Pro-Bush Newspapers Ignore 1000 War Dead Milestone

These Papers Have No Respect for Those Who Have Died for America

from JoeUser Forums
These are the Bush backing papers that have beat the drum to war, and questioned the patriotism of those that argue Bush has bungled the reconstruction of Iraq. You'll see they casually overlook the men and women who've died for Bush's incompetence:

The Washington Times:



Fox News corporate sibling the New York Post:



Meanwhile, the "liberal" newspapers that are smeared by the Bush attack squads as betraying the troops, prominently recognized those who have died for their nation:

The Washington Post:



The Los Angeles Times:



The Bush Campaign mouthpieces -- The Washington Times and the New York Post -- should be ashamed.
politics
7,590 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
No big deal...the radio and TVs got the story...day and nite. People already know.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You mean 1000 on top of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan and the thousands killed in New York and Washington DC?
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
The Washington Times and the New York Post


Didn't know they loved Bush so much, damn I need to quit looking at those newspapers, oh wait I don't, I drudge it with the Drudge Report. I think it got covered very well from what I have seen, You see it on Newsworld International, CNN, Headlines, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. I could care less about two newspapers that I don't even read, I will read my news from as close to unbiased source as possible, while taking into consideration that the person writing the article has his/her own views and opinions.

1,000 is a terrible number of soldiers lost, but what was America expecting with a WAR on Terror, that we would just go to Bin Laden and grab him peacefully, or what about the countless Iraqis who died under the Regime of Saddam in one year alone, I hate to think he only killed one thousand. As for whether a newspaper should cover the milestone or not, so far I have seen few newspapers carrying pictures of the positive things we are doing in Iraq, and because of that it has hurt the world image of the United States, and I find that more reason for the rest of the media to be ashamed than not covering a milestone in which every other paper or news agency will cover.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
The 1000 Death so called "milestone" is not something that should be celebrated. Its sickening and as Limbaugh put it today "ghoulish" to be in utmost joy that you can exploit US Army deaths for your political gain.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
The 1000 Death so called "milestone" is not something that should be celebrated. Its sickening and as Limbaugh put it today "ghoulish" to be in utmost joy that you can exploit US Army deaths for your political gain.


Hear Here.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's a few troubling questions for you: How many of those deaths, plus the 3000 September 11, 2001 deaths could have been prevented by Clinton accepting Sudan's offer to turn over bin Laden? How many could have been prevented by Clinton more aggressively pursuing the removal of Hussein from office? Doesn't that make this war CLINTON'S legacy? And shouldn't you be questioning your support for a Democratic candidate because of it?

These aren't statements, they're only questions. Questions that an objectivist would strive to answer.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
The 1000 Death so called "milestone" is not something that should be celebrated. Its sickening and as Limbaugh put it today "ghoulish" to be in utmost joy that you can exploit US Army deaths for your political gain.

But it's okay to exploit the "success" of America "liberating" the Iraqis for presidential credence?

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I don't think the New York Post is very pro-bush. That is the same paper that had a front page that said Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
A few days ago I posted an article covering the recent death of a soldier in Iraq. It was poorly read and received very little interest. Did you read it, blogic? If you are moved by the loss of life, and you did in fact read it, why did you not deem the death important enough to comment on? Just curious . . .
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, TW, it wasn't the "1,000th" death, and therefore lacked the melodramatic symbolism that blogic so embraces. The left is all about symbolism as opposed to reality, so that makes perfect sense.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, TW, it wasn't the "1,000th

Oh that's riiiiight. It was the one thousand and third death counting the three civilians, good point!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you missed it, Def - TW was talking about a pre-1,000th death death. But my point was lost on you anyway.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Forgot to add -

blogic is dogged, if not much else. Gotta give him credit for barreling on.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

How many could have been prevented by Clinton more aggressively pursuing the removal of Hussein from office?

or if the first bush had taken him out? 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
or if the first bush had taken him out?


Fair argument. Hindsight says he shoulda done it. Unfortunately, all we have to work with is "fore"sight, which is much tougher to get right the first time.

Cheers,
Daiwa