Bush: "The Media is Indispensable to our Democracy"

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
The big problem with society today is complacency. We settle for OK or "decent" politicians which usually turns into bad.

Maybe that was the plan when they installed Trump. If you want the populace to appreciate dishonest, yet professional politicians, just put a guy like Trump in office who is both dishonest and unprofessional.

It's working for me. I didn't vote for Hillary but I'd certainly vote for her now after getting a taste of Trump.


ps - that will be the last time I use the phrase "taste of Trump" *vomit a bit in mouth*

# Bush.

We ain't forgot about you.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Abysha

If the media accurately reported questions surrounding 9/11 and reasons for the war in Iraq, I'll bet Bush wouldn't be defending them.

Trump's admin is proving without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 couldn't be an inside job. If it were, it would have been leaked a LONG time ago. Seeing as how people who merely disagree with an extremist President end up leaking stuff to the public. A President who was covering up a MASSIVE murder on the American populace wouldn't last even a minute before being leaked.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Firstly, Trump's circumstances as President are not the same as Bush's. But that's besides the point, I won't even go into Trump since that has nothing to do with my post.

I didn't say it was an inside job, I said the media played a primary role in propagandizing the situation and allowing our leaders to take advantage of 9/11 for their ulterior motives (we did not go into Iraq because of 9/11, and Osama Bin Laden did not successfully perpetrate the events from a Pakistani Cave without multiple layers of US security failing to do their jobs).

a reply to: Abysha

He's not a right wing ideologue; he's been controlled by right wing ideologues. As part of the Establishment "Republicans", Bush is a moderate, slightly left of center Republocrat.

That's been the problem with the Republican's for years now............they got no moral compass and they got no political compass.

And then some of them are pure batcrap crazy.

a reply to: FamCore

Ok. Well with that I agree. I was assuming you were talking about the standard government coverup sob story whenever 9/11 is brought up. My bad.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No worries at all - there is a lot of disinfo out there and also a lot of people who will blindly jump on the "inside job" bandwagon, but anyone who subscribes to that group also probably isn't keen at researching details for themselves or questioning the motives of those who are disseminating misinformation.

The "rose-colored glasses" work both for the Statist-Apologists and hardXcore anti-gov whackjobs (we've seen plenty of that here on ATS)

a reply to: FamCore

Yeah. I'm not opposed to the idea that we weren't told all the facts of the situation, but I feel like those facts were omitted as a means to CYA a few people instead of as a coverup for a MAJOR conspiracy.

Bush was a horrible president, many who voted for Trump believe so. His statements mean nothing to us.

a reply to: Abysha

There's an underlying ignorance of what the Press is, was or ought to be.

They've rarely been neutral, or unbiased, since the earliest days of printed news or underground pamphleteers. When I say 'rarely,' we're talking one or two outlets per country per century.

Unbiased journalism doesn't have a wide market. Sure, people demand a fair Press and yet they don't pay for it. We mostly gravitate to those which reflect our own values and populations are divided across Left and Right persuasions. We pay to read what we want to read. Nobody can control the Press as long as we're all biased along political divides.

a reply to: Kandinsky

When it's weaponized and propagandized, then that model starts to fail. The consolidation to not much more than a handful of entities certainly facilitates the erosion.

Operation Mockingbird arises like the Phoenix out of the ashes of Smith-Mundt.

But, alas, you're right, me old mate; that many will choose to just feed on smut-counter-smut.

so no outrage over presidential silence then...

when obama hypoc...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wasn't Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mentioned multiple times in that Iraq report delivered by Powell? Something like 40+ times?

Nobody really had a clue who he was, Bin Laden and his ilk thought he was a nut job unworthy of being Al Qaeda.

I had no doubt Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, nerve agents and mustard gas. They stopped chasing the bomb though and Saddam made it extremely difficult for the likes of Zarqawi to thrive. Certainly wasn't working with them.

The West screwed up on multiple fronts, literally. I've grew to consider another word other than conspiracy and that's incompetence.

Little of the last 15 years has made good sense and now we don't have an interventionalist's leg to stand on.

a reply to: RAY1990

incompetence

I agree. That is a FAR better word to describe what happened.

What a difference a decade makes.

Bush used to be a deserter, now he is an authority on war heroes. He used to be a bumbling, racist, war criminal. Now he's an ethical man who knows how to be President. Even John McCain and Mitt Romney have gone from being the most racist men alive to being OK guys when they speak out against Donald Trump.

I guess in 2028 we can look forward to Donald Trump being a swell guy as long as he disagrees with whoever the Republicans run for President. That man or woman will be a combination of Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, the Antichrist, and JR Ewing.

a reply to: Lysergic

How I wish I could. Not saying I completely disagree with him here, but, yeah, I wish like hell I could forget him.