Burnt Orange Report


News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas






Ad Policies



Support the TDP!



Get Firefox!


March 04, 2004

Firefighters and Families Angry with Bush Ad

By Byron LaMasters

It's no surprise, but President Bush is exploiting 9/11 for political gain. The San Jose Mercury News reports:

President Bush's new campaign ads drew a sharply negative reaction Thursday from families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and from a firefighters union that supports Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

The Bush campaign began broadcasting four ads on Thursday in 17 states that are expected to be battlegrounds in November. One of the ads shows the smoldering wreckage of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, with a flag flying in the rubble. Another ad shows firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher. The International Association of Fire Fighters, which is backing Kerry, denounced the ads and demanded that Bush pull them.

The ads brought several victims' relatives to tears and triggered angry charges that Bush was exploiting others' misery for political gain.

"Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong," said Chris Burke, whose brother, Tom, died in the North Tower. "It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11."


George W. Bush is exploiting 9/11 for political gain. It's an outrage and we need to speak out.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at March 4, 2004 07:21 PM | TrackBack


Comments

Good idea. 9-11 never happened is the new Democratic slogan. That's the reason Bin Laden wants the Democrats to win. This is the reason Bush is going to be reelected. Democrats do not have an answer to the fact that America's enemies want Bush to lose. Bin Laden, Saddam, Taliban, Iran, Arafat, Hamas, Hezbolla, Jihadis and Arab dictators all want Kerry to win. Bush has utterly devastated them. They know they'll get more of the same if he's reelected. That's the simple truth. Look at the oil price. The OPEC and its band of assorted tyrants and enemies of America is keeping it artificially high to make sure the economy and the labor market do not recover. Just to anger the voters not to vote for Georgie the Tyrant Killer. To my surprise some democratic voters are falling in their trap. Who are electing the president of the US, Americans or America's enemies? A vote for Kerry is a vote for the enemy.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at March 4, 2004 07:32 PM

Someone still has his weekend furlough from the nuthouse . . . . . .

Actually, as indicated by the victims mentioned in these articles, they do not want Bush elected either. Nor do a majority of our friends & allies. Nor, presumably, do the people who voted for Gore in 2000, who outnumbered the people who voted for Bush. I suppose they are all un-American terrorists too by this nut's logic.

Mr. Vandal is an example of the despicable act of trying to link a polical foe with a bunch of murderous terrorists more political gain.

It just shows that Republicans have no shame.

Posted by: WhoMe? at March 4, 2004 07:40 PM

Republicans have no shame? Only a liberal could be shameless and hypocritical enough to deny the truth of the matter and acknowledge that Bin Laden and 9/11 are the direct result of Democrats and Clinton refusing to take action against Al Qaeda when they had the chance in the 90's.

The article quoted here CLEARLY states that the people complaining SUPPORT KERRY and do not support Bush. Its a political decision on their part - big whoop, and it is not newsworthy. Not to mention the hypocrisy of Democrats and the media exploiting the emotions (... brought several victims' relatives to tears) of those who claim their emotions have been exploited by Bush in the ads. Double standards again...

Posted by: Chris at March 4, 2004 08:53 PM

I'm all for Bush alienating as many people as possible.

And as for him exploiting 9-11 in a gross way, he's been doing that all along after oh, December 2001.

Posted by: Melissa at March 4, 2004 09:16 PM

"Only a liberal could be shameless and hypocritical enough to deny the truth of the matter and acknowledge that Bin Laden and 9/11 are the direct result of Democrats and Clinton refusing to take action against Al Qaeda when they had the chance in the 90's."

Clinton warned Bush, Bush had intelligence (i.e. CIA, etc, not his own) and if you bothered to check the timeline of that morning, he sat in a classroom reading about goats as 3,000 innocent people were burned and crushed to death. He knew damn well that it was going to happen. Yet, he chose to IGNORE the problem. It happened on Bush's watch. On Clinton's watch, many terrorist plots were foiled, including a plot to blow up LAX. And Gore attempted to pass legislation to improve airport security, but was stopped by the Republican-controlled legislature.

