Bush is already being mentioned in the same sentences as Reagan. By the people who have an even more visceral reaction to Reagan than a lot of Republicans have towards Hillary Clinton. And Republican presidents have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to history remembering them, because history is probably the single most left-leaning academic discipline in existence.Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
I always take great interest in statements like yours about the liberal media, Kenny. Because I spend a lot of time hearing about how the liberal media needs to grow some balls and stop bowing to pressure from the Bush administration to paint an overly rosy picture of the situation in Iraq.
But both sides are wrong. The people who say the liberal media needs to grow some balls were right about four years ago, but continuing to repeat it just makes them look like ignorant Bush-bashers. And the people who say the liberal media is tarnishing our image abroad need to look at the sequence of events...our actions in Iraq were deplored worldwide long before the liberal media stopped kowtowing to the Bush administration.
I'm not convinced there's such a thing as "if word of evidence of WMDs came out". Generally, the media (both liberal and conservative) knows a lot more than it can print...In hindsight, I don't get the impression that the media was taking any sort of risk when they questioned the existence of WMDs.
And there would never be a Democrat in office under the same circumstances. If a Democrat (or McCain) had been elected in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq at all.
Bookmarks