Dead Bloggers Society: Media Bias Archives

February 14, 2006

White House Press Corps Bias

CBS Reporter, Bill Plante: "Dick Cheney Wouldn't Tell Us if Our Shirts Were on Fire"

"A comment this morning by veteran CBS reporter Bill Plante, while perhaps intended to be light-hearted, pulled back the curtain on just how antagonistic the White House press corps believes VP Cheney to be toward them. But more importantly, it suggests how antagonistic they likely feel in return."

The hype of this story is pathetic. Following CBS reporter Bill Plante's formula for White House disclosure, President Clinton should have immediately reported each of his sexual escapades to the press as they occured.

There is news that is critical to the operation of our country, and there is tabloid fodder. This incident is/was clearly the latter. Let's face it, what we are really talking about is the malice that much of the MSM has for this administration.

A hat tip to:NewsBusters for this story.

Similar Technorati Topics:
White House, bias, MSM,

Posted by capecodcyclist at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 29, 2006

Liberal Left's Outrage is a One Way Street

What does the Liberal left's formula for progress in this country mean to you? As a Democrat? As a Republican? As an Unenrolled voter? How would you define it, and do you subscribe to it? To me, their blanket judgments of some of the more conservative minded Democrats, and their oft repeated definition of Conservative Republicans says it all:

Conservatives want you to "drink the Kool Aid." They manipulate you into supporting them through fear tactics, as they legislate your civil liberties away. Conservative Republicans have become a real world Big Brother, seeking to watch over and control your lives. Conservatives and the Religious Right are united in their lock-step efforts toward a Fascist, Totalitarian state. They want everyone to subscribe to their beliefs, and show no shame in trampling your individual rights in the process.

Instead of drinking the Conservatives' "Kool Aid," the Liberal left (I am talking about the extreme left throughout this post) seems to prefer their own brand of "progress." Here is where their philosophies make a hard left turn- directly into a ditch. Progress to the Liberal left has become measured by their successes at stretching the boundaries of freedom to its limits. Where most Conservatives feel that some of our freedoms have already been carried too far, the Liberal left is hellbent on making sure that we never look back. Where Conservatives decry the damage many of these so called freedoms have inflicted on traditional, family values, the Liberal left accuses Conservatives of trying to thrust these values upon them. To me, this conflict really comes down to a Jungian understanding of the human mind: that of habitually projecting our inner demons onto others.

How else do we explain that Tom Delay is the poster child for campaign finance improprieties, but equally reprehensible flouting of campaign finance laws by Hillary Clinton have garnered little media attention? How is it that the Bush lied refrain remains so popular, but when Senator Kennedy perpetuates an obviously fabricated story about a student being rousted by government agents because he was looking for a copy of Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book," the endless scream of "LIES!" goes silent? Where is the outrage when national security secrets are released in an obvious attempt to embarrass the current administration, yet spilling secrets that might embarrass a critic of the administration is greeted with full-tilt outrage?

Unfortunately, every ounce of this outrage could just as easily be in reaction to the worst traits of the Liberal left's favorite champions. If the examples were only limited to these few that I have cited, one might be able to ignore the partisan bias. However, the Liberal left's taste for perpetuating hoaxes, and directing their tantrums only at Conservative Republicans has become the rule rather than the exception. Where true Conservatives welcome oversight and equal justice, the Liberal left seems to place their ultimate identity as the rightfully chosen social do-gooders ahead of equal justice, and view oversight as an intrusion (unless it is aimed at their opposition). Outrage at injustice increasingly seems a one way street with the Liberal left.

This week I read a prime example of where the Liberal left would take us if given the chance:

Congresswoman Cyntia McKinney (GA), filed legislation this past November that seeks to immortalize the murdered rapper/gangster, Tupac Shakur (H.R. 4210: Tupac Amaru Shakur Records Collection Act of 2005). The bill would require that a collection of all government records related to the life and death of Tupac Shakur be created at the National Archives, and that a second repository be created at The Tupac Amaru Shakur Center for the Arts in Stone Mountain Georgia. This is similar to legislation that was used to bring files about the JFK assassination to light. It is difficult to believe that this woman was actually elected to office.

From Osama bin Laden to Tupac Shakur, living villain to murdered thug, if you are (or were) anti-establishment, you are a friend of the Liberal left. I wish these were just isolated examples of Liberal activists seeking to elevate convicted felons, gangsters, and terrorists to hero status. Thankfully, such twisted ideas of equality have been kept in check by saner minds here in the United States. Liberal special interest groups have all but guaranteed that obstructionist tactics and partisan politics will continue to be standard operating procedure for the Democratic party. When election time rolls around, I am confident that the many voters who share my exasperation with this trend will, in a strong show of unity, vote with the same passion that the Liberal left puts into their hoaxes, ad hominem attacks, blame games, and grandstanding.

January 19, 2006

New News

New News: Deconstructing the Newspaper:

"...I'd look hard at your local columnists and ask whether they are as informative and entertaining as local bloggers. They used to provide some humanity and voice in otherwise gray, dull papers. Maybe your readers can help do that now."

This post is well worth the read, whether you are a media insider, or a blogger observing from the outside. If only our local Cape Cod Times could open their eyes to this reality and take it to heart.

(Via BuzzMachine.)

Posted by capecodcyclist at 08:00 PM | Comments (0)

December 11, 2005

Why Did the Senator Cross the Road? Because the polls told her to.

“Ask not for whom the public opinion polls; it polls for thee.”
~ Edwin Newman

Spam, junk mail, phone solicitations, phone surveys and public opinion polls: I hold them all in equal regard, as should we all. They are each a waste of our time, a detriment to productivity, and a hindrance to progress. These are all common annoyances that plague our daily lives. However, polls and phone surveys are not simply annoying parts of our lives anymore. Their slanted and inaccurate results have poisoned our political process. Unfortunately, the disturbance does not disappear by just hanging up our phones.

Personally, I respond to poll and survey takers as I do telemarketers: I politely make it known that I am not interested, and if they do not respond with the same understanding, I promptly hang up. Many people do not realize that there are laws in Massachusetts requiring telemarketers to inform you of a substantial amount of pertinent information in the first minute of their call: 1) What company they are working for, 2) What company or organization hired them to solicit you, 3) What they are attempting to sell, 4) The market value of what they are selling, and more. If you are not on the Massachusetts “Do Not Call” list, all of these rules (and more) apply. Anyone who has been the unfortunate recipient of such a call knows that this law is rarely adhered to. This brings me to my next question: Shouldn't similar laws apply to organizations and businesses conducting public opinion polls?

There have only been two survey takers who I have been bored enough to placate with answers. On both occasions, I could hear in the questioner's voice when they started getting answers that did not jive with the results they were fishing for. On one of these occasions, I was actually told they had no further questions when I told them I was not willing to agree with a statement they were proposing to me. You see, these callers often bait the hook with a number of questions that are perfectly agreeable to any sensible, caring individual, and then they sneak in the real purpose of their poll by way of a seemingly innocuous statement quite different than the previous questions. Just for example, after answering in the affirmative to a series of public education related questions, I had a conversation something like this:

Survey Taker (scripted statement): “Wouldn't you agree that the people who prepare meals for our University students deserve a yearly increase in their wages?”

My Answer: “No.” (my first negative answer in the phone call)

Survey Taker (unscripted): “Excuse me? You don't think the people who prepare meals for our students and educators should get yearly raises?”

Me: “I said no. I think they should be paid on a scale equivalent to the public sector. Personally, I haven't had a raise in two years. Can you fit that in the yes or no answer box?”

Survey Taker (quickly wraps up the call): “Well, thank you for your time. Have a good evening.”
In my opinion, these calls are equal to the annoyance of sales calls, and their purpose is often more deceitful. At the very least, they should be regulated by laws similar to those that apply to telemarketing. Personally, I would support the idea of banning them outright. If people are opposed to completely banning these public opinion polls, perhaps a disclosure label similar to a nutrition label should accompany their use in the media. Heck, if we need to be informed of the empty nutritional value of junk foods, we should at least get visible warning of similarly empty poll results. Perhaps the tendency to cook the results would not be so great if everyone could easily see the ingredients.

Can you imagine politicians acting on principle instead of catering to poll results? Can you imagine the political climate in this country if everyone were not bombarded with polls claiming to have discerned what the majority thinks about a particular issue? Luckily, with 95% confidence, the majority of us recognize that, in addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. In simpler terms (for the uncertain 5%), poll results can easily be, and are most often, skewed. Polls and surveys are a shady business that have no justifiable use in our political process.

Posted by capecodcyclist at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)

November 26, 2005

Did Hurricane Katrina Expose Poverty in America, or is the Media Attempting to Save Face?

Who are the real poor in America, and how do we help them?

Two weeks ago, I spent a day visiting with friends from Canada. It is always enlightening to hear the opinion of America's current affairs from outsiders whose only possible perspective can come from the media. They don't live here, so how else can foreigners possibly judge happenings here? During conversation about current events, one of our friends said, “I'm sure you will all be happy when that terrible Bush is out of office. I mean, look at how much he cares for those poor people he abandoned in New Orleans after the hurricane.” Shortly before this comment, I had been reading a Cape Cod Times article that stated much the same. According to many in the media, the primary lesson we should have taken away from hurricane Katrina was the disparity between the “haves” and “have nots” in America. It should be noted that it is the consensus (even within the media) that reports made in the wake of this storm relied more on emotion than on fact. Obviously the press remains desperate to justify this emotionalism, and all too eager to cover up their flawed reporting. This desperation is obvious in their continuing, post-hurricane, poverty coverage.

From my perspective, admittedly safe and sound here on Cape Cod throughout it all, I saw disparities exposed that had little to do with class divisions. Where the media saw a government disinterested in helping the poor, I saw people utterly incapable of helping themselves or each other. The real differences exposed by Katrina were between those of us willing to work and act, and those who equate compassion with dollar signs and government aid. We were exposed to the dramatic difference between those who sit back and wait for help, and those who pull themselves up and take care of business. We also witnessed a local government totally lacking in preparedness to respond to a previously acknowledged transportation problem. Now, we find that reality and the MSM (main stream media) remain in conflict all these weeks later.

Another glaring defect revealed by Katrina is one I have been complaining about since it first occurred: the shameless acts of uncouth zealots who seized on hurricane Katrina in the hours after the flooding to politicize this catastrophe. Within hours of breaks in the New Orleans levee system, MoveOn.org activists were blanketing the internet, chat rooms and message boards with cut and paste propaganda claiming President Bush had cut levee funding. In reality, however, figures from 2001 through 2005 show that Louisiana was the top recipient of Corps of Engineer funding in the country, getting $1.9 billion of the Army Corps of Engineers' $22.9 billion budget. In addition, the three Corps of Engineer flood control projects surrounding New Orleans received a total of $391 million in direct funding during that same five year period. I see another disparity forming here... a disparity in truth. It is interesting that we have NEVER read that truth in print here on Cape Cod (neither had our friends up in Canada). With today's politically biased mainstream media, to find the truth, we must hunt for it ourselves.

Back to the matter of poverty here in America: No right thinking person is going to try to say poverty does not exist here in the United States (or in any country in the world). However, my reaction to both the Cape Cod Times article and my friend's expression of concern for our citizenry was the same. I was ashamed, but I was not ashamed of my government or our President. I was ashamed of the way some of our politicians, many in the media, and liberal activists ignore the causes of poverty here in this country, and will not acknowledge the true scope of real poverty here. The media and our government's harshest critics would prefer we not recognize that our country has some of the most well off “poor” people in the world. They are incapable of discriminating between the real poor in this country, and unproductive members of this society who are living very well despite their lack of motivation or abilities.

By real poverty, I am talking about those who lack the basics. Real poor people lack sufficient nutritious food for their families, transportation (a car or truck) to get to work when needed, and reasonably warm and dry housing. Based on these most basic requirements, America has very few real poor people. The majority of Americans described as "poor" by the media (and our government) now typically have access to transportation (or own a vehicle), have air conditioned homes, a microwave, a stove, a refrigerator, and a washer and dryer. The typical “poor” person in America also has more than one television, has cable or a satellite dish, a VCR or DVD player (many have both), a video game console or computer, and a home stereo. Their home is typically in good condition, and they are not living in overcrowded conditions. They also have access to medical care. The typical American poor family is not hungry and is capable of meeting their essential needs. I am not saying everyone in this country is living the American dream as you and I picture it, but I am saying that we all have equal access to it. The majority of America's poor are far from being “Third World poor” as the media suggests in discussions of poverty. The majority of poor, by the media and our government's definition, are low income people who are living in conditions and with material wealth far superior to the poor in most countries.

Yes, we have families in America who face hardships. There are people (adults and children) among us who deserve far better care than they receive. A third of poor households here in this country face overcrowding, occasional hunger, and difficulty obtaining medical care. I am not disputing that. However, we should be debating the causes and solutions of this problem. The primary cause of poverty here in this country is the breakdown of our families and our communities. Irresponsible consumerism, welfare and the welfare mentality (the “what have you done for me lately” attitude) have done great harm to this country. We must be charitable and compassionate with our weak and our poor, but that charity and compassion are possible and necessary at the local level. The federal administration of our compassion does not seem to be working. For the past five years, federal spending on anti-poverty programs has increased by 41%, and there is no end in sight. The problem keeps getting worse. Perhaps it is time we bring charity back to the local level and seek more creative solutions to lifting our neighbors out of poverty. Government funded welfare is a bottomless pit that we can no longer afford to ignore.

Every time I hear hurricane Katrina (a natural disaster) brought up in stories of poverty and race, my disgust grows. I have read stories that detail how many black businesses were destroyed by hurricane Katrina (yes, it appears natural disaster is a sure sign of prejudice in this country). I have also read countless tales of how the storm affected the poor in New Orleans; but what of all people of every financial level on the entire Gulf Coast? We continue to be told that the poor were abandoned in New Orleans, but what of the hundreds of thousands of people of the same economic status who were able to get out well ahead of the storm? What of all Americans struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck? The people who were interested in working, those concerned about the possible interruption of their incomes, and those willing to listen to authorities, had no problem getting out ahead of the floods in New Orleans. Yes, there were transportation problems for the weak, sick and handicapped that local authorities should have been prepared for, but that would have been (and has been) an issue for any population, regardless of its affluence.

Hurricane Katrina exposed rifts in this country that go deeper than separation of class and race. Hurricane Katrina exposed the nature of a society that increasingly rejects the worthiness of faith based charities (because it has grown so anti-religious), but feels perfectly comfortable with government hand outs. Government monies (monies that are not even there to spend) have become the preferred method of relief in this growing confusion of money with compassion. Hurricane Katrina also exposed the lengths that liberal activists will go to politicize their agenda. We witnessed this as Jesse Jackson showed up in New Orleans with a bus load of people from Chicago to make a show for the cameras of blacks looking for work. New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin publicly asked how he should deal with a city overrun with immigrant workers... the only workers willing and ready to do the clean up work. There seems to be confusion in our approach to the problem of poverty here in America. We villainize people who are willing and able to work, yet complain that these jobs are not going to a different racial group that does not appear to be present or interested.

Poverty is not a modern affliction. In fact, the modern condition is far better than ever before. However, in his day, Benjamin Franklin addressed this dilemma best in response to laws England proposed to lower prices for London's poor:

“I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. …In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.”

We have made it more beneficial to be on welfare in this country than to work a minimum wage job, yet there are those who are still questioning why we have poverty in this country. There should be no question that poverty exists here, but there should be much debate on how it should be overcome. The first step should be the acknowledgment that it is not blasphemy to critique the priorities and habits of the poor. The only means people have of escaping poverty is a change of habits and a desire to avail themselves of the opportunities here in this country. Aiding that change in habits and instilling that desire should be priority number one. Second, we must take the politics out of the process. Government never belonged in the role of parent to us all (in the business and private sector). The Depression warranted government intervention to assist the country out of financial ruin, but once the floodgates were opened, the money has continued to flow unchecked. Now, we remain a country of dependents, everyone feeling entitled to their piece of the pie. Unfortunately, we will all (rich, middle-class and poor) be the eventual victims of government spending that far exceeds income.

Since the New Deal, positive forward progress (on critical social and environmental issues) seems impossible without being in the government's pockets. It seems nothing of benefit to the human race is worthwhile without government approval any longer. Until we give faith-based charities the admiration we afford government hand outs, and until we learn that charity and environmental stewardship are beneficial in and of themselves and deserve our financial support (at the personal and local level), we will be forced to continue our dependence on government monies (monies our government does not even have to spend) as the provider of incentive for these worthy endeavors. Somehow, we must turn back the clock, return our government to its original purpose, and take back responsibility for governing ourselves and our communities. The current system is broken, and I challenge anyone who has not discovered their own personal way to benefit from the current system to deny this.

