Bush ads offensive to families of 911 victims

[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

[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...aley030804.htm


Sempers,

Roger

[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 [color-red]peaceful options in our search for justice,[/color] 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



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,,SB1...050937,00.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.