Why is it that the press is still casting stones at former president Bush? That guy gets no quarter from me, but that doesn't mean that I sit around all day pondering up ways to blame him for stuff.
The latest example is from NBC News contributor Sasha Perl-raver with her short piece on the film "The Tillman Story," which is just a bunch of nonsense about how "war is hell", but was actually much worse because of Bush. One person can make bad worse, you see.
So admittedly "war is hell", and Corporal Tillman was a Ranger in Afghanistan shooting a machine gun at some bad guys, was killed by his own buddies in the fog of war, and then everybody and their brother had a hand in botching the details and somehow this means that Bush sucks? I'm confused.
Bush sucked for a variety of reasons, the least of which is like eight dozen human beings getting the details of an elite Soldier's death wrong for whatever excuse. The events proceeding the death of Corporal Tillman sound an awfully lot like the game of telephone in grade school, where a teacher demonstrates how the human factor can completely skew a message when it's passed down through so many people. The point of that demonstration is that the less human involved in transmission of a message, the less skewed it will usually be; in the case of Corporal Tillman, the message had to pass through a ton of human. This is the Army we're talking about.
Media types are fascinated with conspiracy theories stemming from some Republican tool. I like conspiracy theories too, I just don't make it my mission in life to continuously smear someone over them because I have nothing better to do than hate on the opposite party. Daggone, grow up would you!