"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists"

[Q]

New GOP Ad: "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists"

- This new ad for Bush* and the Republican party was shown this morning on CSPAN. The tone of this ad should settle all doubt about which issue Bush* will run on in 2004.

- TERROR, war and fear will be the centerpiece of the 2004 campaign for the Republicans. Although many of you already knew this...it could give the Democratic party a heads up in preparing their own campaigns.

- How can the Democrats best prepare to campaign against terror, war and fear?

- The answer may be to attack Bush* on his own turf and expose the truth about 9-11 as he remains the most vulnerable on this issue.

- What say you?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Attacking the iraqi terrorists?

It's like they use terrorists as boogie monsters. Totally pandering to people's irrational fear.

Be more afraid of being killed in a car crash than terrorist attack. Cmon people.

[Q]

3. This is a heads up...giving us an insight...

...into the kind of tactics the Bushies plan to use in 2004.

- We need to find a way to use the bogus war on terrorism AGAINST him. I believe the best way to do this is expose the truth about 9-11 and how Bush* DIDN'T protect the US. That he was asleep at the switch as terrorists attacked. That he KNEW there could be an attack and did nothing...not even a warning to the airlines.

[Q]

2. Campaign issue: Bush* ISN'T attacking the terrorists:

- Case in point: bin Laden, Saddam and the Antrax Killer are still at large.

[buycitgo]

8. exactly! HUGE holes in that ad

big enough to fly an airplane through

oops

and how bout that picture of Ed Gillespie at the end?

what's that supposed to prove...that Bush had nothing to do with it?

or a lavage to Gillespie's huge, bloated, swollen ego?

that guy is REALLY insane, btw

dems should seize on this add, tying Iraq to the phony war on terror, just as you said.

pound it home on the fact that we are WAY less safe, more exposed since we've occupied Iraq

all they have to do is say that we could have used a FRACTION of the TWO HUNDRED BILLION we've spent on Iraq (lord knows how much that figure really is) going finding/eliminating the worst of the real terrorists.

also, they should point out how there's now a never-ending font of new terrorists springing up by the day, as a result of our actions, and idiot boy's intemperate remarks at every turn.

they should also just run quote after quote--clip after clip of ponyboy's idiocies--just let the voters know how badly scrambled his brain is.

Letterman is doing his PATRIOTIC DUTY, every single day, along these lines. I tape the first half hour of his show to catch his Bush clips of the day, and his Bush joke that isn't a joke.

dems should wise up and watch Letterman/Stewart for inspiration

pugs "beat" Gore by concentrating on his personal "flaws," and beating them to death, aided and abetted by the handmaidens in the government media.

here's hoping dems' testicles drop down from their inguinal canals, and they start using the weapons at their disposal

[Peachhead22]

18. No repubs

We're "attacking" the "President" for NOT attacking the terrorists.

Iraq just took away, and continues to take away, resources and money that could've been used in Afghanistan, and on Homeland Security in the U.S.

We're "attacking" him for creating MORE terrorists.

Not everyone fighting us in Iraq is Al Queda. Most of them were ordinary Iraqis before we killed their friends and families and gave them 150,000 targets conviniently close to their homes. Many terrorists outside Iraq oppose the U.S. because they think the U.S. wants to take over the world, ignore the opinions of the world community, marginalize their religious beliefs and culture, rape the natural resources of their countries. Bush is going out of his way to reinforce those fears. Many of the "terrorists" he's attacking are ones that he has created. Even if he kills 90% of the ones newly created, that's not progress.

Bush isn't draining the swamp, he's breeding alligators.

[radfringe]

20. "Campaign issue: Bush* ISN'T attacking the terrorists:"

GOOD ONE!

might I be so bold as to add:

Bush* ISN'T attacking the terrorists: he's attacking Americans who disagree with him....

meanwhile: Critics of the pResident will be gagged with the flag

[conservdem]

22. Hopefully we will capture or kill these three today or very soon.

So IMO Dems need to have a better campaign issue than claiming "Bush ISN'T attacking the terrorists:"

[pansypoo53219]

29. seems he is doing a better job

creating more terrorism.

[Turbineguy]

4. To paraphrase a Great Democrat:

We have nothing to fear except Bush himself!

[radwriter0555]

5. What terrorists is bush attacking? Show me ONE single dang nabbed

terrorist please?

Ain't no terrorists in iraq. Those people are defending their homes and families.

[Q]

6. But this is a rallying cry for the Right to get behind Bush*...

...and notice it emphasizes those who are ATTACKING BUSH*?

- This will be the theme of the Republican campaign in 2004. That is...we're UNFAIRLY 'attacking' Bush* when all he's trying to do is protect us from the terrorists.

- Don't think he's really trying to protect us from terrorists? Prove it. (Expect no help from the American Media.)

[DeepModem Mom]

7. M. Dowd today on the Iowa ad, and coming campaign of fear:

In his Hobbesian gloom — "Fear and I were born twins," Hobbes said — Dick Cheney thought an Iraq whupping would make surly young anti-American Arab men scuttle away. Instead, it stoked their ire.

James Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode wrote in The Financial Times last week that the Bush crew has snuffed the optimism of F.D.R., Ronald Reagan and Bush père: "Fear has been used as a basis for curtailing freedom of expression and for questioning legal rights long taken for granted. It has crept into political discourse and been used to discredit patriotic public servants. Ronald Reagan's favorite image, borrowed from an earlier visionary, of America as `a shining city on a hill' has been unnecessarily dimmed by another image: a nation motivated by fear and ready to lash out at any country it defines as the source of a gathering threat."

Instead of a shining city, we have a dark bunker.

But the only thing we really have to fear is fearmongering itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23DOWD.html

[Q]

9. But this type of campaign is perfect for Bush*...

...because it focuses on THOSE ATTACKING BUSH* instead of his success in the 'war on terrorism'.

- What are those horrible Democrats doing attacking Bush* when he's only doing his best to protect us? Democrats will once again be made the scapegoat for Bush's* failures. Expect to be called 'Bush* haters' and be accused of 'blaming America first'.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Of course...

rather than run on the miserable record, run on attacking those who attack the miserable record.

It's the only thing they have, and some will fall for it.

[LeahMira]

26. Plenty of "terrorists"...

... that Bush has not attacked.

There are dictators in the world who treat their own people at least as badly as Saddam Hussein treated Iraqis.

List a few of them, along with numbers of their own people dying or dead over the past eleven or twelve years, and the non-response of the Bush administration to them... or even in Central America, for instance, the U. S. continuing funding and support of military juntas operating under a dictator who murders his own people. Also, a list of the WMDs and nuclear weapons possessed by these dictators (none) along with a list of the WMDs etc. possessed by Saddam Hussein (none). Also, list the "resolution" of all of these nasty folk, which is that they are all "at large." Maybe even say why we don't attack them, which might be any number of "reasons" including that they have something we need and we are getting it, or they don't have anything we need at all.

[LeahMira]

36. Could it be...

...because it focuses on THOSE ATTACKING BUSH* instead of his success in the 'war on terrorism'.

Sounds to me as if some Republicans are... WHINING!!!

[buycitgo]

13. I LOATHE Dowd, but those are wonderfully-expressed sentiments

the reason I loathe her is obvious to anyone who read her smears against WJC/Hillary, and, especially, Gore, during the selection campaign (sorry for all the commas, but, I think they're correctly placed)

they cannot win if they allow people to burrow out of their holes, raise their heads, and begin to think for themselves.

both Hitler and Goerring have been quoted here on how easy it is to cow a fearful populace, and it's working only too well up to this point.

let's hope Dowd keeps this up, instead of turning her poison quiver towards whomever the dems choose to opposed the DINC.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. He's attacked Afghanistan and Iraq...

but not terrorist one.

Under Clinton, we got the first WTC bombers and McVeigh.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia already arrested some of their bombers.

Shrub got some poor slob with a shoe bomb, one conspirator they can't figure out how to try, thousands of detainees, even more thousands of deportees, two wars, and not one real terrorist.

We are not getting our money's worth with these assholes. Any police department with their record would be fired.

[Q]

12. But Bush's* lack of accomplishments will NOT be the issue...

...we need to take a hint from this Republican political ad. Their entire campaign will revolve around those ATTACKING Bush*.

[Peachhead22]

21. "Some people..."

"Some people are attacking the Democrats for pointing out how it can be done better."

"Some people are attacking the Democrats for refusing to cower in fear, for refusing to give up our civil liberties, for refusing to give up reasoned debate".

[LeahMira]

28. As it...

... no one attacked President Clinton! And were they called "traitors" or what?

[LeahMira]

37. If it's about us, then we need to stand up and be seen!

Their entire campaign will revolve around those ATTACKING Bush*.

So wasn't there some famous patriot who said if this be treason, make the best of it. (Sorry, the memory is the first thing to go!)

Anyhow, hit 'em in the face with it. Damn right we're going to attack a person who is trashing our Constitution and the international rule of law. And for sure the people tossed tea into the Boston Harbor were not wearing Brooks Brothers suits and consulting Emily Post for manners lessons at the time. Patriots these days wear denim jeans and we're darn proud of it!

[soup]

14. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago?

might be a good question to ask next September.

[Q]

16. Answer: how do we KNOW if we're safer?

- The GOPers could indeed say we're safer because we haven't been attacked again since 9-11.

- This is why we MUST prove that Bush* failed this country on 9-11 and afterward.

- Democrats have the winning issues...but will they use them at the risk of exposing the whole truth about the most corrupt US government in history?

[conservdem]

25. I feel safer now than I did on the afternoon of 911.

But, I do not think the Bush admin has done enough on security.
IMO we need be able to explain how we do it better.

[robbedvoter]

15. Clark's smackdown:

"Gen. Wesley K. Clark said in a statement, "I'm not critical of
President Bush because he's attacking terrorists; I'm critical of the
president because he is NOT attacking terrorists."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/politics/campaigns/23ADS.html?ex=1070168400&en=c69f526d4403e13f&ei=5062

[Q]

17. Clark...or any other Democrat...

...will be called partisan and 'Bush* haters' unless they're backed up by the whole Democratic party. This is the danger we face. We either come together and attack Bush* with the truth...or put our country at risk with another four years of corruption and warmongering.

