BBC Has Picture Of Bush As Hitler In Their Newsroom

[red states rule]

Libs love to say the BBC is an objectives source of news. Yea, right

If Fox News would have done this to Hillary, I am sure it would have been on page one and the lead story on the network news

http://www.18doughtystreet.com/on_demand/229

 

[Little-Acorn]

If Fox News would have done this to Hillary,

Fox News would not lower themselves to insulting Hitler by comparing him to Hillary.

 

[T-Bor]

This is what is disturbing about Bush. I agree he is obviously not Hitler. But the things he has done has made him SOOOO hated across the world. That is NOT a good thing. Americas image has been drastically tainted and that is all the fault of George W Bush. He has no regard for the constituion nor the image of America. He has trashed both. And because of that you are going to see examples of this. Did you expect to see a picture of him portrayed as Martin Luther King or something ?

 

[Kagom]

Fox News does not make a practice of insulting politicians, even those they disagree strongly with on their positions and agenda.

Particularly when they've been dead for 62 years and can no longer reply or defend themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if a picture like that was hidden.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Well, my apologies for trying to make a joke in an obscure way.

I've modified my first post in this thread to make it a little clearer.

(Of course, you know what it does to a joke when you have to explain it.... )

 

[red states rule]

The point is, Fox News is very fair and balanced

Unlike the BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC

 

[Kagom]

The point is, Fox News is very fair and balanced

Unlike the BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC

Fair: Maybe.
Balanced: Not at all.

 

[red states rule]

Fair: Maybe.
Balanced: Not at all.

Fox News has more libs on their network, then the total number of Republicans on CNN and MSNBC combined

 

[Paul Revere]

What??? Only one picture? There are thousands available.

Google "Bush Family Hitler".
Scary stuff! And you thought they were supporters of America. I guess you won't get fooled so easy next time, will you?
(Tweddle, you are exempt, you get fooled every time.)

Bush is carrying out the New World Order that Hitler only dreamed of. With Karl Rove, (whose grandfather was a Nazi) they have put together the new and more dangerous Reich, the Fourth Reich. They have begun their conquest, starting in the Middle East.

 

[red states rule]

Since the moonbat left wants to blame Pres Bush fpr everything - don't forget this


Bush Still Won't Accept Blame for Pearl Harbor
Today, the Shrub went through the robotic motions of honoring the brave men, womyn, and transgendered who died at Pearl Harbor thanks to his family's relentless quest for absolute power. No doubt, Bush naively believes that being born five years after that day of infamy excuses him from any guilt. But if the dead could speak, they'd cry out from their watery graves and demand he apologize and atone for his complicity in the attacks.

It's common knowledge that the Shrub's grandfather, Prescott Shrub Bush, bankrolled the Third Reich out of his own pockets, but the rabbit-hole of treachery and betrayal goes much deeper than anyone could possibly have imagined. As I will reveal, the Bush family not only orchestrated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but conspired with some of history's most notorious figures in order to assume control of the White House for decades to come.

It was the summer of 1941. Senator Prescott Bush covertly met with fellow Skull & Bones members Gen. Hideki Tojo, Joseph Goebbels, and Fatty Arbuckle to hatch an insidious plot so secret that only a few Democrat Underground members and that weird guy at the comic book store know about it. On the 7th of December, Japan would launch a "surprise attack" on the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, launching a war and allowing young naval aviator George Herbert Walker Bush pad his political resume with a phony act of heroism at sea. In return, Arbuckle would use his Hollywood connections to disgrace Tojo's political adversary, Ministry of Finance Kiichi Miyazawa, in an elaborate sex scandal involving an underaged prostitute and a syphillitic goat. Goebbels would provide beer and brauts.

Just as planned, the Pearl Harbor attacks came by complete surprise, and the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet was destroyed. George H.W. Bush went off to war, and was shot down over Iwo Jima. His crewmates and fellow Skull and Bonesmen perished, but he was "miraculously" pulled from the water and would shamelessly use his military service for political gain years later. Back in Tokyo, Tojo patiently awaited for Prescott Bush to fulfill his part of the bargain and destroy his political rival, Miyazawa.