There is equality in access to opportunity in this country, but our ability to avail ourselves of this opportunity will always differ from person to person. Certainly, concern for our neighbor should be a priority in this country, but Utopia is not possible, and compassion is not monetary. Most welfare programs have served more as enablers, contributing to the condition of the poor rather than assisting people out of poverty, or helping them through troubled times. It is time we stop treating people as guinea pigs, abandon broken social programs, and begin progress on rebuilding our communities.

We should all be concerned with the health of our economy, as it affects each of us along with the state of all of our fellow citizens. It is only a matter of time before our economy comes to a screeching halt due to our irresponsible spending (and this is obviously not only on social programs). Pork barrel spending and big government must be reigned in. Revising a tax code that is unfair to the poorest among us and penalizes good family values such as marriage should be part of this focus. Those who criticize big businesses for fleeing the United States are often the same people who disregard and encourage the out of control bureaucracy our government has become. Attracting employers back to the United States will necessitate eliminating the bureaucracy and allowing these businesses to make a profit without forcing them to be the support system for their employees' (past and present) every need. We have become our own worst enemies, and the situation is getting worse. Blaming class divisions on politics is contributing to our problems rather than solving them. While fighting to win more benefits for the poor and downtrodden may seem an admirable crusade, we can not afford to remain ignorant of the causes and perpetuate them. The choice is whether we continue as part of the problem, or change our ways to be part of the solution.

Suggested (somewhat related) reading:
Pork Gumbo, The federal tax bill served up by Louisiana legislators

Posted by capecodcyclist at 05:50 PM | Comments (2)

November 12, 2005

Where Can We Get the News Around Here?

The Shameless Media: Reporting Only the News Fit to Ignore

Human Rights Watch came out with a detailed study of abuses by insurgent groups in Iraq this week titled: A Face and a Name: Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq. Yes, the study does propose that our military actions and presence are encouraging the insurgent's to commit human rights violations. The portion of the report regarding U.S. And Iraqi government forces, weakly and foolishly suggests that were we nicer to the insurgents they might be nicer in return. However, the report is very clear in detailing the war crimes being committed by the insurgents and completely debunks the “freedom fighter” justification brought to us by Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and company. The media, always quick to make front page headlines denouncing what they decry as U.S. atrocities has made not a peep regarding this report. But we have no bias in the mainstream media...

You Don't Have to Take Sides to Report the News

The media, particularly our local Cape Cod Times, seems to be under the impression that reporting a news story is the equivalent of choosing sides. If they disagree with something, they simply do not report it. In this effort, they often cover lackluster stories while ignoring more substantial events. On October 2nd, more than 2,000 pro-life supporters (including people from the Cape) rallied on Boston Common and more than 50 pro-choice demonstrators held their own counter protest. We had no reports of this news in our local rag. Apparently a few people promoting gay marriage is more worthy of coverage. This same anti-wind farm newspaper also insists on calling a contractor interested in the Cape Wind project a “Big Dig” contractor. The only connection the contractor has to the Big Dig is that he purchased a company a year ago that worked on it. Were they reporting the news rather than editorializing it, we would not have had to do our own “Big Dig” for this pertinent information. Every day the Cape Cod Times gives us their own version of the “Big Dig” as they shovel more onto the pile. Nope, no bias there either...

No Republican Left Unindicted

This week, the Government Accountability Office ruled that the Education Department had violated the government’s publicity or propaganda prohibition when it created reports trying to counter the National Education Association's efforts to squash the No Child Left Behind Act. It was not that long ago that prominent Democrats were crying foul that this bill had been plagiarized or stolen by President Bush. Isn't it funny that when a Democrat comes on board with a Republican bill, they are being bipartisan, but when a Republican pushes a bill that is considered worthwhile they have plagiarized it. Suddenly, after the bill passes, and having been trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle (our Senator Kennedy included), those who championed it and many educators immediately commenced to demonize it.

