Heart of the Party: Sharpton Vs. Obama

Again, the Seattle Times is consumed with Democratic convention news, it begins with the huge front-page headline, "Kerry: 'We Can Do Better'". As I have said before, it is difficult to judge whether this heavy coverage can be considered liberal bias. Until the Republican convention is covered, I will not be able to reach any conclusions on the subject. I have been reassured personally by Times' staff that there will be equal coverage given to Republicans.

However, I suspect the coverage will be qualitatively different, if not quantitatively so. What do I mean by this? Unlike the glowing coverage given to the Democrats, I expect the Times to fall into it's old pattern of taking cheap shots at the Bush administration (see my June piece on "cheap shots" for a further explanation). For instance, expect to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" referenced from time to time, as well as a few Abu Ghraib references thrown in for good measure. This is the kind of bias the Times is FAMOUS for.

Anyway, instead of talking about today's paper, I want to share my perceptions of the Democratic convention, namely what stands out in my mind from the last four days.

First, it ain't John Kerry's speech. Well, one thing about that speech does stand out in my mind, and it actually has to do with the Seattle Times (you see how I can always tie everything back to the theme of this blog)! In Thursday's Op/Ed pages, there was a HILARIOUS political cartoon of Kerry giving his acceptance speech with a huge banner exclaiming "I served in Vietnam" as well as over-sized medals in the background, a swift-boat behind him, he is toting two M-16's, and (my favorite part) a huge knife in his mouth a la Rambo style. A reporter is speaking to a TV camera saying, "A theme is beginning to emerge, Dan...". It was funny when I saw it Thursday morning, it was DAMN funny after I heard Kerry's speech.

No, what ultimately came to define this convention for me was two speeches I heard from two African Americans, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. These two speeches were so different, it was hard to believe the two men belonged to the same political party, and therein lies the problem with the Democrats (well, one of the problems). Namely, the wacko fringes of the political left have now become mainstream Democratic ideology. The problem with this, of course, is that you get conflicting messages, and (more importantly) the likelihood that huge numbers of constituents will feel disenfranchised and may consider switching parties.

I have no doubt that Democratic party bosses were not happy about the prospect of letting Al Sharpton speak on national TV. If Bush was way ahead in the polls and there was not this unity-of-hate that seems to bind all Democrats, I guarantee Sharpton would not have been allowed to speak. But he did, and what he said was no surprise. I will get to his attacks on the President in a moment, but I thought one of his most telling lines was his now famous reference to the Civil War era promise of "forty acres and a mule". He said, "We didn't get the 40 acres. We didn't get the mule so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us". This line is interesting because it speaks to the notion of government entitlements, and that extreme left-wing view that the government should provide all things for it's citizens. It's clear what Sharpton really means is, "riding this donkey as far as it would GIVE us". I mean, is anybody really still angry about not receiving their mule? Well, yes if you happen to believe that your lot in life is somehow due to the government, and you believe the government has an obligation to take good care of you. This type of rhetoric is not going to resonate, or perhaps even offend many hard working Democrats, many of whom believe they are taxed too much already.

Sharpton railed against the President with the tired claims that the decision to go to war was based on lies and distortions. He attacked the President's civil rights record claiming that Clarence Thomas would never have been allowed to go to law school had Bush been in power in the 50's. I'm a pretty even-tempered guy, but this was the one thing said throughout the entire convention that made me mad. In fact, it actually made me REAL mad. Like comparisons to Hitler, this falls under the category of loony, hate-filled accusations. What has Bush done (other than being a white male) to make Sharpton believe he would act in a bigoted manner if given the chance? Apparently, this imagined bigotry didn't stop Bush from elevating Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to their lofty positions of power. The point is, this type of rhetoric is likely going to inflame not just conservatives, but many moderate Democrats as well.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise smoky, choking affair. His positive, hope filled message inspired me and I must say I liked the guy. He also said something that I believe is so important, he said "black parents must eradicate the slander that a black youth with a book is acting white". Bravo! It takes guts to say this sort of thing (look how Bill Cosby has been vilified by the African American community). I don't believe I have ever spoken on this topic in my blog, but I have studied this my entire adult life. I believe that this country's BIGGEST social problems could be solved if education became the focus of ALL Americans. This would take a huge paradigm shift in the thinking of inner-city youth culture. But I'll tell you something, right here and now, if Barack Obama runs for President and promises to make this the cornerstone of his administration, Democrat or not, he has my vote.

