Red card, GOP TV spots

August 19, 2004 11:39 AM

George W. Bush's latest TV ads juxtapose Iraq's and Afghanistan's flags with footage of Olympic sport, proclaiming, "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." At a campaign stop, Bush said, "just the image of the Iraqi soccer team playing in this Olympics. It's fantastic, isn't it? What a fantastic thought." The possibly medal-bound Iraqi soccer team, however, objects to any such association. While Bush goes on to say, "Here's a country now, battling for a country that is now free. It wouldn't have been free if the United States had not acted," Ahmed Manajid, midfield goes so far as to say, "if he were not playing soccer he would 'for sure' be fighting as part of the resistance."
posted by rafter (65 comments total)

[cut to dubyuh, standing in a latrine pit]

"Just the image of standing neck deep in this heap of fragrant lilac blossoms, it's fantastic, isn't it!?"
posted by quonsar at 11:43 AM on August 19, 2004

It's not like this is the first time that a nation has disparaged the US even though the US provides them some advantages. (See also, Canada.)
posted by sexymofo at 11:50 AM on August 19, 2004

It's not like this is the first time that a nation has disparaged the US even though the US provides them some advantages.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:55 AM on August 19, 2004

Well, at least Ahmed has his priorities in the proper order.

Hey, if I wasn't in my 30's and working a full-time job n' stuff, I'd be a fighter pilot!
posted by Witty at 11:56 AM on August 19, 2004

It warms my heart to know that the US military is dedicated to freeing oppressed athletes.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:58 AM on August 19, 2004

Why do you hate America so much?
posted by Slothrup at 12:02 PM on August 19, 2004

Fold_and_mutilate:

Touche.
posted by sexymofo at 12:04 PM on August 19, 2004

Ahmed needs to start Iraqi Olympic Soccer Players for Truth
posted by bshort at 12:07 PM on August 19, 2004

Do Salih Sadir's and Ahmed Manajid's opinions make the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:09 PM on August 19, 2004

Ahmed Manajid, midfield goes so far as to say, "if he were not playing soccer he would 'for sure' be fighting as part of the resistance."

So, he's chosen to play soccer rather than fight Americans. Lots of other people have chosen to get on with their lives in the same way. I think it's a good sign.

I wish the soccer team great success. I know Mr. Manajid remembers what the price of failure was under the old regime. It's possible for Bush and Mr. Manajid to both be assholes.
posted by coelecanth at 12:20 PM on August 19, 2004

Do Salih Sadir's and Ahmed Manajid's opinions make the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?

No, but Iraq under Hussein not being a "terrorist regime" might. Horrible dictatorship yes. Terrorist regime, no.
posted by mkultra at 12:20 PM on August 19, 2004

"Free nations" is a bit of an exaggeration: neither country has yet held free elections. This is more Bush administration jumping-the-gun; another "mission accomplished". Let's finish the job before we go bragging about what a wonderful job it was; okay, boys?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:22 PM on August 19, 2004

I miss the rogue states.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:22 PM on August 19, 2004

These navel-gazing threads concerning U.S. policy have to stop.
So your nation-state's leader is a sword-rattling despot.
We citizens of Eurpoa sorry, Eurasia have gotten the point, already.

For the sake of preserving the integrity of MeFi, I again implore you:
more posts about kittens.
posted by Smart Dalek at 12:25 PM on August 19, 2004

Technicalities do not a truth make, Steve_at_Linnwood. For instance, the US has more jobs now than it did a month ago, which would make Bush's statement, "Our economy is creating jobs, which leads to recovery" technically true. However, like the budget deficit fiasco, the amount of troop commitment, the potential WMDs, etc. etc. etc., the # of jobs he predicted initially was wildly different than what has actually occurred.

Unfortunately, he likes to tell wild stories of grandeur, and when his tall tales fail to produce the intended results, he changes his story.

Not to mention the fact that the ads are a blatant attempt to suggest his miserable dealings with these countries has somehow created a successful outcome. No one in their right mind would emigrate to Iraq or Afghanistan right now, which is very telling of a miserable situation.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:27 PM on August 19, 2004

Do Salih Sadir's and Ahmed Manajid's opinions make the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?

No, it doesn't. But we're not dealing with the post at hand. It's just a chance for foldy to link to a site posted here a thousand times before and slothrup to repeat a line just as old, like some kind of child who can't think on his own.

Horrible dictatorship yes. Terrorist regime, no.

Oh please. You don't know that. 9/11? No. That they never had anything to do with terrorism? You're guessing at best.

Unfortunately, he likes to tell wild stories of grandeur, and when his tall tales fail to produce the intended results, he changes his story.

Agreed. Kind of like war stories. Pot, kettle, black.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 12:34 PM on August 19, 2004

Do Salih Sadir's and Ahmed Manajid's opinions make the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?

There are two nations that have moved from totalitarian oppression to a fractured state (in the case of afghanistan, which is run by various warlords outside kabul) and total chaos (Iraq, natch). Only 1 was a regime truly associated with Al Qaeda. Neither is free or democratic yet, and you'd have to be pretty damn optimistic to think Iraq is really headed that way.

Maybe if we had kept our attention on afghanistan, and offered the billions spent blowing up Iraq on rebuilding there, they'd have had a better chance.

So, no, the players saying it doesn't make it not true. The fact that it's false is what makes it not true.
posted by malphigian at 12:40 PM on August 19, 2004

That they never had anything to do with terrorism? You're guessing at best.

hey, he guesses...you guess...our President guesses....

it's only war, after all Dennis. nothing to see here.
posted by NationalKato at 12:44 PM on August 19, 2004

I wonder if the IOC will go after Bush/Cheney for violating their Olympic copyright ?
posted by mrmcsurly at 12:47 PM on August 19, 2004

Clinton was Right

"Later that spring, the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

posted by dhoyt at 12:55 PM on August 19, 2004

I literally vomitted from watching the ad.
posted by the fire you left me at 12:57 PM on August 19, 2004

The market speaks.
posted by rushmc at 1:00 PM on August 19, 2004

This was going to be an FPP but I'll put it here instead. Since those who've made it this far are at least potentially interested in TV campaign ads, here are some more. These ones are from our MoveOn, and are all 30-second clips of Americans who voted Republican last election and will be voting Democrat this election. The speakers include a US marines veteran, a retired US colonel, the former assistant secretary of state
and a former us ambassador to the US and Zaire among many others. They were made by Errol Morris - here's a New Yorker story about their making.
posted by louigi at 1:02 PM on August 19, 2004

the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?

Free nations? Perhaps. Terrorist regimes? This republican says no.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:04 PM on August 19, 2004

I literally vomitted from watching the ad.

Literally?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:13 PM on August 19, 2004

"I would fight for the resistance if COULD, but I can't... I've got a corner kick to take. But damn it, I would I'm tellin' ya."

Mmm hmmm? Pussy.
posted by Witty at 1:17 PM on August 19, 2004

Oh please. You don't know that. 9/11? No. That they never had anything to do with terrorism? You're guessing at best.


First, read what came before. "Terrorist regime" and "had anything to do with terrorism" are miles apart.

And aside from that, your crappy logic implies that Hussein could be a CIA agent. I mean, it's been suggested but not disproven, right?

Seriously, Dennis, your posting history is amazing. Do you have anything to contribute to this site other than shitty arguments and ad hominem attacks?
posted by mkultra at 1:22 PM on August 19, 2004

Do Salih Sadir's and Ahmed Manajid's opinions make the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?

