To: Nachum
And yet, they weren’t afraid to criticize President Bush. What is the difference?
5 posted on
04/29/2010 9:59:59 AM PDT by
Hoosier-Daddy
( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
To: Hoosier-Daddy
And yet, they weren’t afraid to criticize President Bush. What is the difference? The difference is that the Bush administration never threatened to cut off their access whereas both the Obama and Clinton administrations have.
11 posted on
04/29/2010 10:02:22 AM PDT by
Dahoser
(Separation of church and state? No, we need separation of media and state.)
To: Hoosier-Daddy
This is BS commie propaganda.
15 posted on
04/29/2010 10:04:21 AM PDT by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
To: Hoosier-Daddy
19 posted on
04/29/2010 10:07:36 AM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Hoosier-Daddy
As a matter of fact, the opinion piece/article mentions that the press never complained about the lack of transparency during the Bush years: “(animosity strangely absent during the full-scale information blackout of the Bush years).”
Indeed. The lies in the quoted statement from Salon defy even Joseph Goebbels. Forgive me if I am unable to muster any sympathy for Ernst Rohm’s little group. They were willing to be used.
36 posted on
04/29/2010 10:59:24 AM PDT by
sig226
(Mourn this day, the death of a great republic. March 21, 2010)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson