'Cause something like that would never ever happen at Fox News, Washington Times, Boston Herald, New York Post.

And I mean that sincerely. If the newsroom erupted in cheers at something Bush said or boos at something Clinton said, you would never see the boss get pissed off with the newsroom like that. He'd be right there with them.

How do journalists sleep at night? Is there a pill that they take or something?

Ted....
You may have a vivid mental picture of how you would like it to be in the media newsrooms but the product of your fervid imagination mean damned little to anyone but yourself.
Got any examples to back up your snark Ted?

For this very reason I have been CBC news free since 2001 and don't plan on going back.

The problem is that the Fox News, Washington Times, Boston Herald, New York Post, etc are too few in number, whereas the CBC, BBC, Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York Times make up the lion's share of the media, and have a point of view that doesn't even come close to that of the mainstream public.

Pretty much every city in the US, certainly in the north and California, has at least two major dailies, one more or less "left" in your view and one more or less right. That doesn't count the fact that most of the papers and media in southern states are distinctly conservative. Or the fact that Sun Media - which you can argue is not "truly" conservative, but it certainly isn't left or liberal - is the largest media company in our entire country.

The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy is only sustainable if you ignore over half of the media. In fact, it is only sustainable if you pick and choose media and pick and choose articles within that media.

But every movement needs a bogeyman, I suppose. Their own mysterious, everpresent, existing everywhere, Emmanuel Goldstein.

Well, Ted, I'm sure that the liberal media would love to report a conservative newsroom booing Clinton, Obama, etc, problem is there aren't any conservative newsrooms but FOX, no problem there.

As far as print, I'd take the Boston Herald out of your conservative equation.

If you want to compare and contrast egregious falsities, jounalism scandals, and the number of public corrections for them, the conservative media doesn't seem to have very many. Here's a handy list of the most notorious media scandals in recent years.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/its_not_just_scott_beauchamp.html

Spot any conservative media on it? Just a study and contrast of the WSJ vs the NYT's - or - FOX vs CNN, CBC, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC kind of leads one, unless they are a typical brain dead lefty hack, to the the conclusion that conservative media is a hell of a lot less riddled with factual falsehoods, outright lies and poor journalism.

So, Ted, got any FACTUAL rebuttal to what I've said? Knee jerk lefty generalizations unsupported by facts won't cut it.

ted

the sun may not be leftist, butt they sure do not have lying down quit as well as an organization such as the "star"

and your efforts to "deflect" critizism rather than confront it is getting rather lame, as that is mostly what you seam to do in your posts

try being objective for once

thanks in advance for your attention to this change

"The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy is only sustainable if you ignore over half of the media"

Or if you equate company size with impact.

Do you seriously think that Sun Media has the same impact as BellGlobe media? Do you think the Toronto Sun holds more sway than the Toronto Star? Do you watch Sun TV, or is it the CBC for you?

Tell me, what channel do I tune in to get the right-wing 6 o’clock news. It sure ain’t on Sun TV. Which channel is it, Ted?

Let me put it this way: you would never see this kind of behaviour in any other workplace in Canada because the existence of people on both sides of the political spectrum tends to dampen enthusiasm for coarse public displays of political views.

In a media workplace this check is missing because most are left-wing, many rabidly so.

Could we all stop feeding the trolls please? Ted's got nothing of any value to add here, he's just repeating the same old crap he's been spewing the last week.

Ted, go waste your own bandwith.

Pretty much every city in the US, certainly in the north and California, has at least two major dailies, one more or less "left" in your view and one more or less right. That doesn't count the fact that most of the papers and media in southern states are distinctly conservative.

Hey, Ted, I challenge you on that one. You said it, you prove it.

Your simplistic generalization of political symmetry with local newspaper is bogus. Most cities don't have an evening paper any longer. Most local papers feed off of syndication feeds and the wire services. AP and Reuters have had their share of agenda driven integrity problems of late, haven't they Ted. I live in the south, and challenge you to defend that the editorial content is that heavily conservative.

The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy is only sustainable if you ignore over half of the media.

Again, the media pie isn't 50-50 split. There is no conservative 50%. For every FOX, there is a PBS, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, BBC, CBS, ABC on the left. Get the picture. Same in print. Either you are seriously brain dead or believe your own drivel to the point that verifiable FACTS are irrelevant. Your simplistic "half" meme regarding conservative vs liberal medias in place and balanced content that permeates your comments is lame because you make it up.

