The most famous flight-93 victim

October 10, 2006 12:34 PM

David Beamer,father of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer stars in new 527 political TV ad... Misleading? (youtube link)
posted by DougieZero1982 (66 comments total)

Just your standard idiotic rhetoric.


posted by delmoi at 12:40 PM on October 10, 2006

Absolutely ghoulish.
posted by boo_radley at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2006

I'd say this absolutely fits the pattern that the Administration has used all along of linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. That somehow our fighting in Iraq is a "continuation" of the fight against Al Queda is one of the biggest lies that Bush and his cronies have perpetuated. Using this family member of someone seen as one of the heroes of that tragic day is repugnant.

Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this crap.
posted by birdhaus at 12:45 PM on October 10, 2006

Some background info on Progress for America.
posted by gompa at 1:10 PM on October 10, 2006

What is really sad about this, other than the painfully obvious as stated above, is that this guy probably wants/needs his son's death to have some sort of meaning, and that he's willingly convinced himself that this unrelated war is somehow an extension of his son's actions that day.
posted by lovejones at 1:14 PM on October 10, 2006

Misleading? No.

The same one-trick pony the republicans and neocon chicken-hawks have been riding since 9/12/01? Yes.
posted by crunchland at 1:18 PM on October 10, 2006

but it's all so... nonpartisan...

*chuckle*

the ad has balls -- the 9/11-Iraq connection is just masterfully stated. seriously. no explanations, just fact -- the same war, period.

I tip my hat


of course if you attack this, you hate the grieving families and you root for the Murlisms
posted by matteo at 1:21 PM on October 10, 2006

Todd's Wikipedia entry contains a few gems:

The final words attributed to Todd Beamer were, according to the 9/11 Commission, "roll it", apparently referring to a serving-cart being used as a battering ram.

And

[Todd's widow] Lisa Beamer has been subject to some controversy in the years since her husband's death. She has been accused of trying to profit from her husband's death after it was learned that on December 4, 2001, she applied for a trademark on the phrase "Let's Roll" and apparently attempted a civil action against Neil Young for his use of the phrase in his song. The Todd M. Beamer Foundation has since licensed the use of the phrase to Wal-Mart, the Florida State football team, and others.
posted by peeedro at 1:22 PM on October 10, 2006

Wow. That was fucking pathetic. He should be ashamed.
posted by docpops at 1:22 PM on October 10, 2006

Anyone else catch how Todd Beamer was "killed in action"? Nice. I suppose that means everyone killed on September 11 have posthumously become soldiers.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:27 PM on October 10, 2006

This ad has been getting massive airplay here in Missouri, probably due to the heated Senate race between Talent (R) and McCaskill (D).
posted by zsazsa at 1:33 PM on October 10, 2006

The 9-11 comm. info is pretty interesting. So perhaps it's possible that Todd himself would have seen the intrinsic value in wasting bodies and resources in Iraq while Afghanistan is overrun by Taliban and Iran and N. Korea laugh at our military and economic asthenia because of Bush's latest failed venture.
posted by docpops at 1:39 PM on October 10, 2006

fandango_matt writes "Anyone else catch how Todd Beamer was 'killed in action'? Nice. I suppose that means everyone killed on September 11 have posthumously become soldiers."

Well not Mark Bingham. Sure, he died fighting the terrorists on Flight 93, but

That's what gays do - engage in sodomy and spread disease. Meanwhile, the talk about "gay pride", "gay rights", and their "lifestyle". [Mark Bingham was] just another sodomite."

And we certainly wouldn't have let that Flight 93 hero into the Army. Winning in Iraq is the most important fight in our nation's history, but it's not important enough to stop us from discharging gays soldiers trained at great expense.
posted by orthogonality at 1:40 PM on October 10, 2006

Ann Coulter is going to jump all over this guy.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2006

Anyone else catch how Todd Beamer was "killed in action"? Nice. I suppose that means everyone killed on September 11 have posthumously become soldiers.

