To Hell with UN?

Ok, here is a simple answer to this “lying” crap. If Bush was willing to lie about WMD then he would have been just as likely to plant evidence. Planted evidence would have been found by now for political benefit.

lumpy, kuri, mon quebec,

Have any of you been to Iraq in the last four months? Have you talked to an Iraqi living in Iraq?

I want to let you in on a little secret, WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING.

You can spout off. You can criticize. I fight for your right to be wrong. We know you are either a defeated democrat (lumpy, kuri) or an inferiority-complex-burdened pseudo-frenchman (mon quebec). However, here is a novel concept: sign up for some form of public service. Make some sort of contribution. Get involved. I’ll be willing to bet that you three might change your viewpoint considerably if you actually had a clue what you were talking about. Don’t regurgitate press reports. Come see what is happening on the ground.
If you do not do what I have suggested, you might as well save your breath. We are not taking you seriously.

By the way, I am looking forward to November of 2004. I have a feeling that the loss of another Presidental election will leave you even more shrill and bitter. That will amuse me.

The Iraqis probably would have liked to be liberated even though they weren’t calling out to be liberated. They probably don’t like how their homes, hospitals, schools, etc destroyed though.

Bush Parries a Terror Attack,
From the Democrats

by George Melloan

George W. Bush told the American people Sunday night that what is happening in Iraq is but another stage of the war on terrorism. The terrorists are fighting in their customary way, blowing up innocent people. But they’ve brought their bloodthirsty violence to a place where American troops can engage them and that is being done.

Coalition forces have captured or killed hundreds of terrorists, said Mr. Bush, and 42 of the 55 most-wanted members of Saddam’s regime are dead or in custody. Local governments are functioning again and 60,000 Iraqis are now under arms fulfilling civil defense, police and border guard functions.

The president’s speech came at a time when some Democrats and their media mouthpieces have gotten the idea that he is vulnerable to political attack. They are gloating over what they describe as a change in the administration’s course, dictated by past misjudgments. The president’s decision to seek a United Nations mandate for governing Iraq is being billed as the humbling of an administration that, in Teddy Kennedy’s words, was following a “run-amok” policy.

Senator Kennedy is demanding an “exit strategy,” a cry that will come as good news to America’s enemies in such places as Damascus, Tehran and Pyongyang who are betting that the U.S. is too soft and corrupt to stay the course in the anti-terrorism battle. Senator Carl Levin, picking up the Kennedy line, wants the administration to turn over civil administration in Iraq to the U.N. The president had a direct answer to this kind of talk, saying that a withdrawal from Iraq “before our work is done” would be playing into the hands of the global terrorist network.

The fond political hopes of those who say that things are going badly for the U.S. aren’t supported by events on the ground. Max Boot, a former Wall Street Journal editorial page features editor and now a fellow at the New York Council on Foreign Relations, argues in an article in the Weekly Standard that the hue and cry against Bush is remindful of the political gamesmanship that preceded the U.S. pullout from Vietnam. The Tet offensive of 1968, a major defeat for the Vietcong, was portrayed by the U.S. left as a Vietcong victory. From then on, pressure built for a cut-and-run policy that ultimately delivered a U.S. ally to the communists, a major Cold War defeat.

The warning is apt, given the party line espoused by the likes of Senators Kennedy and Levin. Mr. Boot, who recently spent 10 days in Iraq, came away with a view shared by most others who have bothered to actually visit the country. Iraq is getting back to normal, terrorist attacks notwithstanding. Most Iraqis, at least those outside Baghdad and Tikrit, appear to regard U.S. troops as protectors, not as invaders. The work of rebuilding the country’s infrastructure is proceeding, albeit with administrative hitches that might be expected in a country just liberated from a tyranny and still lacking an effective government to replace it.

The Democrats are of course doing what an opposition party strives to do, discomfit and ultimately unseat the incumbent president. The old idea of bipartisan foreign policy has been thrown to the winds along with other gentlemanly conventions. But the Democrat attack awakened Mr. Bush and his administration from their summer slumbers. Sunday night’s talk to the nation was clearly a response to the sniper attacks.

