Liberal Press lies

Rocky Mountain News, political baffoonist, Ed Stein is so lame he has to lie to try to get laughs. His cartoon (3/21/07) showing President Bush proclaiming that he wants “Four More Years (in Iraq)” is the kind of lie that Stein hopes readers start to believe, when in fact, it’s the President’s political opponents who want withdrawal deadlines and unworkably-short ones at that. Given Stein’s political bias, it’s no surprise that he sees nothing disingenuous about how his fellow liberals claim to ‘support the troops’ while climbing all over each other, to be the first to force a retreat from (their) mission. Instead, Stein puts words (never spoken) in Bush’s mouth to distract attention from what the ‘cut & run’ democrats are actually all about.
Admittedly, the President’s steadfast resolve to prevail over al-Qaida and in Iraq is reflected in lowered popularity polls. But, even those surveys show that some 35 percent of Americans stand firmly with their Commander and Chief. Nonetheless, during a just concluded, 22-day period, the RMN ran 24 political cartoons that were critical of the Bush Administration, its Iraq policy or Republicans in general, while during that same time period, it ran only three cartoons lampooning democrats. A similar ratio applied to all Editorials and Opinion pieces.
While the Rocky might be ‘balanced’ on economic and civic issues, a simple accounting shows that with regard to ‘anything Bush’ (its) reporting, editorials and political cartoons are decidedly biased against the President. And, when it comes to Ed Stein’s personal brand of political venom, he never lets a little thing like the truth get in his way – after all, what fun would that be?

'flipp'en' Mike Keefe

Mike Keefe’s cartoon (Denver Post 3/11/07) showing former Sec. of State, James Baker, III flipping off the President is beneath contempt and factually wrong. Keefe wants us to believe that Pres. Bush didn’t respect Baker’s Iraq Study Group and that he won’t be taking seriously a similar study on conditions at Walter Reed either.
During his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Baker said a precipitous withdrawal (of U.S. troops) would be “catastrophic” and would undoubtedly lead to a “regional war.” He told Senators, they needed to put aside political bickering, work together to achieve the best plan and then approach the president, adding that ‘if the executive and legislative branches work out a plan in a truly bipartisan manner and all pull on the same oar, you’ll then see the poll numbers (on Iraq) rise.” Baker added that although the Study Group did not include a troop increase among its recommendations; it did outline conditions under which one would be acceptable. He then lent his own support to Bush’s troop surge saying, “The president’s plan ought to be given a chance.”
To which the President responded, "This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion. ... this report will give us all an opportunity to find common ground, for the good of the country.”
Despite the fact that, Baker actually respects Bush and Bush respects the work done by Baker, Mike Keefe disrespects them both and apparently has no respect for the truth either.

Bias against Bush

Upon much reflection, I have come realize that the Main Stream Media (MSM) considers itself to be ‘fair & balanced’ because they cover issues of concern to both liberals and conservatives. Being predominately liberals themselves, these media think that simply covering conservative issues or activities proves their professionalism regardless of the “progressive” ‘spin’ or perspective they advance. They also consider their editorial policy, regarding general political/economic issues, is balanced because they occasionally advocate for business, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility or religious freedom. Therefore, when the MSM is accused of having a Liberal Bias, they can claim its not so. But, with regard to how the MSM covers and editorializes on President Bush, the War and other prominent Republicans, I contend that they are decidedly negative.
When is the last time you saw a headline praising George Bush or a prominent photo of him looking strong and presidential? When’s the last time you saw an optimistic report filed out of Iraq or Afghanistan, a positive piece on any prominent Republican or the ugly comments of people like: Bill Maher, Al Franken or Jimmy Carter lampooned and derided as obscene, erroneous and treasonous?
I’ve recently monitored the Rocky Mountain News (which its editor, John Temple claims is “center-right”), over the period of 2/28/07 – 3/8/07, where I found 24 editorials, political cartoons or national blogs running down the President, his policies or Republican candidates, one editorial (on those subjects) that was neutral but none which were supportive or positive - zero, zilch, nada. Beyond this, I can take any news article the RMN printed about the Administration, the War or Republicans (in general) and identify specific negative characterizations, adverbs and adjectives used in those stories and/or headlines. I imagine that the same would be true about MSM coverage of Christianity.
To be specific and more accurate, while the MSM can claim it does not have a liberal bias, there is no way that (they) can deny that they are anti-Conservative, anti-Administration and anti-Bush. On this claim, there’s no way they can argue their case and its here that we conservatives should make our claim against them.

Cokie & Steve Come Clean

Steve and Cokie Roberts’ most recent column, Dems must tread very carefully, advises democrats to continue to criticize George W. Bush on his Iraq policy, but to eschew their “moral” convictions to actually take any legislative action. Cokie & Steve think that losing in Iraq is a ‘political’ winner for the Dems; as long as their hands are clean they plan on pinning everything bad on Bush.
Omitted from the Roberts column is any mention of al Qaida’s responsibility for making a mess of Iraq, the desire for America to prevail in Iraq or for the Iraqi government to succeed. Messers Roberts not only expect the U.S. to lose in Iraq, they are openly cheering for the failure of democracy in Baghdad, as their best hope for a democrat victory in Washington D.C.
Ironically, while Steve & Cokie disparage Vice President Cheney for taking on anti-war critics, these despicable columnists make the Veep’s case themselves. Claiming that Dems were elected with an anti-war mandate belies the defeat of Ned Lamont. Voters may have been unhappy with Republican governance, but the vote in 2006 was not one for retreat or defeat in Iraq.
As Obama, Edwards and Richardson vie to be the first to abandon our international commitments, Hillary claims that,”had I known then what I now know today, I wouldn’t have voted to give the President the authority to invade Iraq.” In other words, Mrs. Clinton is saying that she would have voted to have left Saddam in power, would have been satisfied when the U.N. inspectors got hood-winked, would have allowed Gulf War sanctions and no-fly zones to be dismantled and would have trusted that Hussein and Sons, Inc. would not reconstitute nuclear capabilities and would have believed that those weapons would not be handed-off to terrorist organizations.
By the way, if President Bush could get that same ‘do-over’ (given perfect hindsight), what would he have done differently over the past 4 years? Apparently, in the next Clinton Administration, ‘The Buck does NOT Stop here”.
If you think that today’s democrats stand for defeat, I give you Cokie & Steve Roberts.
If you think that the democrat front-runners were for cutting & running, I give you Barak, John, Bill and Hill.
But if you think that winning the peace is paramount, let’s give the troops time to improve conditions on the ground in Iraq.
Betting that the war is headed for a crash, may not be prudent and our next great “folk hero” may yet be George W. Bush.