Bush Lied, the Press Ate it Up
Here's some information from Tom Ridge, Bush's first head of the Department of Homeland Security, from US News:
"Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election..."
I have long maintained that the Bush administration did not give a tinkers' damn about our country's security, except insofar as it could use the threat of attack to beat up on Democrats. They didn't care before 9/11, as the record amply demonstrates, and they didn't really care afterwards. This information is just a little more evidence to support that conclusion, and my more general one that Republicans do not care in the least about the welfare of this country and its citizens. Only a fool could think differently at this point; unfortunately, the country seems amply provided with them.
Now, we have Marc Ambinder, one of our nation's "serious" journalists, writing in the Atlantic, one of our nation's "serious" publications:
"Journalists, including myself, were very skeptical when anti-Bush liberals insisted that what Ridge now says is true, was true. We were wrong. Our skepticism about the activists' conclusions was warranted because these folks based their assumptions on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence."
I see. Liberals based their opposition to Bush of "gut hatred." Pretty good gut hatred too, I must say, as it was right in every respect.
This is, of course, a self-serving lie. The people who opposed Bush did so on the basis of knowledge gained from examining the facts. Mr. Ambinder and his cohorts in the press, well, let him speak in his own words:
"most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt..."
The Republican government, that is. I don't see them giving Obama much benefit of the doubt.
But of course, even this admission of a ludicrous abandonment of his responsibility as a journalist is far too mild. The truth was apparent to anyone who cared to see it. That's why the liberals were right, not some "gut hatred" that Ambinder telepathically detected in liberals' minds. Ambinder and the many like him did not "give the government the benefit of the doubt," they mindlessly repeated what they must have known were endless blatant lies from the Bush administration.
We have them to thank for the situation that our country is in, along with the corrupt, incompetent, hatemongering Republican party. And as much as they would like us to, we're not about to forget it.
"Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election..."
I have long maintained that the Bush administration did not give a tinkers' damn about our country's security, except insofar as it could use the threat of attack to beat up on Democrats. They didn't care before 9/11, as the record amply demonstrates, and they didn't really care afterwards. This information is just a little more evidence to support that conclusion, and my more general one that Republicans do not care in the least about the welfare of this country and its citizens. Only a fool could think differently at this point; unfortunately, the country seems amply provided with them.
Now, we have Marc Ambinder, one of our nation's "serious" journalists, writing in the Atlantic, one of our nation's "serious" publications:
"Journalists, including myself, were very skeptical when anti-Bush liberals insisted that what Ridge now says is true, was true. We were wrong. Our skepticism about the activists' conclusions was warranted because these folks based their assumptions on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence."
I see. Liberals based their opposition to Bush of "gut hatred." Pretty good gut hatred too, I must say, as it was right in every respect.
This is, of course, a self-serving lie. The people who opposed Bush did so on the basis of knowledge gained from examining the facts. Mr. Ambinder and his cohorts in the press, well, let him speak in his own words:
"most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt..."
The Republican government, that is. I don't see them giving Obama much benefit of the doubt.
But of course, even this admission of a ludicrous abandonment of his responsibility as a journalist is far too mild. The truth was apparent to anyone who cared to see it. That's why the liberals were right, not some "gut hatred" that Ambinder telepathically detected in liberals' minds. Ambinder and the many like him did not "give the government the benefit of the doubt," they mindlessly repeated what they must have known were endless blatant lies from the Bush administration.
We have them to thank for the situation that our country is in, along with the corrupt, incompetent, hatemongering Republican party. And as much as they would like us to, we're not about to forget it.
Comments
Where's Derrick?
Must be busy.