Originally posted by DVPGSR
I am not being a baby about this...sure presidents do take a lot of shit, and that is fine. Noone is perfect, that is what makes us human. What bothers me is the fact the media loves to only talk about the negatives...it is the liberal bias that does this.
I noticed you fail to quote the Kosovo part, as well.
that went sucessful, don't you think? Actually, Clinton did a fine job in the counter-terrorism department, considering the pre-9-11-01 atmosphere. And thats not just me who thinks that. Two of the Reagan-era top counter-terrorism officals felt the same way. I could quote them, but don't feel like it.
of course, he did propose the dept. of homeland defense. And wanted the bush administration to keep and eye on Al queda. But naturally, the bush admin. declined it. They were busy pushing their missle defense system.
which brings me to a point: During the 70's and 80's, when rummy and chenney were more involved in the pentigon and things of that sort (DOD), there was alot, and I mean ALOT of scandle. I already mentioned the failed f14 and f111 projects, and how a group of people who actually had to stand up against the dinosaurs of the high-ranking, often corrupt officers. These 'rebels' pushed the much more successful f15, a plane just as good as the f14, and much MUCH cheaper. See, the pentigon has this facination of 'more complex means better' but actually, it means more expensive to develop, build, maintain, and use. Which means money to these officers, because the fact is, many would leave their pentigon position and then go to work for these defense contractors, which unfortunatly, is techniclly legal. Look at chenney when he left his seat as sec. of defense for Bush sr. He went and became CEO of Haliburton, which oversee's much of the nation rebuilding. I think they've been award well over a billion in governmental contracts, while the next highest competetor receive under 600 million.
think I'm lying? Read "The Pentigon Wars" I'll get you the authors name if you want, too.
but of course, you'll just over look this, like most of my points
See here is a perfect example of how the media influences the American people. You say there are none. Why? Probabaly because you only here the negatives coming from the liberal media.
first of all, I'll admit alot of this is covered in Frankens new book. And if it was
just written by him, then maybe you'd be right.
but he had harvard on his side. I'll beleive him before I beleive you or Coulter or fat-ass radio personallity.
I'm gonna pull this out of his book for a sec:
"tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush during '00 campaign"
postitive: 13% gore, 24% bush
neutral: 31% gore, 27% bush
negative: 56% gore, 49% bush
so if there really is a liberal bias, then why the fuck did gore have less positive coverage than bush. If you're right, this graph makes no sense at all.
BTW, the % is calculated by the Pew Charitable Trusts Projection for Excellence in Journalizm, based in the top-rated Columbia school of journalizm, a non-partisan group. The numbers are from a study of 1,149 stories from seventeen leading sources.
yeah, real liberal. In fact, get frankens book and turn to page 37, and read it for yourself. Maybe if he was like Coulter, or Hammity, and wrote books by himself, he'd be biased.
but the fact is, franken did unbiased research.
I agree. There is nothing more I expect but there is also another side to the story not being portrayed here.
the truth?
Again I agree, our military should not be policing Iraq...but that is a shitty situation they are in.
then why are you backing Bush and the war? You know, it IS our right to speak out against things we don't beleive. But the Neo-cons up in DC want you to keep shut because it undermines THEIR power, which is what this is really all about. Well, that and money.
I would much rather them be digging up the desert but how can you when people keep attacking you. I do not think it is the Bush administrations agenda, I do think it was a severe underestimation of resistance after the war ended that is doing this. And yes that is a fault of the Bush administration particularily Rumsfeld.
but its something that could have been avoided, say, if we went along with the UN in the first place.
Now we want their help again. I hope they say no. I really do. They didn't make the mess, so why should they clean it?
or maybe I just think that because I'm the youngest of 5 children, and learned that you must make sacrafice and compromise to make everyone happy.
I strongly question this. Awards given by liberals to liberal media organizations don't hold squat in my book.
and what book is that? Listen to the stupid blond because she's "cute?"