On August 9, 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - bombs built with uranium procured by Prescott Bush's Vanadium Corporation. Japan quickly surrendered, and Tojo was captured by the allies and summarily executed without a trail. Newly appointed Chancellor of Germany, Joseph Goebbels, took his own life outside a Berlin-area Piggly Wiggly, and Fatty Arbuckle became embroiled in a career-ending sex scandal of his own. Miyazawa, on the other hand, was promoted to the Japanese Diet, which monitors and controls the Nipponese sushi trade. For a while it seemed as if the Bush Dynasty would evade meeting their obligations in the sinister pact.

The Bushies would soon learn, however, that there was still a bill to be paid, and it would be paid with liquid assets.

Flash forward to 1992. In the midst of a failing political campaign, President George Herbert Walker Bush attends a state visit in Tokyo, Japan. Journalists would later describe the President as appearing pale and disoriented, at least more so than usual. Perhaps out of guilt over the needless deaths of his old crewmates, or from stress over troubles with his coke-addicted, alcoholic son, the president is overcome by a wave of nausea. He opens his mouth, and for a moment it appears as if he's going to speak. Instead, he shocks the world by vacating the contents of his stomach all over the Japanese Prime Minister...none other than Kiichi Miyazawa himself.

In ancient Japanese culture, being ralfed on by dinner guests was considered such a dishonor that the victims often committed ritual suicide before the puke even dried. Japan had long since abandoned the barbaric Samurai Code, but the stigma of being a vomit receptacle remained. Shamed and disgraced, Miyazawa was forced out of office with a vote of "no confidence" less than one year later, and the old pact between Prescott Bush and Admiral Tojo was finally fulfilled.


However, Miyazawa was from from finished. While Geedumbya ascended to the throne, the disgraced prime minister plotted his revenge. As a member of the powerful Trilateral Commission, he was able to secure documents that would both expose the Bush family's involvement in the Pearl Harbor attacks, and completely exonerate Fatty Arbuckle. Determined to get the damning evidence to the American press, he entrusted it with his nephew, a commercial fisherman operating off the coast of Hawaii. In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush stole the presidency, the Japanese trawler Emime Maru was destroyed by the U.S.S. Greenville. All aboard the vessel were killed - including Miyazawa's nephew, who had mere days before deposited the documents in a safety deposit box at the Manhattan branch of Fuji Bank - located in the south tower of the World Trade Center.

Paranoid conspiracy nuts will have fun with that little morsel, but we all know the real reason Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks was to steal Iraq's oil. Nonetheless, the evidence of Bush's treachery was destroyed forever, along with any hopes of seeing him brought to justice for his crimes.

As I expected, Dumbya didn't mention any of this in his pretty little speech today. Like he always does, he'll evade responsibility, pass the buck, and allow 2,000 brave servicemen to remain helplessly trapped at the bottom of the ocean just so he doesn't have to pay them their social security.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/history_lessons/index.html

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media is pushing this "story"

Bush Brings 'Evil Spirits' to Latin America
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on March 12, 2007 - 10:20.
On this morning's Today show, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell opened her report of the President's tour of Latin America with protest coverage, showing footage of a sign of Bush with a Hitler mustache, a man chanting "Gringo go home," and even noted local priests' desire to "purify" a Mayan site, Bush planned to visit, of "bad spirits." Over video of protestors O'Donnell emphasized: "The President is followed by Iraq and how bitterly unpopular the war is here. Protests in each country he visits."

The following is the full report as it aired on the March 12th Today show:

Ann Curry: "In the news this morning President Bush is in Guatemala today on his five nation Latin American tour. His visit has been greeted with protest against his war policy and now the President is making a case for sending another 8200 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. NBC's White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell is traveling with the President. Kelly, good morning."

Kelly O'Donnell: "Good morning, Ann. A different kind of protest will follow the President today. He plans to tour Mayan ruins here in Guatemala and we're told some local priests want to purify the site afterward with a kind of ritual they say will get rid of what they call 'bad spirits.' Visiting Latin America for what he calls a tour of quiet diplomacy-"

George W. Bush: "I appreciate your hospitality."

O'Donnell: "The President is followed by Iraq and how bitterly unpopular the war is here. Protests in each country he visits. In Guatemala a march outside the U.S. embassy."

[Man chanting: "Gringo go home!"]

O'Donnell: "In Colombia clashes between riot police and protestors. At a news conference the President talked about the announcement over the weekend that he is sending more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. For Iraq he described the increase as support for the more than 20,000 troops recently sent to help secure Baghdad and Anbar."

Bush: "Those combat troops are gonna need some support and that's what the American people are seeing in terms of Iraq. To support troops necessary to help the reinforcements do their job."

O'Donnell: "The cost for both missions, another $3.2 billion."

Bush: "My hope, of course, is that Congress provides the funding necessary for the combat troops to be able to do their job without any strings attached."

O'Donnell: "The White House hasn't been saying very much about these protests that we've been seeing except to say that it shows the people in these emerging democracies feel safe and free to express their opinions. Ann."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11359

 

[Gem]

This is what is disturbing about Bush. I agree he is obviously not Hitler. But the things he has done has made him SOOOO hated across the world. That is NOT a good thing. Americas image has been drastically tainted and that is all the fault of George W Bush. He has no regard for the constituion nor the image of America. He has trashed both. And because of that you are going to see examples of this. Did you expect to see a picture of him portrayed as Martin Luther King or something ?

I think this argument is a bit naive. It implies that we were not hated as a nation prior to the Bush administration. The United States has been hated by numerous nations around the world for decades...well before either of the Bushes. Nations have been funding terrorists who have been attacking us...other nations have loathed us, silently or outwardly, at best we have been viewed as un-cultured, uncouth, lazy, fat, stupid, slobs, at worst evil devils who need to be destroyed for years...yes, even during the Clinton years.

Please note carefully, I'm not saying that Bush hasn't increased the outward showing of this contempt...only that this contempt has been there for decades, barely hidden...and that to imply that the Bush Adminstration has some how invented this issue is nonsense.

The Europeans will view the United States as a huge threat until we stop "acting like the boss" and ignoring their advice - even as their own nations are torn apart by terrorist attacks and economic trouble. The Middle East will continue to loathe the United States until it crumbles. Even if we leave the Middle East tomorrow, they would then loathe the US for leaving them alone - if the US wants to win a popularity contest it should keep holding its breath...

It, in my opinion, is stupid and dangerous to plan out foriegn policy based on whether other nations will like us or not (Would you recommend that the shy girl in high school screw the football team in order to get popular?? I hope not).

We should instead make sensible foriegn policy that looks out for the best interest and safety of the US while trying our best to be good neighbors to the world...keeping in mind that by being a good neighbor to one, we might become an enemy of another. Do I think that Bush's decisions were all brilliant and faultless? God no! But I am saying that blaming him for nations hating us is demonstrating a very short memory...there were men chanting death to America and burning US flags outside burning buildings, tanks, helicopters, etc. LONG before GWB...and Europeans were turning their noses up at us before him as well...its just more politically acceptable to do so now.

 

[Paul Revere]

I love my country, but I fear the government.

If you aren't outraged, then you haven't been paying attention.

Okay Red Tweddle Snake Ruler, your turn. Cut and Paste something stupid.

 

[red states rule]

The liberal is no longer evening giving us the illusion of objectivity.

Enter Dan Rather, fired over his forged document story, is now lecturing to reporters how they have 'lost their guts'


Dan Rather: Journalism has 'lost its guts'

AUSTIN, TEXAS--To longtime CBS broadcaster Dan Rather, American journalism in recent years "has in some ways lost its guts."

During his hour-long keynote address at South by Southwest Interactive, Rather opined at length on the state of his profession, in which too many journalists have become lapdogs to power, rather than watchdogs, he said.

"I do not exclude myself from this criticism...By and large, so many journalists--there are notable exceptions--have adopted the go-along-to-get-along (attitude)," he said.

So, because of this "access game," journalism has degenerated into a "very perilous state," he said in response to a question from his on-stage interviewer, FireDogLake.com writer Jane Hamsher.

Rather left CBS last year in the wake of a scandal surrounding questionable documentation for a story accusing President George Bush of being absent without leave during his military service. Today, Rather works as a journalist for entrepreneur Mark Cuban's HDNet network.

In his speech, he touched on the state of the Internet as a way to get information and news to people.