Fact time, Ted. Put up or shut up.

"certainly in the north and California" is Dem-speak for "the places that count, i.e. not fly-over country, but blue states."

Pretty much every city in the US, certainly in the north and California, has at least two major dailies, one more or less "left" in your view and one more or less right.

Ted, the Seattle Times is by far not even close to conservative. I read it almost every day only because it's slightly less left than the Seattle PI. No, Seattle has two main newspapers, and they're both left. There are no right-leaning (or even centre!) news sources in Seattle.

Booing Bush isn't the exclusive realm of the left these days...anyone who lost saved wealth from the dollar slide is probably within rights to boo him just on his vacant economic policy.

New York Times - New York Post

Boston Globe - Boston Herald

Washington Post - Washington Times (which is easily way more conservative than the Post is liberal)

Chicago Tribune - Chicago Sun-Times (both of which, if memory serves, endorsed Bush in the last election... AFTER the Iraq War had broken out)

etc. etc.

"certainly in the north and California" is Dem-speak for "the places that count, i.e. not fly-over country, but blue states."

First of all, I'm no Democrat being Canadian and have always maintained that the Republicans and Democrats have been equally good and equally bad for Canadian interests.

Second of all, I isolated those regions because, as I said, as you go south, the liberal media largely disappears so you only have conservative media in many cities and towns.

Third of all, the economic disparity between these two sides hardly proves your point about bias. That so-called "liberal" media like say the Washington Post (which if you read regularly and thoroughly is hardly distinctly liberal) are more successful than the conservative equivalent the Washington Times, only shows people are choosing one source of information over the other. The choice is there so it is 50:50.

The overall point being that (a) there is no such thing as "The Media" and (b) even if you can find evidence of some bias within some parts of the media, there are lots of choices readers and viewers and (c) given all of those choices the impact of the few that are distinctly biased (eg, the Sun or the Toronto Star) is really rather weak.

So Ted, what channel do I tune in for right-wing bias? You said it's a 50/50 split. What channels should I be looking at?

Ted, debating you is like nailing jello to a tree. Asked for FACTS to support your garbage and you return with more factless garbage that you make up as you go along.

"The overall point being that"...... nothing, you have no point.

I'll never get the time back I've wasted with Ted. Lessons learned.

I've never in my life known Global TV to be pro-liberal and certainly not pro-Liberal, Matt.

If you judge by the last election and since, CTV is probably a good bet. I wouldn't say they are ALWAYS biased toward the Conservatives, just most of the time.

Umm TED how about providing some actual facts to back up your talking points, instead of your 'best-guess'or feelings.

If the old leftwing hack journalists aren't bad enough, not to worry, the MSM is fed from an employment pool of new leftwing journalists, inculcated, not taught, at the Universities.

This disgusting fact is well documented.

Disregard Ted.

There have been plenty of reports on media bias posted here and elsewhere, all from credible sources.

Ted has never offered anything other than his feelings. As he's doing once again.

Only 4 channels on your TV, Ted?

Let's leave aside the fact that neither CTV nor Global are conservative.

Given the paucity of your TV examples, it must follow that the conservative point of dominates in some other arm of the media in order for your "50/50" statement to be true.

Where would you say that domination is exactly?

Ted,

Hate to tell you....Global TV does have a liberal bias and his name is Kevin Newman of Global National fame....

Just after the Conservatives were elected, Kevin (who I USED to like as an anchor) was on a local radio programme here in Vancouver. The disparaging remarks he made about Stephen Harper personally and polically - I was disgusted. There was no basis in fact for his comments - he was just acting like a pompous, arrogant liberal. And I KNOW that attitude towards conservatives comes through in his newscasting - I can't watch him anymore - his bias often shows.

So, please try again with the TV channels...I also would like to know

I'm saying, Matt, that sitting here where you are in Mississauga and trying to figure out what news to watch, your choices are those for Canadian news (not counting cable). Your options are basically Global, CTV, CBC, City: 1 of them has been distinctly pro-Harper (Global), 1 has been generally pro-Harper (CTV), City is just local and I don't watch it enough to say, and the CBC I'll grant that, since the election (in which it pulled for Harper and against Martin), it's definitely not pro-Harper (but nor is it pro-Dion).

So much for a strong liberal media bias on the airwaves.