Therefore no longer making it a terrorist attack?
posted by dazed_one at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2006

The Todd M. Beamer Foundation has since licensed the use of the phrase to Wal-Mart, the Florida State football team, and others.

Heroic Choices, formerly known as the Todd M. Beamer Foundation.

For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll." (Applause.)
posted by prostyle at 1:43 PM on October 10, 2006

he's willingly convinced himself that this unrelated war is somehow an extension of his son's actions that day.

In fact, Todd Beamer's dad called his son's death "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III." The scary part is that Bush said he agreed with that assessment.
posted by jonp72 at 1:45 PM on October 10, 2006

of course if you attack this, you hate the grieving families...

Must be why no one on the right attacked Cindy Sheehan.
posted by delmoi at 2:02 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm just glad Republicans don't exploit 9/11 for political gain like Democrats do.
posted by bardic at 2:04 PM on October 10, 2006

This is utterly deplorable.

What I find completely depressing is that I live in a nation where people would not only never reject such craven nonsense out of hand, they'd actually be swayed by it to vote for such and such a candidate.

I say, open up the borders now, to everyone! The content of our national character cannot possibly get any worse.
posted by psmealey at 2:16 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

David Beamer = Cindy Sheehan

Both of those despicable people are using their son's death to advance their own political views.

It would be great for the two of them to meet in an back alley duel, and if they both got the other one, the net ethical worth of mankind would be recieve a net benefit.
posted by dios at 2:16 PM on October 10, 2006

David Beamer = Cindy Sheehan

death = life, black = white, up = down, arbeit macht frei, we know the drill
posted by goethean at 2:23 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Both of those despicable people are using their son's death to advance their own political views.

While this seems correct on it's face, I just can't quite place what seems just slightly off. I think it has something to do with advancing an agenda based on lies and advancing an agenda that has at it's heart, truth and fairness. But thanks for the asinine comparison.
posted by docpops at 2:24 PM on October 10, 2006

I think it has something to do with advancing an agenda based on lies and advancing an agenda that has at it's heart, truth and fairness.

Translation: I don't mind when one of them does it because I agree with her.

That kind of exquisite bullshit is par for the course here.

The utilization of the death of a child to advance one's political agenda is a sure sign that a person is a piece of shit regardless of what the political agenda is.
posted by dios at 2:32 PM on October 10, 2006

Everything the other side does is morally reprehensible. Everything my side does is justified.
posted by srboisvert at 2:34 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

It's things like this that make me hate everyone. You included.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 2:40 PM on October 10, 2006

I think it has something to do with advancing an agenda based on lies and advancing an agenda that has at it's heart, truth and fairness.

Translation: I don't mind when one of them does it because I agree with her.

um, no, it's not opinion, it's verifiable lies. Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, though we were told that they were. This man is using his son's death to forward an agenda of misinformation. i judge this to be evil.
posted by Miles Long at 2:44 PM on October 10, 2006

David Beamer = Cindy Sheehan

Both of those despicable people are using their son's death to advance their own political views.

"Despicable" is going way overboard. The death of a child is a tragedy I would not wish on my worst enemy. However, I know people who have lost a child, and it is one of the most emotionally painful things that a person could ever have to deal with. If exercising the First Amendment right to promote a political cause helps Mr. Beamer or Ms. Sheehan ease their grief, I'm all for it, regardless of whether I agree with the cause. If any exploitation is going on, it's not done by Mr. Beamer or Ms. Sheehan, but by the people who want to use Beamer or Sheehan as mere political pawns without any feeling for the grief they must bear.
posted by jonp72 at 2:45 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

The utilization of the death of a child to advance one's political agenda is a sure sign that a person is a piece of shit regardless of what the political agenda is.

Well, if you believe you're doing something to help remedy the situation that caused the death of your kid, that often bleeds into politics. The Amber Alert program seems to work very well. Even if Amber's parents were involved in urging politicians to set it up, I don't think that they are pieces of shit.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:46 PM on October 10, 2006

Let us roll, indeed!
posted by mano at 2:49 PM on October 10, 2006

jonp: If any exploitation is going on, it's not done by Mr. Beamer or Ms. Sheehan, but by the people who want to use Beamer or Sheehan as mere political pawns without any feeling for the grief they must bear.

Thank you.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:52 PM on October 10, 2006

Well, if you believe you're doing something to help remedy the situation that caused the death of your kid, that often bleeds into politics. The Amber Alert program seems to work very well. Even if Amber's parents were involved in urging politicians to set it up, I don't think that they are pieces of shit.
posted by ibmcginty at 4:46 PM CST on October 10

That is a valid point and tells me I need to clarify my terms a little better. Clearly the Amber Alert example is a good one, and I would not call those people pieces of shit.

The kind of people I was referring to was Sheehan and Beamer. That is, people who use the attention they get for being the parent of a dead person to advance their previously held political agendas which are not directly related to their child's death.

Sheehan had all of her ideas prior to her son's death. She just plays upon the sympathy people have for her and tries to use the good will from the sympathy to advance her extreme political ideas. From what I have read from Beamer, the same is with him: he attempts to use the emotional goodwill people have for his loss to advance his political views. Neither one of these people are like Amber Alert parents. Those parents did not play upon the sympathy and goodwill they have for their loss to advance political goals.
posted by dios at 2:55 PM on October 10, 2006

posted by dios David Beamer = Cindy Sheehan
Both of those despicable people are using their son's death to advance their own political views. It would be great for the two of them to meet in an back alley duel, and if they both got the other one, the net ethical worth of mankind would be recieve a net benefit.

Let's Troll!
posted by fandango_matt at 2:56 PM on October 10, 2006 [7 favorites has favorites]

Sheehan had all of her ideas prior to her son's death. She just plays upon the sympathy people have for her and tries to use the good will from the sympathy to advance her extreme political ideas.

I didn't know you knew Cindy, dios. What's she like? How do you know her?
posted by digaman at 2:58 PM on October 10, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

So anyone who points out that people are dying for some reason or another and tha maybe something ought to be done about it is, in your eyes, a piece of shit?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:58 PM on October 10, 2006

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
posted by zenzizi at 3:04 PM on October 10, 2006

Well, one is in favor of killing people, the other isn't. I guess, dios, that's really not a big moral issue for you.
posted by Freen at 3:04 PM on October 10, 2006

dios writes "Sheehan had all of her ideas prior to her son's death. She just plays upon the sympathy people have for her and tries to use the good will from the sympathy to advance her extreme political ideas."

You looked into her heart and discerned her inner-most private thoughts, didn't you dios?

With an NSA tap, and without a warrant, no doubt.
posted by orthogonality at 3:04 PM on October 10, 2006

Fuck it. I said what Beamer is doing is repugnant. I'm not going to waste my time discussing a topic with people who are so willing disingenuous as to act like Cindy Sheehan is a simple grieving mother who is just trying to help make sure no other mother's lose their son, while Beamer is evil for doing the same thing. Hell, her own family issued a press release criticizing her politicization of her son, but the people here want to defend her. I'm not going to waste my time presenting the well known evidence about her or her views prior to her son's death. Any person of any intellectual integrity will admit she is consciously using her son's death to trumpet her own political views.

That is repugnant. Just as it is when Beamer does it for all the same reasons. But apparently there are very few people on this board who can value intellectual consistency over partisan defense.
posted by dios at 3:12 PM on October 10, 2006

If this was an ad against Al Qaeda or even religious extremism, I'd buy it. Surely a parent who has lost a child has the right to speak out publicly against the forces that murdered their kid. My only problem with the ad is that it's based on the Big Lie that got us into this mess: the conflation of Al Qaeda and Iraq. That dishonors both the dead kid and the living parent who was taken in by the lie.
posted by digaman at 3:12 PM on October 10, 2006

Ann Coulter is going to jump all over this guy.

Is this something I'd have to get cable to see?
posted by Sparx at 3:13 PM on October 10, 2006

In fairness to Beaman, digaman, Iraq is now a central front in the fight against terrorism. That's not what Beamer said, but it's the one thing that gives his ad some semblance of truthiness.
posted by ibmcginty at 3:15 PM on October 10, 2006

Well, I'll settle for discussing the language that's actually in the ad itself.
posted by digaman at 3:22 PM on October 10, 2006

Both of those despicable people are using their son's death to advance their own political views.

It would be great for the two of them to meet in an back alley duel, and if they both got the other one, the net ethical worth of mankind would be recieve a net benefit.

I don't think that's even remotely reasonable. It's pretty common for the loved ones of a person killed by a political issue to use the death to press the issue. That's the whole premise of MADD. It's no different the 9/11 victims families pushing for the creation of the 9/11 commission.

It happens all the time with non-controversial issues, are you saying all of those people are 'despicable'? If you have that value judgment, I guess that's up to you but I think it's an absurd view.

The truth is, it's a powerful general argument ("Do X because ~X killed my child!"). People generally are bothered when their political opponents use powerful arguments, and have a tendency to claim that those arguments are somehow "offensive." It's not the arguments that are offensive, it's the cognitive dissonance caused by being effected by the argument, or the anger caused by realizing it will sway people away from you.
posted by delmoi at 3:23 PM on October 10, 2006

Just to clarify, I don't think Beamer is a bad person or "repugnant" or whatever for doing this ad. I hardly think it matters at this point, the republicans are fucked no matter.

Now This is what I call an offensive ad. Offensive to anyone with aesthetic taste anyway.
posted by delmoi at 3:26 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

The Amber Alert program seems to work very well.

Off topic, but I think it has to be the stupidest piece of "wont someone think of the children" I've ever seen.

Here in CA, they have billboards on the freeway flashing the license plates of "child abductors" with a special number to call. If I see Osama bin Laden on the 405, good old 911 will have to do. But we need a special number so I can get involved in other people's custody disputes.

(also, the signs visibly slow traffic on some of the world's busiest freeways)
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:29 PM on October 10, 2006

awsome. dios thought he could try a quid pro quo . one beamer for one sheehan. nice try.
posted by nola at 3:38 PM on October 10, 2006

The utilization of the death of a child to advance one's political agenda is a sure sign that a person is a piece of shit regardless of what the political agenda is.

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'
posted by dhartung at 3:42 PM on October 10, 2006

i'm not about to second guess anyone who has lost a loved one , be it sheehan or beamer. whats sick is watching everyone try and move them around like so many chess pieces. both sheehan and beamer have weight in their opinions, precisely because their loss is what this whole thing is about.
no one cares about the war in iraq because it has no effect on real people. they care because it does have an effect.

those who have been injured are the reason for a responce. and while 9/11 matters to me , i have not lost anyone, what injury have i sustained?

maybe i should be weighing the ideas of the injured parties along with all other facts in this. after all they are the reason we now are at war, for good or bad, it's their deaths that are now our reasons.
posted by nola at 3:57 PM on October 10, 2006

prostyle writes "For too long our culture has said, 'If it feels good, do it.' Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.'"

Apparently in all the applause, the Todd M. Beamer Foundation heard "Let's Sue."

ibmcginty writes "In fairness to Beaman, digaman, Iraq is now a central front in the fight against terrorism. That's not what Beamer said, but it's the one thing that gives his ad some semblance of truthiness."

Yes and we must all go to the beach because the central front in the fight against skin cancer is out in the sun without sunblock. The central front in the fight against scarring is that scab, so we must pick it.
posted by VulcanMike at 4:55 PM on October 10, 2006

nice metaphor vulcanmike!

so for each new stupid blunder we make (hapless person we bomb) we create a bunch of new people who hate our freedom (to blunder and bomb)... thus creating new central fronts in the war of blundering idiocy on terrorism. hey, at least the reasoning is consistent.
posted by mano at 5:10 PM on October 10, 2006

Why is it that families of high-profile deceased people so often feel the need to start a foundation in that person's name? I can't think of a bigger waste of money, than donating to a foundation commemorating the latest "hot" dead person.
posted by jayder at 5:27 PM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

posted by jayder Why is it that families of high-profile deceased people so often feel the need to start a foundation in that person's name?

Marketing and brand/name recognition, baby!
posted by fandango_matt at 5:36 PM on October 10, 2006

The utilization of the death of a child to advance one's political agenda is a sure sign that a person is a piece of shit regardless of what the political agenda is.

And the most famous "utilization of the death of a child etc... " being the crucifixion - that makes god...?
Hmm... Never mind.

The video is so awful at so many levels - that poor man must be completely out of his gourd.
posted by speug at 6:23 PM on October 10, 2006

Let's Roll Over!
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:29 PM on October 10, 2006

If this is the October Surprise, I will be sorely disappointed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:39 PM on October 10, 2006

"
You looked into her heart and discerned her inner-most private thoughts, didn't you dios?

With an NSA tap, and without a warrant, no doubt."


Yup, and Dios could tell Terri Schaivo wasn't in a persistant vegetative state as well. How do you think Fristy found out?
posted by stenseng at 10:57 PM on October 10, 2006

Wow, lotta Dios hate going on here...

Amazed as I am to realize it, I'm in total agreement with him on this. Whatever I may think of the correctness of Sheehan's politics VS Beamer's politics, they are both exploiting the death of loved ones to advance a political agenda.

Dios has put quite succinctly what I was feeling yesterday reading the Minutemen thread:

there are very few people on this board who can value intellectual consistency over partisan defense.

I don't know whether Mefites are just becoming more mindlessly partisan with age (as tends to happen), or if it's just another symptom of the growing political stratification going on under Bushco.

Matt Taibbi has just summed up the latter quite nicely :

Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers.

If that isn't political Metafilter conversations in a nutshell, I don't know what is ... either way, it's terribly depressing.
posted by blackberet at 5:29 AM on October 11, 2006

If that isn't political Metafilter conversations in a nutshell

Stop it.

For sure this format lends itself to all sorts of demagoguery and selective memory (which a distinct minority exploits incessantly), but there are many more people here who are willing to listen and alter their views based on the evidence presented.

Constantly accusing everyone of bias and malicious intent (perfectly exemplified by srboisvert's ridiculous and cynical chestnut above), is actually worse than actually being merely biased one's self, because it poisons the well for everyone.

Most intelligent people can figure out when Michael Moore, and Ann Coulter are delivering narrow, biased missives, but when you accuse EVERYONE of the same behavior you declare that no one has anything of value to say to anyone, which doesn't get us anywhere. You've lowered the debate even further.
posted by psmealey at 5:56 AM on October 11, 2006

The only thing that kind of really aggravates me about this is that Mr. Beamer's son is the best defense this country still has against similar attacks, and will most likely continue to be for some time to come. I remember thinking that any attempted hijacking would end in gruesome treatment for the attackers.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but even if they'd shot down flight 93 (like a responsible government might), I'd allow the myth of the insurrection to take hold, inspiring other citizens to do the federal government's job.

but obviously, stirring up the hornet's nest in Iraq is only going to inspire the next attack, which will probably be in a different form, exploiting a different gaping hole in our national security.

I just wish the copy of the ad inserted a 'I feel that' at the beginning. That'd really exonerate him from criticism.
posted by Busithoth at 6:11 AM on October 11, 2006

psmealey,

Reading through this thread and the previous Minuteman thread, I see very little evidence of people being as open-minded as you (and I) would hope for. Alot of people who definitely know better are going with partisan instinct and simply spinning words around that, rather than applying anything resembling consistent principles and beliefs to the topics at hand.

