Death and Dishonor

Commenter Keith Berry asks what the difference is between the Bush ad and this Kucinich ad. After Mr. Berry and I came to an understanding, I judged it to be a legitimate question. Calm down, my more Hot-Headed Readers, and bear with me while I lay out the comparison.

Let’s see. The part of the Bush ad that has causes the dust-up is about three seconds long. The Kucinich ad is minutes long.

The Bush ad shows the body of one anonymous firefighter, covered by the flag, being carried away by his comrades. (It was so quick, I missed it the first time I saw it.) The Kucinich ad shows casket after casket, funeral after funeral, name after name after name.

And here’s the starkest contrast. The Bush ad reminds of what we’ve fought for and of how we have not let men like that fallen firefighter perish in vain. It reminds us that we have taken steps—the only kind of steps that terrorists understand—to reduce the probability of a repeat performance of September 11, 2001.

The Kucinich ad is a monument to forgetfulness, conspiracy theories and dishonor. It uses those who gave their all for our safety as bludgeon against the president. It actually castigates him for doing what needed to be done to reduce the threat of terror in this world--for standing up to evil. It insults the same president by attributing base motives for the perpetration of the wars of this century—as if 9/11 never occurred. And, lastly, it insults the honor of the military men and women—both living and dead--who voluntarily submit themselves for a period of years for the defense of this country.

You see, Keith, it’s not just the bare bones (no pun intended) of what’s shown, it’s what the images represent, that inform my differing opinions of the two ads. With the voice-over of the Bush ad and the words on the screen of the Kucinich ad, it isn't that difficult to figure out either message. Sometimes you don't need a watch to know what time it is.

I stand by my original opinion of both and loath the Kucinich ad all the more.

Comments

[Keith Berry]

Baldilocks,

With all due respect, you are still being a hypocrite. If something is wrong, as you said using a body in a campaign ad is, then it doesn't matter if it's a split second or a week and a half.

If it's wrong, then it's wrong.

I'm fairly indifferent towards both ads. Like all Americans, my heart ached on 9-11, and it aches every time I hear about another soldier being killed in Iraq. However, I didn't lose a loved one on 9-11, and I haven't lost a loved one in Iraq. So, I really have no outrage concerning either ad, although I certainly can see how somebody who lost a loved one in either case could be outraged. But to be outraged over one and OK with the other is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

You can dress up President Bush's ad all you want, but at the end of the day it is using 'the bodies of our friends, loved ones and comrades-in-arms to fuel his meager aspirations,' which you found so offensive that you were moved to call Rep. Kucinich 'scum'.

Baldilocks, I think you know, deep in your heart, that the very first split-second the first body appeared in the Kucinich ad, that it was wrong and offensive to you. And I think if you could take politics out of the equation, you would agree that the very first spllit-second the body showed up in the President's ad, it was wrong and offensive to you. Everything that comes after that first split-second is meaningless.

Keith

[Prince C.]

A Kucinich ad?!?!

Please.

You seem desperately grasping for straws...

[Emma]

After this travesty of an ad, let's hope Kucinich doesn't talk about US's "unilateralism" in Iraq

[teal marie]

Juliette, your cool-headed, objective, rational opinions are annoying some self-appointed seethers. Keep it up, its exhilarating to witness!
I know you will.

[Kong]

"But to be outraged over one and OK with the other is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest."

One ad portrays the dead as victims of a
great evil come to our shore.

The other ad portrays the dead as pointless
deaths to serve the ego of one man.

Which is more offensive? And please check your
moral equivalence at the door, thanks!

Kong

[baldilocks]

PC, Mr. Berry brought up the Kucinich ad.

Mr. Berry: I made my case. It appears to me however that you are incapable of seeing the difference. That's not my problem. Since you are also apparently incapable of telling the difference between a mountain and a molehill, I think we'll let this one lie.

As for this, Baldilocks, I think you know, deep in your heart, that the very first split-second the first body appeared in the Kucinich ad, that it was wrong and offensive to you. And I think if you could take politics out of the equation, you would agree that the very first spllit-second the body showed up in the President's ad, it was wrong and offensive to you.

...perhaps you are the type of individual who
"thinks" with his heart or has an immediate emotional reaction to anything that come from sources with which he disapproves. It's okay; we're all different.

Please try to remember that everyone isn't like you emotionally. Some of us have a better leash on our passions.

[JFH]

Give up Juliette,
Your well-reasoned analysis of the difference between the two ads is never going to convince someone who's trying to play "gotcha" rather than someone actually trying to have an intellegent debate.

Keith,
If you use the simplistic axiom "If it's wrong, it's wrong"; you better not criticize Bush for his "black and white" approach to his decisions, right?!

[Phelps]

The difference between the two ads is simple. In Kucinich's ads, the point was the dead, not the soldiers still fighting the war. In Bush's ad, the point wasn't the dead firemen -- it was the surviving firemen carrying him. Kucinich tried to use the dead as a tool, ignoring the living still in Iraq; Bush tried to honor the living. Bush has a right to those images, because he was a part of what happened there.

If Kucinich had a shot in an ad of an upturned rifle over a grave because the point of the shot was the soldiers grieving over it, that would have been acceptable. To make the dead the point is the problem.

[Noble Eagle]

OK, I finally saw the infamous Kucinich ad. IMHO it was absolutely tasteless. It doesn't just show coffins, it names individual soldiers that died in the war. I know Kucinich is desperate to elevate himself above late-night TV punchline status, but this is WAY over the line. Thankfully, there is no chance he'll be nominated to run for president, let alone elected. Comparing this ad to the Bush ad is ridiculous in the extreme.

[Blackfive]

Noble Eagle and others - The Blue Star Mothers got the terrible bushflash ad pulled from the Kucinich web site and Iowa campaign (where it was to be shown).

Phelps has crux of the issue. Also, what a lot of us found outrageous would be that Kucinich felt he could speak for our dead heroes.

One of the last things my friend, Major Mat Schram, did before he was killed in Iraq (and had his name put on that damn commercial) was email his father to say that he was proud to be serving under President Bush.

I was pissed that the creator of the video would use his name to promote a stance that Mat Schram surely would not have supported.

The President isn't using the names of the dead to push his agenda. He isn't claiming that 3,000 dead americans are supporting his agenda.

He IS using images to support his record on the War on Terror.

Big Difference, Keith, it's a big difference.

[cooper]

The really interesting point of all the brewhaha is the facts about "Peaceful Tomorrows". They are behind the "outraged" individuals offended by the Bush ad.

Interesting to note: Peaceful Tomorrows is a project of the Tides Center. Who funds them? None other than the Heinz Family Foundation. The Kerrys have figured out a way to manipulate even the worst of history for their benefit.

[JLawson]

Consider the Gettysburg address.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground -- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Is this using the dead for politcal advantage? Should Lincoln have stayed silent?

(BTW, if this differs from the Gettysburg Address you learned in school, this is from the Nicolay draft. The general one taught is the Bliss draft. And it's interesting to see the phrasing differences between the Nicolay, Hay, and Bliss drafts. http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/ )

Personally, I think this flap is pretty ridiculous. The experience of 9/11 belongs to us ALL - it isn't a scant resource that can only be allocated by victim's families, or political action groups like "Peaceful Tomorrows". They're attempting to place the subject off limits shows that they're much more concerned about the political theater required to get Kerry into office than they are about the actual effects on the country that a Kerry presidency would have.

I'm sorry - but the man won't be pinned down on anything. I want to feel like he's taking the WoT seriously - but I don't think he is. I want to feel he's concerned with the country, but I don't think he is. I want to feel he's concerned about the citizens of the United States - but I think all he's concerned with are the core Dems who wouldn't CONSIDER voting for a Republican even if he came to the elections offering a non-polluting energy source, a step-by-step EASY roadmap to world peace and incredible prosperity, and a one-shot cure for cancer. He'll play to them, and to hell with everyone else.

And if I don't feel the man cares about the country, no way in hell will I vote for him. and THAT I don't get from Kerry.

J.

[Greyhawk]

If, heaven forbid, I should die in service to my country, know that I did so without reservation as far as knowing that we are involved in a just and righteous cause, that cause being no less than the preservation of civilization.

You may not like it, but President Bush is leading the world's response to terror, and leading well. People are fighting and dying to ensure that those who perpetrated the attacks of 911 are brought down, and that others will not be so willing to take up their cause.

Those who would use their sacrifice to justify their own political cause, if that cause is tantamount to capitulation to the terrorists, are simply trumpeting their complete and total inability to be trusted with positions of responsibility in a dangerous world.

We know there are lot of you that "don't get it" when it comes to the difference. Don't worry, we'll protect you too.

But we're not going to put you in charge of anything important.