[wegottem]

23. Any one will do

Any one will do, but we have to have one for christs sake lets get one. We have nine clowns trying to outdo each other. We must have 1(one) and we must support him or her or all is lost. I predict we have 4 more years of the nit wit, and then maybe no more country. How in the hell can those people not see what a jerk he is.

[jumptheshadow]

31. This is why we need Clark on the ticket

He has been assertively addressing this very issue since Day One. And he has the credibility to do it. The RW knows this. That's why they have trotted out the generals (who would be their primary weapon against Clark in the general election, perhaps forcing Clark to get a whole-hearted endorsement from Clinton, his commander-in-chief. The RW wants to link him to Clinton and is playing a real chess game here).

Our candidate choice is critical in this primary. The RW is looking to shred Dean on this issue. He would fight back, but if he comes across as too angry then he will lose the election. Clark, Kerry and (holding my nose because of that Rose Garden picture)Gephardt are much better logistical choices as candidates. DUers may not like the IWR votes of the latter two but both men will be able to deflect this long-anticipated Republican attack tactic with it.

I agree with you that the Democratic party has to unite on this. That means that if Clark, Kerry or Gerphardt don't get the nomination they have to travel tirelessly to attack the ludicrous fallacies in the Republican allegations.

However, if any of these men are not the ultimate candidate then don't expect the media to give them much air time. And then, unfortunately, we'll be looking at one or two Bush Supreme Court appointees, the wholesale dismantling of Social Security andMedicare, more grievous attacks on our civil liberties, etc., etc., etc.

[Tellurian]

19. The Simplist of ALL Memes are Bible Quotes:

Sure he's vulnerable about 9/11-

But whos heard anything about that?

A sure thing is repeating words everyone has heard all their lives.

Bush purports being a holy Christian...

well, let's take him to task.

"He Who Lives By the Sword; Dies By the Sword."

and many other quotes...synapes not firing this early...

Another possible ad, should be something referring to the Veterans..

"You Ask Us to Die for You; Fundraising Takes Precedent Over Militery Funerals."

It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention cutting Veteran's Benefits; and curtailment of Hospital Services!

Woo-Hoo-- so many typos; so many edits. <sorry> <gg>

[Snellius]

24. This ad demonstrates how divorced from reality Bush is

Despite Bush thinking he's the "Boy Genius" - which isn't difficult compared to Bush - Karl Rove's terror tactics can be quite stupid. He resurrects the terrorist bogeyman, but at the end of the ad it raises another specter even more frightening, what they're calling "pre-emptive self-defense." (followed by a dorky, full-screen shot of Ed Gillispie). It typifies the Bush response to terrorism perfectly: to fight an eternal, ever-present enemy by lashing out anywhere and everywhere fear may hide.

[Tellurian]

27. Powerful Statement:

a picture is worth....

[Silverhair]

34. Very bad psychology. Stupid.

The image depends upon the sign to get it's message across. If the sign is not seen, then all you see is one of America's cherished images being executed. It looks like the protester is himself hanging American in efigey. The visual image is that the protester wants to kill America. Only the sign tells you that he is lamenting the loss of liberty.

[kentuck]

30. He also said: "...a horror like none we have ever seen..."

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Nashyra]

32. I think it speaks volumes about Clark on the ticket

whether on the top or bottom. A comparison chart with his give aways on one side to the rich, corporatations and donors with his failures opposite. Tax cuts for the wealthy-No Osama Bin Laden
Halliburton contracts No Saddam Hussien
Corporate tax incentives 3 million jobs lossed
Iraq invasion More Terrorism
9-11 leadership Wasted goodwill of the world
and 9-11 coverup
There is so much and it could be so easy, there should be a moveon organization to bombard the media and get those in aarp who are pissed to help a letter writing campaign to the media, same letter over and over and over again to every outlet of media anyone can think of. I think all the candidates websites should also promote this idea. The media is their "free" artillery chasing the chimp wherever he goes.

[OneTwentyoNine]

33. Same ole' same ole'-- Iraq's=terrorists War=JUST-- now move along

Same old mantra that was invented on 9/11 after the military was told to stand down to let as much damage and death occur as possible. Funny,Chimpboy came out and even admitted the Iraqi's weren't the 9/11 terrorists but that sure as hell isn't stopping them from running the same shit in TV ads.

David


"Have I said lately how much I hate these people??"

Mike Malloy

[alcuno]

35. This is a REALLY weak ad.

I thought it would be a lot better, from an advertising perspective.

[maggrwaggr]

38. can't go on the defensive. Must be on the offensive

To even respond to this ad is futile.

Make your own ad, attacking president for FAILING TO PROTECT the american people on 9/11.

And for failing to protect our troops in Iraq.

And for failing to find Osama and Hussein.

[Iverson]

39. "Some people say there's a bear in the woods ..."

Anyone who remembers this bit of Republican propaganda from the '80s knows what to expect and what to do.