Bush Ads & 9-11

ThiChi

Passing this on, I agree 100%:

Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln running without mentioning his leadership during the Civil War? Can you imagine FDR running without mentioning his accomplishments during World War II? Can you imagine Lyndon Johnson insisting that Vietnam not be raised should he run for a second term? He didn't run, but can you imagine the reaction if LBJ said Vietnam ought not be a part of this campaign?

What the Democrats are demanding is asinine, because matters of war and peace are exactly the kind of serious and important issues that need to be debated prior to electing a commander-in-chief. Commander-in-chief, folks! The problem is that John Kerry's record doesn't stand up on this. Bush's does, and that's the problem the Democrats have.

As you can tell from the FDR campaign button we found, FDR used the war. We did some further research and found from the May 12th, 2000, edition of the Washington Post, "In 1944, with the U.S. deeply involved in World War II, president Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned for a fourth term arguing that his reelection was essential for an allied victory." It turns out that the godfather of the modern Democratic Party campaigned in ways they now think are vicious and mean in 1944. Who is it today that looks like FDR? It's George W. Bush.

heathen

I don't think the war that the bush administration forced on the US is in the same league as WW2 . The war on Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and most people are coming to the realization that the government even lied about WOMD . The US this time completely obliterated Iraq out of suspicion and without world support . Those people didn't even have the ability to resist . I don't think this country needs another 4 years of GWjr. I would like to see the libertarians get more recognition in the polls .

ThiChi

The issue is using 9-11 in his ads, not Iraq. The Dems are crying foul (they have not even mentioned Iraq as related to his ads..). Or are you alleging that Bush caused 9-11 too? Some can make the argument FDR "pushed us" into WWII...however, that is not the point. (However, geopolitically, Bush's war in Iraq was right on. I believe History will prove this true.)

SixofNine

Let GW Bush play fast and loose with 9/11, the smirking sick f***er.

It gives people a chance to see what a terrible job he's done keeping America safe, before and after 9/11. A person has to be truly stupid to believe that GW Bush has done a good job.

Perhaps this election is more about the IQ of Americans than anything else.

ThiChi

Why do they want 9-11 not mentioned? It's because they know they're not on the right side of it. I've been asking since this happened, why in the world would these people position themselves in such a way that if we do well in the war on terror, it's harmful to them politically? But that's what they've done, and they know it, and so now when Bush is reminding everybody of what we face in the future, about this formative event and how we dealt with it that day, they feel it's offensive, they feel dirty. Why don't they feel like joining everybody with this?

ThiChi

Sixer is a good example of what some have resorted to, name calling, with no substance. Do you hate FDR too? Once again, you will be on the wrong side of History.... (Iraq is only a part of the overall paln to battle this attack on us...)

SixofNine

lol, you somehow imagine that Iraq has been a good thing as regards keeping America safe from terror????????????

You must live in a real la-la land.

heathen

ThiChi-- The republicans have been using 911 in attempts to justify their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan . If anything I think 911 has shown the people how much a liar and fraud GWjr. is . I still remember his campeign promise of putting national security first and accusations of the democrats being lax on the issue . What happened to securing public transportation? It should have been #1 on the list of things to do in a time when terrorists are know for suicide bombing and such . I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh quite a bit and he never ran out of accusation that the democrats were lax on national security but I don't image he has any critique of the way things the GWjr. administration handled the issue even after the worst event in american history since WW2 was during republican control of the government . I suppose 911 is all the democrats fault still , ehhhhhhh Bah humbug .

WhyNow2000

ThiChi

Critics ignore uncomfortable facts such as this from President Bush's speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and return stolen property, "accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions." Bush cited the Oil for Food program, which turned out to be Kofi Annan's private Enron.

You want more? We got it: "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." On March 17 of 2003, Bush delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

Yes, it was a "good thing....." You must live in see no evil-hear-no facts-land

Bush Ads & 9-11

Share this