the World Trade Center, said Bush should not use the tragedy as "political propaganda."

"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said.

[cmbell]

Bush campaign
defends TV ads
Some families of victims
of 9/11 attacks are angry

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET March 04, 2004WASHINGTON - President Bush’s re-election campaign defended commercials Thursday using images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror.


Activists and some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Bush for airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and exploited for the president’s political gain.

In Bal Harbour, Fla., the International Association of Fire Fighters approved a resolution asking the Bush campaign to pull the ads, said Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the union, which gave the presumed Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, an early endorsement in the presidential race.

The resolution urged Bush to “apologize to the families of firefighters killed on 9/11 for demeaning the memory of their loved ones in an attempt to curry support for his re-election.”

Harold Schaitberger, the union’s president, said: "We’re not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders."

Campaign stands behind ads
But Karen Hughes, a senior Bush campaign adviser, strongly defended the ads. “With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well,” she said on CBS’s “Early Show.”

“September 11th was not just a distant tragedy. It’s a defining event for the future of our country,” she said. “... Obviously, all of us mourn and grieve for the victims of that terrible day, but September 11 fundamentally changed our public policy in many important ways, and I think it’s vital that the next president recognize that.”

The first three ads, unveiled Wednesday at campaign headquarters in suburban Washington, will run on broadcast channels in about 80 markets in 18 states, most of which are expected to be critical to the election, and nationwide on select cable networks.

“It’s a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people,” Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers, told the New York Daily News for its Thursday editions. “It is unconscionable.”

Two of the spots show the destruction at the World Trade Center and include a U.S. flag flying amid the debris. They also feature images of firefighters working through the wreckage.

“It’s as sick as people who stole things out of the place,” said firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270. “The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics.”

The ads do not mention Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, focusing instead on improving Bush’s image after criticism by Democrats in recent months.

“I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty,” said Tom Roger, whose daughter perished on American Airlines Flight 11. “But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that’s just some advertising agency’s attempt to grab people by the throat.”

Hughes said the ads were a tasteful reminder of what the country had been through the last three years.

“I can understand why some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the president and first lady Laura Bush brought to our country in the aftermath of that,” she said.

[yellowwing]

Fire Fighters - Bush 911 Ads Political Opportunism (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0403/S00083.htm)

Fire Fighters' President Says Use of Fire Fighter Images
in New Bush Ads Smack of Political Opportunism
By International Association of Fire Fighters

Wednesday 03 March 2004

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." ------

About the International Association of Fire Fighters

The International Association of Fire Fighters, headquartered in Washington, DC, is the 16th largest union among the 64 national unions that makeup the AFL-CIO. The IAFF represents more than 263,000 full-time professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel who protect 80 percent of the nation's population. More than 2,900 affiliates and their members protect nearly 6,000 communities in every state in the Unites States and every province in Canada.

[thedrifter]

Watch the First Television Ads.....


http://georgewbush.com/TVAds/


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

[namgrunt]

It is going to be interesting. Considering all the President has done can be objected to by someone for some personal reason, what would be considered 'okay' to use? What is he supposed to show to highlight his Administration, which makes worthy of re-election? How can he run on his record, when that record has been concerned with handling of one of the worst attacks against this country in recent history?

IF it is inappropriate to use past traumatic historical events for political purposes, then why did John Kerry use Vietnam as a springboard for his campaign? Are the families of Vietnam War casualties not worth the same sensitive consideration as the families of civilians who got caught in an international tragedy? Is Kerry walking over the bones of dead GI's to get elected?

The Firefighters' Unions are also using their positions for political purposes. By endorsing one candidate over another, they give the impression they spoke for ALL firefighters. If they are willing to say, "You cannot use our images without permission", then they should not thump their own chests and make loud noises in favor of the President's opponent.

To put it simply, it is politics, and they had better get used to it. ALL candidates, INCLUDING Ralph Nader, should be held to the same standards. They are not. They will never be because the media, which tells us what happens, is itself biased in favor of one side. Just watch their faces light up on the evening news when candidates names are spoken. Excitement isn't hard to note, and it isn't for the current administration.

[Sparrowhawk]

stupid news media <br />
<br />
Here's your answer namgrunt <br />
&lt;hr&gt; <br />
<br />
<br />
Is 9/11 an Issue? <br />
<br />
<br />
September 11, 2001, marked the worst foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor -- the bloodiest ever on...