I can imagine the outlets in Winnipeg that did the same.

Winnipeg Free Press, CBC, CTV,

Got any examples to back up your snark Ted?
Well I don't need examples I said it so in my mind it's true.

Last I heard fox actually had a lot of liberals among them. Forget where I read that. But a balance is too right wing for some.

Ted has never offered anything other than his feelings. As he's doing once again.
I 'feel' Ted is a terrorist take him away!

"I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end."

That's because most journalists are not a bunch of sucker hayseeds who swallow everything this two-bit bible salesman has to say.

And regardless of their booing, it hasn't changed the fact that they haven't called him to task for half of the crazy bullshit he's pulled.

It's been documented that Clinton's blowjob made way more headlines than really skeevy stuff like lying to take the nation to war, and using Pat Tillman's death to recruit new troops.

Any halfway intelligent person could see from the first time this creep opened his gob that he was an idiot and a liar. How is it that you guys can look at all his failures, and somehow just see it as a media conspiracy?

John there are tapes of many dems lying about the war how many of them got the headlines.

Dr.Wright: How many of them were President of the United States with direct command over history's largest military force?

It would be fair, Ted, if you would preface your obviously personal opinions with the words "I feel" or 'My opinion is"...

Instead, you pontifically inform us of 'The Way Things Are'- when, in truth, what you are telling us is merely your own biased opinion.

In my opinion, Ted, Global TV is most certainly NOT pro-Harper or pro-Conservative. I agree with Ingrid - Kevin Newman is viciously anti-Harper and anti-American as well. I recall writing in a complaint about his non-factual assertions about the US.

Equally - CTV - is not pro-Harper, but busy with Duffy, Taber, Oliver - all frothing against Harper and the Conservatives.

The CBC - and Don Newman and all their gang, including Jim Travers, Lawrence Martin, Greg Weston et all from the various papers..all firmly hostile to Harper and the Conservatives. The CBC is busy with it sLiberal propaganda, in its various 'special reports' on the climate (it's firmly pro-Kyoto), its hostility to the Iraq War, its basic anti-americanism...

So, from what I can read and hear - there are NO TV channels in Canada - that support the 'right'; it's all Liberal/NDP socialism, and relentless anti-Harper.

The SUN - some of the columnists, such as Peter Worthington in Toronto - and others in other cities are clear and unbiased. Offset by that idiot Eric Margolis.

The National Post/Financial Post, on the other hand, in my opinion, it does have some clear and good columnists such as Ivison, Goldstein, Diane Francis, Solomon.

But - TV - it's all 'left'.
Now, you, Ted, obviously disagree. That's your point of view. Please don't inform us that your point of view is Truth.

Wayne Allyn Root describes sitting in a classroom at Columbia University when someone burst in the door yelling "They've just assassinated Reagan!" and how his fellow students clapped and yelled and "whooped in sheer unadulterated joy."

I had a similar experience in Vancouver several weeks after the 9-11 attacks. I was in a lineup at the Vancouver International Film Festival when someone returning to the lineup excitedly announced in a loud voice that there had been an Anthrax attack in the U.S. There were a couple of "whoo-hoos," but what was more disturbing was how many people in the lineup were obviously pleased and excited, like this news was positive. I justed watched them in the next few minutes, and those particular people stood a little taller, and seemed energized, and I noticed that the focus of their gazes turned further afield, anxiously, towards the city they were living in, like they were hopeful, like their ideals had been suddenly made more manifest by some inspirational piece of good news.

What I find a bit ominous about the collective left is what Root describes as their "dirty little secret" -- that their vaunted compassion isn't a true description of their moral values, but rather a false self-description that when collectivized has a great utility for camouflaging the personal motivations of the individuals who comprise the group.

It's funny how those who promote statist values, particularly here in Canada, are prone to portray Christians as hateful and lacking in compassion (for gays, etc,). Yet it's incredibly unlikely that half the students in a classroom at a seminary, say, might burst into applause at news that Hillary Clinton had been assassinated. And if that did happen, the reaction were surely be considered disturbing, and grounds for soul-searching, rather than a cred-building bonding experience.

Ted - I know it's only your personal opinion that Bush lied about the WMD.

Otherwise, could you provide some proof that he, and the Congress which approved the war, and the other allies (UK, Australia, etc) were also all lying? That is - could you provide proof that the intelligence and military systems of these countries were lying?