I fail to see how simple acknowledgement of how low the level of discourse has fallen "poisons the well" and renders the situation terminally hopeless. Given the amount of space being consumed by the same tired old strawman arguments that this mindless partisanship unfailingly spawns, I reserve the right to some small piece to bemoan the situation, however unproductive (or actively harmful?) that may be.

I've not accused "EVERYONE" of the same behaviour. I simply note that this is a growing trend. More and more, clearly intelligent people are getting drawn into an unthinking trap. Sound and fury... And I expect that will get worse before it gets better.
posted by blackberet at 7:04 AM on October 11, 2006

Constantly accusing everyone of bias and malicious intent (perfectly exemplified by srboisvert's ridiculous and cynical chestnut above), is actually worse than actually being merely biased one's self, because it poisons the well for everyone.

Most intelligent people can figure out when Michael Moore, and Ann Coulter are delivering narrow, biased missives, but when you accuse EVERYONE of the same behavior you declare that no one has anything of value to say to anyone, which doesn't get us anywhere. You've lowered the debate even further.

Obviously, I disagree with you. Pointing out that people can figure out that Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are biased so don't accuse everyone of being biased is like saying "Go ahead and cross the street blindfolded because everyone can hear a bus coming".

I don't believe a discussion of who is allowed to say what about people who died and who is allowed to use what imagery can be anything other than biased partisan bullshit where both sides are wrong. Here it is argued with more sophistication that Moore or Coulter will ever bring to the table but it doesn't change the fact that it is really a moronic debate between opposing chess players who are trying to remove each other's pieces from the board before the game has even begun.
posted by srboisvert at 8:24 AM on October 11, 2006

Delmoi's ad link is teh awesomeness. It's political advertising for people who thought Scary Movie 4 was funny. Oh fuck, we are fucking fucked then!
posted by Mister_A at 8:50 AM on October 11, 2006

all of you people that are down on folks "using" the death of a loved one for political purposes, what, would you prefer that politics be all about aloofness and emotional detachment?

war affects people, you know, the whole death and pain stuff. its real, maybe not for you, maybe its just cerebral for you, something to argue about on the internet, but its real for, say, us soldiers and the iraqis that are getting reamed. i think people should speak from and bring personal experience into politics as much as possible.

that said, there is a big difference between sheehan and beamer. sheehan motivates her politics based on her loss . beamer motivates his based on thoughts he attributes to his son. sheehan is perfectly qualified to talk about her pain. beamer is not so qualified to talk about what was going through his sons mind as the plane went down (my guess, it was something like "oh shit" and not, "im so proud to die in WWIII, the looming war against a tactic"). certainly, beamer is adding context to his tragedy that didnt exist when it occured, whereas sheehan is not.
posted by mano at 12:27 PM on October 11, 2006

all of you people that are down on folks "using" the death of a loved one for political purposes, what, would you prefer that politics be all about aloofness and emotional detachment?

I have a theory that it really is about some people being unable to express emotions in a healthy way: "Bury your child and STFU." "Suck it up and salute." That sort of thing. I guess it builds empires or something.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:55 PM on October 11, 2006

Pointing out that people can figure out that Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are biased so don't accuse everyone of being biased is like saying "Go ahead and cross the street blindfolded because everyone can hear a bus coming".

That similie flew completely over my head. I agree that more people have an axe to grind one way or the other than perhaps I'd like to admit, but my point was that statements that accuse everyone have an agenda is completley unproductive. All you're doing is adding to the overall noise to signal ratio.

I'm willing to believe that Beamer believes that the mess in Iraq has something to do with preventing another 911, but it's hard to take him seriously after the President himself has admitted no such link. In Cindy' Sheehan's defense, she was, for a while a lone woman on a mission to get answers from the man who sent her son to Iraq. Admittedly, she's not a bright woman, and she was soon co-opted by people and forces that she would have done well to stay away from, but her essential (original) message seemed sincere.

It just seems to me that there is a lot of grey area here, and throwing up your hands and saying "everyone's full of it", is adding the problem, rather than helping find the answer.
posted by psmealey at 7:08 AM on October 12, 2006