Originally Posted by
Pasadenacpl
Yeah...again..sources. You went off on another tangent there.
Being a gulf war vet, and coming from a military family, I can tell you that when the press is allowed to run amok in a war zone, bad things happen (Geraldo Rivera, anyone?) and good soldiers get killed. Yes, the media is controlled when they are in a war zone, because to report everything is to murder our soldiers.
Clinton had the same policy about not showing caskets, btw. So did every president since Viet Nam. That's not a Bush thing. And, it's Clinton. The man who argued what the meaning of 'is' is. You will recall that he had the opportunity to capture Bin Laden, as the Egyptians had him in custody and offered him to us in 1998. Clinton decided to let him go. But, none of this has anything to do with your original allegation.
You pointedly ignored every one of your original allegations. Bush was questioned, plenty. He never muzzled the press. You can make allegations all day long, but I lived here the whole time listening to the drive-by media beat the president up on a daily basis. Like him or hate him, President Bush was the most scrutinized president in our nation's history. So, until you have some credible sources, I'd appreciate it if you didn't spread that sort of poppycock around.
Our freedom of speech has been just fine, thanks very much. Our freedom of the press has been as strong as ever. The only real danger to either is the 'fairness doctrine' that is being proposed, which is a misnomer to be sure.
You are right about one thing: There is a lot not reported by the mainstream media. But, it isn't true in the way you meant it.
Pasadenacpl.