I'm not talking about a legal right; no one "owns" what happened on September 11. I guess I'm wondering if he has a moral right. If the terrorist attacks on that date were on America, then every American in some way owns a part of what happened then, Bush included.
But is it an equal distribution of "right"? On the Today show, Katie Couric interviewed three women about Bush's campaign ads. Two of the three women felt Bush was profiting from Sept. 11, which is technically true if the ads inspire a viewer to contribute to his campaign fund. (Aside: give me a candidate who'll use his campaign money to balance the budget and help eliminate our deficit and I'm so there.) One woman felt it was okay for him to use those images because, in effect, that's what happened. I don't mean to sound crass, but do these women and the firefighters unions and the police have more of a right to what happened on that date because of their proximity to the event than others? than me? than the president? than Alaskans? I don't know.
I'm sure there was much debate in the Bush camp about using these images, but I wonder if it's more detrimental to his campaign than helpful. Any commercial, to me, represents money or power, whether it's about a mop or a drug giant trying to get you to ask your doctor about a drug they don't tell you anything about in the commercial. Ergo, Bush is trying to win power by using these images. OTOH, though, it was the highlight of his presidency, aside--maybe--from Saddam Hussein's capture.
Ahh, I hate to have arguments about morals because they tend to be circular. Still, this one's about as grey as you can get.