Much of what the Dems are flogging sounds more like something crafted in the Elysee Palace than the work of a responsible opposition. First of all, the Bush administration has never followed the “go-it-alone” policy toward Iraq that critics claim. The administration took great pains to win a Security Council resolution authorizing enforcement of the U.N. resolutions that Saddam Hussein had flouted for 12 years. It won the support of most of Europe, with the notable exceptions of France, Germany and Russia, for the campaign against Saddam. The U.N. was never frozen out. Indeed, its presence in Iraq made it the target for last month’s terrorist attack that tragically killed 23 U.N. employees.

The U.S. now has 29 partners in its efforts to restore the security of Iraqis. It wants a clear U.N. mandate to try to attract more military participation, particularly from countries such as India and Turkey, where local leaders need political cover for taking part. That’s hardly evidence of the Bush administration crawling back to the U.N. as a repentant sinner.

The Kennedy tirade against the Pentagon – “Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz should step aside” – betrays ignorance of the fact that the U.S. military has been the most effective agency so far for winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Mr. Boot’s account of his visit is instructive, detailing the successes of the 1st Marine Division in the south and the 101st Airborne in the north in working with local leaders to restore order and begin the rebuilding process. He finds the Coalition Provisional Authority, under the guidance of the State Department’s L. Paul Bremer III, less effective, in part because it doesn’t have the resources that the military can bring to bear on a problem. Would a U.N. civil administration be more effective than the CPA? On past record, it would seem highly unlikely.

Fortunately, even the Democrats agree that military operations in Iraq must remain under U.S. command. That is a crucial point and illuminates the fact that there is somewhat less policy disagreement between the Bush administration and its critics than meets the eye. But the political attack raises the danger that Congress will force the administration to cut troop numbers in Iraq prematurely, before the country has been stabilized. That would shoot a very large hole through the much larger and far more important objective of the Iraq campaign, which was to establish a beachhead for the pacification of the entire Mideast. If the beachhead succeeds, it would go a long way toward winning the war on terrorism and would relieve the people of that region from the constant threat of sudden death.

Mr. Bush indicated Sunday night that he has not deviated from this major strategic goal. His critics haven’t deviated either from their goal of bringing him down, but there is no sign that they have anything positive to offer.

Updated September 9, 2003


ABOUT GEORGE MELLOAN

George Melloan is the Journal’s Deputy Editor, International. He began writing “Global View” in 1990, when he took over responsibilities for the overseas pages after 17 years as deputy editor in New York. During the first five years of his present assignment he was based in Brussels, traveling extensively from there to write about such events as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet empire and the collapse of the Japan’s stock market and real estate bubble. He returned to New York in 1994.

lol Iike how, with your 2-party system that anyone who asks questions is just a democrat/republican with an agenda. When there are only 2 parties, it’s so much easier to say that the Democrats are just looking for a reason to stir the pot when they say there’s no exit strategy, especially when no other response comes to mind.

The exit strategy is very simple, which is apparently why it is being missed:

  1. Regime change (only halfway achieved, as a regime was toppled, but a new, stable, democratic regime is not yet in place).
  2. a) Coincident with building a new political climate for a new regime, rebuild Iraqi infrastructure (meaning not only rebuilding what we destroyed, but also what Saddam destroyed or allowed to stagnate to the point of ineffectiveness).
  3. Leave.
  4. Enjoy normal relations with new democratic ally.

We have been over there less than a year – barely over half a year. And yet, the ossified worldview of the left has declared a “quagmire.” The whole of the modern world need not be viewed through the Viet Nam colored glasses of ex-hippies.

Now, MQ, as to your earlier comments about the BBC and the Guardian, I don’t think the British are too terribly pleased with the BBC of late, or too inclined to trust them, given that the Parliamentary Inquiry that was basically the Blair administration vs. the BBC, came down with the verdict that it was the BBC that was actively misleading the British public. Not that one would have gleaned this from reading the Guardian, which puts its typical anti-Anglosphere spin on things.