Nor do their opinions change the veracity of the statement that the United States will experience decades of increased radical islamic terrorism because of the atrocities that we've committed in the name of weapons of mass destruction imminent threats al quaida 9/11 humanitarian concerns.
posted by mosch at 1:24 PM on August 19, 2004

The "freedom is spreading like a sunrise" really did it.
posted by the fire you left me at 1:26 PM on August 19, 2004

Hussein was, beyond his own enthusiastic terrorizing of his own people, an ardent supporter of external terror, including, among other things, funding generous death benefits for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

For all your noisy ex-Bush voters, there are plenty of quiet ex-Gore voters, most of them people who saw Gore as reflective of a socially moderate, Southern tendency in the Democratic Party, with at least a residual sympathy for traditional moral and cultural values, and who can have absolutely no such illusions in that regard with Kerry. The most important leading indicator of this election may still be this vs. this.
posted by MattD at 1:34 PM on August 19, 2004

Thanks for the links, louigi.
posted by dobbs at 1:40 PM on August 19, 2004

No, but Iraq under Hussein not being a "terrorist regime" might. Horrible dictatorship yes. Terrorist regime, no

Oh, ok. It doesn't count if you're merely funding terrorism.
posted by Ayn Marx at 1:43 PM on August 19, 2004

Freedom is spreading like gonorrhea.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:48 PM on August 19, 2004

That's your criteria for "terrorist regime"? Wow, talk about setting the bar low. What does that say about all that money we sent to the Hussen and the Taliban when they were on "our side", then?
posted by mkultra at 1:50 PM on August 19, 2004

They know they're lying. They simply don't care, they're insulating themselves in loyal (if shrinking) crowds, and bask in the support of the apologists (like mr.s murphy and linnwood) while their grip on reality, and the election, slips away. Bush would rather think he's winning every day until the election then face the prospect of admitting a mistake.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:17 PM on August 19, 2004

Can't we just agree that Bush bad Saddam bad? And where have all these marvellous Iraqi footballers come from?
posted by Celery at 2:38 PM on August 19, 2004

sexymofo:

Uh, sadly no. Your linked article is from April 2003, which mentions a civilian death toll of 500. More up to date sources I linked to put the civilian death directly due to the United States invading and occupying the Iraqi Olympic soccer team's country at over 10,000. Add to that invasion and occupation of their homeland the infrastructure damage done which is killing thousands of the weakest Iraqi citizens (women and children and the elderly).

Touche, indeed.

It's no wonder the soccer player feels as he does. Americans providing "advantages", indeed. Horseshit.

Do Salih Sadir's and Ahmed Manajid's opinions make the statement "At this Olympics, there will be two more free nations — and two fewer terrorist regimes." any less true?

You mean the occupied nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. You mean less terror?

You meant the phrase "less true"?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:02 PM on August 19, 2004

The most important leading indicator of this election may still be this vs. this.

I thought you were serious until this sentence. Does anyone doubt that Jesus is still more popular than Bush.

On a side note, Fahrenheit 9/11 opened with only 868 screens showing the film, grossing $27,558.34 per screen. Passion of the Christ opened on 3,043 screens and grossing $27554.41 per screen. Should be interesting to see the same data when this movie opens. You know, to compare apples to apples.
posted by sequential at 3:18 PM on August 19, 2004

I would think that that to be free a person who have to feel "free". I mean that's the point of freedom, right? To be free to pursue one's own hapiness? The Sports Illustrated article talks about how all the players condemned Saddam's regime, now they condemn the US occupation. It's really not complicated: the Iraqis have changed one oppresive yoke for another, not exactly what they consider "freedom". Iraqis are still dying.

As if you care.
posted by sic at 3:26 PM on August 19, 2004

I watched the trailer for Michael Moore Hates America. Granted, I'm a Michael Moore fan, but as a moviegoer it just looked badly made.

I literally vomitted from watching the ad.

That's fucking awesome.
posted by nath at 3:45 PM on August 19, 2004

Should be interesting to see the same data when this movie opens. You know, to compare apples to apples.

I suspect that, in terms of viewers, whether box office-wise or in terms of straight to DVD rentals, that Michael Moore Hates America will get creamed by Bush's Brain. Big time.
posted by y2karl at 3:46 PM on August 19, 2004

Michael Moore Hates America

If you like this title, we also recommend...