"The Internet is a tremendous tool for not just news, (because) its potential is unlimited for that," Rather said, but for "illumination and opening things up."

But he spent most of his time on stage talking about why he thinks many people have lost faith in journalists.

One reason for that, Rather said, is that a sense has developed that questioning power, especially at a time of war, is perceived as unpatriotic or unsupportive of America's fighting troops

That's "a very serious charge in this country," Rather said.

"We've brought it on ourselves," he added, "partly because we've lost the sense that patriotic journalists will be on his or her feet asking the tough questions. My role as a member of the press is to be sometimes a check and balance on power."

Indeed, Rather's ascendance to the pinnacles of power in journalism came as a result of his reputation for asking very tough questions and--as Hampshire pointed out--not being afraid to ask follow-up questions, of powerful people like President Richard Nixon, the first President George Bush, current President Bush, Saddam Hussein, and many others.

"In many ways," said Rather to loud applause, "what we in journalism need is a spine transplant."

Rather then reiterated his feeling that many journalists today--and he repeated that he has fallen for this trap--are willing to get too cozy with people in positions of power, be it in government or corporate life.

"The nexus between powerful journalists and people in government and corporate power," he said, "has become far too close."

You can get so close to a source that you become part of the problem, he added. "Some people say that these powerful people use journalists, and they do. And they will use them to the fullest extent possible, right up until the point where the journalist says, 'Whoa, that's too far.'"

Therefore, it is incumbent on journalists to be willing to risk their access to power to search out the truth behind a story, he said. And they shouldn't be willing to water down the truth to protect their access to power.

Rather also said that the consolidation of power in a small number of media companies has hurt the search for the truth in newsrooms across the country. As media conglomerates get bigger, the gap between the newsrooms and the boardrooms is too big and the goal becomes satisfying shareholders, not citizens, he said.

Therefore, Rather supports increased competition between media companies and between journalists, he said.

"So next time someone says, 'I believe in the capitalist system,'" Rather said, "tell them Dan Rather says 'Amen.'"

Rather reiterated the journalist's role as a watchdog.

"Not as an attack dog...But what does the lapdog do, he just crawls into someone's lap," he said. "A good watchdog barks at everything that's suspicious. I submit to you, the American press' role is to be a watchdog."

Hampshire then asked Rather about the state of the Internet and how useful it can be in helping to inform people.

Rather responded that he sees a lot of potential in the Internet, and in the blogosphere in particular, but that he worries about anonymity on a lot of Web sites and blogs.

He said it's very easy to attack someone when you don't have to put your name to your complaints. He's not sure how to strike the right balance between professional and citizen journalism, but he believes the market will eventually provide that solution.

In the end, Rather said, the American people must understand that the news does matter, and that what they see happening on TV or read about on the Internet, is real. War, he said, is real.

"What happens on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul does matter on Main Street."

http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6166528.html

 

[T-Bor]

First, you didnt read my statement particularly well. I said George was hated, and that Americas image is tainted. And its not all in part to foreign policy. You can attribute it to such things like stupid statements made by Bush about the "Axis of Evil" and the famous "Bring em on" quote. I mean if the Axis of Evil speech didnt speed up North Korea nuclear program I dont know what did. Now IRAN going nuclear. And I fully believe our Relationship with countries that were our allies are now tainted as well. And it will take awhile to repair those relationships. Obviously I dont think we should make foreign policy based on if people like us you idiot. But I do think we should think about the implications of our actions a little better than we have been. Sorry you couldnt understand that.

I think this argument is a bit naive. It implies that we were not hated as a nation prior to the Bush administration. The United States has been hated by numerous nations around the world for decades...well before either of the Bushes. Nations have been funding terrorists who have been attacking us...other nations have loathed us, silently or outwardly, at best we have been viewed as un-cultured, uncouth, lazy, fat, stupid, slobs, at worst evil devils who need to be destroyed for years...yes, even during the Clinton years.

Please note carefully, I'm not saying that Bush hasn't increased the outward showing of this contempt...only that this contempt has been there for decades, barely hidden...and that to imply that the Bush Adminstration has some how invented this issue is nonsense.

