What If Bush Had Done That?

I found this on the front page of Yahoo AP News just a little while ago. I thought it interesting because it seems more and more these days, I'm seeing MSM maybe... just maybe turning against Obama a bit more.

This is my first time posting a new news story. I did a search for it here and didn't find anything, but I do apologize if this has been covered already.

news.yahoo.com...What if Bush had done that?

One has to make a concerted effort to ignore the blatant media bias towards the Obama administration. It has been backfiring as the approval ratings plummet and his agenda continues to get stalled by his own party who has a majority.

Bush was given leway at first too.

Obama has just as many haters as bush. When you lead a country of so many violent and horrific acts, your going to get focus.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

[edit on 10/27/2009 by andy1033]

reply to post by andy1033


Good point, but I don't remember Bush being given the leeway that Obama has been given (in the press, that is). I remember after his first election (and second) that the mood of the press was grim. Almost dejected.

Regardless, I do think that while the average person out there has woken up absurdities of the current administration, it's quite another to see the what is mostly the liberal press actually printing it.

What is Obama started 2 unjust wars under false pretenses of WMD, sanctioned torture, funneled trillions of dollars into defense contractors and private militias, destroyed American liberty, passed the patriot act and military commissions act, created a super-bureaucracy, bungled several national disasters, gave banksters 800 billion dollars with no oversight, removed the uptick rule shortly before the biggest stock market crash since the great depression (I could go on.. so I will):

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

www.americanprogress.org...

Added ex tags and a link - removed all but top 5. Click the link for the other 95

[edit on 27/10/09 by masqua]

[snip]

Yea -- Bush did all those things.



Removed 45 other items to be found in link above.

[edit on 27/10/09 by masqua]

reply to post by Kaytagg


I think you're preaching to the choir here. My point, and I think the point of the article, is that there needs to be less bias in the news media (which is probably one of the reasons why we're all here at ATS), and that the hypocrisy must end at some point.

I posted this link because there has been quite a bit of hypocrisy going on with our current administration, or outright lies. That's not to say that the Bush administration was any different. What I would (and I'm sure others) would like to see is frank discussion, not glossing over of facts.

Good post though!

reply to post by sabrinaleena


You know the thing I find amazing is that people would and still just make up stuff about Bush to make him out to be evil. On the other hand, they will just let Obama's actual destructive statements and actions toward the basic principles of our nation just slide. Obama is like John Gotti, made of Teflon.

As far as news media goes, you're never going to see good coverage (unless you watch non-profit news).

Why? Because CNN/FOX/NBC, etc, are all broadcasting to make money. This leads to lowest-common-denominator coverage of "news" which doesn't inform, but rather entertains. And CNN will blow a real news channel out of the water any day -- for precisely this reason. CNN/Fox/etc are much better at giving people what they want (in the same way a drug dealer gives a sick junkie on the street what he wants).

It's up to people to grow up, and realize that news is sometimes boring, facts can be tedious, and knowledge/wisdom doesn't come easy. But that won't stop millions of people from tuning in to their favorite late night pundit, to get a big dose of propaganda.

If you're really waiting for some kind of revolution in the news, you're wasting your time. Oh, and btw, there's plenty of information out there for the masses -- but they chose not to educate themselves. So what are you gonna do?

reply to post by Kaytagg


LMAO, non profit news like PBS is the same or worse than for profit news. They have to appease the government, their large donor, etc. Then on top of that they have freaking auctions. Why not just have commercials and quit sucking off the government teet. We should get rid of public government funded brodcasting all together. We could use the money to pay down the debt.

reply to post by TakeOutTheTrash


Taking Charlie Rose off the air will pay off our debt?

Btw, I like pbs. Uninterrupted debate/news is much better than the "we'll have to leave it there..." guys at the major networks.

reply to post by Kaytagg


Charlie Rose's show is awesome and he would find another station to work at.

The money we save by not funding those stations would reduce government spending which is a good thing.

What does PBS give you that Discrovery or the History Channel or the other stations do not? They could even stay on, they just need to become self sufficient.

reply to post by TakeOutTheTrash

edit: Not that being self sufficient is bad. What's bad is that the major news networks are more concerned about making a profit than delivering news. But why shouldn't they be? Their job is to make money.

All i'm saying is I would like a news network that is more concerned about delivering news, than making a profit.

Being self sufficient is the problem (unless supported by donations). You'll end up with another Fox/CNN/etc, with for-profit news.

It has nothing to do with capitalism/profits/media being bad -- it's just the natural evolution of things.

What is better for you -- a deep-fried, sugar glazed doughnut, or healthy portions of Vegetable/fruits/whole grains? Hint: Not the doughnut.

But which do you think people will more regularly pay for? Hint: Not the vegetables/fruits/whole grains.

This is the same problem with news. People would rather have crappy news, which doesn't tell you much (if anything at all), but covers things like Michael Jackson for 8 weeks, bears stuck in trees, pictures/footage of disasters, the poll numbers on elections rather than the issues the candidates stand for, etc.

People would rather tune in to see the crater left behind from a terrorist bombing in Pakistan and hear a gallop poll about what percentage of americans prefer bottled water to tap water, than a half hour, uninterrupted discussion on investment banking reform.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Kaytagg]

I understand that the article is a question posed to the media regarding their bias towards Obama, but what about the public?

Most people criticizing Obama were virtually silent as Bush tore our country apart. I'm not talking about folks on ATS. I'm talking about the people who call Obama a socialist for taking away our rights while Bush was treated as a savior of some kind.

So, yeah, what if Bush had done that? Well, he did and people voted him in for a second term.

And in regards to the media, I'd like to ask Fox News "What if Bush had done that?". Same thing can be said, he did, but Fox News still treated him like the savior of the free world who made the hard yet necessary action to make the Constitution null and void, even in regards to American citizens. Fox News may be hard hitting against Obama, which is in stark contrast to the other media outlets, but when are they ever as harsh against a conservative, whether it be a member of congress or a president?

This is why I think the left vs. right crap is just that...crap. Because a lot of people will breath a sigh of relief once Obama is gone and a conservative/Republican is in office and does all the same things. Only he/she will also get a free pass because they are doing it for reasons they can support.

I don't care who you are, left/right--socialist/fascist--Christian/Muslim, you take my rights away, I got beef with you.

I'm not "living in the past" when I talk about Bush. I'm just using what happened with him as an example to show the mentality of the general population. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're on their side. You can take their rights away, start any war you want, but not if your on the other side. If your on the other side your a Fascist dictator (if your conservative) or a Socialist dictator (if your liberal).

If you protest the Conservative government and your liberal--your a terrorist.

If you protest the Liberal government and your conservative--your a terrorist.

My point is, that if a conservative is elected next term, things will shift. He/she could do even worse damage to the economy and in the wars, but people will excuse their actions just like people are doing with Obama who are on the left. Then those on the left will suddenly be concerned about their rights and their freedoms again, and Fox News will call them terrorist sympathizers.

Basically we'll all go back in time to what it was like when Bush was Prez. Bickering at eachother while those on the Hill laugh their arses off at us for being so easily manipulated, giving them the opportunity to put more money in their pockets and give themselves more power over us.

Originally posted by andy1033

Bush was given leway at first too.

[edit on 10/27/2009 by andy1033]

No, Bush wasn't given any leeway at first. If you all will remember, from the very beginning Bush was accused of stealing the election from Gore and we had all these people running around saying that "Bush is not my president".

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread514267

People would rather tune in to see the crater left behind from a terrorist bombing in Pakistan and hear a gallop poll about what percentage of americans prefer bottled water to tap water, than a half hour, uninterrupted discussion on investment banking reform.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Kaytagg]

This is why I like PBS, too. Say what you want about them being beholden to their major donors interests, but I have yet to see them cut the mic on someone saying something they don't want. Or seeing Jim Leher yell and scream at someone he doesn't agree with.

My boyfriend gets annoyed when I watch the 15 minute segments of two people on opposing sides of the issue sitting at the round table while a reporter gives each of them their fair time to say what they want and counter the other persons claims.

I have yet to see a speaker call them an Obama lover, terrorist supporter, etc.

You don't get angry listening to them discuss topics. You mostly listen and form your own opinions. I've actually found that my opinions have changed a few times listening to PBS. When I listen to CNN, Fox news, etc. I don't usually do so because when your put into defense mode because someone is playing off of your emotions, you stand your ground because you feel like if you don't you've lost some kind of battle.

None of this is true with PBS news shows.