What if I've been wrong about W?

[mrnoodle]

Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization.

This isn't a Bush original, but he's the first *president* to form a middle-east policy based on the concept. We're still in the 'killing terrorists' phase, but when the trash has been taken out, you'll see the work that's been going on underneath - the hospital and school and infrastructure building.

Lib media doesn't cover that, because it doesn't feed into their carefully constructed anti-Bush propoganda machine. Look at the title of the MSNBC piece - "What Bush Got Right". My, how very magnanimous of them. Oh well, maybe if they dip their toes far enough into the pool of actual impartial journalism, they'll decide they like it. This article is a start I suppose.

Don't think for a second, though, that a paradigm shift isn't happening in news media. The idea that the NYT can say whatever it wants because, by God, it's the new york times, is passe. During every editorial staff meeting dedicated to combing over an 'anonymous' submission for something to use against Bush, there are 5,000 bloggers networking with what used to be big-media-only sources and getting the facts out there. Yeah, you have to pick through some twaddle to find the truth, and there are more loonies than real researchers. That's ok, conservatives have 40 years of practice trying to mine a nugget of truth out of a pile of shit every time they turn on network news or pick up a newspaper, so the blogosphere is easy.