Media Uses Headlines As Political Platform

My, how the headlines have changed since that blessed day on January 20.

'Iraq election hailed as great success,' was splashed across the top of MSNBC's website on Saturday. This is not only newsworthy, but significant to Americans. The headline is neither misplaced nor overstated.

It is, however, strikingly bizarre following years of negative, downbeat stories by MSNBC regarding Iraq during the Bush years.

Also notable is the blurb toward the middle of their web page about a certain "George Obama", half brother to our very own Barack Obama. George Obama was arrested for alleged marijuana possession. This is a story worth mentioning. It was placed where it belonged and was given the proper amount of attention.

However, had this been George W. Bush, imagine how MSNBC would've placed these stories. The two would've been switched around and, under no circumstances, would the blurb regarding Iraq been titled, 'Iraq election hailed as great success'.

The media ought not to put themselves above the likes of slimy politicians. In many ways they hold the same imperious power and have the ability to set the tone for and persuade the thoughts and minds of their audience.

George W. Bush had an abysmal approval rating in part because of media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN . Americans have only the words of journalists with which to base their opinion.

True, Bush may not have been the most popular president regardless of coverage, but the mainstream media was on a witch hunt in their portrayal of Bush. They knew the power they had over their audience, they used and will continue to do so until we begin to see beyond their misuse of power.

Note: The word "Obama" appeared three times in 'Iraq election hailed as great success'. After years of dedication to spreading democracy, I'll let you guess how many times the word "Bush" appeared in that same article.

One Last Potshot from “Independent” Applause Junkie

In typical Democratic fashion, they just won't let George W. Bush exit gracefully after he's experienced eight long years of some of the worst criticism in American presidential history.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., ("Independent" generally being a synonym for Democrat) has written a letter to the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery in regards to Bush's portrait and the verbiage accompanying it.

The text currently reads that Bush's time in office was "marked by a series of catastrophic event" including the "the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Sanders is among many who vehemently disagree that the war is, in any way, related to the attacks of 9/11. He has gone so far as to request that the Smithsonian revise the text.

To disagree with the handling of the war following the invasion is one thing, but to boldly suggest that 9/11 was not the driving force behind sending our troops into the Middle East is pure ignorance.

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted to invade; even stating concerns that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man who would likely provide terrorists the means to bring further harm to America.

Once the war became long, drawn out and unpopular; one by one, supporters of the invasion backpedalled in an attempt to appease their constituents.

Had terrorists originating from the Middle East not violently killed 2,752 Americans, it is unlikely that this war would've begun.

The axe Sanders has to grind with Bush is evident. What appears to be an issue of principle on the part of Sanders is really just one last shot at a president who worked hard to keep the same Americans safe who not only detest his administration, but the man himself.

It's plausible that Sanders is seeking a little publicity or is looking to jump on the "I hate George Bush" bandwagon one last time before inauguration day. However, there is nothing remarkable about Bush-bashing. It's just about the easiest and most palpable way to solicit applause.