'Tis The (Election) Season
 

For those who deplore Christmas decorations appearing in stores right after Halloween, the election season must be particularly painful. For the next seven and a half months we will be inundated with campaign ads. This election has the added irritant of a war chest overflowing with Bush re-election contributions to fund a definite abundance of ads. Since they started the ad campaign season with one that is controversial, we have the constant news barrage, I mean coverage, of the pros and cons of the controversy.

The ad in question shows clips from the 9-11 tragedy, including firemen carrying out the flag draped body of a fallen comrade. Firemen and the families of the victims of 9-11 protested that ad as being in poor taste and disrespectful to the memory of their loved ones who died in that attack, to use those images as a political tool. The president is resolute in his intention to continue with the ads as he feels it defines his presidency and shows his leadership. The public at large has lined up on opposite sides behind the groups initially supporting or objecting to that ad.

Some of us are not quite sure which line to stand in. While I agree whole heartedly with the administration's assertion that it defines the Bush presidency, I can't find the leadership the White House claims, unless it was to lead us into an unprecedented and unwarranted pre-emptive invasion based on deliberate lies and manipulation of intelligence information. Surely, this can't be what the administration is implying. That would relay the truth. They haven't told the truth in three years so it seems doubtful that they would suddenly choose to do so in a campaign ad.

Let's take a "fair and balanced"� look at the president's actions on 9-11 and see if we can detect the steady leadership the ad purports to show.

President Bush learned of the first plane crashing into the WTC while driving to an elementary school in Florida. He led his entourage into the classroom. Hmmmm. I don't think that qualifies.

Next, while listening to a reading demonstration, Andy Card leans over and tells him a second plane just crashed into the second tower at the WTC. Was this where the leadership starts? No. Not only was there no leadership, there was absolutely no movement. Were there orders issued? No, even though it was known at that time that 2 other planes had been hijacked and were flying in our skies. For another 23 minutes the President of the United States sat, while the country was under attack, leading the children in reading a story about a goat. No, I don't think that's it either.

Well, how about after he left the school? He did lead his entourage back onto the plane. Did he go directly to New York City or perhaps back to Washington, D.C, where the Pentagon was attacked by the third plane? Not exactly. He made a stop in Louisiana and then went to Nebraska. He finally did manage to get back to the White House eight or nine hours later. Then, after a couple of days he went on television and gave a rousing speech. I don't think a speech can really be called leadership, especially since the content is written by someone else. Reading someone else's words from several strategically placed teleprompters wouldn't, or at least shouldn't qualify.

Could it be leadership in leading an investigation into the attacks? He and Cheney both went to Congress, but I'm afraid that isn't it. They both asked that an investigation not be launched. In fact they stalled for 2 1/2 years before pressure from the victims' families finally forced them to name a commission to look into it. No one has been fired or even reprimanded for national security protocols not being followed. Even now, there is little cooperation in turning over the documents requested, agreeing to testify or to allow enough time for the information to be thoroughly analyzed and evaluated. Since there was such stonewalling in handing over information the commission requested an extension which has been denied. No steady leadership can be found in that situation unless its been a steady attempt to thwart any investigation.

That leaves me in the same quandary. I've looked again at the events of that day in a "fair and balanced" manner and if there was steady leadership exhibited by Mr. Bush I'm afraid it completely escapes me. But again, I think it certainly says a lot about defining his presidency. I hardly think it's a message the administration would intentionally want to convey. Perhaps they believe that the American people have very short memories. Perhaps they have very short memories. Perhaps I should start a third line to stand in while the pro and con debate over the appropriateness of the campaign ad continues.

3-20-04