American Splendor (2003)

From the imdb link that sequential posted above^^^ fwiw
posted by jaronson at 4:01 PM on August 19, 2004

"just the image of the Iraqi soccer team playing in this Olympics. It's fantastic, isn't it? What a fantastic thought."

Great. George is Ron Manager's evil twin.
posted by squealy at 4:26 PM on August 19, 2004

Now you can't fault the guy for cheerleading. It's what he does best.

(I've no doubt that John Kerry could've gone to the Olympics, if he hadn't been in Vietnam leading his men through the shit.)
posted by octobersurprise at 4:39 PM on August 19, 2004

that video makes me so incredibly sad. my heart aches for the telescreen casulties.
posted by Satapher at 10:41 PM on August 19, 2004

"I want the violence and the war to go away from the city," says Sadir, 21. "We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

He's not going to be happy about the 14 permanent bases.
posted by homunculus at 10:42 PM on August 19, 2004

Terrorist incidents did rise in from 2002 to 2003, by 1.5%, but the number deaths resulting from terrorism dropped by 13.8%. Sad, isn't it. (Maybe next year you can have a good increase in deaths to smirk over. Knock on wood!).

Furthermore, over the past 30 years, the largest drop in terrorist incidents occurred from 2001 to 2002 (-42%), during shrub's watch, no less.
posted by shoos at 10:45 PM on August 19, 2004

Maybe next year you can have a good increase in deaths to smirk over. Knock on wood!

I want nothing more than to be wrong about my prediction that the actions the United States has taken have doomed us to decades of radical islamic terrorism.

It's completely and utterly dispicable to assert that anybody is hoping for more war, and more death, simply because they are concerned with the radical actions of the Bush administration.

additionally, we're fortunate to live in a world where terrorist incidents, and their resulting casualties are so infrequent that statistically valid conclusions cannot yet be made, for either the success or failure of the current efforts.
posted by mosch at 11:36 PM on August 19, 2004

jesus, shoos, you're trying to rely on the fact that there was less terrorism in the year after 2001? You're fucked. That is all.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:02 AM on August 20, 2004

Yeah, I "rely" on it. Now go fuck yourself.
posted by shoos at 4:11 AM on August 20, 2004

shoos: I assume you got your data from this report:

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on “soft targets,” such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

It seems disengenous for you to say:

Furthermore, over the past 30 years, the largest drop in terrorist incidents occurred from 2001 to 2002 (-42%), during shrub's watch, no less.

All that really means is that there wasn't a 9/11 in 2002 (Thank God) but to attribute that to Bush seems as unfair as to blame him for 9/11 (which occured "on his watch" as well.)
posted by gwint at 8:15 AM on August 20, 2004

gwint: that is indeed where i got some of the data! The rest can be found here.

But "disingenuous?" It's a fact that the drop in the number of terrorist incidents from 2001 to 2002 was the largest in any single year for the 30 past years (on reinspection, it actually looks as if it was the largest drop in 36 years).

Whether or not Bush had anything to do with it I couldn't tell you. The causality idea has been suggested by other geniuses on this site, and I'm offering up some data for them to chew on.
posted by shoos at 12:58 PM on August 20, 2004

...and the number of terrorist attacks rose in 2003 compared to 2002 (injuries up by 1/3rd from 2002) "during shrub's watch, no less." More data to chew on, I guess.
posted by gwint at 2:22 PM on August 20, 2004

my post on those reports.
posted by amberglow at 2:41 PM on August 20, 2004

Ah, thanks amberglow. I see shoos has already had some fun with the numbers in those reports.
posted by gwint at 2:58 PM on August 20, 2004

I'm sorry fellas, I know I shouldn't make the same point in two different posts. You caught me.
posted by shoos at 3:41 PM on August 20, 2004

over the past 30 years, the largest drop in terrorist incidents occurred from 2001 to 2002 (-42%)

For what it's worth, according to the June 22 State Department report, the 42% drop was comparing 2001 to 2003, not 2001 to 2002:

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.