[JinxJr]

I've seen the ads. I didn't see anything violent or disrespectful. Why aren't the folks that are so upset with this ad campaign doing something more to support a system trying to prevent tragedies like "911" from happening again? Everybody needs a reminder of the real violence of what happened so it isn't forgotten. These nitwits should be paying for these ads so the memory stays fresh enough for us to stay mad enough to prevent an encore and keep the memories of those who perished fresh because many were heroes that deserve remembrance. If the visions are contained in a political ad for George Bush, so what! Isn't he the guy that did something about it?

[Sgtj]

I may be young but I am sure glad I saw through all the B.S. early in life. President Bush could never doing anything right in the eyes of the media or all those damn liberals. There is nothing wrong with his adds. You can't tell me for one second that the dems would have not used it if they could get away with it. You say that 9-11 had nothing to do with his administration or is not an issue. Well what would you have said if the POTUS just sat back in his chair and said "oh I am sorry - this is not my problem" think about it. Open your eyes.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... I need to go do some pushups...

[usmc4669]

I watched "The O'Reilly Factor," last night, Bill had two young people, a young lady and a young man. They were complaining about the AD, said that they had lost a love one in the Towers bombing. When Bill ask them about the AD's that the Democrats and Kerry ran about the Vietnam War they didn't seem to have an answer, just hem and haw around his question, would this give you the impression that maybe these two young people could be young Democrats?

[usmc85204]

Why is it ok to bring up the war in Viet Nam , as a way to show that John Kerry did the right thing when called upon. But, inappropriate to show the attack on 911, to remind us that President Bush has done the right thing. I am not sure if we could stop any determined terrorist from causing us future harm. But, I think what the president has done sure has kept them busy keeping their heads down. I am not sure if war will ever be as clear cut and the victories complete. We are in a new time and the fight may be for longer that we would like. I believe that to sit on our hands and wait for the United Nations to fix things is assanine. The president has every right to use the images of 911 when reminding us what he has done in the fight for our safty. Just as Pearl Harbor was used in wwII. It is a symbol of our fight and his actions to make us safer.

[yellowwing]

Fire Fighters' President Says Use of Fire Fighter Images
in New Bush Ads Smack of Political Opportunism
By International Association of Fire Fighters

Wednesday 03 March 2004

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." ------

About the International Association of Fire Fighters

The International Association of Fire Fighters, headquartered in Washington, DC, is the 16th largest union among the 64 national unions that makeup the AFL-CIO. The IAFF represents more than 263,000 full-time professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel who protect 80 percent of the nation's population. More than 2,900 affiliates and their members protect nearly 6,000 communities in every state in the Unites States and every province in Canada.

[bobpage]

What really stinks even more is that as tragic as it was and is about 9-11, ALL of the families got lots of cash out of the deal made to "make ammends". What about the OIF and Afghanistan troops families. The ones who got the 250k and a flag? No parity there. Why don't we veterans start protesting the Kerry camp and raise some hell over the equality. The President did the right thing and continues. So the ad is dead on. And the people can cry all they want to about the ads. Every time I see John Kerry on TV, I get sick to my stomach. I have served in 2 wars, including Iraq, and my Dad did 4 tours in Viet Nam. Neither of us protested anything. But we should protest the payments, and see our fellow servicemembers get equality. Protest and object to that!

[namgrunt]

The Firefighters Association is a political union. If it is 'offensive' to the membership to have images used by Pres.Bush in his ads, then why is it alright for the same whining IAFF President to stand shoulder to shoulder with Sen. Kerry, the opposition? If that isn't political opportunism, then I want to see the definition you are using.

If its good for the left, then it is good for the right. No favorites!

[rsta]

9/11 is one of those "defining" days in American history. Those family members that are offended by the ads that President Bush is running, as referred to earlier, weren't too offended to grab the cash offered to them. I still can't figure out why anyone or any company "owed" them money for this act of terrorism. I think the ads are appropriate and for those that don't like them, they just need to quit wearing their feelings on their sleeves. As far as the fire fighter's union being against them, what's new with this? Not many unions are Republican, and they're not going to agree with the President's views. We're living in some nasty times, and I thank God that George Bush was our President on 9/11.