Pass the blame all you want, but here is the fact: 3,000 people are dead, and politicizing their deaths is unconscienable. Should we forget about 9/11? No, absolutely not. But using footage of remains being carried out for political gain is the action of a hard-hearted bastard. The same one who sold photos of him in Air Force One that day for fundraising. The same one that wants to cut funding of the heroes of 9/11--the first-response teams. The same one who cut pay for the military fighting a war which he promoted on a lie. The same one who will stop at nothing to gain the White House. BTW, if Clinton is the guilty party, why is it that he and Al Gore have agreed to the 9/11 probe interviews, and Bush has been playing hide and seek with the committee?

He's in trouble and he knows it.

Posted by: Leodem at March 4, 2004 09:18 PM

Chris,

"Bin Laden and 9/11 are the direct result of Democrats and Clinton refusing to take action against Al Qaeda when they had the chance in the 90's."

ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!! Another attempt to smear Clinton. Here is the TRUTH: Shortly after Clinton took office, the World Trade Centers were bombed. This lit a proverbial fire under Clinton's ass to do something about international terrorism and HE DID.

He beefed up the anti-terrorist sections of Federal Law Enforcement. When Clinton asked for more funds for the task, Republican Senator Hatch (Chair of the Commitee that oversees federal law enforcement agencies) fought him. Clinton's FBI, CIA, and National Intelligence apparatus thwarted Al Quaeda again and again. His team fended off attacks to blow up bridges and tunnels in NYC, to blow up multiple simultaneous planes over the Pacific, an assasination attempt on the Pope, a plan to blow up LAX and the Space Needle in Seattle during the 2000 millenia celebration, and the list goes on and on. The two plots that unfortunately succeeded were the USS Cole bombing and the two embassy bombings in East Africa. No one is perfect, but he put together one hell of a record on this and fought it relentlessly and with success. All this was achieved despite every attempt by the Republican Right Wing to weaken our National Security by distracting our Commander in Chief with a voyeuristic sex hunt.

. . . . . and then Bush took over. When Bush, Inc. came in, fighting international terrorism was not its national security priority. Bush's National Security team had a single priority to the exlcusion of all others: MISSLE DEFENSE SHIELD. In no time, fighting international terrorism took a back seat to a multi billion dollar boobdoggle, which would not amount to a hill of beans improvement in National Security, but would sure as hell make Bush's supporters stinking rich (as if they were not already stinking rich).

Well, the rest is history. FBI field agents reported suspicious behavior of foreign nationals enrolling in flight schools and not wanting to land planes, as well as other pieces of intelligence indicating terrorist activity in the making. They sent this information up the chain of command, and these pleas fell on deaf ears. The upper echelons of our National Security Apparatus, now in the hands of Bush appointees, were to busy pushing Missle Defense to worry about Al Quaeda. Then 9-11 happened - no coincidence at all.

Posted by: WhoMe? at March 4, 2004 09:20 PM

Glad to see that my comments struck a nerve. We can debate Clinton's apathy / hawkish attitude to Al Qaeda all night long. I won't budge, and neither will you. Everybody will realize that its just politics kids, I lay blame, you shift blame, I shift blame again, you shift again. Learn to live with the fact that people will not always agree with you now, or you'll spend way too much time arguing in life and have high blood pressure. =) By the way, I love the conspiracy theory angle on weakening our national security with a "voyeuristic sex hunt" (I had no idea that the evil Sen. Hatch had planted Ms. Lewinsky in the White House). =P

I'll reiterate the main part of my past post, and leave it at this. The point of this Mercury News article is hardly newsworthy - Democrats, admitted Kerry-supporters, and the media... all exploiting people's emotions, in order to blame Bush for exploiting people's emotions in these TV ads. Politics... pure and simple. And hypocritical. =)

Posted by: Chris at March 4, 2004 09:32 PM

What a whitewash. If Clinton had used his balls for something else than looking for a nookie in the White House he could have done what Bush did. Destroy Bin Laden and the Taliban in it's layer in Afghanistan well before 2001. If Clinton wasn't weak on terror 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Kerry is the same. Voting for Kerry wwill strengthen the enemy.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at March 4, 2004 09:36 PM

What a whitewash. If Clinton had used his balls for something else than looking for a nookie in the White House he could have done what Bush did."

