The Liberal media still hates George W Bush... Shockin' eh??

[OldMercsRule]

http://www.mrc.org/bozellcolumns/columns/2010/20101119065644.aspx

Bozell Column: Resisting the Bush Book The media's hate-hate relationship with George W. Bush continued with the release of his memoir. ABC petulantly ignored it. CBS and NBC hammered him again on Hurricane Katrina. By: L. Brent Bozell November 16, 2010 18:54 ET

Nobody expected that George W. Bush’s book “Decision Points” was going to compare to the memoirs of Ulysses Grant. As expected, book reviewers found it wanting as a literary work. But still, every book by an ex-president is seen as an opportunity for legacy-polishing and the press is most accommodating.

Read the link for the rest!

[bullypulpit]

It's not hatred. The facts of the Bush administration stand on their own, and when conservatives show more willingness to hold Bush, and members of his administration, accountable for their crimes and malfeasance I'm certain liberals will be less vocal.

[red states rule]

It's not hatred. The facts of the Bush administration stand on their own, and when conservatives show more willingness to hold Bush, and members of his administration, accountable for their crimes and malfeasance I'm certain liberals will be less vocal.

Libs are still pissed off George Bush beat Al "Global Warming" Gore and then turned around and beat John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry

Bush took everything the left could throw at him. Libs declared war on his brother Gov Jeb Bush and in 2002 libs declared Jeb would pay for Flordia 2000. Jeb won by a wide margin

After 9/11 Bush stood firm and for awhile the left stood with him. Then when libs saw they could score some political points with their kook base they tossed the military and America overboard and did all they could to lose the war in Iraq

The troops were savaged, the liberal meida did all they could to "report" how America was losing in Iraq, and Dems did all they could to leak classified information and tell the terrorists what America was doing to defeat them. But they lost that fight to as the US military won the fight in Iraq

In 2004 the election was about Pres Bush and the war 'hero" Kerry. Kerry bwellowed about America being the international bully and how America needs to seek permission beofre defending itself

Well, America spoke and Kerry was sent packing

Of course the libs would not acept any of these losses with grace. No the electons were stolen

Meanwhile Pres Bush did his job and kept America safe. He never sunk to the low level libs sunk to. Which probably pisses off liberals like you BP even more

What crimes BP? Defeating liberals in an election? Winning a war libs wanted the US to lose? Supporting troops libs called Nazi's, terrorists, and uneducated?

Seems to me Obama is doing the ame damn things you screamed about Bush doing on a daily basis - and yet you say NOTHING about Obama

[OldMercsRule]

It's not hatred.

Sure it is. The angry HARD LEFT is sooooo deranged the can't see their own disorder when it bites them in their own arses.


The facts of the Bush administration stand on their own,

That is why some perspective on those "facts" will result, (and already has resulted), in sever punishment for both dim wit Democrats and left wing loonies and the so call "main stream", (partisan) media, (which Fox news, [ FAIR AND BALANCED ] is in the process of crushing). YIP YIP YAHOO!!!! :salute:


and when conservatives show more willingness to hold Bush, and members of his administration, accountable for their crimes and malfeasance I'm certain liberals will be less vocal.

Cornservatives did hold 43 accountable for overspending in both 2006 and 2008 by not showing up. Were you nappin'????

Your own obvious hatred is shown by yer use of the term "crimes", (it pays to look in the mirror from time to time), and try to keep yer Bush derangement syndrome under some corntrol. As 43's reputation improves over time yer irrational hatred is gonna eat ya up.

Here is a balanced review from a Liberal over sea Brit rag:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/nov/19/george-bush-decision-points-review

Decision Points by George W Bush – reviewAlastair Campbell lays down a challenge for Guardian readers to reconsider the legacy of George Bush.

Also in tomorrow's Guardian Review: James Meek takes a trip to Tolstoy country; Rachel Cusk asks whether The Female Eunuch still speaks to feminists; David Hare says it's time we stopped treating actors with contempt; an interview with poet Les Murray; and much more


Share146 Comments (338)
Alastair Campbell guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 November 2010 10.09 GMT Article history
George Bush serves a Thanksgiving turkey to US troops stationed in Baghdad in 2003. Photograph: Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images

This self-serving memoir confirms that George W Bush is a moronic war-monger who can't think straight, can't string two words together and spent his presidency looking for countries to invade, oil to snatch and ways to make the world a more dangerous place.

Decision Points
by George W Bush
Buy it from the Guardian bookshopSearch the Guardian bookshop
There, I've said it, and the conventional wisdom chatterati will nod amen to that. The problem is that none of the above is true. Cue avalanche of Guardian Online vitriol.

