Replies

I have some criticism to make regarding this post.
First of all, the title should be, "BLAME UNPRINCIPLED JOURNALISTS FOR 9-11"
Secondly, the author, Onkar, hasn't given Mr. Bush a whole lot of time to accomplish all that HE thinks the President needs to. President Bush has been rather busy since he first took the pledge. Give him another 4 yrs after 2004, and then complain about what he hasn't done.
As for Iran, the Iranians are working on it. It's not being ignored. And there are reasons we moved our military base out of Saudi. Think about that, Onkar.
Bush doesn't have a magic wand. And if the press and news media would try printing stories that would HELP any of these situations, we'd get rid of the terrorists a lot faster.They could be printing articles and editorials that are patriotic, uplifting, affirming, supportive,and
encouraging.
"...when Bush does strike at militant Islam, he does so only haltingly. Morally unsure of his right to protect American lives by wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Bush feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties."
IF this is what the author believes, that Bush "does so only haltingly" & "feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties", it's because of people in his profession jumping at every opportunity to report (whether true or not)(exaggerated) civilian casualties(and the heck with the mission and what we're trying to achieve). AS for whether Mr. Bush is "unsure of his right to protect American lives..." that's Hogwash! Ridiculous! Stupid!
When the author and the rest of the naysaying, doubting,Anti-Bush,pro-democratic party, "gotcha", "don't care how the majority of Americans feel" media attain the morals MR. Bush lives his life by, it will not only be a cold day in Hades, but we'll have stopped any future 9-11
catastrophes from happening.
Remember Onkar,
"Loose lips sink ships."

I keep reading on FR that what is good for America, is good for Bush... what is bad for America, is good for the Democrats.

I wonder if the myopic view of the journalists is because they wish to ignore the true facts, because their only goal is to gain power.

When Bush labeled Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, he meant it.

And, if anyone thinks that a Democrat in the WH will come to the assistance of those seeking freedom in Iran, are fooling themselves. Iran will be placed back on the shelf, to ignore, while it fends for itself.

If Bush and the State Department would only support the students and protestors, then they would be given strength beyond measure. Isn't the support of the world what they want and need? If we don't listen to those brave souls in Iran, will we notice if and when they are silenced?

Nice post!

"And if the press and news media would try printing stories that would HELP any of these situations, we'd get rid of the terrorists a lot faster."

Good Heavens! That would go completely against their agenda!

Nattering nabobs of negativity...

When the author and the rest of the naysaying, doubting,Anti-Bush,pro-democratic party, "gotcha", "don't care how the majority of Americans feel" media...

I think you misunderstood the article. The author has some criticism for President Bush, but he doesn't criticize him for being "unilateral" and "simplistic" and a "Texas cowboy"--on the contrary, he's saying he's not "unilateral" etc. enough! IOW, he wants him to be more Republican. That's hardly the way a Rat talks!

And he doesn't criticize President Bush specifically; rather, he objects to "decades" of politically correct foreign policy, going all the way back to Carter. He is saying President Bush should not let his decisions be shaped by this ugly "tradition"--that he should uncompromisingly pursue a pro-American, pro-freedom policy, no matter how loudly the PC crowd scream.

Well, that's my take, anyway. I don't know who this Onkar guy is, but Front Page Magazine certainly isn't a leftist rag. Just take a brief glance at their home page to see for yourself.