Monday, July 17, 2006

David Limbaugh on the latest New York Times wackiness

Sometimes you have to just wonder if these liberal geniuses at the New York Times and elsewhere have the slightest scintilla of common sense, let alone goodwill. At a time when the global conspiracy of Islamic terrorists to wage war against the civilized war is on display for all to see in Israel, the New York Times chooses, once again, to downplay -- if not dismiss -- that threat and, instead, demonize President Bush.

For several years the Democratic leadership and the mainstream media have been depicting President Bush as a power-hungry executive who "tramples on" the Constitution. But the New York Times, in its July 16 editorial, wrote, "It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration's response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power."

Basically the New York Times has taken their traditional place as the news trend-setter and decided to see if they can use it to mainstream the lunatic left. The good news is that this will put the Times on the bullet train to oblivion.

Comments:
So it was an expansion of power and had nothing to do with expanding world peace.

Watched CNN last night. There was a segment ridiculing his etiquette, using the word S*it at the G-8 and showed him spitting on the White House lawn. They put it out there as comedy, but their intentions were clear.

So the guy is like every other American male. Is that such a bad thing?
 
@@,

The only thing I saw wrong was that President Bush should have gone to the podium and said Hizzbala needs to quit this s*it.
 
Have you checked in your closet lately?
 
@@,

Why yes I just did. I haven't seen those shoes in years.
 
By the way, I loved that article. :)
 
Nicole,

Hold on here.....You loved the David Limbaugh article?
 


Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?