What we don't see in the news

[Timebuilder]

"Well son, I hope you don't mind that we lied about why you went to Iraq, and that the threat we used as justification for putting you in harms way and getting you maimed and almost 200 of your brothers killed, wasn't really there, but hey, let me pray for you and that should make it all peachy... oh and sorry about your hand"

I like the way you can make up a quote to help you demeam a person, while failing to address the point that you are using as the reason for your post, the questioning of the reverence of George Bush. I like it because it reveals the true nature of your position: that of spoiler, one who seeks to inhibit rational discussion, cry wolf, and add confusion to the facts at hand. Without this approach, you have little to say.

There is nothing to suggest that Bush is not a reverent man, nothing to suggest that he had any knowlege of the veracity of ANY intelligence document, and nothing to suggest that Sadaam was not seeking to buy "yellow cake" for the second time since the 80's. All that we DO know is that there was an apparent problem in the US intel community about whether this information was seen as sufficiently reliable. As you know, the Brits STILL feel that their intel is correct. I'm sure these facts make no difference to you.

I am not surprised.

 

[Whirlwind]

Liberal media?

I seem to remember nothing but patriotic war-drum banging on CNN, MSNBC and (of course) Fox for the two months leading up to the Iraq war.

Yes, that is true. Leading up to the war, it became very un-PC to say anything anti-war or anti-America.

The truth is, there are some very smart people running the major media networks and they all knew from experience that this war was coming, one way or another.

So the flag waving started, if for no other reason than because the people who work at most media companies in the US are in fact patriots too. It was also good business at the time.

I will give the media credit on one thing. They may be ragging on Bush, but they are treating our soldiers as heros. This is as it should be. Our experience in Vietnam showed that attacking the soldiers themselves solves nothing. They get no say in the matter, they must obey orders, period. Don't like it? Complain to the guy who makes the decisions, not the one who carries them out.

For the record, I think the war in Iraq was a good thing, if nothing else, we freed some very oppressed people, and that is never a bad thing.

 

[spitfire1940]

Pilotontherise,

it is entirely normal that Bush and all other leaders get criticized int he press. He's the prez. This is pure SOP for the press and citizens in general. Don't take it personally.

I seem to recall Clinton taking even more heat in the "liberal" media--epecially on editorial pages from moderate and conservative pundits, and even some libs. The whole series of Whitewater, Monica, etc. certainly didn't help his image.

I work in DC in an office full of Libby Libs and they are IRATE that Bush isn't getting hit HARDER in the press. That's their perspective, of course, but they think Dubya is made of Teflon like Reagan was (until Iran-Contra brought his numbers down).

Listen, I know you like Bush, and for the record, I think he's probably a real nice guy who means well (although I wish he hadn't set the TSA loose on us).

But Bush has it easy compared to past presidents, including TRULY great ones. Go dig up a paper from the early 1860s and see what they were saying about Abe Lincoln during the Civil War.

Busting on your leader is a time-honored tradition of democracy, whether it's right or wrong, whether we like the guy or not.

Bush is a big boy and I don't think he pays a whole lot of attention to it. Not like he didn't know what he was getting himself into running for president.

 

[Whirlwind]

Busting on your leader is a time-honored tradition of democracy, whether it's right or wrong, whether we like the guy or not.

Amen!

I'm thankful we live in a country where we can print such things. If you tried that in Iraq or Iran, you'd simply be dragged outside and shot.

 

[WrightAvia]

If you tried that in Iraq or Iran, you'd simply be dragged outside and shot.

And rightfully so. Do you know how hard it is to run a dictatorship with a bunch of yah-hoos running around willy nilly, talking about you behind back. Geez...next thing you know, them monkeys will want freedom of assembly, freedom from religious persecution, freedom of the press, the right to a well regulated militia, freedom from infringement of a citizen to bear arms and whole bunch of other crazy things like that.

 

[wil]

Has anyone thought that maybe the powers that be are sitting on some of the intel( that will prove Bush's claims) to be released later this year as the 2004 Presidential bid heats up? I back Bush 100% and I don't doubt that he will play hardball with the Dems!

 

[saabtrash]

Does it always have to be about Jesus? You people are so f*cking annoying.

 

[saabtrash]

Oh yeah, don't compare Bush to Jesus either, isn't that sac-religious?

 

[jarhead]

The problem is, Wil, that right now, no one has any idea of who the democrats will have on their ticket for prez. What do they have.....9 or 10 'candidates' running, with no consensus as to who will head up the ticket. Guess the primary season next year may help 'clarify', who will be running against the GOP

 

[jarhead]

saabtrash

I guess that depends on which religion you refer to