Typical Republican. Sooo obsessed with all things sexual and having to do with Clinton that they are able to link a terrorist-caused mass murder with Clinton's sex life.

So he excites you and you can't get enough of him. Hey, I don't blame ya--that's one thing we have in common. Hopefully the only thing.

BTW, as I mentioned in another post, it was not just Orrin Hatch involved in a --yes-- voyeuristic sex hunt. Ken Starr was offered a job at Hustler, since Larry Flynt said that the Starr Report "was the best porn [he'd] ever read." You guys are obsessed--go get the help you need.

Posted by: Leodem at March 4, 2004 10:34 PM

So if Bush is so good on terror, what do you GOPers make of today's reports about Mr. Zarqawi and how Bush missed several opportunities to get him???

Posted by: Jason Young at March 4, 2004 10:36 PM

hahaha... whitewash... lol... coming from the individual who has made two consecutive posts embellishing and elaborating on the sexual exploits of Clinton and who has even thrown in the obligatory Larry Flynt reference... why bother responding? I love it!!!!

Posted by: Chris at March 4, 2004 10:39 PM

Bush destroy Al Qaeda? Last time I looked, we were getting ambushed in Bagdad every day. All Bush did was stir a hornet's nest. The terrorists are re-forming networks in Afgahanastan. By creating massive instability, he left the region more dangerous than he found it.

9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch for good reason.

By the way, you have to laugh at the whole, "Terrorists support Kerry" thing. As if there is a Capitol Gang roundtable of Ben Laden and his minions debating with Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan about Kerry's prospects over Bush. Here's a newsflash guys - they hate all of us, Bush, Kerry, and all the rest too. They are not taking sides. They want us ALL to go down.

Posted by: WhoMe? at March 4, 2004 10:42 PM

hahaha... whitewash... lol... coming from the individual who has made two consecutive posts embellishing and elaborating on the sexual exploits of Clinton and who has even thrown in the obligatory Larry Flynt reference... why bother responding? I love it!!!!

? Two consecutive? Learn to count. Elaborating? Do you know what that word means? No,I think not. I'm not the one obsessed with Clinton's sex life. Does the Larry Flynt reference bother you or leave you bothered? And why did you bother responding since I am not worth it? Like I said, of all the posts here, you Republicans respond to the sexual. You're proving my theory--keep it up! I love it, too--there are many intelligent posts here (not from you), yet every time, you ALL come back to the sex references, regardless of the discourse and debate. I'm done with my blog tease--go work off that nervous energy and post something worthwhile, reponding to something worth the bother.

Posted by: Leodem at March 4, 2004 10:51 PM

Now, is this the example that Clinton set during the "voyeuristic sex hunt"? Insults? Personal attacks? I thought liberals had been taught better from that whole nasty mess - to step back and remain above the pettiness of Republicans... =) Is this what it takes to build a village? =) Seriously, on behalf of Republicans everywhere who only respond to the sexual, thanks for taking a few moments to lower yourself and save once again bringing us back to the "discourse and debate" of the Bush ads with your "blog tease"... hahaha Also, thanks for the tip, I'll be off looking up the meaning of the word 'elaborate' since apparently I've been misinformed since grade school, and it suddenly means "to totally disregard the 'discourse and debate' at hand. =P

Posted by: Chris at March 4, 2004 11:45 PM

This is one of BOR's least intellectually stimulating and enlightening threads I have read.

To make things interesting, let's get back to the ad in question with a pop quiz.

What do the Bush ad and Lloyd Doggett have in common?

Posted by: notgonnatell at March 5, 2004 12:11 AM

Both sides of this absolutely sicken me. Bush uses the death of 3,000 people for a political ad (gee, I thought it was a tough day for all of us there but I guess it was only the Republicans that saw 3,000 of their countrymen crushed in rubble). Then the media pounces on the story and Democrats kick and scream about "playing politics" when they are doing the same. Then both sides blame the other for 9/11. Is everyone so wrapped up in their hatred for the other side that they leave nothing sacred?

