What If Bush Had Done That?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:58 PM by sabrinaleena
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.


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:00 PM by Kaytagg
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]


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:05 PM by sabrinaleena
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 posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:07 PM by TakeOutTheTrash
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.



reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:18 PM by TakeOutTheTrash
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 posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:21 PM by Kaytagg
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 posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:23 PM by TakeOutTheTrash
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 posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:37 PM by Kaytagg
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]


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 02:51 PM by nunya13
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.


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 03:40 PM by Exemplar
reply to post by Kaytagg



What if Obama continued the Bush policies and wars even though he campaigned against them and promised change? This is about fixing the present.


reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 03:58 PM by Becker44
reply to post by Kaytagg



Hey Maytag,

If you're going to cut and paste to appear to be ultra-knowledgable concerning our former President. I suggest you at least credit the sources for which you have taken credit for.



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.


Here's THE source.

www.internationalheralddailynews.org...

Becker
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^