[Sophora]

Heard an interesting statement made by a retired Tucson Firefighter. He finds it offensive because as he says, We're not allowed to see our fallen military heros return under flag, yet the commercial shows a fallen firefighter under flag... I'd be interested to hear what else he said, but you know TV soundbites
Another firefighter, A FDNY retiree who lives here and lost friends on 9-11 say's Bush has the right to use the shots.. It happened on his watch.

The local news tried to talk with Tucson firefighters, but the Fire Chiefs wouldn't let them saying it was too political. I get to see the commercials, for some strange reason Arizona is an important state in this election.

I was home sick from work when 9-11 happened, from the moment they broke into covering a fire in the WTC to the collapse of the towers, and for days I watched. I felt horror and great sorrow for all those who lost love ones. It was something that change me and changed America. I still have sorrow for those who lost loved ones, especially the children.

The thing is that these tragic events move into the public domain of history. There are still survivors of Pearl Harbor, and people who lost loved ones there. Yet they do not object to the years of airing film of the attack. I'm sure some never watch it. There are numerous examples.

The commercial begins with GW saying he approves of the commercial, which is a rule that all politicians now have to do in their dang commercials. That gives time for you to use the remote if you don't want to see it. If the media is so concerned about it they don't have to sell the airtime.

[namgrunt]

Janine
Excellent point, about the remote control. It is the option we all overlook most. Things exist which will offend us, regardless of who we are. It is our choice to stay and become offended, rather than move to a different focal point. I'm just as prone to this as anybody else.

I believe it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said, "No one can make you feel inferior, without your consent." The same goes for perceived offenses. Thanks for reminding us of this simple, ever present solution.

Semper Fi!

[thedrifter]

9/11 KIN RUSH TO BUSH'S DEFENSE

By HEIDI SINGER

March 7, 2004 -- President Bush yesterday defended his use of Sept. 11 footage to get himself re-elected, and more than a dozen victims' families threw their support behind him.
The president caused a firestorm of protest from victims' families on Thursday when his campaign began running commercials using images of the destroyed World Trade Center.

"I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency," Bush said from his Crawford, Texas, ranch. "I have an obligation to those who died. I have an obligation to those who were heroic in their attempts to rescue [the victims]. And I won't forget that obligation."

Meanwhile, the group of supporters, mostly firefighter families, released an "Open Letter to America" approving the 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.

"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 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.

The images include the U.S. flag flying in front of the ruins. Another shows firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim.

"Families are enraged," said Bill Doyle, 57, whose son, Joseph, died in the attacks. "What I think is distasteful is that the president is trying to use 9/11 as a springboard for his re-election. It's entirely wrong. He's had 3,500 deaths on his watch, including Iraq."

Several family members said their annoyance stemmed in part from Bush's refusal to testify publicly before the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The Bush administration will not cooperate fully with the 9/11 commission, and at the same time, they are trying to invoke and own 9/11 and use it for his re-election," said Stephen Push, whose wife died on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Also yesterday, Bush continued talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox, who was at the ranch to discuss immigration and other issues.


With Post Wire Services

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20058.htm

Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

[namgrunt]

It sounds as though the families who are offended have a political edge of their own to hone and sharpen. I believe President Bush has every right to use the events as part of his re-election, as I've stated before. He would be pointing out his actions and the affects of his administration in handling the tragedy of 9/11, and the following war against terrorism. That has been the bulk of his responsibility since the surprise attack by the Unholy 19 terrorists. To expect less is naive at best, and complicity with the Democrat opposition party at worst.

Perhaps the President would consider the change in his ads, ...if the families, who claim such dire offense, would give back whatever 'settlement' they received in compensation for the death of their loved ones. I have never understood why they had to be compensated out of public funds anyway. Would this satisfy them? I bet it would NOT. So, there might be a price out there in 'compensation land' which would be acceptable. In which case, they would actually be merchants in a market place, looking for the best 'bid'. It is a bitter thing to consider, but it isn't outside the range of acceptable human activity.

These families don't OWN the tragedy of 9/11. It was committed against the entire NATION. They therefore have no authority to proclaim what one group should do or not do, as long as no outright physical harm comes from the action taken.

Thats how I see it at this time. If events come to light to change my mind, I will do so then.

Semper Fi!