The GOP may have some influences through media...particularily with the cable news channels and talk radio, but the networked news channels and newspapers are strongly controlled by liberals and make for a much larger audience.
lets look at this:
Fox News (the highest rated news channel) is owned by Rupert Murdock (who is GOP influenced), who owns TV guide, The Weekly Standard, and 23 other magazine publications. And owns Fox, and HarperCollins publishing. And 20th Century Fox, and most satalite services around the world. And the London Times (total bullshit paper). And the New York Post (another total bullshit paper. I should know. One of its writers was fired because he ripped off an artical from a paper here in town, the Express News).
Clear Channel, which led pro-war rallies after the Dixie Chicks spoke their mind, and led subsequencial boycot of them that lasted maybe a week, owns over 250 radio stations nationwide. The next highest competitor? 70. Most range between 10 and 20. Some less than that. Oh, they're also based here in San Antonio....
CNN isn't very liberal, with shows like Crossfire that feature that dumbass Bill O'Reilly. The guy's a nutcase. I think the fact that he lied about his two "peabody awards" is grounds enough.
Plus, I saw franken on crossfire recently, promoting his new book. He was about to get into bush, and he called him a liar, and they cut him off and went to commercial. Thing is, they just came back from commercial. Where's that first ammendment?
The fact is, the only real liberal news show is probably the Daily Show, and no one takes comedy central serious. Too bad... :happysad:
Give it time we will find them, till then we have made large successes in this war. That is something you cannot deny. Will you only acknowledge those successes after we find WMD?
hmm, give them time. Well, they've had time. Maybe we'll find them before I die?
large successes in the war. You mean increased terrorist attacks, anarchy, a shady provisional government. And they still don't have power.
I'll acknowledge the only success, finding the WMD. Thats why we went there in the first place. Thats what justified the preemptive strike in the first place.
Now we're trying nation building again. This went well in the east (vietnam primarily), and gulf war I, and south/central america, right?
What lies? What did he say he would do that he is not?
Question: What politician once made these obeservations about US foreign policy?
-"if we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us"
-"I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders"
-"We've got to be very careful when we commit our troops....(it would depend on) whether or not there was an exit strategy."
Give you a hint. His nick name is dubya.
but yeah, those were just campaign slogans. We're still familiar with "read my lips, no new taxes", right?
I also do not think that he had planned on spending so much money on a war to fight terrorism. That would change any Presidents agenda.
commen sense would tell one "wait, this isn't gonna be easy like we think it will"
didn't our government learn their lesson in Vietnam? Or Korea? Or did they fall off somewhere. Sure, Gulf War was easy, but we actually HAD a collition. This time we didn't. You know, if other countrys were actually with us on this thing, that would be one thing. But they weren't. Doesn't that tell you something? Its not because they hate us. Its because we're making stupid choices. But rush just told you to eat you're freedom fries, so I guess whatever.
Clinton lied blatantly to the American public on purpose.
so did bush. So we could go to war and make him look like he's doing something. Because he sure wasn't doing anything prior to it. Unless you call vacationing at fort hood/bragg and running off to crawford "work"
one of these days, I'm gonna lead a group of people to crawford. That'd be fun....
He is not the only one to lie I am sure of it though...however he got cought with both hands in the cookie jar and his pants around his ankles and still lied.
maybe, but Bush is doing the same.
That story in Britain is interesting...still waiting to see how it plays out.
I thought you were with blair all the way....?
Like I said it will still be considered as a lapse in intelligence.
that could have been avioded, say.... if the government was actually working for us, and not themselves.
And the same people that would have to vote for impeachment are the same people that believed the same evidence.
I think they should impeach him. Actually, I was thinking along the lines of a tribunal. There is a thing called war-crimes, you know.
To become a hypocrite would be to commit political suicide...
but maybe politics is the problem
now it is just another card they can cash in at a later date. Its all politics.
I think washington (thats right, geoge) said it best when he dismissed political parties. He knew they'd fuck us up, and by God, they did.
Maybe, God forbid, we should elect people who actually want to make america "the land of the free" instead of "the land of the free, so long as you can afford it"