Latest from the news media...

R

Rojoe67

New member
Bush's visit to Russia is said to touched a soft nerve with the Russian leader. ABC News reported that Bush had visits to countries that the top Russian didn't like. The media didn't name the countries that Bush visited before and then after Russia. We can only guess they are countries that broke from the former USSR. We can also guess these countries aren't playing the game the way Poutin wants it played. I find it very interesting that what and when Bush does anything he seems to be in the dunk tank. What is so hard for US media to set aside some of the liberal smear and try to give this president 5% backing? :confused: Sure must stink to wake each morning knowing anything you try to do will get forked and grilled no matter what you were trying to get done..... I agree with a lot of folks here and there, Bush isn't much of a speaker and some things he does aren't what I would........However, I wouldn't ever want to change jobs with him. I give the guy a B+ and I consider myself a hard grader...........I think he is one of the best presidents in my life. :)
 
If Bush walked on water the liberal left media would be screeching from the rooftops, "See, we told you he couldn't swim!"
 
The fallacy is that of the "liberal media."

Its not as off-balance as you've all be lead to believe, matter of fact when you think about it, the "liberal media" seems to be loathe to play any hardball with the current administration. There's plenty of things, no matter how you may feel about it, that most certainly deserve a closer look by our "liberal media" that seem to be surprisingly forgotten about.

The Iraq lead-up, the Iran situation, John Gannon/Jeff Guckert, Ken Blackwell, Ohio, vote poll discrepencies (where, honestly, is one of my favourites: What we proclaimed as reason to overturn Ukraine's elections where AOK in our elections, 'splain that!).

People need to stop adhering to some sort of fantasy party line and begin paying attention to how you're being played by the elite.

The "left" is no more your enemy than the "right" is mine, the extreme is OUR enemy.
 
Oh, PKAY, that is just TOO funny! You make your point by presenting a right wing conservative element of the media? You undercut your own point!
 
I would agree that when it comes to foreign policy, W has been the best President since Richard Nixon. His domestic policy sucks, but that's OK so long as he doesn't sell more nuke secrets or missle guidance technologies to the Chinese.

Bush had a shaky first term and left me wondering. I am happy that his second term started out with so many successes. I guess the first term was spent digging us out of the Clinton messes.
 
I would agree that when it comes to foreign policy, W has been the best President since Richard Nixon
Click to expand...

kjm: I love ya'll aggies for providing me with hours of endless entertainment, and the Dixie Chicken is fun. But I have to wonder, where you have been the last few years?
Bush is not a grand visionary statesman to be compared to Nixion (dirt bag, but brilliant foreign policy) and Regan (who even I as a liberal admire as a great American and one of our greatest presidents). I'll give Bush credit for the getting Lybia to get rid of its nuclear ambitions (even though that was the result of Bush's minions not of the man himself, since he is a delegator of responsibility). And Afganhinstan is going okay. But what else has he succeded at?
Humm.......1600 dead Americans in Iraq. For what? WMDs, 9/11, or was it to settle a personal thing? Now we are stuck there and all these terrorists (who where never there before, because Saddam didn't want them there anymore than we did) are getting all sorts of good experience in how to fight in a brutal Darwinian process. But Haliburton is makeing good money, so I guess its okay. Our troops are stretched way too thin. Imagine if another crisis where to arise and we had to respond. Who would we send? ROTC? North Korea is about to test a nuke probably and is launching missiles in the Sea of Japan. He gets all buddy, buddy with Putin ("I can see into his soul" lol), who you can tell thinks Bush is a dumbass. He keeps Donald Rumsfeld on as SecDef, names Paul Wolfowiz to head the world bank. Need I go on?
I didn't care for Clinton and voted for Bush the first time around. This last time Kerry made me want to vomit :barf: (I voted for Willie Nelson :D ). Bush is no FDR or Lincoln or even a Nixon. Saying something that absured reveals no sense of history IMHO.
 
But what else has he succeded at?
Click to expand...

Well- I suppose I'll just run down a list of what has gone on since the new American Idol scandal has taken the attention of the T-sips off of the news:

1. Saddam is in jail and Iraq has had elections. There are a lot fewer deaths per day at the hands of the insurgents as there were under Saddam.

2. The Palestinians just had an ELECTION. The outcome was that they chose a peacemaker in Abbas over his opponent who wanted to continue fighting the Israelis.

3. Gaddaffy has come clean on his nuclear weapon's programs

4. Lebanon has had successful elections where a Syrian Puppet was rejected for an independant who is wanting the US to occupy Lebanon next so that they can run a democracy.

