Great Better Ways to Attack Bush: The Economist. Worth a look!

[LittleApple81]

C-Span 8:30 a.m. Brian Lamb showed "The Economist" cover and HE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE THAT COVER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ECONOMIST IS PRO BUSH. I went to the Economist's site but the cover picture is too small to be able to read the print. I am waiting to see if Lamb reads the "Better reasons to attack Bush".

I have the picture in another thread below.


edited to change subject.

[ihaveaquestion]

1. You can enlarge the cover

- at this link http://www.economist.com/printedition/cover_index.cfm

It's pretty good! I expecially like "No Cajones on Palestine and Israel"

[LittleApple81]

2. Thanks! Here it is.

[BootinUp]

6. Holy Smokes

Thats a blistering indictment. Funny too.

[LittleApple81]

8. I loved it too. Especially coming from a conservative magazine. n/t

[EdGy]

3. they tell it like it is!

they are very pro free trade, but they, unlike US conservatives, actually have principles.

They will and do criticize Bush when he does stupid things.

US conservatives cannot understand this because they have no principles, they only worship the dear leader no matter what he does.

Economist was great on Reagan too, it told it like it was.

[mouse7]

4. That's my next protest sign... blow that sucker up!!!!

That's MINE!!!

[The Magistrate]

10. It Is An Excellent One, Mr. Mouse!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LittleApple81]

5. I guess America corporate media maintains people in the dark intentionally

Why did Americans allow this to happen? Did Americans become so DUMB because of the persecution of CLENIS?

[LittleApple81]

7. Now Lamb actually talking about it and accepting questions. n/t

[nostamj]

9. from another aricle in the Economist.....

GEORGE BUSH ran for president in 2000 promising to raise the tone of debate in Washington. He was not saying merely that he wouldn't have sex with interns. He was talking about basic honesty, promising to look facts in the face, not to spin (too much), not to make policy by opinion polls, and to give an honest accounting of his actions. He reiterated that position last month in an interview: “The American people assess whether or not I made good calls...And the American people need to know they've got a president who sees the world the way it is.”Yet the administration's reaction to accusations by Richard Clarke, its former counter-terrorism co-ordinator, raises doubts not only over its judgments but, still more, over whether and how the administration accounts for its decisions. When set in the context of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the ballooning budget deficit, this reaction raises profound questions about the administration's credibility, honesty and competence.

Mr Clarke argued, in testimony to the special commission investigating the terrorist attacks of 2001, that terrorism was not a top priority before September 11th. The administration, he claimed, had failed to do as much as it could and should have done to disrupt the threat of global Islamic terrorism in its first eight months. In his book, he argued that the reason for the neglect was that the administration was distracted by its obsession with Iraq—symbolised by the president's repeated insistence, in the days after the attacks, that Mr Clarke should look into possible connections with Saddam.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2553350

[Nashyra]

11. We need a commercial calling * a chicken rather than a leader

We need something in the media asking the * if he is such a great leader why is he afraid to testify alone, under oath and in public?