Is 9/11 an Issue?

Opinion Journal ^ | 03/05/04 | editors

[cyncooper]

Give me a break. The body is draped with a flag and is not identifiable. Are we to pretend there were no deaths?

First the complaints were about the shell of the building, now a flag-draped anonymous body who represents the reality of what happened.

It is more than appropriate. It is necessary.

[lugsoul]

Oh, so it is somehow okay as long as that dead person is anonymous? Look, if they want to show the flag-draped coffin of a Bush supporter with the consent of the family, go for it. But to use the image of a dead man with no regard for who he/she was or what they believed, or without any idea whether that person would approve or disapprove of the use of their image, is presumptuous and wrong.

[muleskinner]

9/11 is the main issue ping

[cyncooper]

Not only is it somehow OK, it is the right thing to do.

Why don't you explain exactly why it is wrong to refer to that day and show fleeting scenes of what happened.

[cyncooper]

And I'll presume that someone murdered on that day would not object to the person prosecuting the war on terror referring to their death anymore than a murder victim objects to the prosecutor showing the jury a picture of their corpse.

[cyncooper]

After all, you can always vote to "acquit", as following my analogy, vote for Kerry, if that's your bent.

[lugsoul]

If you read my post, you'd already know that what you stated is not my position. My objection has nothing to do with referring to that day. It has to do with showing someone's body - flag-draped or not. And if that person and/or his/her family has no objection to that, that's fine, too. But there is no right to use images of the dead for purposes which the dead may - or may not - condone.

[lugsoul]

Interesting presumption, as some of their families and/or co-workers have already stated to the contrary.

[Samwise]

When Democrats attack, it is called "campaigning."

When Republicans campaign, it is called "attacking."

[cyncooper]

Yet more see it my way.

[lugsoul]

As far as your analogy, it is a bit imperfect - do you think the family of a murder victim would object to a D.A. using a photo of the victim in an ad for the D.A.'s reelection campaign?

[lugsoul]

Oh, you've talked to them all?

[lugsoul]

Why not just pick images of a body which they've obtained permission to use?

[cyncooper]

How do you know they didn't? I do not think it necessary, but you presume too much.

I said "more" families see it my way, based on the facts, not having spoken with all of them.

You are not making sense.

[cyncooper]

My analogy is imperfect, but pretty apt, and I certainly do think it fitting.

The American people are being presented the "case" for re-electing George W. Bush, in these ads. Part of the reason is what happened on that day, resulting in a huge number of deaths, which are discreetly referred to (I would not object to more graphic depictions).

Now, Kerry can present his case as to why this ought not be shown, but so far, the argument is completely underwhelming. And his entire case is anti-Bush, not pro-anything. And he is using these deaths in a much more exploitive way, as I argue this cadre of talking points minions out to denounce Bush are working for the dems. And we have in fact documented that they are.

You have not shown one reason as to why the images shown in the Bush piece are inappropriate. They are completely on point and I hope they double the air play as obviously the dark side is gnashing as a vampire shown a cross.

[PigRigger]

"If 911 isn't the defining issue then the American public is dumber than I thought...."

You might be surprised with regard to how dumb the American Electorate is. The biggest impact the next POTUS will have is with regard to the WOT.

Both parties differ very little with respect to how they will handle the economy. Their are differences, but are insignificant when compared to how they will address non-domestic issues.

Unfortunately, I have very little confidence that most Americans really understand this or even care.

[CWOJackson]

FDR: "Remember Pearl Harbor."

Kerry: "Forget 9/11."

[BJungNan]

bttt

[PISANO]

911 is a defining issue of the 21st Century. To those that choose to ignore or be offended by it's very mention are true AMERICA haters, PC wallowing, self-absorbed, egomanical, UN loving malcontents that aren't worth the little effort I put into this sentence.

[lugsoul]

I have not articulated one reason? Okay, I'll say it real slowly, so maybe this time you can catch it. The body in the ad was a person. Probably with a family. And if it was my brother under that flag, I wouldn't want his picture used in a campaign ad. It would disturb me to see that ad with a visual of his body being removed. And I would have no need to see that visual in order to remember what happened that day, or to form my views on what had to be done in response. In this case, since we don't know who it is, there are a few hundred families who may looking at their loved one's draped body in a campaign ad. And if you can't see why that is wrong - IF those families don't want to see their relative in that ad - then you will just never get it. And, as I stated too clearly for you to miss, if the admin wants to use a visual of removing one who would support the idea, whose family agrees to it, fine - have at it. If my daughter died in a car wreck, I wouldn't want to see it used on a trailer for the local news, either. If my dear friend now stationed in Babylon comes in contact with an IED, I don't want to see his wounds in an ad for CNN Presents. It is in bad taste.