* As new information becomes available, revisions are made to previously published statistics. The current running total for international terrorist incidents in 2002 is 205.

If you compare the June 22 revised report to the original report from April 29, the revised report lists 318 more people killed during 2003 (307 listed in April , 625 in June), and 2,053 more people wounded (1,593 listed in April, 3,646 in June).
posted by kirkaracha at 4:27 PM on August 20, 2004

kirkaracha, the 2001-2002 numbers I was referring to came from here, and show a drop of 42% between those years. The State Dept used the 2001-2003 comparison to make the 2003 numbers sound bettter.
posted by shoos at 5:56 PM on August 20, 2004

Hmm, shoos link shows that the absolute drops from 88 to 89, and from 91 to 92, are larger than the drop from 01 to 02.

...and what the hell happened in Africa in '98? 5379 casualties of terrorism, more than the spike for 9/11...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 9:06 PM on August 20, 2004

inpHilltr8r, as a percentage change (notice the % mark in the "42%" figure), no.

Change from 88-89: 38%
Change from 91-92:36%

I'm beginning to feel like a babysitter.
posted by shoos at 9:28 PM on August 20, 2004

Well, shoos, since the re-revised figures for 2003 are about the same as for 2002 (205 in 2002, 208 in 2003), the percentages would be about the same. Didn't mean to call you out, I just saw the 42% and thought you might be off a year.

I'm more interested in the "clerical errors" in the April report that reported less than 50% of the actual totals of both killed and wounded.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:46 PM on August 20, 2004

inpHilltr8r, as a percentage change...

Which is why I wrote absolute. Now go finish your homework.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:20 PM on August 20, 2004

inpHilltr8r, you're right. I guess I was feeling a little too snappy.
posted by shoos at 12:51 AM on August 21, 2004

Bloody Hell. That ad is one of the scariest things I've ever watched.

Just the inference that the Bush campaign has created 80 'new' - yeah, like over the past 30 years - democracies out of 'terrorist regimes' which is a COMPLETE fucking lie because a great deal of these countries we'd consider democracies nowadays are places like Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Poland and India WHICH WERE HARDLY THE HOTBED OF 'TERRORIST' ACTIVITY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even Greece itself is now considered a democracy since civilian rule was restored in 1974. Also look at the real number of countries that have had democratic elections since 1972, and it's more like ~20 rather than the 80 countries the Bush ad claims.

'FREEDOM IS SPREADING THROUGHOUT THE WORLD LIKE A SUNRISE'. Even so, fuckass, if the 80 countries over the past 32 years is true (which it isn't) then only creating two new democracies over the past four years IS A BIT BELOW THE BATTING AVERAGE.

I'm really sorry for all the caps, people, but this ad is just BS on some many levels and you're all just picking apart the stupid shit about the Iraqi football team, which has probably just been planted by Rove so nobody noticed the real lie so they can repeat it over and over - 80 NEW DEMOCRACIES, AND BUSH DID IT ALL. VOTE BUSH.

If I was George W Bush I'd be ashamed to put my name to these utter lies. How the fuck can he say that he 'approves this message'?
posted by tapeguy at 4:38 AM on August 21, 2004

check out the top of Drudge: PRESIDENT BUSH PLANS TRIP TO OLYMPICS, SOURCES TELL DRUDGE. MAY ATTEND IRAQI SOCCER GAME. 'TRIP BEING PLANNED IN SECRET'... SECURITY CONCERNS AND 'DISRUPTION' OF GAMES AT ISSUE... 'THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT GO, IF IT BECOMES TOO MUCH OF A DISTRACTION,' TOP SOURCE REVEALED LATE SATURDAY AFTERNOON... TOP BUSH SOURCE CAUTIONS PLANNING FOR TRIP IS BEING RESEARCHED AND IS IN PRELIMINARY STAGE. TRIP WOULD BE FOR FINALS AUG 28 [SATURDAY]... DEVELOPING...

how stupid is he?
posted by amberglow at 7:29 PM on August 21, 2004