[Cerek the Barbaric]

Interesting article, sultan. Interesting and informative.

As to the "liberal bias" of the media, I've often complained about that myself. However, I'm talking about mainstream, national news media (primarily TV news programs and certain widely read newspapers). One thing I will admit is that any "liberal bias" displayed by such media is usually done in a more subtle manner. It is rarely blantant. For that reason, Fox News (or Faux News as a good friend of mine calls it) tips the balance FAR back to the conservative side all by itself. I am a staunch conservative, but even I have to laugh at the byline of Fox News as "fair and balanced". PUH-LEASE!!!! Of all the media that show any bias (in either direction), Fox News is - by far - the most blantant in their unified support of the conservative cause. I guess the reason all the charges of "liberal bias" sprang up in the first place is because somewhere along the line newspapers and TV news reports STOPPED being objective in how they covered the news. Instead, there was a gradual shift to present the articles or news stories in a fashion that would appeal to the widest group of thier audience. It became less about being "fair and objective" and more about increasing circulation or ratings. I see it in every paper or news program I watch. The news presented is catered (in a fashion) to the tastes of the viewing or reading audience.

As for the investigative committe itself, I really don't think the Democrats have anything to worry about as far as the issue of WoMD's are concerned. I don't think anybody buys the excuse that it was the CIA's fault. You can mark it on the calendar that the WoMD issue will be a MAJOR point in the upcoming elections....because this whole thing has really blown up in Bush's face. I was a strong supporter of Bush and the war. I honostly believed the WoMD's existed (although I realized there was NO direct connection between Saddam and Osama and I honostly didn't feel the WoMD's were an imminent threat to the U.S.). While it wasn't the only reason for our invasion of Iraq, it certainly was the most loudly trumpeted cause. Bush pounded it into the media's head every single day. Now, no matter HOW they try to "spin" it...the Bush Administration is NOT going to be able to lay the blame for the LACK of WoMD's in anybody else's lap. This issue is going to come back to haunt Bush in the next election.

The only problem is that it still may not matter. The same friend that used the label of Faux News also has a degree in Political Science and is a strong supporter of the Democratic party (for the most part, although he'll be the first to admit that there are some bad apples in that cart as well). According to him, the current group of Democratic Presidential hopefuls are all pretty weak when faced with the task of taking on Bush. Then again, nobody thought that some no-name governor from Arkansas stood a snowballs chance against Bush, Sr back in 1992 either.

Bush's major flaw is his glaring lack of diplomacy. We had worldwide support after 9/11 and he managed to erode that almost completely in just 18 mos. (actually, less than that as we still had fairly unanimous support in attacking Bin Laden in Afghanistan). Now, he is managing to erode the confidence of the conservative party (in MY opinion anyway) in his abilities. He has an almost phobic aversion to criticism.....No discouraging words allowed....and the way the Administration enforces that policy is creating a lot of political backlash.

While I can only speak for myself, I can tell you that, in the months following the Iraq War, I've gone from a definite vote for George Bush, Jr. to wanting to see what the Democratic Party has to offer.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the polical spins being sent out by the Bush Administration. So far, most of their endeavors in that area have only hurt them rather than helped them (again, in my opinion)