General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsmeadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Did the bombing knock the memory of *who* is president out of their heads? Not once did they consider this is a stunt to divert attention? Or a stunt to make him look strong and decisive to raise his cratering poll numbers.
God grief it is so disheartening to watch them constantly be duped by this buffoon. They were showing such promise when going after the Russia story and calling him a liar - drop $70mil worth of missiles and voila, we have a president
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)KewlKat
(5,624 posts)I had hoped Dan Rathers post would have gained some attention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-rather-airstrikes-trump_us_58e7f536e4b05413bfe3049d
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as presidential is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)They are the "lying librul nooz" who are always wrong about everything. So if they say they are pro-Syrian missile attack, then the tRumpers will be against the Syrian missile attack even though that's what their fearless leader wants. See how that works?
mvd
(65,185 posts)I have been very disappointed - the love of bombs again confirms they care more about ratings/readers than the country.
And I would have also complained if Hillary was President and did it. But Trump being behind it scares me a lot more.
As for the newspapers, the Philly Inquirer always has had a Third Way-type editorial page. Rubin is also pretty hawkish. They have a couple progressive reporters on the Philly.com site like Bunch.