You see, in Guardianland, as in other parts of the world, one is not supposed to think anything but ill of Bush. "Is he as stupid as he looks?" is up there alongside "did you invent the phrase the 'People's Princess'", "do you regret the dossier?" and "is Malcolm Tucker based on you?" as frequently asked questions at Q&A sessions I do.

My answer to the first is that you don't get to be US president – twice – by being stupid; that he is more reflective and self-analytical than the public image suggests – a trait confirmed by his book; that September 11 changed the world in the eyes of most Americans; and that I do not buy the idea that he was hellbent on war in Iraq – also confirmed by the book, and in particular by the letters to his father and daughters. They are the letters, and this is the account, of someone who tried to avoid war, but could no longer ignore Saddam's defiance, or the view of every intelligence agency in the world that Iraq had WMD, a threat that could be parked pre-September 11, but not after it. And surely he has a point when he says: "If I wanted to mislead the country into war why would I pick an allegation that was certain to be disproven publicly shortly after we invaded the country?"

Rest at link.

[red states rule]

Damn, I have to spread the rep around beofre giving it to To OldMercsRule

Libs like BP will go their graves cussing Bush over beating them at the ballot box, keeping America safe despite the lefts best efforts to make America lose the war, and locking up the terrorists despite the lefts best efforts to stand up for the "rights" of terrorists

Libs have been and always wil be an angry bunch

[gabosaurus]

Strange that I always hear about the so-called liberal media "hating" Bush. But I never hear about the conservative media (Fox News, talk shows) hating Obama. Why is this?

[DragonStryk72]

Libs are still pissed off George Bush beat Al "Global Warming" Gore and then turned around and beat John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry

Bush took everything the left could throw at him. Libs declared war on his brother Gov Jeb Bush and in 2002 libs declared Jeb would pay for Flordia 2000. Jeb won by a wide margin

After 9/11 Bush stood firm and for awhile the left stood with him. Then when libs saw they could score some political points with their kook base they tossed the military and America overboard and did all they could to lose the war in Iraq

The troops were savaged, the liberal meida did all they could to "report" how America was losing in Iraq, and Dems did all they could to leak classified information and tell the terrorists what America was doing to defeat them. But they lost that fight to as the US military won the fight in Iraq

In 2004 the election was about Pres Bush and the war 'hero" Kerry. Kerry bwellowed about America being the international bully and how America needs to seek permission beofre defending itself

Well, America spoke and Kerry was sent packing

Of course the libs would not acept any of these losses with grace. No the electons were stolen

Meanwhile Pres Bush did his job and kept America safe. He never sunk to the low level libs sunk to. Which probably pisses off liberals like you BP even more

What crimes BP? Defeating liberals in an election? Winning a war libs wanted the US to lose? Supporting troops libs called Nazi's, terrorists, and uneducated?

Seems to me Obama is doing the ame damn things you screamed about Bush doing on a daily basis - and yet you say NOTHING about Obama

wow, yeah, here's the thing- Bush was a shitty president. He didn't make us safer, period. He is one of the main causes of the society of fear that has developed. He himself admits that he helped divide the country over the last 10 years.

What exactly were we "defending" ourselves from Iraq? An army less than 1% of our size that had out of date weapons, no real backing, and morale in the toilet? We invaded Iraq on false-pretense, and Bush just kept trying to spin it, but here are the fact- Iraq was already falling in on itself, and Saddam was playing the same stupid punk game he'd played for a decade and a half. Stop acting like there was nobility to that war.

He lawyered torture, lawyered no oversight black sites, shit on our privacy with the Patriot Act. Stop defending the liberal fucker, RSR. He deserves the ridicule.

[Pagan]

wow, yeah, here's the thing- Bush was a shitty president. He didn't make us safer, period. He is one of the main causes of the society of fear that has developed. He himself admits that he helped divide the country over the last 10 years.

What exactly were we "defending" ourselves from Iraq? An army less than 1% of our size that had out of date weapons, no real backing, and morale in the toilet? We invaded Iraq on false-pretense, and Bush just kept trying to spin it, but here are the fact- Iraq was already falling in on itself, and Saddam was playing the same stupid punk game he'd played for a decade and a half. Stop acting like there was nobility to that war.

He lawyered torture, lawyered no oversight black sites, shit on our privacy with the Patriot Act. Stop defending the liberal fucker, RSR. He deserves the ridicule.

It served to establish and enact the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" aka "Patriot Act" that opened the flood gates of putting the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution.

[red states rule]

Strange that I always hear about the so-called liberal media "hating" Bush. But I never hear about the conservative media (Fox News, talk shows) hating Obama. Why is this?

What do you consider hate Gabby?

Pointing out his failed policies? His record spending? His record deficits? His threats to private compaines to comply with his demands?

