Bush Deniers

57Brave

57Brave

Well-known member
I was very disappointed to read some of the discussion over on the Brian Williams thread. People that will still argue for the cause of the Iraq War to the length where they will not only defend the logic to invade a non - threatening sovereign nation but to fall pry to the false pretenses that justified the losses of treasure and blood. For what ?

Jonathon Chaitt wrote this Op-Ed for today's NY Magazine.

I ask, that you read it and give a little time before typing.

As I quoted in the Brian Williams thread, 69% of the American public believed Sadaam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

es, it is easy to blame the media for allowing that to happen . But, where did the media get that idea ??

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/republicans-still-denying-bush-lied-about-iraq.html
 
Seems to me that some are going out of their way to deflect from Williams and what he's been doing. I understand the misleading of the public by our government is the bigger issue, and most people aren't disputing that.

But was this really worth another thread?

It's the media's responsibility to keep government in check. A lot of times, they fail miserably. If we just pass this off as "well the government lying is worse," then we're all really ****ed.
 
8qcel7iaukumuzg0lpbowa.0.0.png
 
57 and his constant talk about Bush (who hasn't been in office for 7 years) is like the friend that we all have who still talks about a girl from 7 years ago. Sooner or later you need to get over it and move on.
 
A short re cap here.

Bush took us into a war on false pretenses
equals
Obama took two years to produce proof he wasn't Kenyan

Now, can we talk about the article and how people willfully / blindly allowed the invasion of Iraq ??

This really isn't about Bush per se .

But, it is about how people are marched into public opinion. A generation ago we could have substituted the Gulf of Tonkin incident . Or a generation before that Korea ... Two or three before that the Spanish - American War

Good lord people think a little bit before you type. Quit being so reactionary
 
along the same lines of the WSJ article is this from Atlantic:
In that we seem to find comfort n re writing history to suit our conscience

"Perhaps related to that is the need to infantilize and deify our history. Pointing out that Americans have done, on their own soil, in the name of their own God, something similar to what ISIS is doing now does not make ISIS any less barbaric, or any more correct. That is unless you view the entire discussion as a kind of religious one-upmanship, in which the goal is to prove that Christianity is "the awesomest."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nse-to-obamas-prayer-breakfast-speech/385246/
 
Hawk said:
8qcel7iaukumuzg0lpbowa.0.0.png
Click to expand...

I admit, I'm shocked that it's risen that high. I figured it would sit in the 40s. I guess the anti-Obama sentiment is super strong.

Then again just looked back at Clinton's and largely the same thing happened with him. Favorability dropped late term, and eventually rose higher than when he was in office.

So I guess we can generally assume the same thing will happen with Obama.
 
zitothebrave said:
I admit, I'm shocked that it's risen that high. I figured it would sit in the 40s. I guess the anti-Obama sentiment is super strong.

Then again just looked back at Clinton's and largely the same thing happened with him. Favorability dropped late term, and eventually rose higher than when he was in office.

So I guess we can generally assume the same thing will happen with Obama.
Click to expand...

It will depend on if the next president is as awful as Obama or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top