But in the articles George W. Bush protects marine areas and George W. Bush's Environmental Sins
We get two totally different view points on the how our soon-to-be-no-longer president has effected the environment.
I honestly am not sure how to compare these to articles, the are similar in the fact that they talk about G.W. Bush and the environment, but I perceive these actions in his final days, as just his last random acts of power doing whatever he can while he has the power to do so. I also see the obvious bias against Bush that the Environmental sin article has.
Our President has been no saint, he has done things that hurt our environment, but at the same time he has helped it more than anyone on earth (as stated in the washington post article). The Washington Post article seems to not be for or against Bush, all they are doing is stating what he has done. The salon.com article, though also stated facts about bush, it focused on the bad, and took it too the extreme by making each one sound as terrible as possible, when obviously he hasnt been ALL bad or there would be no point to the washington post article.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment