NYTimes Exterminates George Bush!

[NYcarbineer]

Half the RWnuts are crying because Bush isn't in a certain photograph, the other half are defending Republicans for NOT going in the first place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

"I don't think that it was done intentionally."

It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.

Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.

“Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.” The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

"I don't think that it was done intentionally."

It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.

Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.

“Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.” The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events

You can't even help derailing your own thread can you?

 

[peach174]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there

I can't seem to find any list of all of the 23 who attended on the web.
Could you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

"I don't think that it was done intentionally."

It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.

Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.

“Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.” The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events

You can't even help misdirecting your own thread can you?

Anytime you object, I know I've been perfectly and accurately on target.

I appreciate the verification.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there

I can't seem to find any list of all of the 23 who attended on the web.
Could you?

Thankfully, it was more about those who marched 50 years ago than the politicians

I was very glad that none of the 2016 Presidential candidates were there

 

[peach174]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

"I don't think that it was done intentionally."

It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.

Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.

“Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.” The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events

Politico is the one who started the crap by originally saying no Republicans was attending.
But there is no where on the web so far that I could find, that lists all of the Republicans who attended.
Could you find any site that listed all of their names?

 

[peach174]

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.

Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there

I can't seem to find any list of all of the 23 who attended on the web.
Could you?

Thankfully, it was more about those who marched 50 years ago than the politicians

I was very glad that none of the 2016 Presidential candidates were there

How do you know that for sure?
Have you found a list of all the Republicans who attended?

 

[boilermaker55]

EXTERMINATES?
Who spelled the word for you?
LOL what a laughable headline.
At least faux news taught you one thing..........
ex·ag·ger·ate
iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exaggerate; 3rd person present: exaggerates; past tense: exaggerated; past participle: exaggerated; gerund or present participle: exaggerating
represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
"they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

 

[PoliticalChic]

EXTERMINATES?
Who spelled the word for you?
LOL what a laughable headline.
At least faux news taught you one thing..........
ex·ag·ger·ate
iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exaggerate; 3rd person present: exaggerates; past tense: exaggerated; past participle: exaggerated; gerund or present participle: exaggerating
represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
"they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate

It was not by accident.
I use words with precision.

1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.

2. I exaggerated with purpose.
Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
Pink is good for your political persuasion.

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

It was not by accident.

1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.

2. I exaggerated with purpose.
Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
Pink

EXTERMINATES?
Who spelled the word for you?
LOL what a laughable headline.
At least faux news taught you one thing..........
ex·ag·ger·ate
iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exaggerate; 3rd person present: exaggerates; past tense: exaggerated; past participle: exaggerated; gerund or present participle: exaggerating
represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
"they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But when it really mattered the NYT was in the tank, or in-bed-with the Bush Administration and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They faithfully parroted every talking point from the propaganda arm of the Bush Regime.

That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.

Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against. Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.

Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against. Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.

What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony narrative. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.

Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against. Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.

What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.

There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.

 

[Siete]

seriously ?

boy, the RW's are really reaching ... (or is it stooping) to new lows.

if the pic panned back far enough to include 43 you wouldn't have been able to recognize him anyway .. then they would have bitched about that .

SSDD

moving on .........................................................

 

[Stephanie]

 

[Siete]

I rest my case. Not even a nose or an eye ..

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.

Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against. Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.

What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.

There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.

Nope. That's lefty propaganda and opportunism. Iraq was a bipartisan effort. Ask Hillary.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The photo looks better without Bush in it

Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider

Really?
Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.

As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want). Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago. And then the First Family.

Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.

Fox Noise does not like positive. Doesn't $ell.

It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
Even MSNBC.

Libtards refuse the truth because the truth refuses them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.

Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against. Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.

What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.

There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.

Clearly you have a memory problem.
I wonder how you find your way home to that refrigerator box each day.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.




"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
snopes.com Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes






"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give thePresident of the United Statesthe authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons withinthe nextfive years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003