new bush add

[caitycaity]

I've heard it repeatedly from the left. It is more important to some that a president can speak well. I'll take the doer; you can have the talker.

i want a doer and a talker. is that so much to ask for?

 

[DisFan2]

Wow.

If it is possible to put aside partisanship for a moment, I really do believe that the man is sincere. We first saw that emotion at his Inauguration, when he turned to his parents - I don't think anyone would argue those tears in his eyes were contrived or scripted. Nor was the moment shortly after September 11 when a reporter asked him about his meetings with the families of the victims - twice he had to stop, mid-sentence and you could see he was fighting back tears, struggling to regain composure.

Love him or hate him, he wears his emotions on his sleeve.

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

Why is this such a big deal? Haven't politicians been kissing babies for decades? Isn't this the same kind of deal?

My first thought after seeing the ad was that it was a defensive move in response to the charge that Bush lacks compassion, and the specific example that came to mind was uproar over Laura Bush's "lack of compassion" for the woman who interrupted her speech this summer.

After reading some of the replies on this thread it seems evident that if Laura Bush had hugged the woman she would have been accused of using the victim for political gain.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Just saw the new ad, very powerful, it actually gave me goosebumps.

BTW the father AND daughter both speak in the Ad so obviously they approve of the message. The Ad even provided a link to the girls website telling her story.

 

[dumboiu]

Originally posted by cardaway
What is sadder? The ad, or the target audience?

I have to agree with you here............

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by shortbun
Hey the moment was genuine. Using it for politcal gain cancels
any good it had.

Ok, then tell your guy to stop running the ads where the swiftboat mate of his tells the story of being rescued by Kerry.

Same deal.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by caitycaity
don't you think feeling and healing are two different things?

Is this a typo?

 

[Island_Lauri]

"I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to."

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Island_Lauri
"I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to."

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap.

 

[Jennifer S]

I'll say - I disagree Island Lauri . Are we looking at the same President? I don't see that at all.

 

[CLynnJones]

Originally posted by Island_Lauri
"I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to."

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

ITA Island Laurie. You articulated what many of us feel. Thank You!

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Island_Lauri
"I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to."

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

Only the long lens of history will determine if Iraq was a war of choice or a war of survival.

The author is a novelist? How does that make his opinion worthy of quoting.

And he's awfully judgemental for a liberal, isn't he?

 

[PRINCESS VIJA]

Thanks for posting the link. I had heard about the ad, and was hoping to see it. I like the ad, and I am glad the girl found the strength she needed to help heal some of her pain.

 

[jimmiej]

Originally posted by shortbun
I've seen the ad several times. It portrays George Bush as
a faith healer. It appeals to those who believe in that kind
of thing. I'm sorry this young woman and so many children
lost their parents/brothers/sisters/grandparents/aunts/uncles
and friends. Anyone with a shred of human decency would
have wanted to comfort this girl. For her father to parade her
as healed by George Bush is IMHO horrible.
Sorry-I don't buy it and I'd tell her father to his face.


What does it say about George Bush, Dan? I think it's
awful that they are using this as a politcal ad. It has nothing
to do with running the United States. How many others
have comforted her including her father? Should we elect them
next? We are all being bushwacked by this ad. Where was
the comfort for the woman who's son was killed in Iraq and wanted to talk to Laura Bush at the politcal event? Where is
the comfort for the children who have nothing to eat-and I see
them everyday when they get on my bus. Where is the comfort
for the children with no heat? Perhaps Mr. Bush can travel around
the country solving people's problems with a hug. We'll make
him the "SUPREME HIGH HUGGER", something that would suit
his real abilities.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap.

Can I borrow your quote for the above post? Shortbun, you are one big-time partisan!

 

[KarlaG4Kids]

goudaman,

Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed seeing the compassion that our commander and chief has.

Love your red point!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by CLynnJones
ITA Island Laurie. You articulated what many of us feel. Thank You!

she didn't write that.

 

[catsrule]

Her mom used to work where shep and I work, but we didn't know her.

 

[GaryAdams]

I've seen the ad several times. It portrays George Bush as a faith healer.

wow,i guess edwards saying if kerry were pres,christopher reeves would be walking is ok with you?

yea know shortbun it wouldnt be so bad if you werent so blinded by anyone but Bush.

i would love to know who you voted for in the primaries?
im guessing it wasnt kerry,and now your just on the bandwagon.


what gives you the right to question the girl and her family.

it if was kerry in the ad,you would be screaming if anyone questioned it at all.



i was going to repost you 2 responses about taking some time off from here, but like kerry and his plan its all just a bunch of wind.

please keep posting,i luv how you make me laugh.

btw? hows that old osama Oct suprise going for yea? lets see the election is only a couple weeks out, when is Bush gonna bring him out of hiding?

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by GaryAdams
wow,i guess edwards saying if kerry were pres,christopher reeves would be walking is ok with you?

yea know shortbun it wouldnt be so bad if you werent so blinded by anyone but Bush.

i would love to know who you voted for in the primaries?
im guessing it wasnt kerry,and now your just on the bandwagon.


what gives you the right to question the girl and her family.

it if was kerry in the ad,you would be screaming if anyone questioned it at all.



i was going to repost you 2 responses about taking some time off from here, but like kerry and his plan its all just a bunch of wind.

please keep posting,i luv how you make me laugh.

btw? hows that old osama Oct suprise going for yea? lets see the election is only a couple weeks out, when is Bush gonna bring him out of hiding?

FYI-I voted for John Kerry in the primary. I originally supported
Wesley Clark but he had given his support to Kerry by the
primary and that was good enough for me as Wesley Clark is
a very well known and educated military expert.

I don't question this young woman, I imagine she is still reeling
from those things that traumatized her. I'm very much against
her family using her as a political pawn. If she was as sick as
they say-and I don't doubt that she was-she still needs to be
protected. I would never politicize my child's recovery as some
politcal miracle. I was going to say, "Would you?" but you obviously would.

I post about 10-15 minutes per day here now that I'm working
on the election for both local and national issues. How about you? Got any idea how much time you spend here? I post
on other threads-non political ones too. Do you?

I thought Edwards statement was poorly worded. Literally, it
was pretty dumb.

Yes, anyone but Bush! Thankfully, we had several good choices
this election. I could have supported Edwards, Clark or Kerry.
For that matter, there ARE Republicans I don't hate so much
too. I liked John McCain four years ago but you guys let George
Bush and his political machine run him right out of the party.
Too bad. My DH even crossed party lines to vote for McCain in
the primary here. Yes, anyone but Bush. Yes.

Sorry, my time's up. Hope that answers your questions.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by jimmiej
Can I borrow your quote for the above post? Shortbun, you are one big-time partisan!

So you believe George Bush "healed" this young woman with
his hug and concern? Would you politicize your child like this
family has if they were this sick? I wouldn't. Never. My child
is my world and he is too precious to risk his delicate life
for an election ad. I hate that these people have done this.
Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.
I'm not the only one outraged, btw.