The Europeans will view the United States as a huge threat until we stop "acting like the boss" and ignoring their advice - even as their own nations are torn apart by terrorist attacks and economic trouble. The Middle East will continue to loathe the United States until it crumbles. Even if we leave the Middle East tomorrow, they would then loathe the US for leaving them alone - if the US wants to win a popularity contest it should keep holding its breath...

It, in my opinion, is stupid and dangerous to plan out foriegn policy based on whether other nations will like us or not (Would you recommend that the shy girl in high school screw the football team in order to get popular?? I hope not).

We should instead make sensible foriegn policy that looks out for the best interest and safety of the US while trying our best to be good neighbors to the world...keeping in mind that by being a good neighbor to one, we might become an enemy of another. Do I think that Bush's decisions were all brilliant and faultless? God no! But I am saying that blaming him for nations hating us is demonstrating a very short memory...there were men chanting death to America and burning US flags outside burning buildings, tanks, helicopters, etc. LONG before GWB...and Europeans were turning their noses up at us before him as well...its just more politically acceptable to do so now.

 

[sitarro]

First, you didnt read my statement particularly well. I said George was hated, and that Americas image is tainted. And its not all in part to foreign policy. You can attribute it to such things like stupid statements made by Bush about the "Axis of Evil" and the famous "Bring em on" quote. I mean if the Axis of Evil speech didnt speed up North Korea nuclear program I dont know what did. Now IRAN going nuclear. And I fully believe our Relationship with countries that were our allies are now tainted as well. And it will take awhile to repair those relationships. Obviously I dont think we should make foreign policy based on if people like us you idiot. But I do think we should think about the implications of our actions a little better than we have been. Sorry you couldnt understand that.

I see that not only are your responses moronic at best, you are also too much of a dumbass to use the quote button so the post you are responding to ends up on top. Just too logical for you eh T-Boring?

As for your attempt at a point, why exactly should we give a shit what the world thinks of us? We will always be hated for how generous we are or not being generous enough. We have always been written about by the world press in a negative light, our own press hates us and leads the way. What the world thinks of us is not how foreign policy should be decided, what is best for us and our interests including our friends is all that matters. If you think there is one other country out there that is concerned more about the world than themselves you are more naive than I thought possible for even a liberal.

By the way T-Bor, Gem has historically been one of the most thoughtful and fair posters on this board, she deserves a lot more respect from a clown like yourself.

 

[red states rule]

I see that not only are your responses moronic at best, you are also too much of a dumbass to use the quote button so the post you are responding to ends up on top. Just too logical for you eh T-Boring?

As for your attempt at a point, why exactly should we give a shit what the world thinks of us? We will always be hated for how generous we are or not being generous enough. We have always been written about by the world press in a negative light, our own press hates us and leads the way. What the world thinks of us is not how foreign policy should be decided, what is best for us and our interests including our friends is all that matters. If you think there is one other country out there that is concerned more about the world than themselves you are more naive than I thought possible for even a liberal.

By the way T-Bor, Gem has historically been one of the most thoughtful and fair posters on this board, she deserves a lot more respect from a clown like yourself.

For a world that hates America so much, we are the first ones they call when they need or want something

and we are there giving them want they need and want

 

[red states rule]

This is what is disturbing about Bush. I agree he is obviously not Hitler. But the things he has done has made him SOOOO hated across the world. That is NOT a good thing. Americas image has been drastically tainted and that is all the fault of George W Bush. He has no regard for the constituion nor the image of America. He has trashed both. And because of that you are going to see examples of this. Did you expect to see a picture of him portrayed as Martin Luther King or something ?

How does the liberal media report stories about Pres Bush?

Try this...........


ABC Anchor on Bush Trip to Latin America: ‘Some Say He's Angered the Gods’
Posted by Scott Whitlock on March 13, 2007 - 15:39.
On Monday’s "Nightline," the ABC program continued the media’s fascination with the Mayan "spiritual leaders" who protested a recent visit to Guatemala by President Bush. According to anchor Cynthia McFadden, "some say he's angered the gods."

While footage onscreen showed Uruguayan demonstrators (from a previous portion of the trip) burning an American flag, Reporter Jessica Yellin noted that "many in the region don’t care for Mr. Bush" and seriously reported on the President’s "bad vibes":


JESSICA YELLIN: "The spiritual leaders of the Guatemala's indigenous Mayan population are also worried about the President's bad vibes. They will perform a special cleansing ceremony to clear away the bad energy they say he left during his visit."

