"But, of course, there’s no liberal media bias." Let this guy have it!

Another Mensa candidate spouts in the local rag. The letter (very brief) and link are below. Please provide this gentleman with an alternate point of view using the "Opinion" function at the bottom of the page. Remember, these comments won't automatically appear, but they WILL appear eventually.

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11210836&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17785&rfi=6

"The Bush campaign releases its first supposed negative ad about John Kerry, and the major media offers endless articles and commentary, primarily criticizing it. Yet, for the last six months the same elite media hasn’t made even a meager attempt to have Democratic leaders and presidential candidates substantiate some of the most slanderous comments about President Bush. These include calling the president "a liar," accusing him of initiating the Iraq conflict "for political purposes," and even suggesting that the president had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attack. In essence, the media has repeated much of this nonsense (including Kerry’s recent statement that Republicans are "liars and crooks"), without requesting a shred of accountability. But, of course, there’s no liberal media bias."

bush is a liar
bush did start the iraqi war for political purposes, (and may I add for personal gain)
bush had prior knowledge of the september 11th attacks
bush is a crook and a liar and he has surrounded himself with like minded people.

The letter writer is brilliant.

I've yet to ever hear the repugs mention an actual liberal media station in existence. Just wondering where this allusive liberal media exist? Mars maybe?

By the way, democrats have backed up every statement about Bush ever stated, unlike the ambiguous statements made about Kerry and out right lies. And I'll say it: BUSH IS A LIAR and CROOK! Prove it wrong repugs.

the only fair network. It's really sad how stupid some people are.

left = don't praise W in every sentence

Bush & the L-Word
By Nat Parry
March 29, 2004

Over the past four years, one of the most powerful U.S. media taboos has been against calling George W. Bush’s pattern of false statements lies. Among Washington journalists, the l-word is casually applied to people who have gotten in the way of the Bush Dynasty – from Bill Clinton and Al Gore to more recently John Kerry and now Richard Clarke – but almost never to Bush.
***
This pattern of big and little distortions about Bush’s actions on Sept. 11 also does not stand in isolation. Bush has often made claims about his personal life, his decision-making and his role in historical events – such as the reasons for invading Iraq – that are patently untrue.

For instance, on three occasions since the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Bush has justified his decision by telling the American people that Saddam Hussein had refused to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors. In July 2003, only four months after the invasion, Bush said about Hussein, “we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

The reality, of course, was that Iraq had allowed the UN inspectors in and had given them access to any suspected weapons site of their choosing. It was Bush who forced the UN inspectors out to make way for the invasion. But he has since revised the history to make his actions appear more reasonable. In most normal circumstances, Bush's statement would be considered a lie, but the national press corps has chosen not to mention that comment or two similar remarks. ----more-----
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2004/032904.html