And of course, you are definitely right about one thing – the BBC and the Guardian are able to keep up with this kind of bias only because they are not exposed to market forces. You keep reading the Guardian and watching BBC. I’ll stick with the Wall Street Journal and the Economist.

Would you find the following in the American media? (Michael Meacher is one of Blair’s cabinet ministers that resigned in disgust)

"This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”"
see the rest here & try to explain what REALLY happened:

& it was Greg Palast, an American reporter working for the BBC who broke the story about the Bush boys & Katherine Harris rigging the 2000 election. Where was it reported in the USA? It’s strange that it wasn’t reported in the USA & instead of rioting & uprisings over the rigged election, the ‘good guys’ and Republicans said it was just a Democrat conspiracy, or told foreigners to stay out of American politics, etc. You Americans always seem to find a way to not even acknowledge basic truths seemingly just because they don’t coincide with your preferred view of the USA.

Nice spin article, BB.

“Senator Kennedy is demanding an “exit strategy,” a cry that will come as good news to America’s enemies in such places as Damascus, Tehran and Pyongyang who are betting that the U.S. is too soft and corrupt to stay the course in the anti-terrorism battle.”

Nice. So demanding fiscal responsibility, honesty with taxpayers, and an explainable logic to our mission = “weakness”. Sweet!

“The U.S. now has 29 partners in its efforts to restore the security of Iraqis.”

This one is a laugh. Our “partners” in this are mostly powerhouse countries like Guam. The countries that have sent soldiers have (other than the UK) sent trivial amounts, and in many cases the US is footing their bill. Most of the “partners” only offer their “moral support”. It’s a joke.

"If the beachhead succeeds, it would go a long way toward winning the war on terrorism and would relieve the people of that region from the constant threat of sudden death.

Mr. Bush indicated Sunday night that he has not deviated from this major strategic goal."

The problem is that Bush’s “goal” changes every so often, in order to fit whatever the current circumstances. First we needed to attack Iraq to disarm Saddam of WMD. When that turned out to be a big zero, the goal was changed to “liberate Iraq”. However, many Iraqis do not want to be occupied by the US, and are resisting the US presence, so now it turns into “fighting terrorists”.

What will Bush say the mission is, next month?

Anyone notice how Bush announced the 87 billion dollar pricetag for the next year, right befor the 9-11 anniversary? Think that was a coincidence?

The administration lowballed everyone on the price of this war, and inflated the “imminent danger” in order to con people into supporting it. Calling this a “war on terrorism” is more goalpost-moving.

We’ve already spent 70-something billion, and we’ll spend another 86 billion (or more) next year. When we’ve finished spending all that money, there is no guarantee that there will be a democracy in Iraq. Is a democracy in Iraq worth 150 billion dollars of taxpayer money (at a minimum)? What if it takes an additional 10 years, how much will that cost ? What happened to Bush’s campaign promise “No nation-building”?

Even some Republicans in Congress are balking at the ever-escalating pricetag for this war.

The irony of a liberal preaching personal responsibility! Lumpy you kill me. Don’t let your comrades hear you mention the “R” word, it makes them uncomfortable!

BostonBarristor, another interesting article, but I don’t think your breaking through to them yet. For example, Lumpy is insinuating that the entire war was done to build an American Empire by business executives! Amazing.

Are you telling me, that the men and women who have made multiple millions of dollars in an open market capitalistic economy want to build an empire by fictitiously creating a reason for war? Does that really sound reasonable? I’m trying to imagine a boardroom full of executives saying, “know what we really need to boost 2nd quarter earnings, a good ol? war in the Middle East! Forget reducing our marginal cost, get on the horn and give George a call at the White House! We’ll get a bunch of Iraqi’s wearing Nike’s and drinking Starbucks, and if they won’t, we’ll bomb them until we establish market share!” Now that’s what I call brand management.

