Holy shiite. I missed the entirety of PAGE 2.
My second point about all of the orginizations that we prop up still stands.
In fact if you read the detailed press releases by the Whitehouse that detail all the efforts/resources the US is dumping on the situation over there you will be pleasantly surprised. And I do mean Billions.
You missed page one as well. Specifically, the OP.
This is not about how much aid the U.S. is or is not giving. It is about why the President of the U.S. took four days, long after the information was in about how huge a disaster this was, to interrupt his vacation and actually speak in front of cameras and address the issue. Imagine the outrage if world leaders did nothing but issue a press release after 9/11. The death toll from the tsunami is 50 times greater than 9/11 and climbing. It is by far the largest disaster, natural or man-made, of his presidency and he couldn’t be bothered to comment. Some of us feel that that is incredibly thoughtless cold-hearted of the president.
Some of us clearly don’t.
I believe that you need to re-read the OP.
It was not about the accuracy of the subjective opinion that Bush responded too slowly to the tsunami crisis (personally, I think this view has some validity and that the Administration partially squandered a golden public relations opportunity). It was about opinion being presented as fact in a news story.
Then we can kill this thing by pointing out the obvious fact that Newsweek is a news magazine, it doesn’t do straight news, it does stories. Opinion and commentary are a part of what they do, and always have been. Newsweek is akin to 60 Minutes or Dateline, not the evening news or the morning paper.
I think Newsweek would take issue with the idea that they aren’t expected to do factual news reporting.
“Opinion and commentary” are indeed a part of what they do, and there are columns and analysis clearly meant to be taken as such. It becomes all the more glaring, then, when the news sections are filtered through the obvious biases of reporters and editors.
There are commonly accepted standards for journals like The Nation and National Review, and others for the likes of Newsweek and Time.
Or at least there used to be.
Wow, this is fun. Can we all play?
And perhaps give this a go
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
And yes, in case you were wondering, i have read all four of the books i linked to.
Can you say the same, clothahump?
If this is how Bush bumbles a task as simple as expressing sympathies for the victims of an earth-shattering disaster, we’re in even bigger trouble than I though.
Yeah, but with you, this is hardly a surprise. Bush could start WWIII and you’d praise it as an innovative new program in world peace-keeping…
The real question is, “Has mhendo read anything that doesn’t lean left?”
Lamar, in the end does it really matter who said what when, or is it who does what when? I think the issue is that Newsweek used an arbitrary time frame to determine when the President should have said what and then played off of that. If the Pesident had made a public address ten hours after the first wave hit they would have said he should have said something 5 hours after it hit.
So, I think that the Pres is in a no win situation. I’m quite certain that he was communicating with the powers that be during his ‘vacation’.
I’ll give you that 4 days does seem like a long time, if your just waiting for the President to make an appearance. If you stop to think about all the work that takes place behind the scenes and realize all the effort the US will have put forth in this disaster recovery I think a day or two either way in your ‘Presidential Response Time’ shant make a difference.
Not the point, idiot. I was simply trying to point out that linking to books that may support your position is not the same as actually making an argument. Also interesting that you don’t ask whether clothahump has read anything that doesn’t lean right.
In fact, as someone with a strong interest in the media, i have read the first book that clothahump linked to, Bias by Bernard Goldberg. I have also read some of Ann Coulter’s drivel, if that makes you happy. You should pick it up sometime; her level of argumentation might be right up your alley.
That’s funny. I figured out how serious the tsunami was on Day 1 and sent a large check to Doctors Without Borders on Day 2. Of course, I got into college based on my grades and not because I was a legacy.
No thanks, us idiots only read stuff that support our preconcieved positions. :rolleyes:
In light of the CBS dilemma, we’ll just keep pretending that there isn’t a mainstream media bias.
Ah, what the heck, guys, lets throw 'em a bone!
(Lessee now, sackcloth…check…ashes?..check…)
Woe! Woe is us! Our pillar of lies is o’erturned! CBS is fallen, freedom is on the march, and the clear and prescient vision of The Shining One revealed to all! Alas! We are undone! Woe is us!
Well, gee, the last I heard, he was President of the United States, not President of the Entire Frickin’ World.
How long did it take other world leaders to comment on the disaster? And please explain why it 's just so gosh darn terrible that Bush didn’t comment for four frickin’ days!
Exactly
So, why do you care about those people? Why not just judge Bush on his own actions?
Just out of interest, what would you have thought of a world leader who made no comment about the events of 9/11 for four days afterwards?
That’s good, you’re on the right track, just try to be a little more succinct though.
You must be new here. 
Everything Bush says or does is the wrong thing to say or do!
As I’ve pointed out twice already (and which no one has commented on), he could have rushed out after twenty minutes expressing shock and horror followed by a pledge of billions of dollars in aid, and these same people would be assailing him for pledging money before he even knew how much would be needed and for transparently trying to use the tragedy to make himself seem more humanitarian.