5. Israel is pulling out of Gaza in fits and starts UNDER SHARON!

6. Egypt is discussing elections.

7. Saudi Arabia has just had local and municipal elections and is planning national elections the next go 'round.

8. Kuwait is permitting women to vote in non-national elections and is mulling over allowing them to vote in national elections.

9. Afghanistan had elections and women voted.

10. The King of Jordan, Abdulla II said on NPR a few weeks back that he would be interested in setting up Jordan as a Constitutional Monarchy in the same manner as Brittain.

I am not sure about what else is happening in God's monkey house in places like Bahrain, UAE and Yemen, but I suspect that they might also be moving towards democracy in one form or another.

Just in case you haven't understood the magnatude of these accomplishments, we are talking about the MIDDLE EAST here, not some Canadian province.

Oh- and Bush has all but destroyed the credibility of the United Nations and in my book, that is his greatest accomplishment of all!

Oh- and though I didn't vote for Willie, I do have his campaign poster on my wall. My good friend does all his art work and I get freebies!
 
kjm: And all this is because of Bush?
'Cum on lets be realist. What your saying just the opposite side of the coin of the folks who blame Bush for everything bad thing that happens in the world, from that tsumani to the size of Rosie O'Donnell's ass.
While I will not argue the significant of those events, I must say that Bush didn't single-handedly cause them to occur. He's not some "Dubaya of Arabia" who can unite the Arab people under his banner of democracy. Most of the stuff is done anyways through the professional Diplomatic corps who are (supposedly) apolitical. Besides Bush got rid of the one of the only two people who can think for themselves in his cabinet when he basically kicked Colin Powell out. Condie is still there, but she can't stand with the same stature as Powell.

P.S.-Send me some Willie stuff when we kick your ass next year at Kyle Trailer Park, I mean Kyle field. ;)
 
Let me get this straight:

A news agency is "liberal" and "not giving the President backing" if it reports a fact??????


Fact: Putin made public statements about how he (Putin) didn't like something Bush did.


Am I to understand that we'd be better off if our news media chose to report even fewer facts then they already do? :confused:

I hope to God that "fair and balanced" news reporting doesn't mean that MORE stories get buried.
 
Having spent a fair amount of time in the middle east over the last decade, I can tell you that the most sweeping changes have happened in the last 5 years. Middle eastern states can no longer keep their people in the kind of ignorance and fear they used to even 10 years ago. Knowledge of the rest of the world is more available due to decreases in government censorship. Pro-and-anti-democracy groups are more free than ever in Middle eastern history to espouse their views.

Why? What events of the last five years have brought this about?

It certainly wasn't through the efforts of the Diplomatic Corps. Diplomats handle protocol, long-term treaty negotiations, and disagreements inolving our citizens in foreign lands (and vice versa). They perform their duties admirably, but they are functionaries, not visionaries, and this is beyond their pale.

If you think it happened because the rulers of said states suddenly developed a sense of fatherly love for their citizens and felt it was time to grant them what we see as basic rights, you're more naive than I thought. It happened because they are afraid.

They watched the Taliban, the "model new Islamic state," collapse with the help of a handful of Special Forces troops.

They watched as the Iraqi armed forces collapsed and the Iraqi people cheered in the streets.

They've watched as the Bush administration ignored hollow diplomatic solutions and United Nations hypocrisy in order to advance the interests of the United States.

They watched all of that and realized that if they didn't change, they would be next...either from without or within.
 
UT Air..... and others.......

Yesterdays ABC morning report that I saw said nothing of the 2 countries they spoke of today........ I know from todays news it was Latvia and Georgia..... Anyhow I didn't think this one would go this way but interesting conversation it is.... UT Air your first response was WTF? I think I know what your saying but your code talk and mine must mean a little different things....... I must have frosted you in a unkind way......Sorry about that.... I won't respond back in any code talk...... I did say he was one of the best in my life......... Sir, I am 38 years old........ Ronald Reagan was my first pick and I can't recall much of Richard Nixon other than his last moments in office.... I was a little young back then. So in the life I remember: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (dad), Clinton then Bush (son).......... I stand by my picks and my third would be Bush (dad)....... We have the right to our own opinion still right? ;)

I can respect and like a person's work and not be crazy about them too. I have some great respect for people in leadership because of the way they do the job. In a personal one on one with them, I think some are real Jackass material. That in mind doesn't take away what the professional side of that person is....and as long as I see it good business and fair then I can look at both sides of the coin and understand it for what it is........ :)
 
UT: You may not have my willie poster though I might be persuaded to find you a copy signed by the artist if you do some pretty degrading stuff concerning branding some steer kept somewhere around Austin. Besides, the game this year will be at Royal Stadium, not Kyle.

Also- I have never said Bush was a superior intellect. Intellect doesn't make a great president. Woodrow Wilson was awful and probably the most brilliant man to hold the office ditto for Clinton. G. Washington was no MENSA candidate, yet he was one of the best if not the best President in this country's history.

