Outrage against the Bush Ad's Funded by......

Remember last week how the media went into a tizzy over the bush ad's and the use of 9/11 imagery? Of course you do there are around 5 or more topics on the subject running around the board. Well it seems that the massive outrage came from a small group called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows - which, the group admits, has only a few dozen members and represents relatives of no more than 1 percent of the 9/11 victims.

Oh and guess what the groups biggest sponser is.................drumroll please....................


Teresa Heinz Kerry, thats right the billionare wife of John F. Kerry. Coincidance I think not.

To hear some folks tell it, families of the 9/11 victims have risen en masse to denounce President Bush for using brief images from Ground Zero in his campaign commercials.
We have no doubt that the use of the images is appropriate - given that the president's leadership in the wake of 9/11, and his conduct of the War on Terror, are under drumbeat assault by John Kerry and the Democrats.

But now it turns out that this whole furor is driven by a tiny group that's motivated by a far-left agenda and a festering hatred of the president - and has some quite dubious financial ties.

Leading the rhetorical charge has been an outfit called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows - which, the group admits, has only a few dozen members and represents relatives of no more than 1 percent of the 9/11 victims.

More to the point, the group was formed specifically to oppose the entire War on Terror: Not just the campaign against Saddam Hussein, but also the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There is much more at the main article located www.nypost.com...

What is the minimum amount of people necessary who've had their family unit destroyed because of a murdered member needed for an outrage to be registered, in your eyes?

All I am saying and all the article is saying is that all that hoopla last week was because a group of less than 1% of all the victims was offended. The media potrayed it to be every single damn one of them for political reasons only.

doesn't this show though how the 1% is controlling a lot in this country? Look at how radio DJ's are being fined and then it is attributed back to just a few listeners being offended. MadCow was on Imus today talking about his $60,000 dollar fines levied against him because 1 man was offended.

Expect this to get much worse, I plan to complain about everything just to see what happens. Who knows, can I bring down Kerry, Bush, Howard Stern, Joe Scarbourough, Bill O'Reilly? Let's watch and see. It looks like you can, as long as you yell loud enough.

What a shame, freedom of speech and all... Gone, done, finished in America.

You are exactly right this is not a democracy in which we live in. We live in a society in which if you have the ability to yell loud you can change the course of the country.

We've had plenty of people yelling at the top of their lungs to see the meeting notes on Cheney's Energy task force & on the Bush Administrations failure surrounding the 9/11 attacks.....where's the traction?
You will have a valid point only with qualifiers.....if it's against the Bush team agenda or it's supporters, yeah, it'll be squashed.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
All I am saying and all the article is saying is that all that hoopla last week was because a group of less than 1% of all the victims was offended. The media potrayed it to be every single damn one of them for political reasons only.

Almost everything I read said "some" family members, including cnn. I'd say that would constitute into the 1% bracket, and who cares if it's 1% or 100%?
If I saw the leader of my country plastering his smug grin over an ad with the death of one of my family members for his political gain, I'd be pretty pissed off as well.
This to me has got nothing to do with being right or left wing, I wish you'd stop trying to spin it that way.

What he did was exploitation, end of story.

This whole thing was spun up by Kerry campaign and his wifes connection to a leftwing group and now some here are saying don't put spin on the story? - phah thats crap!

"Teresa Heinz Kerry, thats right the billionare wife of John F. Kerry."

Don't you mean Millionaire?

You have to remember that Bush said in public, on record, that no one should use 9/11 for political purposes.

Just what is Bush doing?

Originally posted by energy_wave
Don't you mean Millionaire?

That's right, she's worth about $5 million. Obviously BJ is very well informed.
Obviously it just goes to prove who's really distorting the facts.
Don't worry, the ad was the act of a desperate man, and the defense for this indefensible action are the acts of desperate people. Just ignore them.

Originally posted by John Nada
That's right, she's worth about $5 million. Obviously BJ is very well informed.

Obviously it just goes to prove who's really distorting the facts.
Don't worry, the ad was the act of a desperate man, and the defense for this indefensible action are the acts of desperate people. Just ignore them.

Mr. Nada,

I do apologize for the mistake on Mrs Heinz Kerry but I don't beleive any spin has been used here. No facts have been distorted. The fact is that an organization that receives most of its support from Mrs Heinz Kerry is the reason why the media is jumping up and down about the Bush Ads.

