Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
That's a pretty stupid philosophy and it is not only hypocritical (because you surely wouldn't apply the same principle to Clinton) but it demonstrates a major issue with people's view on the role of government.I'm not talking about just the war here but there are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is just one (albeit an important one) in this whole system. Why is he the only one to blame when things don't go perfectly?Secondly, since he is the most powerful man in the country, a lot accountability ultimately does fall on him but his job could be made a hell of a lot easier if the press and this country's liberals would throw him a bone once in a while.The whole "they're doing it for ratings" argument can't even work for the NY Times because everytime they splash another major tool in tracking terrorists all over the front page, they lose a large percentage of readers. (In the last six months, their daily circulation was down 4.51% to about a million readers (1.5 million on Sunday). To put it in perspective, the Drudge Report has 16 million readers a day.)The only possible explanation that could be put forth for this is that they hate President Bush so much that they are willing to aid the terrorists in order to make him look bad.
That's a pretty stupid philosophy and it is not only hypocritical (because you surely wouldn't apply the same principle to Clinton) but it demonstrates a major issue with people's view on the role of government.
I'm not talking about just the war here but there are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is just one (albeit an important one) in this whole system. Why is he the only one to blame when things don't go perfectly?
Secondly, since he is the most powerful man in the country, a lot accountability ultimately does fall on him but his job could be made a hell of a lot easier if the press and this country's liberals would throw him a bone once in a while.
The whole "they're doing it for ratings" argument can't even work for the NY Times because everytime they splash another major tool in tracking terrorists all over the front page, they lose a large percentage of readers. (In the last six months, their daily circulation was down 4.51% to about a million readers (1.5 million on Sunday). To put it in perspective, the Drudge Report has 16 million readers a day.)
The only possible explanation that could be put forth for this is that they hate President Bush so much that they are willing to aid the terrorists in order to make him look bad.