Did it ever occur to these people that the protesters might not like America? While it may be hard for liberal reporters to resist covering a story about the evil spirts George Bush creates, burning an American flag is an insult to an entire country, not just one leader.

The transcript of the segment, which aired at 11:57pm on March 13, follows:

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN: "Tonight, President Bush is on his way to Mexico. On this Latin American tour, he's been met by protest every step of the way. But nowhere has he seen a response quite like the one he received in Guatemala, where some say he's angered the gods. ABC's Jessica Yellin sees a 'Sign of the Times.’"

JESSICA YELLIN: "Ever the ‘ranchero’, President Bush loaded lettuce in Guatemala on day five of his Latin America goodwill tour. It's meant to show he cares. But many in the region don't care for Mr. Bush. [Onscreen: footage of protesters, including some who are burning an American flag.] Like these folks who gave him a chilly reception on his first stop in Brazil. On day two in Uruguay. And Columbia, and today, Guatemala. The protesters object to everything from the war in Iraq to the President's free trade and immigration policies. The hostility isn't just coming from the street protests. The spiritual leaders of the Guatemala's indigenous Mayan population are also worried about the President's bad vibes. They will perform a special cleansing ceremony to clear away the bad energy they say he left during his visit. Guatemala's president took Mr. And Mrs. Bush to one of the country's top tourist spots, Iximche, the ruins of an ancient city where they took in some Mayan culture, including traditional music and dancers wearing deer skins. There was also some sort of Mayan soccer game, and this famously athletic president couldn't help from jumping in. But indigenous leaders fumed saying their culture shouldn't be a tourist attraction. One Mayan said Mr. Bush was trampling on sacred ground. But none of the Bush bashing seemed to bother the President who focused on the friendly faces."

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "As a matter of fact, it was one of great experiences on my presidency."

YELLIN: "Though some are eager to see him go and take his karma with him. I'm Jessica Yellin for 'Nightline" in Guatemala City."

It should be noted that "Nightline" is only the latest media outlet to gleefully play up this story. "Good Morning America," as well as NBC’s "Today" show, and the AP have also commented on President Bush and his "evil spirits."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11393

 

[Gem]

First, you didnt read my statement particularly well. I said George was hated, and that Americas image is tainted. And its not all in part to foreign policy. You can attribute it to such things like stupid statements made by Bush about the "Axis of Evil" and the famous "Bring em on" quote. I mean if the Axis of Evil speech didnt speed up North Korea nuclear program I dont know what did. Now IRAN going nuclear. And I fully believe our Relationship with countries that were our allies are now tainted as well. And it will take awhile to repair those relationships. Obviously I dont think we should make foreign policy based on if people like us you idiot. But I do think we should think about the implications of our actions a little better than we have been. Sorry you couldnt understand that.

T-Bor, I'm sorry if you didn't think I read your statement completely. I did, of course, but that is beside the point. If you feel that the world's opinion of America has been suddenly tainted because our current president pointed out that North Korea and Iran are dangerous threats to the rest of the world, or said "Bring em on," thats your opinion.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, that Bush has not tried to be friends with many that other presidents have sucked up to...he has not played the games, coddled the "right" people, catered to the UN. He has made many mistakes while doing this...but I'm not sure if we as a nation should make our decisions based upon what the rest of the world thinks of our president. I will continue to be angry and disappointed in the President for the mistakes I believe he made...but those mistakes do not, in my opinion, include refusing to cuddle up and play nice with those who hate him or think hes retarded.

Most people grow up and mature out of the "I'll suck up to the people who are mean to me and maybe that will make them like me!" phase when they are done with high school...I'm not sure why we should encourage our politicians to revert back to that model.

(And to address another issue in your first post that I didn't address the first time: Of course I don't expect to see Bush portrayed as MLK in a newsroom, but theres the rub...I don't want to see Bush portrayed as ANYTHING in a newsroom. The problem with having a Bush as Hitler picture in the BBC newsroom has nothing to do with people not liking our President, they can view him as the bloody anti-christ for all I care, the problem is that a NEWS outlet, especially one that claims to be reporting facts and not thinly-veiled opinion put out specifically to sway the opinions of the viewer in their chosen direction...should not be allowing such obviously biased and partisan displays when they are claiming to be presenting unbiased, factual reporting - I apologize for not mentioning this the first time around...I figured it was just common sense that even you, T-Bor, could understand...)

Again, I can only say that I find it very naive to belive that the world in general, or North Korea and Iran were sitting around going "You know, I really don't like Americans very much...but I guess all-in-all they are alright. Wait...what did Bush just say???? Well f*ck that...I'm building a NUKE!"

Both North Korea and Iran began their journey towards aquiring nuclear power and nuclear weapons before Bush took office (or did you forget about the Clinton/Carter "Agreed Upon Framework?" That bit of diplomacy sure made North Korea like us a lot, didn't it? But in all fairness to the North Koreans - well...lets be honest...in fairness to Kim Jong Il...the North Koreans are too busy trying to lick moss for nutrients to really care about nukes - Who wouldn't like getting loads of foreign aid and nuclear information from their enemy all for the small price of signing a piece of paper that you never had any intention of following in the first place...if that is how we build diplomacy in your eyes, then I'm terrified about how you think we should "rebuild" our standing in the world community).

You can't write a post about how the world hates Bush and has lost respect in the citizens of the United States because of Bush and his decisions and then get all whiny and petulant when someone reads that to mean that you want foriegn policy decisions to be based (at least in some part) on whether or not the rest of the world is going to like our decisions. Well...thats not entirely true. In your last post you proved conclusively that you CAN write that type of post, and then get whiny and petulant when someone called you on it...its just not going to make people take you seriously.

I expect our President to make decisions based upon what is legal, constitutional, and what keeps this nation and its citizens free and safe. Aside from that, I could really care less whether members of the BBC "like" him or not. But I do expect members of the media to keep their opinions out of their jobs. I can't tell you how much I would like to sit down at a meeting with a parent and say, "Look, sweetie...when you and your boyfriend of the week get drunk instead of helping your kid out with his homework...he's going to get bad grades. And you can blame his teachers all you want for that...but until you start acting like a mom instead of a hooker...your kid is probably going to continue to struggle in school." But while that might be accurate...its not appropriate for me to say...so instead I smile and say, "I know how tough it is to get a teenage boy to do his homework...here are some of our afterschool programs...and of course, I'm here every day until 4:30PM unless i have a meeting, so your child is welcome to come to my room to work." I don't expect the media to like Bush, they don't have to...I do expect them to keep their opinions out of their work...and when you are publically displaying pictures of the President of the United States portrayed as one of the cruelest, and vilest mass murderers of all time - you are NOT doing that.

 

[red states rule]

Colbert Plays Along While Guest Compares Bush to Hitler
Posted by Scott Whitlock on March 14, 2007 - 16:04.
If Stephen Colbert is going to pretend to be a conservative, perhaps he shouldn’t play along when a guest compares President Bush to a genocidal dictator like Adolf Hitler. On the March 13 edition of "The Colbert Report," the Comedy Central host had University of Missouri professor Dr. Donald Shield on to discuss the (media generated) controversy over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys.

Shields was appearing to tout a study claiming that federal prosecutors investigated Democrats over Republicans by a five-to-one margin. However, the discussion quickly degenerated into Nazi comparisons with Colbert happily joining in:

Stephen Colbert "...The Republicans are in power so they're using the full force of the federal government to target the Democrats specifically to make sure they get all the corrupt ones out of there. I mean, that's government efficiency."

Dr. Donald Shields: "Well, that's kind of the way Hitler started out in Nazi Germany, isn't it?"

Colbert: "Well, I mean, he started out efficiently. He got bad later. But first it was about making the trains run on time. You gotta give me that. You gotta give me that!"

Shields: "I'll give you that."

Note to Colbert: If you’re going to play a right-winger, even a loose satire of a conservative, you usually don’t defend Hitler. Of course, this is the same host that once compared Rush Limbaugh to Charles Manson and mocked his addiction to pain killers.

Is it any wonder that conservatives are embracing a conservative version of "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report?"