What spin are you talking about? Put up or shut up plan and simple.

BTW if a member of your family died in the 9/11 attack and you were pissed you have the right to complain just like any other US citizen. But you are one of the 280 Million people living in the United States the way that it has been splashed acrossed the media every single person in the country is offended by the Ads.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
But you are one of the 280 Million people living in the United States the way that it has been splashed acrossed the media every single person in the country is offended by the Ads.

Ok, here are some of the major news networks reports on the upset families of the ads. Please show me were it tells you it's "every single damn one of them", I employ you...

CNN

"Some relatives of those killed on 9/11 have asked President Bush to pull his new campaign commercials off the air immediately, saying they are outraged over the ads' use of imagery from the 2001 terrorist attacks."

The New York Times

"The criticism � from a firefighters union, relatives of victims...The cable and broadcast news networks featured a series of victims' relatives who thought the spots were inappropriate and others who did not."

(Those who did AND did NOT. hmmm...)

New York Daily News

"angering some 9/11 families"

The Daily Times

"Bush campaign�s use of 9/11 tragedy leaves many angry"

(This actually goes on to say that many New Yorkers were angry, but only mentions one actual family member of a victim on 9/11. Again, no mention of what you're talking about BJ).

bbc.co.uk

"Some of the families have complained that the images exploit those killed in the attacks and are in poor taste."

(again, here the bbc says "some" which implies more than one, so far so good for the 1%. We know how the BBC feel about Bush so I'm sure if they could've twisted this they would have).

TheMirror

"Firemen and relatives of victims said the September 11 atrocities should not be used for political purposes."

So here is the actual article I used for my news story. Here it mentions "families" which to mean means MORE THAN ONE, so I think that falls into the bracket of 1%.

So from looking at some of these major media outlets I fail to see how your quote "The media potrayed it to be every single damn one of them for political reasons only." holds any water. Of course if you go looking into the further in the net for small "I hate Bush" type site you may find twisting of the truth, but certainly not in the way you have put it so that's hardly the point.
And you ask me what spin? Yeah right...

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by John Nada]

In thread after thread I have witnessed the abject avoidence of "some" here to answer the question about the dubious tie to leftwing groups that the refered to 9/11 "some" "many" familiy members have (really individuals) that the media just so happened to trot out on the very morning that the Bush ad ran (implies for-thought, not reaction to) I find this to be facitious at best - leftwing pap at worst.All of them had an agenda well before the ad came out. this is well documented by now.

Teresa Heinz Kerry is worth only $5 Million?

Are you serious? What's all this pissing and moaning about her being rich?

You know Cheney made that in one year? Or freaking "country boy" Edwards for that matter. He has a $30 million dollar house! Did I read something wrong here?

Kerry is only a single digit millionaire? That's poor for a President.

TO ME, ANYONE THATS MAKING MORE THAT $100K A YEAR IS RICH...

Originally posted by CazMedia
TO ME, ANYONE THATS MAKING MORE THAT $100K A YEAR IS RICH...

Absolutely, but not quite the billionaire "I can control anything with the vast amount of money I've got" type rich.

Originally posted by Phoenix
In thread after thread I have witnessed the abject avoidence of "some" here to answer the question about the dubious tie to leftwing groups that the refered to 9/11 "some" "many" familiy members have (really individuals) that the media just so happened to trot out on the very morning that the Bush ad ran (implies for-thought, not reaction to) I find this to be facitious at best - leftwing pap at worst.All of them had an agenda well before the ad came out. this is well documented by now.

I'm not addressing it because it's hardly a surprise to me. Both sides will try anything they can, it doesn't matter who wins you're going to get screwed.

It also has plenty to do with the fact that you are so blind sided you are not willing to see it from the other side of the fence for one moment, so why should I entertain that? The answer is I wont. You're the only one twisting it in anyones favour, I don't support any side but we know which one you do so we know where you are coming from.
I am impartial and I have no agenda. If Kerry had done this I would be on his back just as much as Bush. However, you blatantly do have an agenda, and I wont entertain it.

Over and out.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by John Nada]

I wish I was rich...snff.

Mr. M