Some 9/11 Relatives Angered by Bush Ads

[deb_in_nc]

March 4, 2004 07:48 PM EST


WASHINGTON - President Bush's campaign commercials - on the air just one day - have angered several relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, 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 and firefighters bearing a stretcher through the rubble.

"It makes me sick," said Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr., in the attacks and leads a victims families group called Peaceful Tomorrows. "Would you ever go to someone's grave site and use that as an instrument of politics? That 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, spokesman Jeff Zack said. 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."

The union gave Kerry an early endorsement in the presidential race.

The controversy erupted as Bush's re-election campaign began airing the commercials nationally on cable television and on broadcast stations in about 80 media markets in 18 states.

The ads refer both to the terrorist attacks and to the recent recession, and are designed to project Bush as a candidate offering "steady leadership in times of change." The commercials do not mention Kerry.

One of the ads shows the charred wreckage of the twin towers with an American flag flying amid the debris. Another ad - and a Spanish-language version of it - use that image as well as firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble as sirens are heard. Firefighters are shown in all the ads.

Bush had said he would not use the attacks for political gain. His aides defended the use of the images.

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

The administration arranged for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and three others to appear on network and cable broadcasts to defend the ads. One Bush aide said the controversy gave the president's commercial priceless free publicity, with millions seeking clips of the ad.

Several relatives of victims also 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.

Deena Burnett, a Little Rock, Ark., resident whose husband Tom was one of the passengers on United Flight 93, which crashed into a Pennsylvania field, said the ads were "a perfect reminder of what happened that day."

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

"It's comparable. It's about the president's history. It's about his leadership ability," said Kerik, who is on a roughly $140,000-a-year contract with the Defense Department to help establish security and stability in Iraq.

Bush is not the first politician to cite the terrorist attacks in campaign ads. In 2002, New York Gov. George Pataki mentioned the tragedy in an ad that was shown to victims' families for approval before it was broadcast.

But the images in the Bush ads have sparked a furor.

Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, 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. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened," a reference to the effort the Bush administration has made in working with the Sept. 11 commission investigating the intelligence failures.

Harold Schaitberger, the firefighter 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."

Terry Holt, a Bush-Cheney spokesman, defended Bush's support for homeland security, saying spending has tripled in the three years since the attacks.

[j]

Out of 10 - 20 thousand direct relatives, I'm not surprised that there are a certain number "speaking" out...and I can sympathize with them...

HOWEVER....what really irks me about all this, is how eager the press is to jump on this story....even Bill O'Reilly. To Bill's credit, he did try to "reason" with 2 relatives last night, and defend the noble intention of our President in using images from 911 in campaign adds.

What Im wondering is: where are the interviews with victims relatives who most definitely think, the use of these images is absolutely necessary to remind people of the horror of that day..and remind people that we have a President who didn't just sit on his hands and wait for the next attack??

[rainstorm]

here is the truth:

George Bush has been president of the United States for three and one-half years. During that time, what is the single most important event that happened, not just here, but anywhere in the world? Let's state it more strongly. What one event defines the first Bush term.

Now, we may have some egocentric whiners out there who believe that the IT jobs they lost to some call center in India is that defining moment. Right ... it's all about them. The correct answer, though, is the Islamic terrorist attack on New York and Washington DC.

George Bush is the 43rd President of the Untied States. Think back. Harder if you're a Democrat, I know ... but try to think back through your life experience and the history that you managed to learn in our government schools and tell me just how many presidents out of those 43 have had a defining moment like that which occurred on 9/11. I'm not the biggest dummy out there in terms of our history, and I can only think of one other similar defining moment in the last 100 years, and that would be December 7, 1941; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 demanded an immediate and decisive response from the president, and both Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush showed that they were up to the task.

Now Bush runs an advertisement that features fleeting images of 9/11. A shot of an American Flag flying outside at the scene of the destruction in New York, and of some firefighters. As soon as these ads hit the television screens various Democrats and Kerry supporters across the country reacted with immediate outrage.

For today's study in political absurdity we will take a look at a letter that Frank Lautenberg, The Democrat Senator from New Jersey, sent to Bush:

Dear Mr. President:
As you may know, over 700 of my constituents died in the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. .... Using images [from] the horrific and tragic event for political ends demeans and dishonors those who died and the families who lost loved ones on that day. ... I urge you to direct your campaign to immediately withdraw these advertisements."

The president of the International Association of Fire Fighters also chimed in. Harold Schaitberger said that "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." Most of the newspapers and broadcast newscasts who carried Schaitberger's remarks failed to also state that Shaitberger endorsed John Kerry several months ago and is a constant fixture on the Kerry campaign trail, usually standing behind Kerry with a huge smile on his face.

If you live in a primary state undoubtedly you've seen those television ads featuring John Kerry carrying his M-16 through the Vietnamese jungles. As you know over 50,000 people died in Vietnam. So, where is the outrage over John Kerry exploiting a tragedy that cost 50,000 American lives for his political campaign? Oh! You say that Kerry actually served in Vietnam, and that's different. Well Bush serve in the war on terror ... as Commander in Chief in fact ... and highlighting that service as part of a reelection campaign is entirely appropriate.

When do you think Frank Lautenberg is going to send a letter to John Kerry saying "As you know, over 3,500 of my constituents died in Vietnam. Using images from that horrific war for political ends demeans and dishonors those who died and the families who lost loved ones that day." Yeah ... hold your breath waiting for that one.

Isn't this just about as stupid as things get in a political campaign? The Democrats are trying to write a rather remarkable set of rules for this election season. They are doing so with the complete and almost unanimous support of the media. Thus far we have:

1. Inasmuch as John Kerry served in Vietnam, any negative reference to John Kerry's voting record during his 19 years in the Senate of the United States shall be deemed to be an attack on Kerry's patriotism.

2. Any images of Vietnam used in Kerry campaign commercials are not only appropriate, but serve as proof positive of John Kerry's fitness to serve the country as its president.

3. Any images of 9/11 used in Bush campaign commercials are not only inappropriate and exploitive, but shall also serve as proof positive that George Bush is unfit to serve the country as its president.

4. Any group of people who support the reelection of George Bush shall be deemed a "special interest." Any group of people who support the campaign of John Kerry shall be deemed a "constituency."

We will anxiously await the next entry into the media campaign stylebook .. and will certainly report same to you.

[stormchazer]

H#LL of A POST Rainstorm! You hit every point on target. Thank you!

[GalvestonDuck]

LOL! Yup, except that part about the "Untied" States.

[george_r_1961]

With Kerry a formidable opponent Bush will stop at NOTHING to get re-elected. Seems with each election year the mudslinging and underhanded bullsh*t gets worse and worse. Disgusting

[southerngale]

Stop at NOTHING? What exactly did he do George?

The ads were very inspiring. Like I said in another post: Isn't this the kind of ad the media says they want?? A positive message, not one tearing down the other candidate? An ad concentrating on the candidate's message and record? So he does just that and STILL gets attacked..... That's the liberal media for ya.