Oh and for the record, yes there was a direct link to Iraq and terrorists. In 1998, Clinton ordered the bombing of a factory in Sudan which supposedly made baby formula. The official reports (according to the Clinton Administration)say is was a chemical weapons factory run by Al Qaeda and managed by Saddam’s own chief chemical weapons man.
And if Iraq did not have the chemical weapons, why did Clinton say he had them in 1998, 1999 and again in 2003. Why did Clinton and the UN authorize air strikes to force Saddam to allow the UN inspectors back in.
But I guess we just believe Saddam when he states they dumped the chemicals in the desert but forgot where. Or that the paperwork was destroyed.
What about the 3 months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in which there was a steady stream of trucks going from Iraq to Syria, all caught by satalite imagery? Ever wonder what was in the trucks? Saddam was no fool, move all the valuable stuff to Syria, wait for the Americans to leave then bring it back in and start all over again.

It’s impossible to write without invoking a bias – simply read a dozen “Factual” books about Thomas Jefferson and you’ll find 100’s of “Factual” items printed which reflect the bias of the writer.

News without the color doesn’t sell to the majority.

What is happening with the majority of the news organization today extends well beyond opinion and threatens “Our America”.

Test Card’s words –

1.) Do a search in the archives of the Drudge Report or Fox News for articles that might have a negative implication for Obama.

2.) Do a search in the LA TImes, NYTimes, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and see if you can find any mention of the article. If you do find a mention of the article – check the date. Check to see if there are any follow ups or true fact checking and honest journalistic reporting.

3.) Now reverse this and do the same for McCain.

4.) Run the same test for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Franks, Chris Dodd.

Like Card says – if you possess self-honesty you’ll share the results with everyone you know.

If you share these results I’d be very interested in your opinion on why you think this is occuring.

The Bush Administration made no connection between Hussein and 911. Then on the other hand, there is no direct connection to AFGHANISTAN, the Taliban, or foreign contacts from other areas to 911.

The Democrats however say that Afghanistan is the “proper war” we should be involved in. The reality is that Hussein, like the Talibs, did harbor terrorists at various times. That is not theory or conjecture. It is fact. And yes, Virginia, Hussein really did want those WMDs back once he kicked the UN inspectors out in his cat and mouse game.

As always, the inconvenient reality is more complicated than liberals like to parody when telling you “Iraq” didn’t attack us on 911. True. But then neither did the Taliban for that matter.

One gets the distinct impression in this kind of reasoning that therefore no one is responsible for 911 (unless you’re Michael Moore, and think Bush did this) at all.

While liking what you said it didn’t rise to powerful level until I read your background. Orson is sooooooooooo qualified to speak about honest writing.

What percentage of voters understand the importance of “freedom of the press”? ARE WE ABOUT TO LOSE IT? OR MAYBE IT’S ALREADY LOST — BY DEFAULT!

I wonder if I’m living in Austria in 1934?

What if the particular media is purchased to do just that. It is plausible given the amount of money and resources Obama has garnered?

It is a distinct possibility that much of the media has been purchased, and if that has any credibility, what else?

The real bias of the media (in this election) has been simply to focus on Obama much much more than McCain. They have analyzed everything he’s done and delved into far more corners than they ever do about McCain, who has regularly told lies or extremely twisted versions of the truth throughout the campaign without so much as batting an eye. When Palin came on board, she attracted a ton of media attention simply because she’s a lot more interesting than McCain. The witch hunt against her based on inexperience has been unfair in my opinion because it’s just a backlash against people calling Obama inexperienced. A more fair critique would cite her fundamentalism and disinterest in developing a nuanced view of the world. I also find it unconscionable that she talks about certain people being unamerican when her husband was a secessionist. That is literally the only thing that can indisputably be called “unamerican” in a political climate where that word is thrown around as a now-meaningless generic aspersion along the lines of “fascist”.

Bottom line, the media is guilty of terrible reporting for the most part, but it’s not along party lines. It’s along pop culture lines and is driven by dollars pure and simple. The American people are guilty too for not demanding more out of their news. Card is right to criticize the media, but if he thinks that Bush did not spin the hell out of the war on terrorism in order to create the mental link to Iraq then he is too naive to be taken seriously.

Card’s major point is indeed an excellent one — that the media narrative of the financial crisis has skewed towards blaming the republicans. But he goes a little awry with his minor points; for example, he himself purposefully misrepresents Obama’s role in the crisis. Remember, Obama wasn’t even a member of the U.S. Senate until 2005.

Some smaller points, like complaining about coverage of Palin’s daughter vs. Edwards’ affair, are just silly. Both issues were widely reported when they first happened, but sputtered out after only a few days. If Card perceived a slant of coverage towards Palin’s daughter, that maybe, just maybe, is because Palin’s currently running for VP and Edwards is a footnote.

The above commenter Jack Smith was right: Card calls himself a “democrat” to make his letter sound more dramatic. Again, his central point is sound, but it’s surrounded by a little too much nonsensical bitching.