The spin on this bipartisan bill as an unfunded mandate with impossible to meet demands has been forwarded by the anti-Bush crowd, and the mainstream media follows the anti-Bush crowd like its shadow. What they fail to mention is that this bill's purpose was simply to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary School Education Act of 1965 (something we have done repeatedly since its creation). The new guidelines put forth in The No Child Left Behind plan aim to reverse the growing trend of high school graduates who currently have to take job applications home for someone else to fill out for them. No Child Left Behind is making our states hold schools accountable for the competency of their students. The purpose of the bill and the bipartisan, American ideals behind it seek to insure the future of our country through the education of our children. That the administration had to promote such an idea is the sad story. Covert propaganda? What is covert about fostering the education of our young people?

If $240,000 of our tax dollars should not have been used to promote the education of our children, I can certainly come up with a thousand more ways I would rather my taxes were not wasted. The National Endowment for the Arts would be a fine example of this. I am far more offended by much of the “art” my tax dollars are supporting than any media campaign promoting education. Let private demand drive the output of art, not my tax dollars. Our elite local representative, Senator Edward “Left Said Ted” Kennedy added his two cents about this “investigation” that he spearheaded: “The taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign coming from the White House is another sign of the culture of corruption that pervades the White House and Republican leadership.” Culture of corruption indeed. The only thing that has been corrupted is the liberal left's sense of right and wrong. I consider the investigation of this promotional material a bigger waste of my tax dollars than the offense itself. How much did this “investigation” cost?

The quote of the week comes from a teacher of ethics at the Poynter Institute (a school for journalists). Aly Colon applauds the Government Accountability Office's finding as it helps to reinforce a standard that “whatever information is presented to the public is done in the most transparent way possible.” I could only laugh when I read that one.

The news we are getting lately is exceedingly transparent- a transparent effort by elite liberals to further their own agendas. They wonder why we have lost faith in mainstream media.

Originally Posted: October 5, 2005, Cape Cod Today

Posted by capecodcyclist at 08:56 AM | Comments (0)

October 29, 2005

You Won't Find the Whole Story in the New York Times

In "paying tribute" to the 2,000th soldier killed in Iraq this week, the New York Times ran a story that included a small portion of a "what if, after death" letter intended for the girlfriend of Marine Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr after he was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30th. The bit of the letter the New York Times chose to profile was a blatant attempt to stamp out the principled ideals of the letter's author. The full content of the letter found on Cpl. Starr's computer (which the New York Times had also received) was forwarded to Michelle Malkin by his uncle. He was upset by the New York Times misrepresentation of his nephew's clear understanding of the current conflict.
The New York Times' omission is highlighted in bold:

“Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

There is no excuse for the obvious efforts of many here at home to deny our soldiers in Iraq (and everywhere) the full support they deserve. The New York Times and other such rags are quickly losing readership because of their disgusting lack of respect for the Iraqi people's struggle for democracy, and each and every one of the 2,000 plus soldiers who have died in their effort to rid the Middle East, and the world, of a tyrant who had no bounds.

Yesterday, blogs, forums and comments trumpeted the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. The liberal left was heralding what they claim as vindication of their charges of an "unjust war." This war is more than justified, it is an absolute necessity. Saddam Hussein was a loose canon who had all of the know how, equipment and resources within reach to quickly put together and deliver a nuclear weapon within three months time. This was an admitted goal of his regime. That we found no nuclear materials is completely irrelevant to this simple, undeniable and verified truth. Those who feel confident that this would never have happened exemplify the ignorance that caused us to experience the likes of September eleventh here at home.

The Chief UN Weapons Inspector, David Kay, described Saddam Hussein as “a completely paranoid character without any sense of responsibility or bonding to norms.” Kay also correctly described Hussein's rule as “a regime that in its brutality is mind-boggling,” and warned our Congress that “if you are concerned about... an Iraq that produces and has nuclear weapons... then you have to deal with changing a regime.” We must never allow the voices of dissent to drown out the truth about this war. Diplomacy, containment and "wait and see" policies are not successful or safe with the likes of a Saddam Hussein. We can only hope and pray that our country's national defense remains soundly in the hands of those that understand this tragic reality.

Every single soldier who has died, from the first to the 2,000th and beyond, deserves their just and noble cause be truthfully reported. Shame on the New York Times and their irresponsible, biased journalism.

See Related:

New York Times Article

Michelle Malkin, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr: What the NY Times Left Out

Posted by capecodcyclist at 09:15 PM | Comments (0)