Posted by: Jeff at March 5, 2004 07:57 AM

This was of course planned in advance by Dem operatives. They identified 9/11 victims who voted Dem (easy to do in NY), contacted them, and coached them on what to say and when to say it. Planned for months.

Posted by: TM at March 5, 2004 08:15 AM

Interesting. If firefighters support Kerry and don't like the ad, it must obviously be purely political.

Ask a pertinent question, Chris: Why are the fire fighters supporting Kerry anyway? Would it be that Kerry has supported them? Would it be that they think Bush has reneged on promises to help them?

Please note, too, that there quotes from individuals who lost friends and family on 9/11. Calling their motivations "political" is at least as dishonest as you accuse Democrats of being.

As for Clinton's supposedly not taking action, remember that even when he struck at Iraq, Republicans mouthpieces criticized and cried "Wag the dog!" because they needed to know the details of where his penis had been. If Clinton failed to act (which is a tenuous argument to begin with), conservatives share no small part of that blame.

Even talking about Bush, you conservatives can't resist carrying on about Clinton, your raison d'etre.

Posted by: Tx Bubba at March 5, 2004 11:28 AM

"Also, thanks for the tip, I'll be off looking up the meaning of the word 'elaborate' since apparently I've been misinformed since grade school, and it suddenly means "to totally disregard the 'discourse and debate' at hand. =P"

Tip? Hmm....

"and it suddenly means "to totally disregard the 'discourse and debate' at hand. =P"

Um, you are the one who keeps getting on me about Clinton......I initially merely mentioned him...


You accused me of embellishing and elaborating in two consecutive posts about personal Clinton matters--I did nothing of the sort. I merely mentioned the Republicans' obsession with that topic, is all. I have done this several times, if that is what you mean--not only on this thread, or any one thread, really. I did not go adding many details and thoughts; I did not make the story into something greater than it was, so I neither embellished nor elaborated. I merely mentioned--there is a difference. I just responded to a subject of your obvious fascination. And you keep attacking me on the subject--so obviously you are in serious denial. That's too bad--Clinton's been working out and has great hair, so there is no reason to be ashamed of being fascinated.

All of your "facts" on your little posts on this thread have been debunked by other members. Instead of responding to them, you attack me on a trivial, frivolous, lowbrow topic. I pointed out the obvious--it was a sex war with Clinton from day one. I would really rather discuss other things, such as this farce of a war, the sorry state of our economy, and the fact that we have horrible relations with many countries now. I would rather rather discuss the blatant opportunism displayed by the Bush administration regarding Sept. 11th, as they and their friends have profitted from this tragedy and the war. Even the duct tape suggestion was a form of war profiteering--go look it up, while you are looking for a dictionary. Most posters at BOR like for threads to remain at least partly constant, so regardless of any further little comments in my direction, I am going to cease discussion of your obsession with Clinton's nether regions, and stay on the topic. WhoMe?, Jason Young, and TX Bubba have made some excellent, thought-provoking posts on this thread, (they deserve for us to stay on topic) and I would in fact like to quote TX Bubba as my final say: "Even talking about Bush, you conservatives can't resist carrying on about Clinton, your raison d'etre," the gist of what I would like to say to one and all.

(That means roughly 'reason for being' in case you were looking for a Freedom Dictionary and passed up the French one.)

"What do the Bush ad and Lloyd Doggett have in common?"

I don't know, notgonnatell. But I have a feeling you do.


Posted by: Leodem at March 5, 2004 12:09 PM

The ad was produced by Mark McKinnon (former Daily Texan editor) who served as Doggett's press secretary during Doggett's 1984 campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Kind of like that "12 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game, huh?

Posted by: notgonnatell at March 5, 2004 02:55 PM

One more thing for defenders of Bush to consider:

As reported by the Associated Press on 1/23/03, President Bush said "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this [9/11] as a political issue."

What does "I" mean?

Posted by: Tx Bubba at March 5, 2004 03:05 PM

"The ad was produced by Mark McKinnon (former Daily Texan editor) who served as Doggett's press secretary during Doggett's 1984 campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Kind of like that "12 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game, huh?"

Not really. McKinnon, if I am not mistaken, was once a Democrat, and left politics only to come back and work for Bush. Actually, due to Bush's rather bi-partisan nature in TX (sorta...) many Dems worked for Bush, including the woman who allegedly mailed the infamous debate tape th the Gore campaign--she was a former University Democrat. But I believe that McKinnon is a Republican now.

Doggett and Bush using the same guy for media (16 years apart!) HARDLY puts Doggett in the Bush camp. If you wish to impugn Doggett, well--this is hardly damning evidence.

Sorry to disappoint.

Posted by: Leodem at March 6, 2004 08:24 PM

Just give 'em enough rope...

I posted here on the same topic.
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/002712.html
At Matt's blog you get a large number of commentators who live in NYC or the DC area. For people who actually experienced the terror first hand, and who have colleagues, neighbors, friends, or friends of friends who were killed in the attacks, such Republican opportunism becomes callous insensitivity.
..............................................................................
If some asshole claims he knows who Bin Laden wants to be elected president, how did he get this information?
If he has a direct line to Bin Laden, then he should be arrested and sent to Guantánamo to rot.

Posted by: Tim Z at March 6, 2004 09:30 PM

HAHA! It's so funny coming to these liberal cook websites. Now that the x-files aren't on I need some sort of conspiracy entertainment.

Oh, I bet you heard the news by now. And this is funny because it fits in. NBC aired the CIA tapes clearly showing Bin Ladin in the training camps. Real time too. Bill Clinton had his chance right then and there to kill Bin Ladin. I know that makes you dems sad. But it would have been a good thin.

Dems. Nice Presidential candidate by the way. You got yourself a true spokeman for your silly pro bin ladin cause.

Posted by: slickwilly@clinton.com at March 18, 2004 08:15 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






BOA.JPG


November 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


About Us
About BOR
Advertising Policies

Byron L. - Founder
Karl-Thomas M. - Owner
Andrea M. - Contact
Andrew D. - Contact
Damon M. - Contact
Drew C. - Contact
Jim D. - Contact
John P. - Contact
Katie N. - Contact
Kirk M. - Contact
Marcus C. - Contact
Matt H. - Contact
Phillip M. - Contact
Vince L. - Contact
Zach N. - Conact

Donate

Tip Jar!



Archives
Recent Entries
Categories
BOR Edu.
University of Texas
University Democrats

BOR News
The Daily Texan
The Statesman
The Chronicle

BOR Politics
DNC
DNC Blog: Kicking Ass
DSCC
DSCC Blog: From the Roots
DCCC
DCCC Blog: The Stakeholder
Texas Dems
Travis County Dems
Dallas Young Democrats

