The Press Isn't Right or Left, It's Just Wrong
Here's a headline that gets it all wrong, or perhaps all right. Today's LA Times announces "Bush gets a breather on war debate." (Note: This headline was hard to find on-line, so maybe someone in editorial woke up.)
After all, it's all about Bush. And if anyone needs a breather in this "war debate" (if you ask me there's no debate--it's an occupation taking place during a civil war), it's poor W. US soldiers, Iraqi civilians, meh. Don't they know they are mere commas to the all-powerful, unitary executive?
After all, it's all about Bush. And if anyone needs a breather in this "war debate" (if you ask me there's no debate--it's an occupation taking place during a civil war), it's poor W. US soldiers, Iraqi civilians, meh. Don't they know they are mere commas to the all-powerful, unitary executive?
Labels: bush as in league
posted by George at 8:01 PM
9 Comments:
I hurt.
I know George. It's so annoying when the leader of the free world, the President of the greatest and most influential nation ever to come to fruition, gets any headline in the paper. I mean, why would we want to read about THAT guy? What has he ever done to garner any recognition or comment? And what could he possibly say to the world that has any bearing at all?
I wish someone would give Pelosi, the Pantsuit, and the Breck Girl a break once in awhile...
George W. Bush, the leader of the free world?
Seriously? Have they been kidnapping and torturing people in the rest of the free world in recent years? And trumping up wars and stealing elections and generally turning themselves into banana republics?
Don't take all your blather for granted, MCConfrontation. Liberal democracy built America's reputation and you people are tearing it down.
Mike, nice touch keeping the ever-sliding, where will we find the comment meme going.
wah wah wah somebody call the waaaaahmbulance!
ahab i don't quite understand your post. kidnapping and torture is a major part of other nations/organizations M.O. for a loooooong time. I like to think that the World Police (that's us pal, the country you live in) bust their ass to keep that in check. ever heard of Daniel Pearl? other nations trump up wars all the time, and elections in other countries tend to be a whole lot more corrupt than you'll ever see here. i sincerely enjoy it when libs inevitably have to go back to the "stolen election" card. it's hilarious and pitiful at the same time.
as for other nations turning themselves into banana republics, well i have no idea what you're talking about there. if you are trying to say that the US has been turned into a banana republic by george bush, i think you must be confused as to the meaning of the term. try dictionary.com.
the difference between you and me is that i take nothing for granted.
the difference between you and me is that i take nothing for granted.
WTF does that even mean? Particularly coming from someone as smug as yourself. How do you reconcile it with your puerile claims about the United States being the "World Police" and Bush being the "leader of the free world"?
My earlier comment couldn't have been clearer. I was disputing your claim that Bush is "leader of the free world."
The US and its president may be the nominal "leaders of the free world," but Bush has clearly lost the high moral ground required of the role. Who else in the free world kidnaps and tortures, either before or after Bush? What has the free world to do with Daniel Pearl? What other nations of the free world have trumped up wars or suffered election results as questionable as that of the US in 2000? I invite you to engage these issues factually this time.
Only someone who's taking an awful lot for granted could make such an empty series of assertions as you've made in this thread, MCConfrontation. Go ahead and be smug while the political spoils of Bush's warmongering in Iraq last. Because your party will be slaughtered for it next November and beyond. Mark it down.
And maybe broaden your research horizons a bit beyond dictionary.com, MCConfrontation.
Wikipedia on the modern usage of Banana Republic:
In modern usage the term has come to be used to describe a generally unstable or "backward" dictatorial regime, especially one where elections are often fraudulent and corruption is rife. By extension, the word is occasionally applied to governments where a strong leader hands out appointments and advantages to friends and supporters, without much consideration for the law.
The shoe fits.
I was replying to your advice to not take all of my blather for granted, and I pointed out that I take nothing for granted. Clear?
who else in the free world kidnaps and tortures...
Not alot of folks in "the free world" resort to that kind of barbarity, but the bad guys we are fighting RIGHT NOW do it all the time. Read: Daniel Pearl, tortured and executed, by beheading. Read: Taliban fighters abducting 23 South Koreans just this past week. Read: American contractors murdered and strung from a bridge in Iraq in 2003. Read: Darfur, Liberia, Serbia, Cuba, etc etc etc etc Jesus man there's tons of examples. What planet are you living on that you know nothing of these atrocities? It's always America Last with people of your ilk.
From the beginning, our conversation has been about "the free world." You claimed Bush leads it, I disputed that, you started talking about the fucking Congo or some such.
Major premise: (As you now admit,) the free world doesn't torture
Minor premise: George W. Bush tortures
Conclusion: George W. Bush is not of the free world, let alone its "leader"
Simple logic.
Post a Comment
<< Home