[thedrifter]

The Bush Campaign Ads: Irrational Hatred and Phoney Outrage

March 8, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Edward Daley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again the forces of extreme liberalism, moral ambiguity and pacifism have banded together to create the illusion of indignation over something that our president has done, and for obvious political reasons. I'm talking about the recent "outrage" over George W. Bush using images from 9/11 in two campaign advertisements released last week. (Video 1 | Video 2)

When I first started hearing family members of certain victims of those horrific attacks saying that they were upset by the "unconscionable" use of those images by the president, I was shocked. I've seen the ads in question, and the few seconds of footage showing firefighters carrying the body of a fallen comrade draped in an American flag out of the wreckage of ground zero, and the shot of the flag waving in front of that wreckage, seemed perfectly appropriate to me. After all, 9/11 is one of the single most politically influential events of modern times, shaping not only the way our leaders have dealt, and will deal with, the various nations of the world, but the way we all live our very lives here at home.

The atrocities of that day were broadcast on practically every television network there is to most of the people on earth, and made the front page of the majority of newspapers on every continent. Within the first few hours of that attack, most Americans saw the images of the twin towers falling over and over again, as the major news networks played them on an endless loop in small windows beside their commentators' faces. Each day that followed brought more footage shot from nearly every angle possible of the disaster area, and countless individuals were interviewed who witnessed the event first hand. Ceremonies of all kinds were later performed in honor of the victims, and songs, poems and tributes of every description were created regarding it from the most diverse of perspectives.

Do I really need to articulate how profoundly affected the lives of all Americans were by that day in our history? Is it now necessary that I point out to anyone how many months went by before people stopped talking about 9/11 on a daily basis? Is there anyone anywhere who cannot appreciate what has transpired throughout the world because of the worst terrorist attack of all time? I can't think of a single aspect of our lives which has not, in some way, been effected by 9/11, yet now I'm supposed to believe that the man who has dedicated himself to making sure it doesn't happen again is wrong for mentioning it. Am I somehow supposed to think that it's now inappropriate for the president of the United States to discuss, during his reelection campaign, what he intends to do in order to assure that such a catastrophe doesn't happen again?

Apparently, or so a few left-wing activists contend. You see, the folks who have been speaking out against President Bush's use of these images are not simply the family members of 9/11 victims. No, they are also supporters of a rabidly anti-war and anti-Bush organization called the 'September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows' (http://www.peacefultomorrows.org) which has opposed both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan from the day of its inception in 2002. Claiming over 120 families as members, it is a project of the 'Tides Center' (http://www.tides.org/index_tds.cfm) which is funded by foundations chaired by none other than Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the president's primary political opponent, John F. Kerry.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who, initially, was just as bewildered and dismayed by the words of people like Colleen Kelly, the leader of SEFPT, who came on national television on the day the president's ads were released and said "'It makes me sick... Would you go to someone's grave and use that as an instrument of politics?." Like myself, many people just couldn't understand why anyone related to a victim of the 9/11 attacks would react in so irrational a manner some two and a half years after the fact, especially when George W. Bush is the only president we've had who has ever taken substantial steps to defeat the terrorist threat which caused the death of their loved ones in the first place!

Kristen Breitweiser, who's husband died in one of the World Trade towers, stated "It's offensive that he would have the audacity to use 9/11 in a political campaign", adding that "Three thousand people were murdered on Bush's watch." Is this woman suggesting that our president was responsible for the attacks? It sure seems that way to me. If that's not the case then why bring it up? Does this woman blame former President Franklin D. Roosevelt for Peal Harbor? Did she think it unfitting of him to speak about that tragic event while running for reelection? As I listened to the remarks of these women and several others that same day, I felt certain that there had to be some ulterior motive behind their sudden and seemingly well coordinated attacks against Mr. Bush so soon after his ads were made public. Of course, now I understand that there was such a motive, and that the well established political opponents of the president were standing in the wings right behind these purported grieving family members.

What's worse is that no one in the popular media even mentioned that the people they were interviewing were members of a radical left-wing group that has savaged the Bush administration for well over a year. They also failed to mention that this group is funded with money donated by a foundation run by John Kerry's wife! Was that not what they considered to be pertinent information before they decided to fill the airwaves with these incomprehensible snipes at our president?

And why do the members of SEFPT hate George W. Bush so much that they would undertake such an obvious charade anyway? What is the rationale behind their extremely hostile personas? If anyone is using this issue for solely political reasons, it's these people and everyone like them in the Democratic party who seem to have nothing better to talk about than what they perceive is wrong with President Bush... that and the fact that John Kerry fought in Vietnam. God forbid any of us should forget that historic event!