Could you provide proof of their lying, and whether or not Hussein moved all these weapons out of the country while the UN dithered, and that the Kurds were NOT gassed?

john - rather than making juvenile insults about someone, such as Bush or anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions, could you provide facts and clear logical analysis? It's easy to insult; any 6 year old has already learned that. But, how about growing up and providing some data and reasons in your comments - other than just a litany of insults?

ET, again with the reading problem. How on earth did you get your PhD.

Could you please, in your words, "provide proof" that I said Bush was lying. I didn't and I actually don't believe he did lie about WMD.

Ted How many of them were President of the United States with direct command over history's largest military force?

Once again Ted's view of the world is clouded by his own biases. China currently has a larger standing military force, and the Soviets fielded five or 6 times what the U.S. currently employs.

So, perhaps you ought to review your claim that there's a 50/50 split in press leanings. I'd think you'd find you're just as much out to lunch on that one, perhaps even by as much as the 1:5 ratio as in your military gaffe.

Ted - your command of language analysis is weak. There is such a thing as 'direct' and 'indirect' referencing.

You used 'indirect' in your referencing of Bush. Let me take you through the steps.

Step One. John wrote: "lying to take the nation to war". This is obviously a reference to 'lying about WMD'.

Step Two. Dr. Wright wrote: "many dems lying about the war". This is obviously a response to John's post about Bush.

Step Three. Ted wrote: "How many of them were President of the United States with direct control over history's largest military force?"

Now, Ted - you were refering the pronoun 'them' back to Dr. Wright's reference to 'many dems lying about the war'. And Dr. Wright was refering that to John's reference to Bush.

And, you refuted Dr. Wright's reference to 'dems lying about the war' - by inserting 'Bush' rather than 'them'. [How many of THEM..were President]

Therefore, Ted, your meaning was very clear. You were informing us that, of the 'set' of people 'lying about the war' - your focus was on Bush 'lying about the war'.

OK? Stop slithering,Ted. Language operates with both specific, direct and indirect referencing. And your linear references to Bush lying about the war - are obvious.

ET: shortly before the vote on the Iraq war Vice President Dick Cheney said the following on NBC's "Meet The Press":

"And we believe he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/

There has never been any evidence that Hussein had nuclear weapons. Nobody besides Cheney ever seriously claimed that Saddam had nukes. Actually, Cheney went a bit further, using the phrase "in fact", implying that he had factual evidence for the claim.

This is a textbook lie, and an unforgivable breach of trust.

Yukon Gold: don't be so daft and partisan. Choose one, daft or partisan. Not both.

Expenditures:
Rank Country Spending level ($ billions) World share (%)
1. United States $478.2 48%
2. United Kingdom 48.3 5
3. France 46.2 5
4. Japan 42.1 4
5. China3 41.0 4
6. Germany 33.2 3
7. Italy 27.2 3
8. Saudi Arabia 25.2 3
9. Russia3 21.0 2
10. India $20.4 2%
11. South Korea 16.4 2
12. Canada 10.6 1
Source: www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html

Weapons:
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States: 38,538,000
#2 China: 34,281,000
#3 Korea, North: 17,634,000
#4 Israel: 15,985,000

Source: www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_wea_hol-military-weapon-holdings

Yes, the US has the world's largest military. A few of the world's dictatorship force their citizens to be listed as soldiers (in the force or reserves), but their militaries are not bigger by any reasonable calculation of power.

andrew - could you provide proof that Cheney's comment was a 'textbook lie'? He said that 'we believe'...which means this belief was based on some evidence - ie, it's not just his personal opinion.

By the way 'in fact' in that sentence doesn't mean 'factual evidence'; it means 'has actually done X'.

Now - the fact that you aren't privy to this data base about WMD doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

ET: Your poor reading comprehension skills are appalling. Really really appalling.

DrWright's point was about media bias and to prove he pointed out that Democrats were lying about WMD too but you didn't see them in the headlines. Which doesn't prove anything because, as I responded, none of them were the President, and OF COURSE the President is going to get more headlines then some senator or representative.

Try reading more slowly. Then re-reading it. Then re-reading again. And then walking away from the computer altogether.

ET, when it comes to proving her statements: "There is such a thing as 'direct' and 'indirect' referencing."

