Answer the Farking question! We are dealing with now. Who would "THEY" rather have in office?

I think who "they" would rather have is irrelevant. It is strawman line of argument meant to lead one to the erroneous assumption that the democrats are soft on national defense.
But if you want to see that argument from another angle: I imagine, with the current level of security at our nations seaports and not so much anymore airports, that most terrorists like gwbush just fine.

If you are scared to answer the question just say so.

There was a great quote about this on NPR yesterday, from an older woman who's brother died in the WTC. She said, "Surely the president can find some way to campaign other that doesn't involve <i>walking on the bodies of our dead</i>." (and you really could hear the italics in her voice.)

That said, above and beyond my extreme degree of comfort with anything that makes Son of Bush writhe, this should be a non issue. If Karl Rove wants to talk about 9/11 and highlight the somewhat questionable leadership qualities W displayed on that day, well, gee, what can I say?

Oh I know: "Bring it on!"Because he's not the total psychopath his father was? Because he'd rather talk to someone who came to the table with a bit less xenophoia than the DPRK generally displays? Because the world is a complicated place and could use a fellow who's more interested in solving problems than gittin' the bad guy? Because he just plain hates GWB? Because Kerry might possibly bargain in good faith?

That a terrorist would prefer Kerry over Bush is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be as simple as that they would find it easier to relate to a fellow who has experienced a Guerrilla insurgency first hand (as opposed to skipping out on his duty to his country to fight a losing battle in Alabama.) Maybe the crazy evil courage it takes to strap dynamite to one's self and take your enemy with you when you go responds to the kind of courage that turns his boat into enemy fire and goes on the offensive when attaked more than it does to the kind that runs the risk of going brazenly AWOL because one's daddy will certainly make things right.

What I'm getting at is that having one's enemy's respect is step one to not having an enemy.

Tophat665, you really think we can deal with people who’s sole goal is our destruction? Do you believe that appeasement will keep us safe? You find honor in this? Perhaps you missed the memo on who they target?

Let me be more obvious.

It doesn't fucking matter.

Maybe you could explain to me how jong-il has any idea what kerry will do in office?
Or whether the terrorists would like to keep bush in office, since any current terrorist could easily sail into seatle or san fran and do his damndest to make 9/11 foreplay. Feel free to answer...
If you're not scared.:rolleyes:

q: Maybe you could explain to me how jong-il has any idea what kerry will do in office?

a:He's as much as said he doesn't want boots on the ground.

They know Bush is just crazy enough to come after them and has.

BTW: "It doesn't fucking matter" still doesn't answer my question, there were two answers Kerry or Bush.

Bush attacked one of the weakest countries in the axis of evil. He will never set foot in n. korea because to do so would be idiotic.
What jongil thinks is irrellevant. As i said before, a strawman argument.

Besides, i think bush is probably trying to avoid the "I'm so crazy, i just might do it" platform. Its probably not the best way to go about dealing with the world.

Lets face it. We can bat this thing back and forth for ever and no one will change their mind. All I ask is don't let your abhorrence for Bush override what's best for our Country overall. Think before you vote. Now I'm off to work.

Fair enough. Don't let your abhorrence for whatever you abhor override what's best for your country either.

That's a nice broad brush you have there. Some terrorists can be dealt with by negotiation, and some cannot. I would appreciate having someone at the helm who's willing to find out which are which, and willing to change course when (as will happen from time to time) the estimate is wrong. That's not waffling; it's just good sense. A black and white view of the world is nice, simple, and largely wrong.

Nope, not by itself, but it will cut down the number of times we have to put our soldiers in harms way, cut down the number of terrorists (as opposed to those waging war the only way they can - those can be reasoned with, terrorists cannot). It's very simple to lump all terrorists together and brand them all evil. Hell, it's a nice and simple thing to do with republicans. It's wrong. Some honestly believe they are doing the best thing they can for their people, and those minds can be changed.

You don't? You can't respect the commitment that takes? What are you thinking? Sure it's wrong. Sure it's misguided, deluded, and morally reprehensible. What the heck does that have to do with it being courageous too? These aren't demons any more than GWB is. Bill Maher had it right - suicide bombers have to have more courage than guys who stand on their ships miles from the target and send a missile to destroy the general area where they think their target is.

What you need to bear in mind though, is that having some respect for one's enemy should be an aid to defeating him, not an impediment. Blinding yourself to the courage of these people doesn't do a damn thing but ensure you will be continually shocked and blindsided by their actions. Recognize it without being defeated, and you can begin to outmaneuver them.

Sarcasm is something I am familiar with. I find that it doesn't work all that well in this forum, unless you're <b>ustwo</b>, and even he miscalculates and undermines himself with it from time to time.

Now that's something to keep in mind.

It doesn't surprise me at all that he's using a national tragedy to further his political career

George Bush's entire history consists of fucking up whatever he's involved with, yet personally gaining from it.

I think "THEY" would prefer that the whole world not be united against "THEM". Therefore, having the Great Divider in the White House is to "THEIR" advantage. I'm sure "THEY'D" like to keep it that way for another 4 years.

The majority of the planet's population feels that George Bush is the single biggest threat to peace in the world - it sure takes the heat off of the <i>real</i> bad guys.
If Kerry is elected, he'll make peace with the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the rest of the U.N. Then - and only then - can the world concentrate a united effort on the War on Terror.


But that's just my opinion - your misconceptions may vary. :)

Although I agree with the sentiment that it is important to study all the reasons why terrorists are after us, I think it is ridiculous to believe that some can be negotiated with. This is waffling. Once you start to negotiate, people realize that they can get anything they want if they just threaten to do something crazy enough. There is no compromise in a suicide bombers mind. Is there? I mean really. Terrorism is not a form of negotiation or compromise, it is the result of a breakdown and complete dismissal of political means to acheive goals. If you can catch these causes long before they turn into terror, then compromise can and has been acheived, however, once terror is something that a group is willing to resort to, they have shown they no longer have the will to compromise and have committed suicide both figuratively and in many cases literally.

Sometimes you just NEED NewsMax...

Well isn't that just dandy? The democrats are afraid of this issue and will do ANYTHING to bring it off the table.

I agree that you can't negotiate with terrorists. But there is definitely an inclination to paint everyone with a broad "terrorist" brush in this administration.

And we know that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" means the same thing, it is just a different perspective - "ie the French Resistance in WWII are freedom fighters, the IRA are terrorists..."

No they are NOT the same thing.

IF you target civilians for the purpose of scaring the shit out of them and breaking their will to continue the struggle (or just because you want to), it is a terrorist act.

Terrorist act: Blowing up a Pizza Parlor, a full bus, a party.

Sometimes civilians can be killed by 'freedom fighters' but they are not the target of the attack.

I wouldn't entirely disagree with you there. I think the president is pretty good at dealing with the "terrorists" but maybe not-so-good at finding "terrorists" before they become "terrorists".

That bashes Peaceful Tomorrow, but does nothing to respond to the issue: Bush promised NOT to politicize 9/11, Yet his first official action in the campaign does just that. Regardless of who calls him out on it, he still needs to own up to it.

No, taking care of Bin Laden in the first place when he had the chance. After the embassys being blown to bits in Africa, after the USS Cole, etc.

They are not the same. The French Resistance was fighting a nation that invaded their peaceful country. The IRA is using terrorism to force their agenda in a peaceful country. The French didn't randomly blow up innocent citizens. The IRA blows up innocent citizens at random.

What are you talking about?

Terrorism has been going on for decades, but terrorists only recently changed their targets from "hard" targets to "soft" ones.

Sparhawk summed up my argument to this better than I possibly could have.

it didn't work when bush administration gave the taliban 43 million to support their reign in afganistan in early 2001. which of course was because the taliban outlawed opium production once they got there. but that would bring this whole issue full circle back to the war on drugs...

ok. clinton probably messed up there. but how is that an issue now? because clinton is running for president again? what should be an issue is how bush administration removed all of the clinton administration's efforts that were put in place to fix the mistake you already mentioned.


back on topic of 9/11 ad... the fact that he used it doesnt bother me too much. what does bother me is the hipocrasy of how he said earlier he wouldn't politicize it, so he's basically going back on what he said. most ppl call that lying. of course by now i'm rather used to the bush administration lying about everything so its not surprising.

Which words gave you trouble. I'm sorry but this is pretty obvious. And define 'recently' was the Israeli olympic team a 'hard target'?

I'm speaking outside of administration lines. I'm talking about in general. I agree with Sparhawks argument but I don't think it was against what I said. I'm just saying that you can't negotiate with terrorists. Whether or not Bush is painting terrorist on everybody's face is beside the point. I'm speaking simply about terrorism not necessarily Bush's "terrorism".

Fair enough, then let's get particular. I agree that you can't negotiate with al-Quaida, and yet there is the Kurdish Terrorist group in Northern Iraq that we did come to an agreement with, and which is turning around to bite us.

But this was all brought up in relation to North Korea, and, by extension, the Axis of Evil. These are not terrorist regimes; they are merely regimes America doesn't like (for all sorts of good reasons), and which George Bush particularly hates (for not such good reasons). Now, I am not saying that none of them support terrorism - Iran certainly does, and Iraq might have indulged in what amounted to cheerleaderism as relates to that nasty little war in Israel. (When both sides target innocent civilians, is it still terrorism, or is it just a particularly ugly war?) But North Korea? I don't think so. And supporting terrorism is something that can be negotiated away, maybe. Certainly worth a shot, and probably cost a lot less than $87 biliion plus whatever it acually cost to prosecute the latest spasm in Iraq.

Further, I think a large proportion of those who might ally themselves with al-Quaida because al-Quaida has successfully made us afraid (and very, very angry, and they will in time learn, when there is someone in power of a mind to quit shilly shallying around with pissant dictators and do the necessary on them, was most unwise; They don't market that last part, though -) aren't really so much with the program as along for the ride. Find them, negotiate with them, find what their gripes are and solve what we can of them (with Israel specifically off the table), and we have a natural source of human intelligence. This is something we desparately need in the Muslim world, and something we have been sadly lacking for as long as I have been alive anyway.

Kids need to come out of the bath now, but that's pretty much what I wanted to say anyway.

IMO - The ads are fine. We need to show 911 pictures 300X a day until they are burnt into our brains.

Using footage of happenings during your term in office is not distasteful. The act of 911 was distasteful, using footage is not. It is a brief history lesson for those of us that seemed to forget.

I spent time on alert in South Korea. When "things" happen on that border, people freak out. That is not a situation to be taken lightly.

Beating Bush up for 911 is juvenile. Yes it happened on his watch. It could have happened on anyones watch. What I believe is more important is how he is handling it.

We will someday be out of Iraq and Afganistan. The debt from these will be paid for in time. Life goes on. .... ..til we run out of oil.

How does the deaths of 3000 people make Bush a better president? If he wan't to talk about how he delt with 9/11 then fine. Show pictures of Afganistan or him throwing the pitch at the baseball game, fine. But showing the attack and the dead bodies has nothing to do with him being reelected. Its just a cheap trick to pull at the heart strings of voters. I fail to see the connection that just because he was president when it happened that it makes him a better choice.

I'd sure looooveee to have 9/11 burnt into my brain (sarcasm)

Dwelling on it means the terrorists win - they've affected you enough to change your thinking, to publicize their cause.

No that doesn't mean you ignore it, but i don't think at all we need to dwell on it - in fact, i think its tough to say people have forgotten 9/11 because in truth, most Americans have a low memory and attention span anyways.

What do I think of showing images of 9/11? I think its a nice try but its the wrong thing - why show images of what happened when instead one should show what was done in RESPONSE to the event.

It means absolutely nothing to me to show an intelligence blunder

I see you on here going on about our destruction and need for protection and I agree with you to a certain extent. I think all Clinton's work to protect us was not followed on by current administration.

Furthermore I must point out something which relates to the quote above...
...
These same people who hit us on 9-11, the so called people linked to Iraq could have killed millions that horrible day, yet they did not. So dont take your GWB justifications too far.

Is there anyone out there who really thinks that talking about 9/11 during this election should be "off limits"? IMO it is not about whether we should discuss it, but how we discuss it. I said it earlier, I have no qualms with the Bush reelection campaign bringing up 9/11, it is too important of an event to be left out of the discussion. I think, however, that it is a bit of a tightrope and they need to be careful and "compassionate" when they bring up 9/11 - especially the images. I say edit out the image of the firefighters carrying the flag-draped corpse (this will take about 30 minutes in an edit room) and get on with talking about what they did. Bush handled the crisis well, and should get points for that (it finally made him president in the minds of many) he also has to face the fact that many believe his followthrough in the wake of the crisis has been haphazard, poorly thought out and overly ideological. There is the real debate about 9/11.

http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/

Such a joke those Video clips.

The same clips could have been commercials for Thigh master and Total Gym... At the end: "You just have to try yourself..."
Running for a president shouldn't be such a circus and acting.
To me it's just disgusting to make it such a business.
Zero dignity.

There is another way to see the ads other than see that Bush is taking advantage of 9/11. Could these images be taken in the context of remembering that tragic day? Could they be showing in a light of respect? Yes they can.

There are many different ways this ad can be construed. Is it the general opinion that Bush can't mention 9/11 in any way shape or form? No matter what he does, someone will always find fault with it.

Glad

I'm just going to jump in here quick and toss in my $0.02...I voted Bush in 2000, but I've not been happy with the way the country has been run. I feel he handled 9/11 very well, and I'd say Iraq was probably inevitable at some point or another. However, i didnt agree with tax cuts, I don't agree with the pending medicare bills that will allow drug companies to charge whatever they want for Rx meds, I'm not happy with his treatment of the enviroment (namely rejecting the Kyoto protocol) amongst other things. I plan to vote Kerry.

I've just now watched the ads for the first time and was suprised. From what it sounded like on the news, and from some posts here Bush was loading the ads with carnage and bodies and everything else. The images were subtle but were still there to remind us all of what happened. I think they are appropriate, and if he wants to use it for his campeign, then go right ahead. I still plan to vote Kerry in '04...

Yes, frankly this has gotten WAY overstated and overplayed. I also commend and thank you for your support of Senator Kerry.

Kerry used 9/11 images in an add he ran in Iowa. Its just a media smear of Bush, what else is new.

Damn liberal media.;)