new right wing meme on bushco using 9-11 in ads

[bobbieinok]

I heard this on Neal Boortz...

...people want to forget about 9-11 and live their lives

...caller working at an airport: he put up a Christmas tree with pictures of some who died and some firefighters --- an airline demanded it be taken down: found it offensive

(by implication plays on the right's anger over people finding anti-muslim signs/comments offensive)

Boortz: we must not forget; Bush should use many shots of WTC, pentagon

claim that objections to 9-11 in ads is because 'people have forgotten and don't want to be reminded'

totally slides over fact that we remember all too well and are furious that W is using it for political gain

[arcane1]

1. 9-11? What's that????

:shrug:

how fucking STOOPID would we have to be to 'forget' 9-11???

No, what they mean is that we are less afraid, and not as desperate, and thus willing to even consider supporting a complete failure like George W Bush.

"never forget how scared you were that day, when you were willing to stand behind the Chimp"


"people have forgotten" my ass...

Fuck you, Boortz :grr:

[DulceDecorum]

2. I am starting to think

that we are actively being PUSHED into voting for Kerry.

"Managing the outrage is more important
than managing the hazard."
--Hill & Knowlton's Thomas Buckmaster

This entire thing smacks of a Public Relations program where we are being outraged and manipulated
"Good cop, bad cop" style
by the two Bonesmen.

You have no choice.

[markus]

3. Our response should be

an add reminding voters that Clinton warned Bush about OBL. They were warned about airplanes as weapons. They did nothing.

If they want the images on TV, I say fine. This is war.

TITLE: They Should Have Known

The Clinton team warned Bush about AQ and OBL <smiling video of OBL walking with cane>

They knew about the Cole <video or still>

and the African embassies <video or still>

And they were warned that <first plan strikes>
planes might be used as weapons.


He did nothing. <second plane strikes>

I haven't decided yet how it ends. I think it's a stand-alone attack add (DNC or MoveOn.org) so it should end on a:

Mr. President, we need to know why this happened.

We deserve to know it before November.

[tom_paine]

6. Great idea. Where you gonna find a Party with the balls to run it?

I wish I was being facetious instead cold, dead serious.

It is looking more and more like Dean and Clark taught the Democrats NOTHING.

I am still supporting Kerry all the way with my $$$$ and my efforts, but I must confess I am not initially liking what I am seeing in the field of aggressively challenging Bushevik lies, framing, memes, innoculations (the psychological term, not the immunological one), etc.

[Skittles]

9. it should end with Bush reading a kiddie book in a classroom

after being notified of the attack.

[arcane1]

10. BINGO! Perfect ending...

maybe also show that quote from Bush last year saying he doesn't think that much about OBL, he isn't a 'priority'

[Kikosexy2]

4. Didn't we see this coming...

the Busheviks are going to milk 9/11 for all its worth! Despite the
fact that he and his administration did nothing to prevent it--where did that Aug. 6, 2001 memo end up?? How high was terrorism on Bushie's priorities when he came to office??--just ask Condi Rice who said "It's not a priority". So it doesn't surprise me at all this repulsive administration is going to "politicize" 9/11. With the Republican National Convention being held in NYC come Sept. that just about says it all--downright tacky! I hope New Yorkers come out in droves to protest the Chimp and his minions come Sept.

[Mountainman]

5. Where is the office of disinformation?

Where are these talking points generated and how do they get to all the talk shows simultaneously? You tune into 3 or 4 wing nut talk shows and they all have the same talking points.

I wish we had a mole who would let us in on the talking points distribution list.

[markses]

7. Just three of the reasons why Boortz's argument doesn't work

1) It is not that people don't want to be reminded. It is that people don't want anyone to profit from the event in a personal or partisan manner. Boortz's analogy to the airport worker is completely wrong. The airport worker gained nothing personally from displaying the pictures on the Christmas tree. In this sense, the objections to the airport worker may have been wrong. The Bush ads, on the other hand, seek personal and political gain from the images, from the public memory of the event. They seek to derive a profit and an advantage from the event. That is what people are objecting to. Not the use of the images itself, but their use for personal profit. In this sense, Bush's ads are more analagous to people seling WTC items (say, a matchbook from Windows on the World) on eBay. So,

Counterargument (there are no "memes," and never have been): Bush ads are like selling Windows on the World matchbooks on eBay. A tasteless act that uses public tragedy for private gain.

2) The people opposing the ads are the only people who must keep the memory of the event alive. Are we to believe that the people opposing the ads - 9/11 families and the firefighters unions - are the ones who want us to "just forget about it," the ones who "don't want to be reminded." The claim is absurd on its face. Of course, Mr. Boortz has to shift into registers of severe abstraction (the liberals and wishy-washy's don't want to be reminded) in order to finesse this rather obvious point: Thos opposing the ads are precisely the torch-bearers and public memory-keepers of 9/11. What they oppose is the use of the memory, not - obviously - the memory itself.

Finally, I'd like to comment on an O'Reilly statement from last night. He compared Bush's use of 9/11 imagery to John kerry's use of his Vietnam War experience. Nonsense. First, Kerry was actually in combat in Vietnam; Bush did little of anything on 9/11 - and certainly wasn't in any real danger. Second, Kerry has not shown fottage of Vietnam in any of his commercials, as far as I know. he has, rather, demonstrated his links with veterans groups, which is a social fact of the present, not an invocation of a past. Finally, no veterans' group - for rather obvious reasons - have objected to Kerry's invocation of his status as a combat veteran, whereas in Bush's case, it is precisely the most affected parties (families and first-responders) who have objected. CBS tried to trot out Bernard Kerik as evidence that "other first responders approve of the ads," neglecting to mention that Kerik is but an individual and management, whereas those speaking out are frontline union members and other organized groups. It's a laughable comparison on its face.

[MikeG]

8. The way to neutralize Boortz is the same as Homer Simpson.

MMM. Doughnuts!!!

[kentuck]

11. And we can't let them forget that.....

that Bush was asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened. The buck stops at the Oval Office, no matter how infrequent he visits there.