Details being sorted

There is nothing in the ad that would suggest that the Bush administration is endorsed by the Olympic Committee. In fact, there's nothing there that says any of the athletes mentioned endorse the president. If the Olympic rings were placed in a spot that made it look as thought they approved the ads or endorsed the president, then I believe the people asking for the ad to be pulled would have a case.

The argument came up that the Olympics owns their trademark. And I don't dispute that. But this does not mean that the symbol cannot be used or that the name cannot be mentioned when pointing out a fact. And the fact is, the two contingents mentioned would never be at the Olympics - at least not without fear of torture upon their return - unless this president did what he did.

But Bush is using the Olympics to personally profit? By which was meant - to win the election.

Well, people do that all the time. In Atlanta, and I am sure many other places, it's become fashionable to run on the anti-Wal-Mart platform. So, if a politician wanted to keep a Wal-Mart Supercenter out of a neighborhood, could she not take photos of the congestion caused in other neighborhoods by Wal-Marts? Is that not fair use?

What about companies who proudly advertise that they have employees participating in the Olympic games? If nothing else, they're blatantly using the Olympics for profit. "Buy from us. We support our athletes' in their quest for Olympic Gold!"

Do the same people have problems with companies doing this?

And how about John Kerry? Should he be allowed to talk about Bush's Enron buddies in his ads, and maybe show a picture of their Texas headquarters in the ads? I'm sure someone owns the Enron trademark. And the Halliburton one.

I suspect most people complaining about Bush using the Olympics in his ads, to make a valid point of fact, would sit silently if John Kerry did the same thing using trademarks in ads they liked.