Uh, I?m not buying it. Lumpy, have you heard of the term comparative advantage? It?s an economic term; give it a google if you’re not familiar with it. Basically two nations will increase their production through specialization and free trade. This whole empire concept is an antiquated mercantilist concept that preaches isolationism and protectionism. Conquest of resources won’t make the US, or the world for that matter, economy better off, economics doesn’t work that way.

As it has been mentioned several times, take a step back, find some perspective and think big picture. You won’t find an American Empire in Germany, nor will you find one in Japan, and you’re not going to find one in Iraq.

MON Q: Yeah, like Canada`s the best place to start pointing fingers from.

Liberals at both the provincial and federal level. Chretien the Antideluvian got reelected time after time after time (note: regardless of how people bitch, they still reelecting him, mostly by fear of the new. In the end, they get the politicians they deserve.) And no worthy alternatives in sight.

Every new party that tries its chance gets killed or lasts 1 turn max. Preston Manning? Out. Stockwell Day? Out. Mario Dumont? Out, soon.

Canada has no lessons to give to the US in democracy. Actually, Canada could gain very much to clone the American model.

We are almost reaching 8000 civilian deaths in Iraq due to the illegal occupation by the USA.

Congratulations.

RESTLESS: I am sure that those 8000 are are the Everest compared to what Saddam did behind the scenes, eh? At least keep things into context (in terms of scales of deaths on both sides), for impartiality`s sake.

Who exactly counted these deaths? Baghdad Bob?

MQ: Yep, we have only one opinion in America, it just sounds like there are 100 different opinions here. Ok, without sarcasm, I hear and read every conceivable opinion. In America the media actually agrees with the media outside America. 90% of American media is liberal, and it is higher outside of America. The biggest difference is that the media outside of America generally hates us, and wants us to fall from our powerful position.

Of course you will find conspiracy theories. I have heard that America actually planted bombs in the World Trade Center, and the planes were actually remote controlled, and the gas attacks in Japan were by America, and the first bombing of the WTC was by Japan because of a secret war between us and them, and then there are the stories about the illuminati running everything, and Bush is supposed to be a part of this.

Why are all of these conspiracy theories so well accepted? I see a lot of opinion, but no facts. Often what people call facts are either rumor, or a situation where two unrelated events are connected to prove a point. (This is why I keep bringing up conspiracy theories.) People too often read something and either accept it on face value, or reject it if it does not match their preconceived notions. But they never look deeper, or read between the lines. An author too often gives away his or her biases in their writing.

I remember when right and left meant conservative and liberal, and right wing and left wing meant the true extremists, (and I mean true extremists,) but the political parties have begun using these terms to influence thought by connecting the parties to extremists, but while this worked at first the terms have lost their true meaning. Now the political groups are trying to create new terms, like neoconservative (hey, my spellchecker doesn’t know what this word is,) to replace the old terms.

And I read Greg Palast’s little article about how the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris helped Bush by removing 57,000 felons from the voting list as is required by state law. Obviously since this was done 5 months before the election they were psychic about the events. Please tell me it was obvious to you that this was a hatchet job. You are that intelligent aren?t you?

I don’t know why someone would think that Palast knew about the election fraud 5 months before it happened. I juts looked at the BBC site & saw that his show aired on 2/16/01.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram

The Mage said "In America the media actually agrees with the media outside America. 90% of American media is liberal, and it is higher outside of America. The biggest difference is that the media outside of America generally hates us, and wants us to fall from our powerful position. "

This is just baloney. The media is run and controlled by huge corporations, who are not liberal by any stretch of thge imagination. I know Rush Limbaugh want s you to think that most of the media is far left, but it is not true. This is a right wing myth… By painting most of the media as “liberal”, it then makes anyone who has any amount of a real liberal position seem like a nut, in comparison.

You obviously do not actually read any non-US media outlets, because you could not make this statement if you did. The news that we get in the US is significantly different than the news that the rest of the world gets.

Lets take a simple example. NBC is owned by General Electric, who is also a major owner of various weapons-manufacturing companies. Do you think GE is against the Iraq invasion? Have you ever seen any anti-war sentiment on NBC, in any credible form? I haven’t.

