It is clear that the campaign which the WH wants to rollout focuses on "the wartime president" and invoking the images of 9/11 is a prelude to that.
There's nothing which can provoke more patriotic allegiance than to show our armed forces being threatened and then triumphing over the enemy. Its a tried and proven campaign staple and one cannot begrudge the WH for using images that reinforce the Commander and Chief persona. Do the pictures of 9/11 really accomplish that goal?
The strategy certainly has its pitfalls...especially if the situation in Iraq doesn't get better, and if the situation in Iraq spirals down the strategy will bite them in the butt.
The article sure suggests that the people who lost family members were not too much on board with using the imagery. I can tell you that today I don't wish to see the burning towers over and over, just like I don't want to see other shots of death and destruction.
Rather than an assumption of the viewer swelling up with a patriotic fervor, isn't it plausible that some will be reminded that there was a failure of our government to protect our country?
Using the attacks on 9/11 as a reason to re-elect GWBush isn't going to have too much impact IMHO. It brings up too many questions that haven't been answered, and even leads some to question the success of the hunt for Bin Laden et al. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping issues alone...
Quote:
|
hey Mavdog, would you mind providing a link to the article?
|
Here is a link to an AP article by the same writer, but this is an updated copy that changes a bit fom what was posted earlier. Many of the same lines, but also somne different, including the quote you mentioned.
AP article