You can't have it both ways!

On to your point, I'm criticizing Thelma Drake for lying about being outraged about the DCCC ad.  Please, read more closely.

Nice punt.

Also, I found the ad in Youtube in about 5 seconds. Amazingly, it was not linked in the original article. I find that odd. With the resources you guys have, you could not find what I found in seconds.

Could it be that you knew once people actually saw Bush's ad, the main points of your argument would fall apart?? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Where are my opinions changing?  Thelma claimed outrage for the pictures being used for political purposes.  She didn't make the lame distinctions you're making about types of political use, she flat out criticized political use by itself.

Everything else is simple misdirection by you.  Can you address the central point - Thelma says political use of military death pictures was bad, but said nothing about Bush's  political use of the same?

I think the Bush and DCCC ad are different based on content, but I will not go into that for this discussion.

Bush shows the ad in question. Kerry campaign decried Bush on it. However, there was never really any voter outcry, except the Kerry campaign throwing mud. Bush continued with the ad. Bush wins campaign as Kerry goes down in defeat. Not too many Republicans call on Bush to take down the ad, and the ad stays.

Dems like to say Republicans were in outrage, but it was more than Republicans mad about the DCCC ad. Voters all over the country were upset when they learned about the ad. Granted, Republicans had to point it out to the country, but we only started the outcry. The DCCC took it down after three days of voter unrest, after Dems running for Congress started calling on the DCCC to take it down. Those Dems would not have called on the DCCC if only their Republican oppenents were calling for it to be taken down. Those Dems were hearing it from voters, and eventually the DCCC ad was taken down.

I know that Time and Raising Kaine would like to believe they showed the same ad, but they didn't. Bush's ad was about what America had overcome during his Presidency. The DCCC ad was about showing what had gone bad during Bush's presidency, and then asking for fundraising. There is nothing wrong with that, until you show soldier's coffins. There are many veteran voters in Virginia.

Voter reaction?  How about a better coordinated attack by Republicans congressmen?  Please,  don't act like some great voter exists when it's the right wing machine that churns out results.

On to you ridiculous distinction.  Somehow showing a dead 9/11 victim is ok because it shows Bush success, but showing a dead soldier is bad because it shows Bush failure?  So the distinction is whether the death is pro-Bush or anti-Bush?  Care to rethink that one?

There is no distinction.  The point of the outrage is using military deaths "for political purposes" (Thelma's words).  And that's what Bush did - used an American civilian war casualty for his re-election.

Ex-fucking-zactly.

I think this is the link to the ad refered to here. I think it is the same ad.

Watch it, and tell me if you don't see a distinction. The commercial is shown as America overcoming 9/11.

The Dems commercial is American going down in defeat to Iraq. Might not be what is actually happening, but that is what the DCCC ad implies, amazingly enough. And military veterans came out in force against this ad.

You will have to see the distinction in your own mind by watching it.

So, pro-bush political purposes are ok for such images, but not to point out Bush's failures.  Sounds like you've embraced the whole Thelma Drake opportunism for yourself.

Watch it, and tell me if you don't see a distinction. The commercial is shown as America overcoming 9/11.

The Dems commercial is American going down in defeat to Iraq. Might not be what is actually happening, but that is what the DCCC ad implies, amazingly enough. And military veterans came out in force against this ad.

You will have to see the distinction in your own mind by watching it.

I then answered as to how we haven't "overcom(ing) 911."

I heard plenty of what is offensive about the DCCC ad.

I have a new link for the video . . .my own site

http://hrconservative.blogspot.com.

Just in case you crash YouTube's server going to it. What is offensive about Bush's ad? You have got to give me more than rants about unrelated topics.

So, to put it simply, it was ok for the Republican party to do it, but the Democratic party better not.

It's shameful and disgusting, and it is no wonder that soldiers come home as Democrats.

I would love to see some kind of proof about that!! Soldiers coming  home Democrats??? You may have met some or something, but the majority of military, past and current, is still in favor of George W. Bush, and why they vote 75% Republican every election. You are going to have to show me something more than your statement that "it is no wonder that soldiers come home as Democrats".

Iraq veterans running for Congress:

Chris Carney, 46, is a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve and was called up in late 2003 to serve as a special Pentagon adviser on intelligence and terrorism. The Democrat is running unopposed for his party's nomination in a northeast Pennsylvania district. He will face Republican Rep. Don Sherwood, whose recent settlement of a lawsuit by his mistress could prove a factor in the race.

Andrew Duck, 43, is a former Army intelligence officer in Iraq who currently works as a Pentagon contractor. The Democrat is running in rural Maryland for the seat held by Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a House Armed Services Committee member. The district voted 65% for President Bush in 2004.

Tim Dunn, 45, is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserves who served in Baghdad in 2004 as a legal adviser to the Iraqi Special Tribunal trying Saddam Hussein. If the Democrat wins a party primary, he would face GOP Rep. Robin Hayes in a North Carolina district with a strong military presence that leans Republican.

