[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Max Power

Yes you criticized Bush for using the imagery.

The question was if the imagery would benefit or hurt Bush.

"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?"

No "bash[ing]" there.

"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."

A lack of bashing there.

"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?"

still looking for any bashing...

"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..."

nope, no bashing.
Did you actually read my posts?

This is a waste of time as it has no bearing on the positions that the candidates are proposing.

But how is this less of a waste of time as the Kerry military service issues? I don't understand the distinction. Is it OK to criticize Bush for minor issues but not Kerry?[/quote]

uh, it was a critique of the campaign. Would you like to disuss the Kerry campaign ads?

BTW, just how could you characterize the way Bush managed the War on Terror as a "trivial subject"?

That wasn't the focus of this thread or your response. It was the use of the 9-11 imagery for political gain.[/quote]

You don't understand the link between the imagery of the towers burning and the War on Terror? How can you miss it?