The passing of Ford and earlier Reagan show a few things.
While both were President, they were attacked by the media daily.
They were incompetent and at times flat out evil men...kind of like GWB is talked about now.
Then, when they die, they are seen as hero's. They are great men.
Might it be that the media had an agenda and they failed at getting the American people to believe them?
Or maybe their perception and opinions were simply wrong?
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Media 180
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Who cares, just stick it down the memory hole. If the Watergate Democrats never overran Ford's veto, the Communists never would have taken South Vietnam. Ford is a hero to these people because they defeated him politically, just like BushI.
Coulter's piece this week was nice. After Nixon won in 1968, he began a phased withdrawal of troops, protected the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings in North Vietnam, mined the North Vietnamese harbors, and attacked the Communist supply bases in Cambodia.
Despite hysterical hippie protests, this allowed Nixon to get reelected by winning 49 states over a peacenik opponent in 1972. The Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973, where we promised South Vietnam we would resume the bombing campaigns if the Communists attacked again.
Then the Democrat Watergate Congress took over. They passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 which defunded all help to the anti-Communists. Gerald Ford VETOED the bill, but the Democrats, with their majorities, managed to override it. The rest of this sordid history of self-imposed surrender and defeat should be enough to embarrass any real American. The Khmer Reds overran Cambodia, Laos was turned into a puppet state, at least hundreds of thousands were sent to reeducation camps in South Vietnam-- in typical liberal fashion, evil proceeded to impose its views on good, and good was prevented from any resistance to evil.
Scorpion says---
Their perception might have been wrong? DEFINITELY WRONG!!!!!Still,this"perception" CONTINUES to
be wrong every day!
how quickly we forget...the Dem's will do it again..
And here's something else the liberal media never mentions:
For the rest of the 1970s, the dominos continued to fall-- Nixon was able to prevent Chile from falling in 73, but after that, South Vietnam, Moazambique, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, Iran before the fundies hijacked it all fell to leftwing forces. It wasn't until Reagan took power that the United States began to stand up to the socialists at home and around the world again.
Today the Democrats don't even believe there is a Revolutionary Islamist movement. They are quite eager to let stone-age fundies take over governments to prove their tolerance and respect for diversity. Foreign policy is therapy for these compassionate people, a way to atone for their liberal guilt for real and imagined historical crimes.
Because, its so much more important to have an evil corrupt dictator in charge, cuz they take our money, than it is to have a stable, Communist leadership. Pick any one of the countries you guys mentioned, and thats what the alternative was, except for Cambodia, where there really was no leadership. Pinochet in Chile, Portugal in Moz., Somoza in Nic., they were all dictators who cared more for money than the well-being of the people.
Now, jason...did I read correctly that you called the Shah gov't in Iran a LEFTIST gov't?
Also, where the fuck do any of you, including those presidents get off thinking that they should be able to have a say in the internal structure of another sovereign state? Its illegal and immoral, and exactly what anyone proponing those gov'ts is also.
Finally, its been said here a thousand times....the press is going to print anything, as long as it sells papers.
rhyno,
Interesting you Liberal Democrats decry regime change when it suits you, but are silent to cheering when other governments dictate to the US and the Supreme Court Justices use laws and precedents from other countries instead of the US Constitution to decide cases like Kelo.
If editors and reporters were real journalists, what they wrote before would match what they write in covering the Presidents' funerals. It is just more proof that these people don't accurately report without bias.
I think Ford died before Pelosi could be sworn in as Speaker so he wouldn't have to listen to her at his State Funeral. Discuss amongst yourselves.
I do love the pagentry of our former Presidents' funerals and how they showcase our military. I was glued to the tv. (OK, the tivo, but still...)
rhynos--
The Shahs are certainly radical, more of the fascist flavor than bolshevist, and they came to power during Persia's socialist revolution. Liberals and Marxists in Persia were naive about their new fundie comrades. This is just like the socialists of today who think they can be friends with Revolutionary Islam, since they both hate the West and everything it stands for.
Many Iranian leftists paid for their naivety with their lives.
Good job ousting the Shah, leftists. I guess things like having women voting were simply too oppressive, and stoning adulterers and hanging homosexuals was the progressive path. After all, Jimmy Carter said Khomeini could be trusted, since he was a man of God.
Just another example of good leftist intentions and bad leftist results.
Ah so you've been reading instapundit huh..I'll just let Blue Texan at Glenn Greenwalds blog say it because he says it like I would:
this post from Glenn Reynolds aka "Instapundit" aka "Mobius Dick."
"They said nice things about Reagan after he died, too, despite hating him in office, and they're already gearing up to do the same thing with George H.W. Bush, who was treated quite unfairly during his term. (See, e.g., the supermarket scanner story). It's as if the only good Republican President is a dead Republican President."
So this is how it works in the warped, demented mind of the Republican partisan: "they" write mean, critical things about Republicans; therefore, this proves that they hate Republicans. And when they write nice things about Republicans it's because they feel guilty about all the mean, critical things they previously wrote, and again just proves that they hate Republicans.
But what's even more galling about this post, which was ostensibly about Gerald Ford, is that Mobius Dick found the time to scratch his festering media rash and somehow didn't quite get around to noting how unserious and terror-loving President Ford was.
In July 2004, Ford told The Washington Post that he "very strongly" disagreed with Bush's justification for the war and would have pursued sanctions and negotiations rather than order an invasion. "I don't think I would have gone to war," Ford said in an interview with Bob Woodward.
Why didn't Mobius Dick mention that the mentor of Cheney and Rumsfeld was such an America-hating defeatist? Do you think if Presidents Carter or Clinton had made that remark it would've gone unnoticed?
Here's the best part: by Mobius Dick's own standard, set exactly two months ago, Ford wasn't a conservative at all, because he didn't support the war in Iraq, which means he didn't support the war on terror. But today, all of a sudden, he's a conservative again, martyred by the liberal media, who are now showering him with glowing tributes after his death...out of sheer guilt.
Label :Conservative Media Bias
ron,
Thanks for the Liberally biased account. Woodward's interview was cherry picked to get that comment from Ford, but people like you never do that,..., NOT!
Thanks for confirming that there is liberal bias in yourself and in the MSM.
pcd--
Deep down the problem is spiritual. Liberals have taught generations of Americans that being a victim is good. They think getting attacked first by your enemies is a sign of moral blessedness; turning the other cheek is even better. A preemptive attack isn't imprudent, it is sinful and wicked to these people. Suicide as a military power proves your moral superiority as a moral power in the diseased, sick minds of liberals.
ron--
I wouldn't have entered Iraq either in 2003. But I'm not going to join the orgy of defeat when we've been doing very well in Iraq when we compare it to other historical American wars.
PCD thanks for the powerful and common sense response...not. Jason, if you want to hear about victims stick around and hear how the whole world is in a conspiracy against the conservatives. The media, the liberals(everybody not them),other religions, other races, you name it. Just read pcd. The whole world just tries to deny the the wonderful all American conservative. It's all over this blog. Things are going well? How? Elections? A barely functioning government that the people rightly or wrongly think has been forced on them or backed by the west? They are already on their 3rd or 4th President or leader for Gods sake. This latest one wasn't elected. He was chosen to fill in when the last one wasn't working out. He has stated he hates his job and wants out as soon as possible. How the hell do you plan to pull victory out of this. It might have been possible at the beginning but we are way to far down the road now. The military victory was achieved a long time ago.
In the mean time Taliban..you know the ones that at the least harbored the people that actually attacked us..are growing and strengthening again and are already fighting another day.
Post a Comment