Occasionally I switch over to CNN and count the number of seconds before detecting liberal bias. It is rarely more than a dozen. Tonight, less than four, and only that many because it takes a few seconds (just a few) to pick up the thread.
First story, "as we enter the fifth year" of the Iraq war -- not "on the 4th anniversary" of its launch, as Fox News had just reported -- some video of soldiers adding armor to Humveed, "and why did it take so long," we are prompted to wonder. The only quote in this story was from an anti-war Bush-bashing somebody who parroted the "misled us into war, bad intelligence, WMD, no exit strategy" lines, the constant repetition of which have turned 70/30 support into 30/70 opposition among the American public.
Next, an interview with the mayor of Salt Lake City, who called today for the impeachment of President Bush due to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Again the "abuse of power, misled us into war" talking points, in case you missed them a moment ago. How in the world is the mayor of Salt Lake City a Democrat!??
The next segment interviewed a soldier who now regrets taking part in toppling the statue of Saddam.
Next story, a reporter reads from Ahmedinejab's anti-American blog. Do you have to be stationed in the Middle East to do that?
Next, a story on embattled Attorney General Gonzales.
But there is no liberal bias in the media and no agenda to take down President Bush.
Nothing on Bush's speech today, in which he reminded us of the stakes, not that anyone's listening any more. Bush is not news, only anti-Bush is news.
It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen.
And Victor Davis Hanson nailed it too in his review of "300":
Almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested.
If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others.