Unlike during the Bush years Gabby, I have yet to hear any talk show host openly hope for the murder of Pres Obama

[red states rule]

wow, yeah, here's the thing- Bush was a shitty president. He didn't make us safer, period. He is one of the main causes of the society of fear that has developed. He himself admits that he helped divide the country over the last 10 years.

What exactly were we "defending" ourselves from Iraq? An army less than 1% of our size that had out of date weapons, no real backing, and morale in the toilet? We invaded Iraq on false-pretense, and Bush just kept trying to spin it, but here are the fact- Iraq was already falling in on itself, and Saddam was playing the same stupid punk game he'd played for a decade and a half. Stop acting like there was nobility to that war.

He lawyered torture, lawyered no oversight black sites, shit on our privacy with the Patriot Act. Stop defending the liberal fucker, RSR. He deserves the ridicule.

Did we have anymore attacks on US soil after 9-11? What did he do that "divided" the nation? Was it standing up to terrorists while the wimps wanted to run away from the fight?

Dispite the best efforts of the left and the wimps our troops won the fight in Iraq. Now Obama is trying to take credit for the surge he opnely opposed and said was a filure

You call it "torture" while I call it stopping attacks. Even the NY Times admitted waterboarding saved lives. Or would you rather protect the "rights" of terrorists and allow innocent people to be slaughtered?

Given the fact you ranted about having 9-11 remembrances "shoved down your throat" tells me alot about you and where you stand on the war on terror

[OldMercsRule]

Strange that I always hear about the so-called liberal media "hating" Bush. But I never hear about the conservative media (Fox News, talk shows) hating Obama. Why is this?

They don't hate Obama, (I wish Liberals would stop readin' minds), they dislike his stooooooooopid policies.

[OldMercsRule]

wow, yeah, here's the thing- Bush was a shitty president. He didn't make us safer, period.

Yep we sure got lots of terrorist attacks after 9-11 here in the USA didn't we? :rolleyes:


He is one of the main causes of the society of fear that has developed. He himself admits that he helped divide the country over the last 10 years.

When the party of dim wits openly tried ta loose the Iraq war, winnin' it was real devisive...... Yasureyabetcha.


What exactly were we "defending" ourselves from Iraq? An army less than 1% of our size

Whaaaaaaaaat? Does yer brain werk? Iraq's army in 2002 was far more then 1% of our military at that time. Sheeeeesh.


that had out of date weapons, no real backing, and morale in the toilet? We invaded Iraq on false-pretense, and Bush just kept trying to spin it, but here are the fact- Iraq was already falling in on itself, and Saddam was playing the same stupid punk game he'd played for a decade and a half. Stop acting like there was nobility to that war.

It made far more sense then stuffing our troops in a worthless land locked place.


He lawyered torture, lawyered no oversight black sites, shit on our privacy with the Patriot Act. Stop defending the liberal fucker, RSR. He deserves the ridicule.

No he dosen't. Waterboardin' isn't torture.

[OldMercsRule]

Double post sorry.

[DragonStryk72]

Did we have anymore attacks on US soil after 9-11? What did he do that "divided" the nation? Was it standing up to terrorists while the wimps wanted to run away from the fight?

Dispite the best efforts of the left and the wimps our troops won the fight in Iraq. Now Obama is trying to take credit for the surge he opnely opposed and said was a failure

You call it "torture" while I call it stopping attacks. Even the NY Times admitted waterboarding saved lives. Or would you rather protect the "rights" of terrorists and allow innocent people to be slaughtered?

Given the fact you ranted about having 9-11 remembrances "shoved down your throat" tells me alot about you and where you stand on the war on terror

Ah, so then Obama has been successful in staving off the terrorist threat, RSR? We haven't been attacked on his watch yet either, so by your statement, he's a supreme military intellect. Hey, here's a thought, do you ever drive to Alaska to get pizza? No? Why not? Maybe because there's plenty of pizza available much closer to home? Guess what, same applies with attacking. Why bother hitting the US at this point, the majority of our military force is split between Iraq and Afghanistan.

As well, that means Clinton was awesome at the job, cause hell, the attack that was attempted failed, and they managed to catch the people involved. And... oh wait, torture wasn't needed for that.

Are you kidding, Bush himself said he was a divider and not a uniter. Do you need a higher authority for that than the man himself?

RSR, you are convinced this country is weak, you show it here. Really, We have to use torture to win against a force that is less than .01% of our own, with inferior weapons and tactics? We're really such amazing weaklings to you, apparently. I'm certain the board members of the military like myself would disagree with that assessment. We can win without torture, we can protect innocent lives without it, unless, again, you believe our troops are so feeble that we need torture to win? And if we are so weak that we have to become what we're fighting, why bother fighting then?

The War on Terror is bullshit, and unwinnable, just like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and every other moronic "war" our country has started on things that cannot be truly won. Can you say we're winning? Did we not just upgrade to naked body scanners at the airports? Does not that smack of fear to you? There will always be terror of some kind, cause there are bad people in the world, there will always be drugs, hell a solid set of proponents are for legalizing marijuana, and poverty will always exist, because there's always going to be people who are on the low end of the economy. The only thing we can control is our own reactions to these things.

If anything, the "war" on terror has only increased the overall fear in this country. Constant "terror alerts", all that moronic "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" nonsense. We decimated an entire country in about 3 months, with little to no resistance, dropped the Taliban, and had Al Qaeda on the ropes. Mayhap they are not the giant you think they are? Maybe they're just cowards who got a lucky shot in? And hell, we even corrected for that with federal marshals on the planes in civvies.

Bush repeatedly told us what we should be afraid of, it was pretty much his campaign speech in 04. "you don't change horses midstream".

[DragonStryk72]

Yep we sure got lots of terrorist attacks after 9-11 here in the USA didn't we? :rolleyes:



When the party of dim wits openly tried ta loose the Iraq war, winnin' it was real devisive...... Yasureyabetcha.



Whaaaaaaaaat? Does yer brain werk? Iraq's army in 2002 was far more then 1% of our military at that time. Sheeeeesh.



It made far more sense then stuffing our troops in a worthless land locked place.



No he dosen't. Waterboardin' isn't torture.

I'm sorry, yes, the Iraqi was a force to have nightmares over... as they surrendered en masse, to any american they could find, including camera crews and tourists stuck in the middle. Clearly we needed to abandon morals and ethics to hunt such devilish foes.

[red states rule]

Ah, so then Obama has been successful in staving off the terrorist threat, RSR? We haven't been attacked on his watch yet either, so by your statement, he's a supreme military intellect. Hey, here's a thought, do you ever drive to Alaska to get pizza? No? Why not? Maybe because there's plenty of pizza available much closer to home? Guess what, same applies with attacking. Why bother hitting the US at this point, the majority of our military force is split between Iraq and Afghanistan.

As well, that means Clinton was awesome at the job, cause hell, the attack that was attempted failed, and they managed to catch the people involved. And... oh wait, torture wasn't needed for that.

Are you kidding, Bush himself said he was a divider and not a uniter. Do you need a higher authority for that than the man himself?

RSR, you are convinced this country is weak, you show it here. Really, We have to use torture to win against a force that is less than .01% of our own, with inferior weapons and tactics? We're really such amazing weaklings to you, apparently. I'm certain the board members of the military like myself would disagree with that assessment. We can win without torture, we can protect innocent lives without it, unless, again, you believe our troops are so feeble that we need torture to win? And if we are so weak that we have to become what we're fighting, why bother fighting then?

The War on Terror is bullshit, and unwinnable, just like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and every other moronic "war" our country has started on things that cannot be truly won. Can you say we're winning? Did we not just upgrade to naked body scanners at the airports? Does not that smack of fear to you? There will always be terror of some kind, cause there are bad people in the world, there will always be drugs, hell a solid set of proponents are for legalizing marijuana, and poverty will always exist, because there's always going to be people who are on the low end of the economy. The only thing we can control is our own reactions to these things.

If anything, the "war" on terror has only increased the overall fear in this country. Constant "terror alerts", all that moronic "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" nonsense. We decimated an entire country in about 3 months, with little to no resistance, dropped the Taliban, and had Al Qaeda on the ropes. Mayhap they are not the giant you think they are? Maybe they're just cowards who got a lucky shot in? And hell, we even corrected for that with federal marshals on the planes in civvies.

Bush repeatedly told us what we should be afraid of, it was pretty much his campaign speech in 04. "you don't change horses midstream".

Considering Obama has kept most of the Bush polices - GITMO, Patriot Act. wiretaps, - yea OK so far

He was slow with troops to Afghanistan but he is taking the fight to the terrorists

Again what torture? I shut BP up and chased him off his own thread when I proved only THREE terrorists were waterboarded and the information gathered SAVED LIVES

But for some people that is still not good enough. I am also sure if we are hit again and it comes out we had high level terrorists in custody - and who had knowledge of the attacks - people like YOU would be demanding why we did not do everything possible to stop the attack

I see Obama is a great "uniter". He tells people not to listen to Rush or wtach Fox News. He mocks the Tea Party on TV. He calls political opponents enemies.He constantly whines how everything is the fault of the previous administration. Real leadership there compared to Pres Bush who never whined or complained about what the opposition was saying

There will always be people around who think terrorists can be beaten with law books and lawyers rather then with bombs and bullets. Also, how America needs to tell them how sorry we are for being who we are, bankroll their agenda, and try to be more "humble"

Thos epeople do not undersatnd they will be the first ones killed when the terrroists hit us again.