And as far as the Neoconservatives, that is THEIR name for THEMSELVES. If you want to declare you are clueless about what a “neoconservative” is, that’s fine with me… by your own admission you are uninformed on these issues, so why bother posting…

People might not agree with my views, but at least I know who the players are, and what the basic issues are.

If the system functions well, it should have a left/liberal bias or at least appear to. If they’re so ‘out there’ how can lumpy, restless & me go beyond it? The apparently ‘liberal’ media is so radical in their opposition to the government policies us ‘bad guys’ would sound totally crazy, which is the whole idea.

“The biggest political joke in America is that we have a liberal press. It’s a joke taken seriously by a surprisingly large number of people… The myth of the liberal press has served as a political weapon for conservative and right-wing forces eager to discourage critical coverage of government and corporate power … Americans now have the worst of both worlds: a press that, at best, parrots the pronouncements of the powerful and, at worst, encourages people to be stupid with pseudo-news that illuminates nothing but the bottom line.”
-Mark Hertzgaard, author

“Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth.” - Mark Crispin Miller

Lumpy:

“…by your own admission you are uninformed on these issues, so why bother posting…”

All of your information comes from one source. You are incapable of thinking on your own, and you try to say I am uninformed?

The media is liberal. This is a fact. Sure, not all of it. Talk radio is very conservative.

Let’s dissect this a little bit. Many liberal radio talk shows have been started, but most fail. Why is this? Because it is an “alternative” media, and conservative thought is alternative to the regular media. It draws people because it has a different political point of view. If it gave the same view as the regular media then it would not have such a draw.

The important thing to point out is that it is generally not a conscious decision to produce a liberal media. Reporters vote exceedingly to the left of center. This is a fact. The field draws liberal thought more then conservative thought.

Also it matters not who owns these companies. It is the people who run them, and when 90 % of the reporters are liberal then 90% of the news is filtered though liberal minds.

The reason you cannot see it is because of your favorite web site. I have visited it plenty of times. It is so far to the left that after reading their views, you would think that Stalin was a conservative, and Michael Moore was a right wing nut.

Also I make my statement because I HAVE read non-US news. Like I have said I have been to your website a bunch of times. Especially if I am interested in the “hate America” point of view.

Now tell me exactly where they have said that they want to be called neoconservative. Literally translated it does not sound too bad, but the only place I have ever found that term has been in liberal opinion columns.

One of the reasons I can tell where the media is positioned is because I have never chosen a political party, and I know exactly where I stand politically. Every belief I have has been thought out, and I don’t let anyone choose my beliefs for me. Too many people decide they must side with their political party all the time, or against a political party, or for or against a person or country all the time. This is not a belief system, but blind slavery of thought.

Oh yeah, what exactly makes corporations conservative? Just because you say it does not make it true. Guess what, all big media is owned by corporations, and practically all the small ones. That would mean it is impossible for any media to be liberal. This is just stupid. I realize you have this idea that corporate America is evil and the world would be great if communism were spread across the world.

“The media is liberal. This is a fact.”
OK, if you say so!

“Let’s dissect this a little bit. Many liberal radio talk shows have been started, but most fail. Why is this? Because it is an “alternative” media, and conservative thought is alternative to the regular media. It draws people because it has a different political point of view. If it gave the same view as the regular media then it would not have such a draw.”

Sorry, but you can’t call anything that popular (right wing radio, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly etc) “alternative”. These guys are totally maintream, as defined by their popularity.

“The important thing to point out is that it is generally not a conscious decision to produce a liberal media. Reporters vote exceedingly to the left of center. This is a fact.”
That is a myth.

“Also it matters not who owns these companies. It is the people who run them, and when 90 % of the reporters are liberal then 90% of the news is filtered though liberal minds.”
Do you think TV reporters write their own stories? Do you think reporters for the major news outlets send their story to the printer, without it being read and edited? Do you think reporters are deciding the topics of their stories, on their own? Who hires the people who edit the stories? Who hires the people who tell reporters what stories to cover? People like Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX News, etc etc) that’s who. Murdoch is ultra-conservative and is the single largest force in mass media (to my knowledge) so how could the media be “mostly liberal”???

