The job is to the country, and they have different jobs for the country. The media's job to the country is to look criticaly and objectively at the evidence, and statements by everyone involved. In the lead up to the war in Iraq they failed to do this, and thus Bush got what amounted to a free pass. The congress' job is oversight. It is true that Bush failed to provide the intel committee and congress all of the same evidence that he was seeing and presenting, but even with Bush's deception, the Republican controlled congress failed to do a decent job of this. All of that was their duty to the nation. The President's oath is to uphold the constitution. He has failed in his oath. All of the entities mentioned have failed in doing what they should for the country. The stakes were high, and the stakes have been squandered by all of the above.
Bush faced MEDIA SCRUTINY during his first 6 years. That's it. He faced absolutely no opposition in Congress, which is the only real opposition a president can face during his tenure, and clearly, Bush was affected very little by the media during this time. In fact Bush has downplayed the importance of the media many times. The rest of your comment about how people SHOULD behave during a war has nothing to do with how he was ACTUALLY treated. That is a sidenote to the point I think you are trying to make and just an unnecessary scolding meant to avoid the real issue (I realize this was your beginning to the thread, but I'd still like to keep the discussion right now separate). Why do you think Bush has been subjected to worse than Clinton?
one guys messed up on everything and continues to and the other one messed up on one thing who should be bashed more?
You are either the biggest liar this world has ever seen (bigger even than Baghdad Bob) or you are severely disassociated from reality. The GOP attack machine was all over Clinton from the day he took office, culminating in a $40 million investigation that turned up a man who lied about an affair. Compared to what Clinton went through, Bush has had the easiest cakewalk possible, right up until two months ago, when the dems took office. He might see some serious opposition in his last 22 months, but up to the end of '06, Bush has gotten off easy. Yes, it should. And yet for the past six years, the GOP congress has put ideology ahead of country 100% of the time while you hypocritically talk about how the dems need to do the opposite.
Yes it is. Wilson came back from Niger and specifically told the administration that the uranium claims were false. Then, Bush brought up the Niger uranium claim in the SOTU. They knew the intel was at best questionable and used it anyway. I think the dems just want to hold the administration accountable for their actions. I realize accountability isn't high up on the GOP priority list, but I, like the dems, believe that people should be held accountable for their actions and the Bush admin is no exception. To include torture, repeal of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, and other actions that are at best immoral and at worst illegal. But I guess compromising the very values that define America is just hunky dory for the Bushies.
i'm not going to rehash 2 years of the various plame threads here, but what you've said is precisely the opposite of what happened. endlessly repeating falsehoods does not magically transform them into reality. get your facts straight, then come back and we can debate and discuss.
No, you've convinced yourself of the administration's spin. Not surprising, I'm sure you still believe Saddam planned 911.
One of us needs to get their facts straight, but it is not me. Everyone involved has said that they tried to get the "16 words" removed from the SOTU because the claim could not be verified. Wilson himself visited Niger and debunked the claim. How come the facts have such a liberal bias?
Not that basso ever ****ing listens to that which he does not want to believe, but: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger_3.htm EDIT: Wait, why am I doing this? What possible result will come of this being rehashed again with someone known to be deliberately obtuse on such matters? Everyone should ask themselves these questions. I'm outta here. .
Are you disputing Wilson's own words, repeated over and over, that when he returned from Niger, he reported that the uranium claim was without merit? Your ability to ignore facts and evidence is amazing.
basso because you want to beleive badly written editorials, and right wing pundits after having been shown the actual facts regarding Wilson's trip, doesn't make it the truth. Every time you've tried to post the BS about what the bi-partison congressional committee found, and all of the other efforts put forward to discredit Wilson's discrediting of the Whitehouse. I won't even get into whether Plame recommended him or not, because that part doesn't matter. He was qualified. He went there, investigated and found the report did not show what the Whitehouse claimed. The whitehouse was informed, and they stated the claims anyway.
yes, in fact, i am, because that's not what happened, wilson's repeated assertions to the contrary notwhithstanding. those only began when he joined the kerry campaign well after the 2003 SOTU, and a year after he spent a couple of days sipping G&T's on the veranda of a hotel in niger.
Who has more information about what happened in Niger, Wilson or some right wing bloggers with an agenda? Oh, thats right, anyone who is in any way affiliated with Democrats is a liar according to you. This is what happens when the gullible are led by the blind, the facts take a back seat.
