03-04) 05:10 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials
using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage
of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public
policy and the war on terror.

Some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Bush for
airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and for the
president's political gain.

"With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the
vast majority of the American people will as well," Karen Hughes, a
Bush campaign adviser, told "The Early Show" on CBS. "September 11th
was not just a distant tragedy. It's a defining event for the future
of our country. ... Obviously, all of us mourn and grieve for the
victims of that terrible day, but September 11 fundamentally changed
our public policy in many important ways, and I think it's vital that
the next president recognize that."

The first three ads, unveiled Wednesday at campaign headquarters in
suburban Washington, will run on broadcast channels in about 80
markets in 18 states, most of which are expected to be critical to the
election, and nationwide on select cable networks.

"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," Monica
Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers, told the New York
Daily News for its Thursday editions. "It is unconscionable."

Two of the spots show the destruction at the World Trade Center and
include an American flag flying amid the debris. They also feature
images of firefighters working through the wreckage.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," said
Firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270. "The image of
firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for
politics."

The ads do not mention Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry,
focusing instead on improving Bush's image after criticism by
Democrats in recent months.

"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front
of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter perished on
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."

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event. The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining
event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think
it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl
Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way
of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution.

I wonder how the liberals felt about the Sedition Act of 1918, and FDR's
Executive Order 9066 signed in 1942...AT THAT TIME?

In times of war and national crisis, our nation has a history (and our
leaders a responsibility) of reigning in the rights of American citizens for
our own safety.

However, the Patriot Act was done to undo the wrongs set by years of rulings
by activist judges who tried to make laws from the bench.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining
event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the
future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think
it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl
Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our
way
of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution.

I wonder how the liberals felt about the Sedition Act of 1918, and FDR's
Executive Order 9066 signed in 1942...AT THAT TIME?

In times of war and national crisis, our nation has a history (and our
leaders a responsibility) of reigning in the rights of American citizens
for
our own safety.

However, the Patriot Act was done to undo the wrongs set by years of
rulings
by activist judges who tried to make laws from the bench.

As opposed to an inactivist judge? I think that's synonymous with a corpse.

NOYB wrote:
I wonder how the liberals felt about the Sedition Act of 1918, and FDR's
Executive Order 9066 signed in 1942...AT THAT TIME?

A number of them hated it... along with a number of conservatives.
Please also note that those acts were eventually overturned.

Please also note that Republicans mostly disliked FDR, and the
right-wing branch of the GOP actively hated and undermined him, and
spread the most awful rumors they could think of. Some were outright
Nazi sympathizers.

If you really wanted to drum up ridicule for BushCo and the neocons, you
might google up a few exapmles and hold them up as praiseworthy
patriots... not that I'm trying to give you advice how best to achieve
your goals, Comrade


However, the Patriot Act was done to undo the wrongs set by years of rulings
by activist judges who tried to make laws from the bench.

Wow, now here is a classic. First, you obviously feel the Patriot Act
should be a permanent addition to the American legal scene (or should we
say, a permanent subtraction from the Constitution). Secondly, you are
again displaying that wonderful hypocrisy and the strong double-standard
that are the hallmark of the BushCo cheerleaders. Not long ago you were
smirking about activist judges making law from the bench, saying how
great it. Only it was about abortion then.

After giving up on John H, how comforting to see that you're still as
amusing as ever, Nobby!

DSK

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense? Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?
Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense? Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?
Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

John H

Searching contrainer ships is a lot different from carving away at the
Constitutional rights of citizens, but I wouldn't expect a d.f. like you
to appreciate the difference.

"John H" wrote in message
...

I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense?

"Homeland defense" is too broad a term. But, it suits the suits nicely
because most citizens are too lazy to tweaze the term apart into its
different elements. Just because we need to secure our cargo ports more
effectively (since they are barely secured at all) doesn't mean we have to
give the police Orwellian powers. They are two different aspects of the same
program.

Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?

I have no idea if Harry said that. But the fact is that until voices were
raised last summer, virtually NOTHING was being done about securing cargo
ports. From what I've read, there's still next to nothing being done,
compared with all the big ideas that were floated in the months after 9/11.
However, last week's news mentioned that the CG has been authorized to crack
down on traffic to & from Cuba. The government spokesperson said it was part
of the homeland security effort. Call me crazy, but it sounds more like
pandering to Cuban voters in an election year. That should go far in
protecting us from them pesky A-Rabs.

At least someone woke up recently and has provided a bunch of feds in boats
to patrol the harbors here in Rochester. With enough dramamine, you can
cruise from Canada to here unseen in almost any weather. Most days, it's a
cakewalk. Wait...I remember....it was Louise Slaughter, our Dem
congresswoman. She nagged the appropriate parties until they woke up.

Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

Warning - cynicism ahead: How can that be? We've been shooting at them for
the past year.