MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Last edited:
Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad
By MAGGIE HABERMAN in New York
amd THOMAS M. DeFRANK in Washington
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Thursday, March 4th, 2004
The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."
Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.
"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed 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."
Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.
"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history."
The gauzy, upbeat spots, aimed at shoring up Bush's sagging approval numbers, begin airing today on national cable networks and 50 media markets in 17 states that Bush-Cheney strategists consider electoral battlegrounds.
Two ads, including a Spanish version, show fleeting images of the World Trade Center devastation. The 30-second spots include a poignant image of an American flag fluttering defiantly amid the WTC wreckage.
One, titled "Safer, Stronger," also features a one-second shot of firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim from the twisted debris.
Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work.
Bush officials defended the imagery as totally appropriate.
But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history."
NB,nbcrusader said:Perhaps you didn't read far enough...
Perhaps is boils down to partisianship? Carter was doing a nice job as "elder statesman". Now, he is slipping into the role of DNC mouthpiece.
nbcrusader said:From the paper that wants to bring back presidential assassination....
nbcrusader said:I don't take the Guardian. If it is like our National Inquirer, then yes, it is sensationalism to sell papers.
anitram said:Have you ever spent any time in the UK or read The Guardian? To imply it's the equivalent of the Enquirer is just about the most ignorant thing I've heard all week. Perhaps you're thinking of the Daily Mirror?
nbcrusader said:Consider the context of my comment before you start calling people ignorant.
anitram said:
I said it was an ignorant thing to say, not that you were ignorant. Consider re-reading my statement before putting words into my mouth next time, thank you.
nbcrusader said:Although I prefer to discuss the principles behind the issues, it seems that many of these election related threads turn into partisian lob fests. If you want more in-depth discussion of issues, I'm all for it.
Given the number of brief posts made in this forum by the various participants, I wonder why mine get your attention?
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:Just a little add-on: I never read the Inquirer, so I assumed it was a serious conservative newspaper. Hah!
anitram said:Hey, if that's what floats your boat, I will not raise an objection.