Quote:
Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, died in the World Trade Center, said Bush should not use the tragedy as "political propaganda."
"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened," a reference to the effort the Bush administration has made in working with the Sept. 11 commission investigating the intelligence failures.
Harold Schaitberger, the firefighter union's president, said: "We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders."
|
Hmm.....despite the fact that this exact same article has been posted in another thread, where it was discussed extensively, perhaps there are a couple more things to say.
First, Schaitberger, the firefighter union's president, himself explicitly politicizes the issue by connecting his opposition to the use of images of firefighters to budget cuts for first responders. Are these comments exploitative as well?
Second, Breitweiser is the president of an advocacy group for family members of vicitms of 9-11, and has for months been accusing the U.S. government of knowing about the imminence of an attack and has been finger-pointing and demanding investigations as to why more wasn't done to prevent the attack. She has criticized both President Bush and Condaleeza Rice for not testifying publicly about potential government intelligence failures prior to 9-11. Thus her motives can hardly be considered apolitical. Is her opposition to the Bush campaign's references to the attacks on 9-11 (and the use of images from that day) politically motivated? If so, are her comments exploitative?
Was Bush supposed to address in 8 months that which Clinton had failed to address in 8 years?
Please have a semblance of a point before posting.