“The reason you cannot see it is because of your favorite web site.”
Sure buddy, I’m “brainwashed”, yeah, that’s it LOL I have visited it plenty of times. It is so far to the left that after reading their views, you would think that Stalin was a conservative, and Michael Moore was a right wing nut.

Thanks for proving my point. When conservatives such as yourself portray the (mostly conservative) media as “they’re all liberals!” it makes anyone with a true Democratic or liberal opinion seem like a nut in comparison. It’s a nice bit of SPINNING by ultra conservative Republicans, the “party of dirty tricks” as Ross Perot called them. And you just proved it’s working.

“Also I make my statement because I HAVE read non-US news. Like I have said I have been to your website a bunch of times. Especially if I am interested in the “hate America” point of view.”

Sure you do, Mage. That’s why you don’t know the basic fact that www.whatreallyhappened.com (thanks for plugging it again) is clearly based in the USA. You must get your political views from wackos like Ann Coulter, who says insane things like “Liberals are traitors”. You try to pretend you are unbiased here, but in reality, anything even remotely liberal apparently terrifies you.

“Now tell me exactly where they have said that they want to be called neoconservative. Literally translated it does not sound too bad, but the only place I have ever found that term has been in liberal opinion columns.”

Really, this just belies your own ignorance. The term “neoconservative” is in common usage, which tells me you must only have a passing interest in politics. I’ve already directed you to the PNAC website at least twice now, which tells me you either didn’t read it or are not interested. If you aren’t interested in following up on this, why are you posting on my threads?

“One of the reasons I can tell where the media is positioned is because I have never chosen a political party, and I know exactly where I stand politically. Every belief I have has been thought out, and I don’t let anyone choose my beliefs for me. Too many people decide they must side with their political party all the time, or against a political party, or for or against a person or country all the time. This is not a belief system, but blind slavery of thought.”

Translation: You already know everything. Okay buddy, I won’t burden you with any more information, maybe I will discuss this with a tree stump instead.

“Oh yeah, what exactly makes corporations conservative? Just because you say it does not make it true. Guess what, all big media is owned by corporations, and practically all the small ones. That would mean it is impossible for any media to be liberal.”

Very good Mage! You’re starting to get it!

“This is just stupid. I realize you have this idea that corporate America is evil and the world would be great if communism were spread across the world.”

LOL! Yes, I also kick my dog and steal from the offerings in church. I’m just BAD, right? A “bad guy”? LOL

Can we get this thread back on topic please? I want to discuss the 180 degree about-face the adminsistration is doing, on the UN involvement in Iraq. The fact is that this administration is bungling the post-invasion mission. I thought Iraqi oil was going to pay for the reconstruction? Instead, it’s US taxpayer dollars, that go directly from OUR pockets into Halliburton’s.

SWEET DEAL !

Ok Hillary Rosen, a lobbyist for the Record Industry of America, is rewriting the intellectual-property laws for them, so Saddam’s loyalists have to fear that Sony Records will chop people’s hands off if they download Madonna songs. Grover Nordquist, a lobbyist for American Express & Microsoft is rewriting Iraq’s tax laws, of course to benefit the Iraqi people & not for Microsoft. Bob Zillick, a member of the Bush government who has ties to Enron, wants to turn Iraq into a ‘free’ trade zone & he’s rewriting Iraq’s trade laws & everyone can see the wonders of free markets. There’s been a lot of discussion about Halliburton, but I think that’s only the most visible winner of the Iraq aggression, they are many others.
You can hear the whole Democracy Now! segment here:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/16/2158202&mode=thread&tid=16

From USA Today:"CNN’s top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN “was intimidated” by the Bush administration and Fox News, which “put a climate of fear and self-censorship.”

To counter replies concerning how liberal the media is. If job security and careers are even perceived of as being threatened hard questions and investigative journalism get thrown out pretty quick.