"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"



NOYB wrote:
The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing?


I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little
nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously
bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is
stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes
you feel better.

I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts
don't support your argument, eh Doug?


You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon
colored glasses.

BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs?
Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border
security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy
successes...

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a
single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.


That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories
over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single
thing in 12 long years that FDR did right."

Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working.

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a
single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.



NOYB wrote:
That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories
over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single
thing in 12 long years that FDR did right."


Bull****. FDR did a huge number of things right, from his radio fireside
chats on up to chosing John Nance Garner, then Truman, as his Vice
Presidents.

Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working.


Whose?

Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by
the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off
to the Bush/Cheney team. Iraq... with the exception of the election,
which is only about year later than originally planned... has been a
disaster. Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot
there he can take credit for other than standing on the sidelines
smiling. And it hasn't happened yet.

I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything
else the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to
a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.



NOYB wrote:
That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our
victories over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point
to a single thing in 12 long years that FDR did right."


Bull****. FDR did a huge number of things right, from his radio fireside
chats on up to chosing John Nance Garner, then Truman, as his Vice
Presidents.

Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working.


Whose?

Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by
the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to
the Bush/Cheney team.

Hahahaha. That's a funny one!

How many US military personnel were overtly operating in Afghanistan while
Clinton was President? How many sorties did our fighters fly over
Afghanistan while Clinton was president?



Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later
than originally planned... has been a disaster.

Nothing like downplaying Iraq's first Democratic election ever!


Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can
take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling.

He might be standing on the sidelines smiling...but there's a reason for it.
He has 160,000 troops on Syria's eastern border, and he's demonstrated the
willingness to use them.


And it hasn't happened yet.

I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else
the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success.

How about 3 million new jobs created in the last 21 months? How about
cushioning the landing of a declining economy when he took office, thus
making our last recession one of our mildest and shortest-lasting recessions
in history (despite the 9/11 attack)?
How about the fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US
soil for 3 1/2 years despite at least a dozen promises from bin Laden and al
Zawahiri that the next one would be coming any day?
How about the fact that he's done what very few Presidents have ever
achieved: helped his own party *gain* seats at the mid-term and
end-of-first-term elections?

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to
a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.


Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by
the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to
the Bush/Cheney team.


NOYB wrote:
Hahahaha. That's a funny one!

How many US military personnel were overtly operating in Afghanistan while
Clinton was President?

???

... How many sorties did our fighters fly over
Afghanistan while Clinton was president?


???

There was plenty of covert operation going on in Afghanistan, which laid
the ground work for our support of the Northern Alliance and the
eventual overthrow of the Taliban.

Did you assume that by "the pros" I meant the Clinton Administration?
Why, do you think they did *that* much better a job of running the country?

I meant (of course) the Pentagon. The Bush Administration looney-tunes
like Feigth & Bolton had no part in planning the Afghanistan invasion
and occupation... it's notable that once they got involved, things went
downhill... and we *still* haven't found Bin Laden...




Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later
than originally planned... has been a disaster.


Nothing like downplaying Iraq's first Democratic election ever!


1- it was not Iraq's FIRST election, I guess there's no substitute for
ignorance of history when trying to judge political accomplishments

2- I am not downplaying it, I am putting the election in an accurate
context... as part of an ongoing process



Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can
take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling.


He might be standing on the sidelines smiling...but there's a reason for it.
He has 160,000 troops on Syria's eastern border, and he's demonstrated the
willingness to use them.


And if they leave Iraq, what's going to happen there?



And it hasn't happened yet.

I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else
the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success.


How about 3 million new jobs created in the last 21 months?

Where do you get this? As of last August, the "new jobs" total was well
under 2 million, the net was still a loss of over a million... the
economy is ramping up (FINALLY!) but that doesn't change 3+ years of
backsliding & stagnation... and of course blatant lies about it...

.... How about
cushioning the landing of a declining economy when he took office, thus
making our last recession one of our mildest and shortest-lasting recessions
in history (despite the 9/11 attack)?

Huh? You can 3+ years "mild & short"

Fact, NOBBY, stick with the facts.

How about the fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US
soil for 3 1/2 years despite at least a dozen promises from bin Laden and al
Zawahiri that the next one would be coming any day?

How about all the bogus alerts? How about the FACT that the airlines
themselves say that security has not significantly improved? How about
the FACT that unmonitored border crossings are at an all-time high? How
about the statements from the retiring head of Health & Human Services
that our food supply is almost completely unprotected? How about the
Coast Guard's pleas for more port security... ignored at every turn?

Personally I'd credit blind luck & stupidity on the part of the
terrorists (you have to be a little thick in the head, and have an
unrealistic world view, to buy into their line of malarkey) more than
any action by the Bush Administration.


How about the fact that he's done what very few Presidents have ever
achieved: helped his own party *gain* seats at the mid-term and
end-of-first-term elections?


What has that done for America?

Besides, Bush & Cheney have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and
continue to spend hundreds of millions, to scream their lies into the
ear of every American who'll sit still for it. I'm not surprised they've
gained popular support... but that doesn't change the facts on the
ground, and I believe that sooner or later people will wake up to the
facts.

Everything comes & goes in cycles, and the harder Bush & Cheney's team
of whackos & hired shills (BTW do they pay you, NOBBY?) push, the sooner
they'll fall, from their own momentum. Maybe some real conservatives
will have a chance to come to the fore.

DSK