Folks may disagree on what makes you great, but I think W had a strong sense of right and wrong, and the moral courage to pursue what he thought was right. We can argue all day about the reasons for going into Iraq, and you'd probably win that arguement, but the outcomes of going in are clear to see based on the reactions of neighboring countries in the region.

The Diplomatic Corps has in the past 30 years done more harm than good. Remember how April Gillespie (then ambassador to Iraq) told Saddam Hussein that the United States would take no sides in the little dispute about Kuwait and the Rumallah Oil Fields? I believe that conversation took place on July 27th, 1990. April 2nd, Saddam Invaded Kuwait and began a fifteen year struggle that ended in his apprehension. Nope- I won't give the Dipcorp credit for today's sweeping changes.

Reagan didn't bring down communism because he was possessed of great brilliance and cunning guile. He was only possessed of the basic immorality of communism and that it would fall with persuasion. It did. He had a sense of the right thing to do and he did it.

I believe that if Bill Clinton would have taken the eight or so terrorist attacks during his tennure seriously, September 11th may not of happened, but hindsight is 20/20. He just got caught with his pants down.
 
(I voted for Willie Nelson ). Bush is no FDR or Lincoln or even a Nixon. Saying something that absured [sic.] reveals no sense of history IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that's almost as absurd as voting for Willie Nelson for President (but at least he wouldn't lie about prior drug us--he's a dope smoker and damn proud of it)... :p FDR and Lincoln weren't FDR and Lincoln way back when. Reagan wasn't Reagan. Point being Presidents are seen differently through the eye of history.

Middle eastern states can no longer keep their people in the kind of ignorance and fear they used to even 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

This will be a big part of Bush's legacy. Change is happening across the Middle East. It is an imperfect process, but I believe that history will look favorably upon the change.

Well- I suppose I'll just run down a list of what has gone on since the new American Idol scandal has taken the attention of the T-sips off of the news
Click to expand...

Hey... not all of us watch American Idol... at least not since our favorite got voted off... :D

Oh- and Bush has all but destroyed the credibility of the United Nations and in my book, that is his greatest accomplishment of all!
Click to expand...

Seriously... I agree with all the accomplishments you listed, and I am sure that there are more. I don't know if the quoted one is the greatest, but it is up there.

What your saying just the opposite side of the coin of the folks who blame Bush for everything bad thing that happens in the world, from that tsumani to the size of Rosie O'Donnell's ass.
Click to expand...

Remember when, right before the election, weapons were "lost" in Iraq? Who got blamed by the Democratic party? Was it the commander in charge of securing the weapons? Nope. It was Bush. Point being doo doo rolls uphill. So who should the credit? Did Bush actually take part in each and every one of these things on the ground level? Of course not. Did his vision and perserverence make it possible? I would argue that it did.

If Bush walked on water the liberal left media would be screeching from the rooftops, "See, we told you he couldn't swim!"
Click to expand...

Too funny. I have heard the one that if Bush found a cure for cancer, the Democrats would be complaining about all the out of work laboratory rats.

1600 dead Americans in Iraq. For what? WMDs, 9/11, or was it to settle a personal thing?
Click to expand...

By the way, as an example of doo doo rolling up hill, do you ever hear about the Democrats who made claims of WMDs in Iraq? What about:

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. - Al Gore, 9/23/2002
Click to expand...

or

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. - John Kerry (at least before he changed his mind) 10/09/2002
Click to expand...

or

[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... John Kerry, again... 01/23/2003
Click to expand...

These very same people are out screaming to anyone that will hear how Bush lied and led us into this war over WMDs that were never there. Does the media report on THEIR credibility?
 
I'm not saying Bush is the greatest president of all time. I am saying he's on par with R. Nixon when it comes to effective foriegn policy and Nixon IMO was one of the greatest executives to hold the office when it comes to F.P.

Bush's domestic policy has been absolutely horrible. I was hoping to be contributing to my personal retirement account by now, but sadly that has gone unfulfilled. Still- I have let my opinions be known to my Democratic congressman and it is all I can do. There were many other policy promises W made that he hasn't quite been able to do. Still- his plate is full enough and to do what he's done with the mideast merits great regard in my book.

Blood is being shed now, but I think it was inevitible anyway, so I'd rather shed some now than to wait until one of those mullahs gets a nuke or two. Musharaf won't be around forever being possibly the most lucky head of state in the world. He survives assassination attempts like we survive bad service. One of these days Pakistan will be free of his iron grip and I dread to think of who will be taking over that goatscrewing wretched place. We might better send India some missile technology soon so that they might destroy each other rather than everybody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top