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett
State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos
State Rep. Dawnna Dukes
State Rep. Elliott Naishtat
State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez
State Rep. Mark Strama
Traffic Ratings
Alexa Rating
Marketleap
Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem
Technoranti Link Cosmos
Blogstreet Blogback
Polling
American Research Group
Annenberg Election Survey
Gallup
Polling Report
Rasmussen Reports
Survey USA
Zogby
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers
D Magazine
DFW Bogs
DMN Blog
In the Pink Texas
Inside the Texas Capitol
The Lasso
Pol State TX Archives
Quorum Report Daily Buzz
George Strong Political Analysis
Texas Law Blog
Texas Monthly
Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
100 Monkeys Typing
Alandwilliams.com
Alt 7
Annatopia
Appalachia Alumni Association
Barefoot and Naked
BAN News
Betamax Guillotine
Blue Texas
Border Ass News
The Daily DeLay
The Daily Texican
DemLog
Dos Centavos
Drive Democracy Easter Lemming
Esoterically
Get Donkey
Greg's Opinion
Half the Sins of Mankind
Jim Hightower
Houtopia
Hugo Zoom
Latinos for Texas
Off the Kuff
Ones and Zeros
Panhandle Truth Squad
Aaron Peña's Blog
People's Republic of Seabrook
Pink Dome
The Red State
Rhetoric & Rhythm
Rio Grande Valley Politics
Save Texas Reps
Skeptical Notion
Something's Got to Break
Southpaw
Stout Dem Blog
The Scarlet Left
Tex Prodigy
ToT
View From the Left
Yellow Doggeral Democrat
TX GOP Blogs
Beldar Blog
Blogs of War
Boots and Sabers
Dallas Arena
Jessica's Well
Lone Star Times
Publius TX
Safety for Dummies
The Sake of Arguement
Slightly Rough
Daily Reads
&c.
ABC's The Note
Atrios
BOP News
Daily Kos
Media Matters
MyDD
NBC's First Read
Political State Report
Political Animal
Political Wire
Talking Points Memo
Wonkette
Matthew Yglesias
College Blogs
CDA Blog
Get More Ass (Brown)
Dem Apples (Harvard)
KU Dems
U-Delaware Dems
UNO Dems
Stanford Dems
GLBT Blogs
American Blog
BlogActive
Boi From Troy
Margaret Cho
Downtown Lad
Gay Patriot
Raw Story
Stonewall Dems
Andrew Sullivan
More Reads
Living Indefinitely
Blogroll Burnt Orange!
BOR Webrings
< ? Texas Blogs # >
<< ? austinbloggers # >>
« ? MT blog # »
« ? MT # »
« ? Verbosity # »
Election Returns
CNN 1998 Returns
CNN 2000 Returns
CNN 2002 Returns
CNN 2004 Returns

state elections 1992-2005

bexar county elections
collin county elections
dallas county elections
denton county elections
el paso county elections
fort bend county elections
galveston county elections
harris county elections
jefferson county elections
tarrant county elections
travis county elections


Texas Media
abilene
abilene reporter news

alpine
alpine avalanche

amarillo
amarillo globe news

austin
austin american statesman
austin chronicle
daily texan online
keye news (cbs)
kut (npr)
kvue news (abc)
kxan news (nbc)
news 8 austin

beaumont
beaumont enterprise

brownsville
brownsville herald

college station
the battalion (texas a&m)

corpus christi
corpus christi caller times
kris news (fox)
kztv news (cbs)

crawford
crawford lone star iconoclast

dallas-fort worth
dallas morning news
dallas observer
dallas voice
fort worth star-telegram
kdfw news (fox)
kera (npr)
ktvt news (cbs)
nbc5 news
wfaa news (abc)

del rio
del rio news herald

el paso
el paso times
kdbc news (cbs)
kfox news (fox)
ktsm (nbc)
kvia news (abc)

fredericksburg
standard-radio post

galveston
galveston county daily news

harlingen
valley morning star

houston
houston chronicle
houston press
khou news (cbs)
kprc news (nbc)
ktrk news (abc)

kerrville
kerrville daily times

laredo
laredo morning times

lockhart
lockhart post-register

lubbock
lubbock avalanche journal

lufkin
lufkin daily news

marshall
marshall news messenger

mcallen
the monitor

midland - odessa
midland reporter telegram
odessa american

san antonio
san antonio express-news

seguin
seguin gazette-enterprise

texarkana
texarkana gazette

tyler
tyler morning telegraph

victoria
victoria advocate

waco
kxxv news (abc)
kwtx news (cbs)
waco tribune-herald

weslaco
krgv news (nbc)

statewide
texas cable news
texas triangle


World News
ABC News
All Africa News
Arab News
Atlanta Constitution-Journal
News.com Australia
BBC News
Bloomberg
Boston Globe
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
Christian Science Monitor
CNN
Denver Post
FOX News
Google News
The Guardian
Inside China Today
International Herald Tribune
Japan Times
LA Times
Mexico Daily
Miami Herald
MSNBC
New Orleans Times-Picayune
New York Times
El Pais (Spanish)
Salon
San Francisco Chronicle
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Slate
Times of India
Toronto Star
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post



Powered by
Movable Type 3.2b1