Murdoch: Press too harsh on Bush.

Exactly, the president got a free ride from the media from 9/11 until the Iraq War began failing. Dubya had a golden opportunity to become one of the more well-thought of presidents in history but, of course, he decided to see if he could push forward a dictatorship and he became what he is today.

 

Folks... Bush didn't just get a free ride till the war.

He got a free ride all the way till election day 2004.

The media painted the picture that got this prick re-elected with the simpleton vote.

 

Yes, but I said he got a free ride until the war began to fail. And in the eyes of the public the failure became really heightened after the '04 election.

 

Bingo.

I can't recall the name of the southern Democratic Senator interviewed by a BBC reporter several months ago in the wake of the Democrats control of the house and senate. Members of the party began making their rounds to the foreign press corp and this guy was practically skewered by some British reporter. I almost felt sorry the guy but at the same time privileged to witness the solid reporting missing from American news.

 

That's a perfect description of the Clinton administration as well. Were you so quick to point this out or were you one of the Kool Aid drinkers who thought he and his wife were just good people who were beat up by the right-wing meanies in the media?

 

If you define "harshness" or "bias" as anything less than servile religious awe of all things GOP -- and most conservatives do -- then yes, the shit-for-brains Washington press corps has been rough on Bush as of late.

But if you believe the media treatment Bush is getting now even approaches that of the Clintons and Al Gore, you need to see a doctor.

 

I recall the Clinton administration falling under a deluge of media scrutiny unmatched to what Bush encountered during his first 5 years in office. Let's be real here, the current administration and its egregious shortcomings finally coming to mainstream light is a recent phenomenon.

What was once considered conspiratorial and off the beaten path news questioning the actions of the Bush administration is now dressed up as "new" by the press.

 

You really need some new material. "The Clinton's were bad people, too" is a weak and lame argument. It's 2007. Clinton hasn't been in power for seven years, yet people talk like he was serving up until last week. Be here now.

 

Look, I'd be for a team effort in D.C. as much as anyone, but let's be realistic. Ain't gonna happen. Mere days after the mid-terms and two years before the presidential elections, campaigning was commencing. Their focus is the next thing, promises of solving the solution later rather than now. A Congress pulling away from the President isn't productive. Is the President doing the same thing? I can't answer that with certainty. His mission and objective hasn't changed. You people are still whining about the WMD but that cannot be a reason for withdrawal. Is anything but a perceived victory (stable Iraq) productive? Do you really think by walking away that our national image will improve?

 

Andyouare- It is not a defense of Bush, it is a reality check for the Fenian's of this world. I think people of both sides need to get new material, but the same people who excused much of the same stuff eight years ago - unethical behavior, lies and deception -- are now leading the fight against it.

 

For a blow job!

NOT thousands of heads blown off.

 

The press was harder on Clinton than on Bush. I will not state that the increased scrutiny of Clinton was unwarranted. Bush should have received similar treatment.