Jackie Mason | March 4, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 4, 2004
I don't think it's a great idea for his reelection campaign.

Scott Hardie | March 5, 2004
It was a major event -- neither he nor Kerry should ignore it. I don't think they could ignore it even if they wanted.

Anna Gregoline | March 5, 2004
Yes, but his choice to use images from it were almost guaranteed to upset viewers. Misguided idea.

Scott Hardie | March 5, 2004
If Michael Moore can get away with it, so can Bush.

Jackie Mason | March 5, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 5, 2004
Yeah, but Michael Moore isn't held to the same standards as the President of the United States. Do I think this is something to really be debated and talked about for Bush's reelection? No. But I do think that it was a bad idea for the campaign. It could have been done in a different manner. Why not just images of Bush during 9/11, instead of firefighters and the like? He's the one who's record is up for examination, not theirs or anyone else's on that day.

My ad would definitely include how Bush did nothing for five minutes on 9/11 except listen to school children read during a pre-planned photo op event.

Mike Eberhart | March 5, 2004
You know, that article about the 5 minute lapse is such BS it isn't even funny. There is absolutely nothing he could have done in that 5 minute window that would have done any good. Plus, I'm sure that during that five minutes, other staff members were gathing intelligence to brief him with. Trust me, things were being handled. I can tell you for a fact, that right before the second plane hit, most if not all military went on full alert, and went to condition Delta. This is the highest level of alert that a base can go to. How do I know this, I was on the base at the time. The base went to Delta, and locked down. No one on or off, So, things were happening, they were probably preparing the options that he was going to have to decide on, and those five minutes that he sat there wasn't going to make any difference.

Anna Gregoline | March 5, 2004
Unless the school was about to be hit by terrorists and our President was to be killed. Even worse than HIM doing nothing, it bothers me that our Secret Service didn't whisk him away. Everything that really bothers me about 9/11 is why did it take so LONG for everything to happen? It took an excrutiatingly long time to even know that the planes were hijacked. I hope we are more prepared now.

And yes, it bothers me, if only for appearances sake, that our President sat on television and listened to children read during the worst attack ever on American soil. I don't care if he could have done anything in those 5 minutes or not - for the least of reasons, appearances, he should have had the mindset to get of there. There are plently of better reasons than that, however.

Anna Gregoline | March 5, 2004
And I'm sorry, this is actually the most complete attempt at a reconstruction of the events.

Mike Eberhart | March 5, 2004
All I know is after checking out both of those sites, they are both extremely left wing, liberal bias... Both articles were filled with snide comments, and opinion. From someone who was working in a military installation when all hell was breaking loose, it was an extremely confusing situation. There were reports of airliners and other events happening all over the place. We were locked down until about 1:30pm, and immediately switched to 24/7 coverage.

That last article is horrible. What did they want the President to do, freak out, and start acting crazy. He can't do that. He has to remain calm and collected.

Just to let you know, this is my last response to this, because you will continue to through articles at me supporting your stance, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the rest of your supporting cast joins you in your defense.

Anna Gregoline | March 5, 2004
Please don't assume what I or anyone else will continue to do. I'm tired of being attacked when I'm trying to do the best I can on this site to hear your side and everyone else's. I think I've done a great job discussing things in a calm manner. Disagreement doesn't mean condemnation. And once again, I wasn't trying to spark an argument, but you certainly are.

I don't see what's wrong with my expression of something that bothers me. I would prefer that the sites didn't have any "snide" comments like you say, but the last one is the only one I've ever found that tries to make an accurate reconstruction of 9/11's events using the only records available to the public - newspaper and news footage and reporting of the events. I think they did a bang-up job of trying to establish the times everything occured.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to spark an argument. I'm just stating facts - the president did nothing at all for five minutes, and nothing was done with him. No watching of the news, no phone calls, no simple removal of himself from the photo op event. It BOTHERS me. I can't help how I feel about it. You don't feel the same way. How is this an incitement of an argument?

Scott Hardie | March 5, 2004
Why is Moore not held to the same standard as Bush? Both men used 9/11 as a symbol to further their politics. If it's wrong for Bush to manipulate people by citing 9/11, why is it okay for Moore? It can't be because Bush is an elected official -- that makes it a necessity for him to cite important events like 9/11. It can't be because Bush wants to further his career while Moore is "just" making a movie -- Moore is furthering his career with it too (see his next film).

I would argue that both men have a right to use the event as a symbol. It comes down to that first amendment that everybody loves so much. Moore has moved me to tears by using footage of the event; I could not deny anyone else the right to use it without renouncing that deeply felt experience.

We've had two and a half years to analyze the morning of September 11th. Bush had an instant to decide what to do with his next few minutes. I bet you anything that if he could go back in time to that moment, with the full consideration of these two and a half years on his mind, he would act immediately instead of waiting. My suspicion is that his intelligence was incomplete and he was awaiting verification. (Our soldiers are still paying the price for what happened later when Bush took action without verifying his intelligence.)

Anna Gregoline | March 5, 2004
I say it's because Moore might have a political agenda, but doesn't hold political office. Therefore he doesn't have the same sway - he's just another individual citizen trying to establish his political platform, and change individuals minds to his liking, instead of a politcian that can change laws to his liking.

Ok, even if he was awaiting intelligence it still upsets me that Cheney was scurried away by Secret Service, and Bush sat at a photo op.

And how much verification does one need that the President should be listening to whatever information was possible at the moment, instead of listening to schoolchildren? Both planes had hit the towers. It still upsets me, even this long past the event. Do I expect it to matter to anyone else? No. But with a multitude of his other actions, it definitely creates a picture of a man that I will not vote for.

Jackie Mason | March 5, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | March 5, 2004
Like Bush ever listens to public opinion anyway.

By using the images of 9/11 to get re-elected, Bush is tying his candidacy to them. Thus does he subject his campaign to the outrage of the victims' families. (It's also morbid even to mention, but Candidate Bush ties himself to another 9/11 should one happen in the next eight months.) If the voting public dislikes his use of the imagery, they will vote against him at the polls. By using the images thus far, he already seems to have done himself more harm than good. I don't want to take that opportunity away from him. :-)

Seriously though, he's the president. He must refer to 9/11 from time to time. Is any mention of it in a press conference frowned upon? No, because he's doing his job. What about in the forthcoming debates? Not then either, because that's an appropriate forum. I say both arguments are also true when it comes to using 9/11 in television commercials: The ads are a forum in which to discuss his candidacy, and as the candidate of a national political party, it's his job to run them. I'd say he's almost obligated to mention 9/11 in television commercials.

Anna Gregoline | March 6, 2004
Sure, but not in the manner in which he's doing it, I think is the objection. I think it's a little overreactive, but if I was a family member of a victim, I don't know how I'd feel.

Kris Weberg | March 6, 2004
There's a difference between talking about a tragedy and how you responded to it, and showing the mass gravesite of over 3,000 people of all nationalities, creeds, and yes, political affiliations as though it somehow endorsed you.


Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.


Other Discussions Started by Jackie Mason

The Core: Not as Bad as I Thought

[hidden by request] Go »

Moving Your Shit

[hidden by request] Go »

Fake News

[hidden by request] Go »

Coulter: Agree with Her or Be Branded Evil

[hidden by request] Go »

Snobbery in the City

[hidden by request] Go »

This is Just Silly

[hidden by request] Go »