Patrick Murphy, 32, is a former West Point professor who deployed to Iraq as an Army lawyer in 2003. If he wins a Democratic primary in suburban Philadelphia, Murphy would face GOP freshman Michael Fitzpatrick in the fall. The district backed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004.

Van Taylor, 33, is a former Marine Corps captain who worked with special operations forces in Iraq to locate and help plan the rescue of American prisoner of war Jessica Lynch. The Republican faces a primary. If Taylor wins, he would face Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards in a heavily Republican district that includes President Bush's Texas ranch.

No doubt now that I said that, discussion will explode.

Bush had nothing to do with the way the city came together for the rebuilding and the clean up afterwards.  Mayor Guiliani and the amazing PEOPLE of NYC did that.  I know the people, and I am one of the people.  I and the majority of NYC (another BLUE state to get attacked that is financially responsible for carrying poor red states like Alabama, btw) am offended by the commercial bc he uses an event that had nothing to do with him for votes, and I find it disgusting.

Now unless you were there too, I don't want you chastizing or insulting me.  It is disrespectful.

You did not explain what was offensive about that video. You only explained why you did not like that he showed us overcoming 9/11 in that ad. It was effective, and the voters rewarded him for it. That ad, while you may think so, was in no way offensive to NYC citizens or others. In fact, it showcased how NYC and the rest of American had overcome hardships faced. It was a positive, encouraging ad that showed the ENTIRE COUNTRY overcoming 9/11, and was in no way offensive. That was a tragic day, and that ad put the best light on that day and reminded the entire country who had led them through it.

Do you not hear debate that often? You must not ever get challenged, because if you thought I was insulting you by challenging your views, then you must live in some liberal bubble, only hearing your own views parroted back to you.

Even using "disrespectful." Wow, good job. Creative.

And you just had to get in a shot at the heartland while you were at it too, huh? Alabama is a fantastic state, so is New York. Don't cloud your argument by attacking states.

The reality is, war is an incredibly life altering event and it changes people.  No question some people change political affiliations because of war and no question some current soldiers and vets have become Democrats because of the war.  However, there is also no question that an overwhelming majority of military people, vets and their families continue to support the war and support Republicans.  It might not make sense but it's reality.

Don't kid yourself, the outrage is real.

61 Fighting Dems on the front lines for 60 districts in 26 states.
44 Fighting Dems advancing to General Election including 30 nominees and 14 unopposed in upcoming primaries.
17 Fighting Dems facing primaries in 16 districts

Summary: 44 to 60 Fighting Dems, barring serious mishaps, will challenge Republican incumbents for Senatorial or House of Representative seats. Another 1 -17 Fighting Dems may run if they win in their primaries. A figure at around 45-50 vets is a reasonable projection (if about half of them win) - four dozen vets running. We need 15 seats to win back the House.

Of the original number of 90 vets running, 30, or one-third, are no longer in the race. However, 8 of this number were "strategic withdrawals" to make way for another vet, so it involved no loss of district challenges. An additional 4 strategic withdrawals were to non-vets for a total of 12 seats that cannot be considered a "loss" when the FDs withdrew in favor of these candidates, vets or non-vets.

There are many more Vets and even Republicans who are tired of the Bush administration, his failed policies and the entire Republican Congress that has so far Rubber Stamped their agenda.

I've talked with military people who felt comfortable telling me their politics but they are terrified to be public about it.  So it may appear that "75% are for bush and war" but I don't think so. 

Also, there is a thing about having family or friends in a war.  They won't speak up as long as their loved ones are vulnerable.  Or they won't speak up as long as they have friends still stuck there.  They want to go back to protect their friends.  They feel guilty for not being there doing that.  It is not about loving this war or this idiotic puppet.  It is about duty.

And then there's the group unable to think for themselves, they like being treated as expendible and having their families treated as expendible.  So be it.

As far as September 11 being used by bush.  I will always view that as his second biggest failure.  He should be ashamed, not proud.

This is pretty much standard from the GOP playbook and Democrats have been getting bitch-slapped for the past 6 years. The DCCC even took down what was a very good ad. I can tell you that Republicans certainly wouldn't cave in the face of "liberal" protest.

Even now in Ohio, Senator DeWine is

Using vivid images of smoke pouring from one of the towers of the World Trade Center...DeWine unleashed a...TV commercial, which also flashed images of the 19 hijackers who took part in the Sept. 11 attack...an apparent effort by the DeWine campaign to jar Ohio voters into remembering the terrorist attack in New York and suburban Washington and to convince them that the senator will support tougher anti-terrorism measures than Brown, a congressman from Avon.

On top of this, comes an even more sinister attempt to spin the Middle East crisis by Contract on America creator Newt Gingrich over the weekend. Gingrich talked about it in terms of the 2006 election and public relations ploy:

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.

"Bush needs to call it WW III."

There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

I suppose all this is fine because it's from Republicans. They can obviously use any threat or gross distortion of someone's record to get elected and its fine, it advances thier bottom line.