1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama skips major papers: No NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by YankeeFan, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Every single member of both houses knew exactly what he/she was voting for.

    So, who is the current "killer" of our troops? Is it still Bush? And do you reserve no measure of responsibility for our enemy -- you know, the actual killers?

    And, at what point does Obama become the "killer" in your mind? If they're not out in 16 months, is he then the "killer" having failed to "get them out as fast as he can"?
     
  2. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member

    So not true. Although I applaud the true heros who would not vote for the resolution, some have said they gave Bush the benefit of the doubt that he would pursue all efforts to avoid war, which of course, he did not. And, who exactly is the enemy in Iraq? You tell me. I haven't figured it out because we shouldn't be there to begin with. As for Obama, he will not be the killer because he has ordered the troops out and did not vote to put them there to begin with so he can never be the killer. That honor goes to Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Condi and the rest of the "deciders" who did.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    The resolution was called the, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Who was fooled by that and thought they were voting for something else?

    Just because you're not in favor of the war is no reason to be ignorant of what's going on. There is an enemy.

    Your ability to absolve Obama for all unknown future actions is pathetic. And of course by your reasoning I suppose JFK killed all of our troops in Vietnam and you've absolved LBJ and Nixon.
     
  4. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member

    Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War I and Iraq: All wars of choice. World War I and II, Afghanistan: Wars of necessity. I do not absolve any of our leaders who send kids into harm's way to improve corporate profits. Btw, the votes on Vietnam authorization were: 416-0 and 88-2. Iraq authorization votes were 296-133 and 77-23. Which of these is not like the other?
     
  5. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Here's a thought: Obama doesn't need newspapers. He can shape opinion on his own, what with Plouffe's email list. One blast email to three million people, or whatever that list is up to these days, and he can skip any reporter he wants.
     
  6. clutchcargo

    clutchcargo Active Member

    I admit, I skipped over proofing my post this time and I got burned. Missed several other things, too, but typical of other naysayers in here, Anonymous finds a typo in my post and zeroes in on it while avoiding the argument being made.
     
  7. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    I confess I didn't know it was a typo. I thought there was something known as a statute of militation that I didn't know about. It's really a great term. Take credit for coining it, man.
     
  8. Umm, no ... you zeroed in on the first half of my post and avoided the second, in which I let you know your theory that the statute of limitations on bashing Bush is a gigantic pile of shit. What was the statute of limitations on blaming Herbert Hoover? A bit more than a month and a half, I'd guess.
     
  9. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    It was called 'Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Which to me, means Congress was telling Bush, "If you REALLY need to go to war, we support it. But you better REALLY NEED to go."

    Bush instead, chose war as the first option, not the last. He even gave Saddam 48 hours to resign. Unless Saddam had nukes aimed at us, what was the rush?
     
  10. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

     
  11. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    Is that the one where they asked him if he was a socialist?

    Back on topic, like others have said there's no rule that the Wash Post, NY Times, or whoever must be allowed to ask a question.

    If those other reporters aren't worthy of asking questions of the president at a news conference, then why the hell are they even allowed in the room? Are they there as decorations? Seat fillers like they have at the Academy Awards?

    Yeah, let's make every press conference Obama and about four reporters.
     
  12. Big. Fucking. Deal.
    Grow up, kids.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page