Hold it, hold it, HOLD IT!
Wait just one cotton pickin', finger pointin' minute!
Why is it when the President acts on information he believes to be correct, and that information isn't exactly correct, it's assumed that the President LIED, but when the media reports something based on what they believe to be fact, and that isn't exactly correct, it's a "tragic misunderstanding"?
What am I talking about?
Bush was given information from reliable sources about WMDs in the middle east. He acted on that. And since no WMDs were found, the media pointed fingers and said "BUSH LIED!!"
however...
Last night the media jumped the gun, misunderstood something very important, and reported that 12 of the 13 miners that were caught in the mine explosion were alive. Turns out that this report was not correct and only one of the 13 miners survived.
Just because we're in Iraq fighting a war doesn't mean Bush lied. Or, are you really ready to say that the media was careless in their reporting and that THEY lied about 12 people dying?
And don't throw numbers at me... I know that thousands have died in Iraq and 12 men died in West Virginia. That has nothing to do with the argument.
Want to hear a lie? How about the liberal chant "No one died when Clinton lied".
Can you say SOMOLIA?
I knew you could.
posted by Meatpies @ 3:06 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
very good. Freedom of the press was never meant to mean that the press could print anything they wanted without fact checking or regard to what is actually true. And not for a moment do I believe there weren't WMD in Iraq, i think we just gave so much bloody warning that they were moved. Also, there were plenty of other weapons, MWD mass weapons of destruction, that still would have more than justified the move to war that the liberal media is refusing to admit existed.
Post a Comment
<< Home