ET, when it comes to anyone who would the logical and natural inference of the available facts:
andrew - could you provide proof that Cheney's comment was a 'textbook lie'? He said that 'we believe'...which means this belief was based on some evidence - ie, it's not just his personal opinion.

By the way 'in fact' in that sentence doesn't mean 'factual evidence'; it means 'has actually done X'.

Now - the fact that you aren't privy to this data base about WMD doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

When you are the VP of the world's only superpower with possibly the largest secret service in history, and you make such a definitive statement that someone has "in fact" done something, and there is not a single shred of evidence ever produced to establish that fact, it is proper and certainly within the realm of logic to conclude that the VP lied.

And, while I don't believe Bush actually lied about WMD, I do believe Cheney has done so regularly.

Who wins elections? The media wins elections; maybe it is time to simply boo the media and make them irrelevant - nothing worse than nobody listening to you.

Avtually Ted, I'm sitting relatively close to BCE Place or the Royal Bank Tower or wherever it is you work around Bay & Wellington.

Since you can't or won't answer my second question, how about this: what would you say are the conservative equivalents of The Hour with George Strombo-alphabits, the current and former Avi Lewis vehicles on the CBC, The Passionate Eye on CBC Newsworld?

Give us the 50/50.

"ET: Your poor reading comprehension skills are appalling. Really really appalling."

The word I would've used is "hideous". ET, I have less respect for your opinion than I do for any other known or conceived entity in the universe.

"Got any examples to back up your snark Ted?"..."So, Ted, got any FACTUAL rebuttal to what I've said?"...."Which channel is it, Ted?"....."You said it, you prove it"...."Where would you say that domination is exactly?"....."So, please try again with the TV channels"...I also would like to know."..."Since you can't or won't answer my second question, how about this"

Ok, I really, really shouldn't feed him, I vowed to ignore him earlier, but, it is pretty funny watching Ted as Road Runner at hyper speed make his way past all boobie traps. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is sticking to him. Wile E. Coyote had irreversible damage done to his mental health by Road Runner, we need to salvage what we can at this point.

Ted, we surrender. LOL

no, Ted, the noun 'Democrats' does not refer to 'media bias' but to "many dems lying about the war'. And, it was in response to John's comment about 'lying to take the nation to war'. That was, obviously, a reference to Bush.

Now - the fact that this was also about 'media bias', i.e., that the Democrat lies were not reported in the press - has zilch to do with my statement to you that you claimed that Bush lied about WMD.

Did you, in your post, say that Bush was NOT lying about WMD - and yet, he was reported as doing just that in the media, just because he was the president? Was your whole point only that the media focuses on Most Important People, and nothing about misinforming the public??

As for your second post, I don't think that a 'post hoc' situation is proof of a prior state. As noted - Hussein had ample time to move his WMD, including his poison gas, out of Iraq.

Are you saying that Cheney claimed that there were WMD and Bush claimed that there were WMD, but that Cheney lied and Bush did not lie? That's quite the statement; didn't they both have access to the same data? What leads you to such a conclusion?

Ahh, andrew, shucks. My day is made. After all, I know that you go, normally, for your data base to Wikipedia. So, since Wikipedia is your choice to respect, then, the fact that you don't respect me, is...aw shucks, andrew. That's just fine with me.
Oh- how about answering my question, andrew?

There has never been any evidence that Hussein had nuclear weapons. Nobody besides Cheney ever seriously claimed that Saddam had nukes

You sure so about that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

ET,penny,etc. I sure hope you guys/gals are making HUGE tips to Kate for using up her bandwidth arguing with a brain dead leftard, one who if logical,thinking brain cells where dynamite,couldn't blow his own nose. If not,I kindly suggest you follow Phantom's advice,and don't feed the trolls!

Ahh, Ted, now you're insisting that you meant more expensive and not largest. Or perhaps that you meant largest invoice. Or perhaps... ah, screw it.

You can either be dishonest or a scuzzbag, Ted, pick one.

I have the most expensive laptop on the market, Ted, but funnily enough, because it's so expensive, it also means I don't need the largest.

Huh, go figure.

Boyo, boyo. Got me there. I was totally off me rocker to suggest, in passing, that havin' the largest military budget by far, havin' the largest number of tanks, guns, missiles, aircraft and ships might make yous the largest. Thanks yous for puttin' me in me place, sir. You shore are quick on the uptick, Yukon. You shore is good at noting the bumps on the ticks on trees even if you can't see the trees or the forest.

Ahhh, you guys fed the troll. Jeeze. Now there's troll crap all over the place.

I'll admit, I've been the worst offender the last couple days. But if you look back over the last 40 or so comments you'll see Ted's got nuthin'. Zippity doo dah. Nada.

Ted, back under your bridge. Your nonsense is a waste of electrons.

Cheney: "And we believe he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons"

Not that he had plans. Not that he had a program. Not that he had hopes or even mioght have once dreamed about it after a night of drunken debauchery.

Cheney said Saddam Hussein did in fact have nuclear weapons.

Both of your links, penny, even though from very conservative/Bush supporting sources and even they only go so far as to say that Saddam had a plan or may have had a plan or may have had some materials that could have been part of a plan.

Not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced to substantiate Cheney's claim. So obviously eggregious that one can only surmise it was a deliberate and calculated lie.

(ET, reading comprehension problems again? Bush never made that statement so he never lied about Hussein having nuclear weapons. Interesting too, that. Cheney makes a concrete definitive statement that would, if true, be an incredible threat to the US and the world but the President never ever thought it worth mentioning, never ever went that far. Telling, that.)

Ted, your bridge is pining for you.

ted, before you head under your bridge, take a read of Bush's October 7, 2002 speech on Iraq, in which he outlines the reasons for US concern about Iraq.

That Iraq possesses WMD - "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons"..."it is seeking nuclear weapons"... "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program"...

Oh - and Andrew, I know it's not Wikipedia, but you should take a look at it too.

whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

By the way, ted, you are trying to slither out by separating nuclear from WMD. But nuclear is a WMD, so, although I admire your Road Runner teflon jumping from word to word to word - it won't work.

The fact that no nuclear weapons were found after invasion doesn't deny what was said, clearly, in that speech. Iraq did have WMD; it was reconstituting its nuclear program. No lies.

Reading comprehension, ET. And now it's just basic grammar and vocubulary problems you are demonstrating.

"reconstituting" (Bush's word) is the present tense. So Bush is saying they are in the process of doing it and some day in the future Saddam may be a nuclear threat. In fact, it turned out that they hadn't done a damn thing in a decade, but that's another point.

"reconstituted" (Cheney's word) is the past tense. So Cheney is saying that it has already been done and Saddam is now a nuclear threat.

If you can't see the difference in those two statements ET, there really is no helping you. I don't even think my son's fine grade 1 teacher could help you. God bless your students.

Ted, if you substitute "most powerful" for largest, or most expensive, military in world, then you are right about US.

BTW, Iraq HAD WMD; that should not be in dispute. The UN inspectors documented them. A better question is what happened to them (destroyed, shipped elsewhere, or very unlikely still hidden)? There seems little doubt his WMD capability was seriously degraded, though; he did plan to reconstitute his WMDs (from what I've read), after he got the inspectors off his back.

Even if he had them, it was not grounds to attack him, unless those grounds existed prior to 9/11. There was no operational link between 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, and no immiment threat. The threat of Iraq was that, in the future, they would share WMD technology, perhaps nuclear, with terrorists. IMO he should have been taken out after invading Kuwait, but he wasn't. Even if US hadn't invaded in 2003, it seemed inevitable that he would do something to create that imminent threat. Nobody lied, though, except, of course for the Iraqis.

John "Any halfway intelligent person could see from the first time this creep opened his gob that he was an idiot and a liar. How is it that you guys can look at all his failures, and somehow just see it as a media conspiracy?"

Bush's approval rating is pretty much the same as the percentage of American's who think that the end times are nigh and that T.Rex was a herbivore that frolicked with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. That could just be a coincidence but I'd expect that the two groups of people are one and the same.

Bush ain't losing that crowd.

"(Nerene) Virgin, a former CBC Newsworld journalist, was hand-picked to run in the Hamilton East-Stoney Creek riding. Jennifer Mossop was parachuted into the riding last election."

hate to drag the thread back to liberals in the media, but i just noticed this story in Hamilton Spectator today. Virgin running for the Liberals, Mossop is the MPP now, she was a newsreader with Newsworld briefly, before that local television.
Yes, two in a row from Newsworld, both running for the Liberals, in the same riding! But I'm sure this is all just a big coincidence.

lets wring the NBC peacocks neck

87% of us media types say they vote democrat. duh.