Edward Daley


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Daley is the editor of the Daley Times-Post.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/daley/2004/daley030804.htm


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

[usmc4669]

from the past no mater what I say some seems to take offence to it, but here goes, I have my flak jacket on so fire back at will.

From the web site of Peaceful Tomorrows

Our Mission
Peaceful Tomorrows is an advocacy organization founded by family members of September 11th victims who have united to turn our grief into action for peace. Our mission is to seek effective, nonviolent solutions to terrorism, and to acknowledge our common experience with all people similarly affected by violence throughout the world. By conscientiously exploring peaceful options in our search for justice, we hope to spare additional families the suffering we have experienced—as well as to break the cycle of violence and retaliation engendered by war. In doing so, we work to create a safer world for the present and future generations.


Our Goals:
To promote a safe, open dialogue on alternatives to war.
To provide support and fellowship to others seeking peaceful and just responses to terrorism.
To educate and raise the consciousness of the public on issues surrounding war and peace.
To call attention to threats to civil liberties and other freedoms at home as a consequence of war.
To promote U.S. foreign policy that places a priority on principles of democracy and human rights.
To encourage a multilateral use of sensible and appropriate means to bring those responsible for the September 11th attacks to justice in accordance with the principles of international law.[/color]
To recognize our fellowship with people of all nationalities afflicted by violence and war, and to extend to them the same compassion that we received from people around the world.
To demand a full, fair and open investigation into the September 11th attacks that took the lives of our loved ones.[/b]

Who do you suppose is behind this? fire away I'm ready to take all incommimg.

[namgrunt]

I went to the website for SEFPT, as referenced in Edward Daley's article posted by Drifter, and looked them over. I was Not impressed. I left them a note in their guestbook, where I left condolensces for their personal loss, then added that they do not exercise authority over anything nor everything having to do with the 9/11 tragedy. I wrote that the whole nation was attacked, not just Manhattan Island. I don't know if my comments will be posted or not. Time will tell.

I went to the second website referenced, but didn't spend enough time to evaluate its intent nor scope. If Teresa Heinz Kerry is a steering member of the board, which sponsors these plethora of activist organizations, including SEFPT, on the internet and elsewhere, then her actions are underhanded and nefarious. She could be considered a political sniper for her husband's campaign, using position and influence to hide attacks on his opponent, George W. Bush.

Thats my opinion.
Semper Fi!

[JBrac420]

As a firefighter I was not offended by the President referring to 9/11 in the campaign ads. The fact is he was president when it happened and he bears responsability for the response given (the War on Terrorism). Why shouldn't he use this on his campaign? John Kerry is using his record in Vietnam as one of his campaign points... are any Vietnam veterans voicing disgust over that? All of this is nothing but election year politics; specifically the Democrats trying to nullify one of the President's strong points.
The views of the International Association of Fire Fighter's president are not necessarily the views of the rank and file members. The IAFF leadership does not poll it's members on who it will endorse, rather like most unions they are under the illusion that the Democratic Party represents 'blue collar' workers. So the statement issued by the IAFF's president is nothing but election year politics. (this made for great conversation around the station)
Semper fi
Brac

[usmc4669]

JBrac420

If we let our boses, unions etc call the shot on how we will vote, then we could just stay home and let them vote for us, I don't care what party you belong to, how you vote, still it is your right to cast your vote for who you want to led this country, you may not agree with me so be it, still if you don't vote then don't complain. I will do what I can do to sway you to vote my way by posting for the new media, articles than I find of Senator John Kerry and President G.W. Bush, then you can decide on who will serve the people the best.

[Sparrowhawk]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

http://online.wsj.com/img/printformat_logo.gif

The Politics of 9/11

Has anyone else out there begun to wonder just who these 9/11 "families" are that have been interviewed without end the past week about their "outrage" over President Bush's TV ads with a quick clip of September 11? Are they all neutral innocents, as depicted, or are they part of an organized anti-Bush opposition?

It seems to us that the media that gives these folks so much free face time and column inches might push the story a bit further to help viewers and readers put this dispute in context. Alas, what a little pushing of our own unearths is that far from disinterested parties, the activists who claim to speak for all 9/11 families are in fact subsidiaries of established anti-Bush forces -- political entities committed to defeating the President this fall. We guess transparency only applies to the business world.

Consider the benignly named September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. The group has been loudly protesting Mr. Bush's ads, organizing a rally for "victims' families and firefighters" to condemn the President's "offensive exploitation" of September 11. Peaceful Tomorrows says its goal is to "turn our grief into action for peace." In the Washington Post's coverage this group is "nonpartisan." If so, nonpartisan has lost its meaning.

One of Peaceful Tomorrows' founders is David Potorti. Mr. Potorti used to write for a left-leaning weekly in North Carolina, railing against faith-based initiatives, companies without unions and the "gaping inequities" in America. Within three months of losing a brother on September 11, he was protesting the war on terror in a peace march sponsored by Voices in the Wilderness, whose founder, Kathy Kelly, was recently sentenced to three months in prison for breaking onto an army installation. That's where Mr. Potorti fell in with folks such as Kelly Campbell, a 9/11 family member and "environmental campaign coordinator." Out of this emerged Peaceful Tomorrows.

The group was immediately welcomed into the Democratic network of money and support. Peaceful Tomorrows is a "project" of the leftist Tides Center. The Center provides back-office services to ideologically acceptable "charitable" organizations for a fee. The Center receives generous financial assistance from liberal foundations, including various Heinz family endowments. The chairman of at least one of those endowments is Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOW JONES REPRINTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit: www.djreprints.com. • See a sample reprint in PDF format • Order a reprint of this article now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peaceful Tomorrows has also received grant money from the closely related Tides Foundation. The Foundation pushes the principle that money is fungible for left-wing activist groups. Big donors (including the Heinz endowments) give money to Tides, with private instructions as to which groups it should then be distributed; thus the original donors don't have to publicly admit to the activities they fund. According to a Tides Foundation spokesperson, the money Peaceful Tomorrows received did not come from Heinz. But when we asked Mr. Potorti where the money did come from, he said its funding was "confidential."

Peaceful Tomorrows isn't so stalwart about other rules. The Tides Center is a 501(c)3, a tax-exempt non-profit, and therefore correctly explains on its Web site that its projects "may not engage in direct support or opposition of a candidate for political office." We can only assume the Tides Center has been too busy counting its Heinz money to sever ties with Peaceful Tomorrows after its Bush opposition.

As for all the media attention, Peaceful Tomorrows has retained the well-known Fenton Communications, a public relations shop that for years has catered to left-wing advocacy groups. The most recent and famous is MoveOn.org, the outfit that had to disavow an ad on its site comparing President Bush to Hitler. A woman at Fenton who works on MoveOn.org's project, Jessica Smith, also works on Peaceful Tomorrow's campaign. Ms. Smith used to work for the Democratic National Committee and for Al Gore's presidential campaign. We are a long way from the land of political innocents.

What we have, instead, are politically motivated activists standing willingly as a front organization for the Democratic Party. They've traded on the press's reluctance to question their motives, hoping for a free run to impugn Mr. Bush every time he discusses terrorism from now until the election. Peaceful Tomorrows is hardly alone; scratch the surface and many of the other groups and individuals making a fuss have similar ties.

We sympathize just a little with the failure of the press corps to get to the bottom of this, given how difficult it has become to track groups like Peaceful Tomorrows. One of the entirely predictable consequences of the new campaign finance laws is that political money has diverted into myriad "non-profits" and other creatures of the tax-code, all claiming to be "nonpartisan" and therefore with little obligation to explain where they get their money.

None of this is to say the anti-Bush activists of Peaceful Tomorrows don't have a right to try their hardest to get Mr. Kerry elected this fall. We've also said that we believe Mr. Bush has the right to talk about terrorism -- the defining issue of his Presidency. Call us innocent, but we somehow think voters deserve to know more than they do now about all these 9/11 "family" groups. Some might even send them money, and some might switch them off.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107887991772050937,00.html




Updated March 10, 2004

[JBrac420]

Well said 4669. I've had some pretty heated discussions at work about Kerry vs. GWB... They got mad at me when I refered to him as Dukakis 2. I guess I struck a nerve.

[usmc4669]

The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (IAFF), Harold Schaitberger, Fire Fighters' President Says Use of Fire Fighter Images in New Bush Ads Smack of Political Opportunism
By International Association of Fire Fighters .

Harold Schaitberger speak for the Union only, not the Fire Fighters. Granted some Fire Fighters are Democrats, you also have Fire Fighters who are Republicans. The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (IAFF), does not speak for them. He will do anything to discredit the President, would love to poll the ones who lost love ones on 9-11-01 and see just how many were against the add that the President ran.