Here is a parting gift if you are traveling,

"Ann Coulter Tit for Tet

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"

And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.

If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.

O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.

So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.

But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.

Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."

We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.

Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."

And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."

Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."

Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).

The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire."

The liberal media, the liberal media.... Do the Ann Coulter followers of the right wing consider that the media is just another business entity looking to make a proffit? The media is merely the vortex for passing out the vast diversity of issues and information that it deems its audience desires to read / listen to. What does she want, the media to be filtered as if we lived in the USSR or China?

TK - When I saw the topic that you started - "Have a great Memorial day" I was seriously hoping for some high minded talk about remembering those who sacrificed for our freedom, those who paid the ultimate price for that freedom and so on.

Even you must admit that for pure political agenda, Ann Coulter has no peer in the media. At least I hope that you can admit that.

And, BTW, please do spend some time reflecting on those that sacrificed so that the NY Times and Ann Coulter can participate in a free and unfettered media.

I think you are partly right. But you can't deny that there many media outlets and journalists have are biased and it often spills over into their reporting. This can be said for CNN, FOX News, etc.

As much as I hate polls, here is a recent article discussing polls looking into media bias:

===============================

A Gallup Poll of 1,000 Americans last week showed that 51 percent of Americans say the economy is getting worse — even as gross domestic product, employment and other indicators continue to forge ahead.

That’s terrible news for George W. Bush, who is faring even worse in polls on his handling of Iraq and the war on terror. If he can’t persuade voters that his policies — primarily his tax cuts — are headed in the right direction, his chances of re-election are virtually nil. But why is Bush having such a hard time persuading voters of what their own eyes should be telling them?

There is doubtless more than one explanation. The recovery was slow in coming, thanks in part to national security fears and in part to Congress’ refusal to accelerate proposed tax reductions. Sharp escalation of gasoline prices hits Americans directly in their pocketbooks, while the employment numbers actually affect relatively few people. Then, too, Bush has been less than sharp in explaining the link between his tax cuts and economic growth.

But let’s face it. Republicans have always had an uphill battle selling their policies. Another poll last week suggests why. The Pew Research Center conducted one of its periodic surveys of the journalism profession, and confirmed the fact that news organizations are heavily weighted toward the liberal side. Indeed, 34 percent of the journalists working for national news organizations described themselves as liberal — and only 7 percent as conservative.

According to Editor & Publisher, which describes itself as “America’s Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry,” that contrasts sharply with the self-assessment of the general public: 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative.

And it’s possible that the Pew survey substantially understates the bias. Many journalists, for obvious reasons, resist describing themselves as anything other than middle-of-the-road. From long experience, however, I can attest that if you scratch the surface, you often find a set of views that can only be described as left of center on most major issues. That doesn’t necessarily mean their reporting will be biased in all cases, but it does seem to load the dice.

This is particularly true on issues like economics, where most of what we learn in school — and most of what we hear from our colleagues and our expert sources in Washington — has long been at odds with the incentive-centered, market-oriented model at the heart of Republican thinking since the Ronald Reagan years.

Thus the headline you will almost never see is “Bush Economic Policies Working.” You might occasionally see the grudging headline, “Bush Claims His Policies Are Working,” but even that is rare. And it’s usually followed by clucking about the deficit and those Americans who have been left behind by the general prosperity. At his last press conference, the Washington press corps simply ignored the good news, asking Bush not a single question about the economy.

The problem may be getting worse. Pew Research Center found that since 1995, when it conducted its last poll on the subject, the number of self-described liberals has grown to 34 percent from 22 percent in the media, while conservatives have gone up only to 7 percent from 5 percent. Moreover, Pew found a large “values gap” between the media and the public. About 60 percent of the public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person — but less than 15 percent in the media believe that.

Conservatives shouldn’t despair. Reagan managed to get himself re-elected by a landslide margin despite the media’s bias — and massive street demonstrations against his foreign policy that make today’s dissent over Iraq seem almost tame. But as the polls suggest, Bush shouldn’t rely too heavily on the notion that voters will be able to sort things out based on what they read, see and hear in the press.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0405/26/a11-163907.htm

Thomas Bray is a Detroit News columnist who is published on Sunday and Wednesday. He can be contacted at (313) 222-2544 and tbray@detnews.com.

I just saw the name Ann Coulter and didn't bother reading as I already knew what the bent of the article would be. She's not one to show two sides of an issue.

Here is more info:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#THE

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

Eddie, It should be done everyday not just because we get a day off!

I'm definately not the sharpest tool in the shed, but doesn't that leave 59% moderate or independent?

How does that create a liberal bias? Shouldn't the conservatives be whining about, and claiming to be victims of a moderate bias?

If you read further, you'll see the article mentions that asking a journalist what his bias is won't always yeild an honest answer. So you need to bump up those percentages on each end a little. The remaining gap accounts for those claiming they don't have a bias on either side. But we all know that is not realistic for everyone under all conditions - especially on a very hot election year.

So no matter how you slice it, with this poll at least, it appears those in the media who are biased (or who are willing to admit it), are 4 to 5 times more likely to be liberal than conservative.

Have a safe weekend everyone...even you liberals...Thanks to all the veterans out there too.

Would that be Fox News?

You, too, Grandpa. And thanks, too, for what you do in your own way.

Good time to be thankful for our families and our great country. The USA gets a pretty big tongue lashing around these parts but I don't know where else I would rather live. When my flag goes up this weekend it won't be because I am macho...just grateful.

Got that shipment of Viagra in, did ya?

Harley...After I heard the following side effect warning I have avoided trying those drugs:

"WARNING....erections lasting more than 4 hours need immediate medical attention"....

But really if I had one of those I would just grab my instant antidote: