!!!!!!
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
This one is an awfully tough call, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it.
One the one hand, we can't pretend 9/11 didn't happen and that it wasn't the most significant thing to happen to this country in a very long time. We also can't ignore the fact that Bush's acts and statements in the immediate aftermath were pretty much on the money (except for his occasional choices of words, like calling the terrorists "evildoers" and once referring to the "folks" who attacked us). His handling of the Taliban was exactly what I would have wanted, despite what disagreement there may be over what has happened in Afghanistan since, and whether enough resources have been dedicated to finding bin Laden.
On the other, I can certainly understand why the families of the victims may feel that the tragedy is being exploited for political purposes.
Need to think about this one some more, I guess.
One NYC firefighter suggested that rather than images of the fallen towers, the ad could have used an image of the Statue of Liberty. The message would still have been effective without appearing exploitative.
Some people find them offensive. Others, like yourself, do not. That's what we're discussing. Whether the ads are offensive is a matter of opinion, not fact.
calls attention to something that brought the country together, and where his leadership was exemplary. I imagine the Dems would like to bury that kind of memory.
Hi, KP.
There are ways to highlight Bush's leadership without pandering -- but that's unfortunately not his style. The true tragedy (in a Greek sense) is that Bush actually had the chance to make true his false claim of "being a uniter, not a divider." He had the good will of just about everyone in the country and the world behind him after 9/11, but he squandered it and proved himself a divider, not a uniter.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
some, like Dave and Dan, are trying their best to simply IGNORE the fact that even in the linked article some victims were pro and others were con.
Can't do it because it offends could equally well be stated must do it or it will offend because there are two sides with the victims.
The ads though were regarding America's loss and timely response.
You act like this is the only President that ever did this. I remember reading that Lincoln's mantra was "Don't change horses in mid-stream" for his second term run. FDR played the war for all it was worth to get re-elected so many times.
Of course, Bush is going to play his finest hour for all it's worth. He's definitely going to show body bags or ruined cities or the step up in nuclear weapons in North Korea. Gore would be doing the same thing if he were in office instead.
.
since he demands that the dead be brought back to the States in the dead of night instead of allowing the public to acknowledge and honor their servicemen's death in the light of day.
"[T]he public" wanting to see these dead bodies paraded before them has absolutely no connection to anyting honorable. Rather, they wish to use the bodies as props for their anti-American political agenda. That has been made abundantly clear by the attitudes and posts of those who have repeatedly requested the display.
It embarrasses me to see such things suggested here.
DE
Considering the horrid show and disgusting methods of the anti-war people in the 60-70's, I think bringing the bodies back in a less public way is the best way to insure a respect for them is maintained.
Think about it; If a loved one has a car accident and it's on the evening news, do you really feel good because your loved one was displayed on the news as a zipped up body bag? Is that the final image YOU want people to have of you?
The bodies that come back from a war aren't for the public, they've already given their all for their country. They are coming home now for the final time, and that home is to their families.
this is the only President that ever did this.
I also do not see where you think Bush will be showing body bags as he has already adequately demonstrated that he refuses to do so despite the complaints from the Left about his failure to allow such photos (only to have that same Left shown that this is by a decision that Clinton affirmed during his admin and that Bush likes and left unchanged.
I said he wouldn't because that shows him in a negative light.
It wasn't your post in particular but the whole general tone of this thread.
Hi, Diana.
With all due respect, I don't think you get the point. Of course Bush is entitled to use his leadership post-9/11 as a campaign issue (after all, he doesn't have much else to run on!) The point is the manner in which he went about doing so -- campaign ads showing the towers in flames, a flag-draped coffin being taken from "the pit" on a catafalque, etc. The use of those images in a political campaign is IMCO (and many other people's) in extremely poor taste; I don't recall seeing or reading about similar images being used in a political campaign before. For instance, Roosevelt used buttons reading "Remember Pearl Harbor;" he didn't use campaign posters showing himself superimposed over a burning battleship.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
before something is recognized as a bad idea?
Is 10% ok? 25%?
What's the limit?
Dan
Is it bad because it reminds us of the President's leadership? Do you think Kerry would hesitate to use it if it would help his cause?
It's apparent that a number of victims are offended. The question is how many is too many?
Dan
'Given: Offending victims of terrorism is a bad idea.'
Surely, this is but a special case of a more general statement:
Given: Offending anyone is a bad idea.
OK, now suppose I know if I walk out my front door, my neighbor will be offended. Since that's a bad idea, clearly I should not walk out my front door. Therefore, I need to stay in my house and never go out. Does that about cover it? It looks to me like this logic needs a bit of work. How about:
Given: Deliberately offending anyone without an adequate reason is a bad idea.
Now, I know I will be deliberately offending my neighbor, but I have to go out to work and get food. Since these appear to be adequate reasons, it is not a bad idea for me to deliberately offend my neighbor.
Did President Bush deliberately offend victims of terror? Of course not! Does he have adequate reasons? Since his Presidency has been, in large measure, shaped by 9/11, it seems reasonable to refer to the event in his campaign. Therefore, it is not a bad idea.
Moving along, if Kerry used images of Vietman refering to his anti-war stance, don't you think it possible that that might offend citizens who once lived there?
If that were the case and some of those now naturalized citizens complained, should such a Kerry ad(s) be pulled?
Will it matter to him how many Viet Nam veterans are offended?
Hi, KP.
That "logic" reminds me of the "proofs" that you can never go anywhere, because before you can go all the way, you have to go half-way, and before you can go halfway, you have to go a quarter...
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
That's a pretty good description of an integral. Your expertise never ceases to amaze me. Did you ever study formal logic? Did you think Dan's 'given' stands up under examination?
Hi, KP.
Just FYI, I've had math through advanced Differential equations, and had a logic course as part of my philosophy requirement in college (which shows how long ago it was!) But the details of both have no disappeared over the intervening 30+ years, as in that regard I've taken option 2 of "lose it or lose it!"
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!