Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops
Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party,
Ordinary Americans get the shaft"
------------ -----
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
Yep. There's just nothing like fair & unbiased coverage of the news !!!
Posts
2 comments:
Ya right.
Obama was (wrongly) taken to task by a ton of media outlets because his inauguration supposedly cost so much more than Bush's. Of course, all those media outlets were buying into the Republican talking points which conviently left out 3/4 of Bush's inaguration costs while including them for Obama's. If that's what passes for "liberal bias" in the press then I understand why conservatives think Fox is so "fair and balanced".
Beyond that, what exactly is wrong about the "truth" behind these made up headlines? Did Republicans not sent troops to war with unarmored humvees and other subpar equipment? Did they not spend 8 years giving ordinary Americans the shaft? Just because the truth makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean you can fix things by whining about the truth tellers.
Choose your own snark!
If the troops are STILL driving around in unarmored Humvees, than it looks like the 2nd Bush administration was a hell of a lot worse than we first thought.
OR
Yeah, but just think of all the money we'll be saving by getting the troops out of Iraq and their shitty RumsefeldMobiles in the first place.
Post a Comment