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 11:36pm on March 13, follows:

Stephen Colbert: "You know, the mainstream media is having a conniption over revelations that eight U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush administration last year. Big whoop. I thought everyone in Washington wanted to spend more time with their families anyway. Now these attorneys claim they were pushed out by the administration because they wouldn't target Democrats for investigation and remember subject to thinly veiled threats by lawmakers like Republican Senator Pete Domenici. The Justice Department says they were fired because of poor performance, even though some of them had recently received positive employee reviews. But who can trust reviews? ‘Norbit’ got terrible reviews, and it was still the number one movie in America. Therefore, it was hilarious. But now the press are seeing conspiracies everywhere. That idiot, Paul Krugman, friend of the show, had this to say in the ‘New York Times.’ ‘The politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. And what flimsy evidence does ‘Krugmanistan’ have to back up his claim? That there's, quote, ‘pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats?’ Just a bunch of empirical data showing investigations of Democrats outnumbered investigations of Republicans by almost five to one. Those numbers were, of course, compiled by two tweed-wearing elbow-padded clowns at the University of Missouri. I'd like to give them a piece of my mind. Here now to receive a piece of my mind is one of those two tweed-wearing elbow-padded clowns, Donald Shields. Welcome, Dr. Shields. Thank you so much for coming. Now, I have to say, sir, I was impressed– I was impressed by your research. Jimmy can we get that graph back up there again? Okay. But isn't this graph just overwhelming proof that Democrats are corrupt? Otherwise, why would they have been investigated so much? Checkmate."

Dr. Donald Shields (University of Missouri) "Well, it would be proof that they were corrupt if the figures were just the other way around."

Colbert: "What do you mean?"

Shields: "Well, if they were the ones out investigating Republicans and finding that they were being indicted or convicted at a greater rate, well, then there is where the corruption would lie."

Colbert: "Oh, no, but, see, the Republicans are in power so they're using the full force of the federal government to target the Democrats specifically to make sure they get all the corrupt ones out of there. I mean, that's government efficiency."

Shields: "Well, that's kind of the way Hitler started out in Nazi Germany, isn't it?"

Colbert: "Well, I mean, he started out efficiently. He got bad later. But first it was about making the trains run on time. You gotta give me that. You gotta give me that."


Shields: "I'll give you that."

Colbert: "People are saying that this is evidence that something is wrong with the way the investigations are going on. But isn't that the same argument that get gets made for racial profiling? I mean, people say because black people get pulled over in traffic violations more often, they're being profiled. Isn't the simpler answer that maybe African Americans are lead foots? What's the difference between that and this?"

Shields: "Well, in fact, Stephen, you bring up a great point. There's a lot of similarity. My colleague and I, Dr. John Cragan, often call this being investigated and being surveilled for, for, uh, DWD: Driving while Democratic."

Colbert: "So this is political profiling, in your opinion?"

Shields: "Yes. It’s political profiling."

Colbert: "In your opinion. But, okay, even if it were political profiling, Sir, I mean, the Democrats could change that by becoming Republicans? I mean, be a Democrat, it's just a choice, like being gay. You know, you can change. Let's talk about uh, uh, the U.S. Attorneys who were fired."

Shields: "All right."

Colbert: "Do you see from these statistics any evidence that political pressure is being put on U.S., uh, uh, uh, federal attorneys, or federal prosecutors that may have led to these guys being fired?"

Shields: "I think what actually happened is that there were some of these, uh, I call them the ‘Gonzales Eight’ who happened to investigate Republicans and, therefore, they were relieved of their jobs. And there were other of these Gonzales Eight that didn't investigate Democrats, or at least didn't leak the investigation of the Democrats, like the other 385 prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys did, I mean, another 85 U.S. Attorneys did, and so, therefore they were relieved of their position."

Colbert: "But isn't the fact of the matter, even if that is the case and how it work that is the case. Some guys did the job the administration wanted and kept their jobs and some people didn't do the job the administration wanted and lost their jobs, don't these prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President?"

Shields: "Well, yes, but they're not--"

Colbert: "Maybe they just stopped pleasuring the President. And I want you to know, sir, if you make me a federal prosecutor, I will be a one-man pleasure dome. Dr. Shields, we've got to go. Thank you so much for stopping by."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11415