Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Breitweiser for V.P.

Breitweiser for V.P.

Last updated on: March 4, 2004 at 5:36 am by Fred Clark

7 Comments

Breitweiser for V.P. 2004-03-04T05:36:02-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One of the main attributes John Kerry should be looking for in a running mate should be the tenacity and courage to stand up to President Bush and fight for the public. Kerry also needs someone who will be perceived as "tough" on national security in a post-9/11 world.

I recommend Kristen Breitweiser, a New Jersey "housewife" whose husband Ronald was killed at the World Trade Center. With little formal power, she has battled the full force of the Bush White House for more than two years — and I don't think anyone would dare tell her she was "soft" on terrorism.

Plus, hey, it's been 20 years since there's been a woman on the ticket.

The downside — apart from New Jersey not being a swing state — is that Breitweiser would be unlikely to accept the offer. Although the post would grant her a platform from which she might finally be able to get some answers, she's adamantly opposed to the politicization of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

Here, for instance, is what she told Salon's Eric Boehlert in response to reports that the Republican Convention in New York City might stage some of its events at Ground Zero:

It's totally inappropriate. … The president won't testify before the entire 9/11 commission, he won't testify under oath, and he fought the creation of the commission for one year. So for him to have the audacity to even think of going to Ground Zero is absolutely deplorable. That's sacred ground. That's solemn, holy ground where my husband and 3,000 others were murdered. It doesn't belong to politics.

One can only imagine her response, then, to President Bush's new advertising blitz which, The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg reports, includes lots of imagery from the terrorist attacks:

Three of the four commercials unveiled feature images of the smoldering and charred shell of the World Trade Center still standing; one also shows firefighters emerging from the wreckage carrying a stretcher draped with an American flag, presumably covering remains.

Calpundit has the video, you can watch the ads for yourself here.

It seems like the Bush administration is actually embracing some of the proposed slogans from TBogg's recent contest, such as Curt Marwitz's suggestion:

"Bush & Cheney: Keeping America Terrorist-Free Since Sept. 12, 2001"

Or this from Rogue Planet:

"Bush/Cheney, Keeping Us Safe: Terrorists will not attack us and kill 2800 innocent people on our soil and destroy the WTC and smash the Pentagon more than once on our watch!"

I realize that by this point I shouldn't still be surprised, appalled and flummoxed by the way the Bush administration embraces its most horrific failure as its proudest success, but, well, I'm still surprised, appalled and flummoxed.

As David Pototari, co-director of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, says to Salon's Boehlert:

"It's a symbol of failure. … The president is charged with defending this country, and literally nothing was done during the two hours of attack to defend the county. I've never been able to understand how Republicans have turned this tragedy into a victory."

The good news, Philip Shenon reports in The New York Times, is that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States is not meekly accepting the president's attempted brush-off:

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is refusing to accept strict conditions from the White House for interviews with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and is renewing its request that Mr. Bush's national security adviser testify in public, commission members said Tuesday.

The panel members, interviewed after a private meeting on Tuesday, said the commission had decided for now to reject a White House request that the interview with Mr. Bush be limited to one hour and that the questioners be only the panel's chairman and vice chairman.

Shenon also reports, however, that:

Commission officials said that if the White House continued to insist on limitations on the interviews with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, there might be little that the panel could do to force the issue and that the commission might have to accept the White House's terms.

Little they can do? The panel needs to realize that it has at its disposal enormous moral clout. Media in this country may be corporatized, incurious and lazy, but we still have a free press and if this panel wanted to make some noise, by God, it could really make some noise.

If the panel wants to force the issue, all it needs is a telephone, a microphone or a megaphone and the judicious use of a few of the following key phrases: "shirking"; "stonewalling"; "uncooperative"; "refusal to answer"; "acts like he has something to hide"; "has us wondering what it is he's afraid to talk about."

That would force the issue nicely. As another 9/11 widow, Lori Van Auken, tells Boehlert:

If you're proud of your actions, you explain what happened. … If you're not proud, you do it behind closed doors with two commissioners for one hour.

All of which brings us to today's question:

The Family Steering Committee of the 9/11 Independent Commission would like to ask President Bush:

Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11.

(As I said, some of the FSC's questions are rather provocative. They're trying, you see, to "force the issue.")

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 3, 2004

Joe Hoeffel for Senate

Next Post

March 6, 2004 Plastic Handcuffs IV

Recent Comments

7 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which writer besides Solomon and David contributed to Proverbs?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Nathan Asaph Agur Moses