It is truly difficult to say who better represents today's Democratic party, Sharpton or Obama. The Democrats would like to think it's Obama, but I believe just under that optimistic veneer we saw for four days, the angry, hate filled rhetoric of Sharpton better exemplifies what's in the heart of most Democrats. How these two faces reconcile with one another still remains to be seen.

Two Points for the Seattle Times

First off, I have the flu. It came from my 4 year old nephew at a family get-together. First my mom caught it, then I caught it, and as I write this my father is likely puking his guts out. Last night was NOT a good night for me, but today I feel well enough to write.

Anyway, enough about my personal problems. I had a staff person from the Times write to me in regards to my last posting. I had doubted the Times would give equal coverage to the Republican Convention. This person promised me that the Times would, indeed, give equal coverage. While that remains to be seen, I suppose the prudent thing to do is not to complain about the huge amount of coverage given to the Democratic Convention this week. As it truly is an important story (and an otherwise slow news-week) I will refrain from criticism until, of course, the Republican Convention starts.

So after reading through the Times, nothing else jumped out at me as particularly biased. In fact, I was very surprised to read today's "The Newspaper's View" in the Op/Ed section. The Times challenged John Kerry to explain where the money would come from for all his proposed programs including a $4,000 tax credit to pay for college, $5,000 tax credit for day care, tax credits for buying health care as well as several other programs. The Times is skeptical that, by simply repealing the tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year, there will be enough money to pay for these programs. Of course, the suggestion here is that either more tax hikes will be necessary or those programs will simply have to go by the way-side. Bravo to the Seattle Times for asking these kinds of extremely relevant questions. I hope we see more of this.

However, on the downside, I have noticed in the last few months fewer and fewer conservative Op/Ed pieces. I'm afraid I haven't been keeping any sort of tally so this is a very unscientific observation, but it seems to me that every day the Bush administration is attacked mercilessly in the Op/Ed pages with very few pro-Bush editorials. Four months ago there was always at least one conservative piece, at a minimum, every two days. This is certainly not the case now. If the Seattle Times was your only source of news (God help you!), you would get the impression that everyone in the country was now angry at George Bush. Could this be a plan?

The Seattle Times: Newspaper/Democratic Advertisement

As I am writing these words (about 7:30pm) Hillary Clinton is speaking at the Democratic Convention. My God, it's like fingernails on a chalk-board.

Anyway, that's not what I want to write about (oh, geez, she just introduced her husband and they're playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow", good God!), sorry, what I want to write about is today's Seattle Times. Half of the entire A section is taken up by the Democratic convention, it is one enormous political advertisement for John Kerry. I could go through every story, one by one, and pick them apart, but it would take thousands of words and more time than I have.

But, to give you an idea of the tenor of today's paper, the front-page headline (presumably the most important story of the day) is called, "McDermott Rides Fame as Democrats Get Started". The piece is about how Washington State House Representative Jim McDermott is apparently now a "big star" because of his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11". This story speaks volumes. First, is this REALLY the biggest news item of the day? I sincerely doubt it. Second, this story (like many others) illustrates the Times' cozy relationship with Moore's movie. As I said two days ago, the Times is going to keep the "buzz" going on this movie as long as it possibly can (right now, Bill Clinton is speaking and trying to create a new Kerry tag line "Send Me", I say "Gag Me").

It will be interesting to see how much the Times devotes to the Democratic convention the rest of this week. But, of course, the true test will be how the Seattle Times covers the Republican convention. Will they give equal coverage? I doubt it.

OK, I'm Confused (Again)

I had a very busy day today and I could not devote much time to reading the Sunday paper or writing in this blog. But, I did come across something and I have a question and I HONESTLY want someone to try and answer it. I don't really know how many, if any, folks read this blog but if someone could help decipher the following sentence, I would really appreciate it.

The sentence is in a piece on page A10 of today's Sunday paper called, "9/11 Commission discounts Conspiriacy Theories Regarding bin Laden Family's Departure". The story is about how the 9/11 Commission's report shows there was nothing improper about Saudi nationals leaving after 9/11. The Saudis (including members of the bin Laden family) were properly questioned and were allowed to leave AFTER the air traffic grounding had ended (seven days after the grounding had ended, in fact).

Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" is mentioned in the piece as Moore contends that the bin Laden family got some kind of "special treatment" from the Bush family. What's interesting about this story is that the author never says that Moore's film is in error or factually incorrect, just that the film and the 9/11 report seem to purport different things. I guess the author just wants to leave it up to the reader to decide who is telling the truth (the 9/11 Commission or Michael Moore).

Anyway, the question I have is regarding a statement made near the end of the piece by Moore's associate producer, Joanne Doroshow. Please read the following carefully: "Moore did not intend to suggest that the bin Ladens flew away while civilian flights were grounded, only that they left after the grounding occurred." Would someone PLEASE explain to me what the second part of that sentence means. Clearly, the Seattle Times must understand, otherwise they would not have printed the quote.

Perhaps this is the kind of logic that only liberals can comprehend.

Wait, Who Committed the Crime Here?

I don't mean to keep going on about this whole Sandy Berger affair, Zippergate, as it is being called by some. Frankly, I'm tired of the story and I'm ready to move on. But today's Seattle Times piece on the story on page A6 is so incredibly, monumentaly, stupendously biased I just HAVE to say something. It is truly the worst of several stories on the affair that over the course of five days have progressively gotten worse. Tomorrow's paper will no doubt suggest Bush resign or be impeached.

I suppose I should be pleased that more details of the theft have finally been printed in the Times; namely that Archive staff had suspected Berger of stealing documents in the past and they had devised a coding system to detect if anything went missing. But the Times even turns this clever, pro-active plan around to make it sound sinister. The fourth paragraph starts (and this is NOT a quote from an individual), "The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign-policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one."

A sting operation!?!?!? They were simply trying to enforce the rules and protect the documents. I guess the Seattle Times would have preferred that the Archive staff just turn a blind eye to the thefts and let Berger have all the documents he pleased. This is the only conclusion one can draw from the above statement based on the fact that the Times offers no alternative methodology for detecting the theft. Don't criticize a plan unless you have a better plan.

But this is only a warm-up for the attacks that follow later in the piece. Former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart said, "I think he feels a sense of injustice that after building a reputation as a tireless defender of his country that many Republicans would try to assassinate his character to pursue their own ends". I had to read that twice because I frankly just couldn't believe my eyes. How many times have Democrats attempted to assassinate Bush's character? Off the top of my head, I can think of his National Guard service record being attacked, prominent Democrats have compared him to Hitler, he has been characterized over and over again as dumb, Democrats claim he could have prevented 9/11, others claim he's a bible-thumping zealot, many believe he's in the pocket of big oil, and I could go on and on. Of course, the itty bitty difference that Mr. Lockhart appears to be forgetting is that Sandy Berger, unlike Bush, ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME! Call me crazy, but I'd have to say that, yes, when a crime is committed by an individual, I do begin to question that individual's character. I know, I'm weird that way.

But the real heavy artillery is brought to bare towards the end of the piece when Mr. Lockhart utters those famous words that have come to symbolize every high-level scandal since Watergate, "I think it's time for them [the Bush Administration] to come clean, say WHAT THEY KNEW, [and] WHEN THEY KNEW IT...".

From reading this, it is now obvious to me that the focus of the story should now be on the Bush White House. Forget "Zippergate", this has now turned into "Leakergate". How dare we know about this story! We should have NEVER known about this story! I mean, this is completely different than Richard Clarke's leaks because he...no wait a minute....it's different because he's not reporting a crime...no, wait a second...

Now I'm confused. Who committed the crime here, again, I forgot? Oh, yeah. That's the idea.

Hurry! There's Still Time to See Moore's Film!

It is astounding the lengths the Seattle Times has gone to keep Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", in the headlines. Besides numerous pieces on the film itself, it is frequently referenced in political news story's. The one that really sticks out in my mind is a story from a couple weeks back about Dick Cheney's strengths and weaknesses from the standpoint of the upcoming election. In that piece, those Saudi flights that occurred just after 9/11 were brought up. What was so infuriating was that the Times referenced Moore's film, as though it were a credible news source, in relation to the flights. If there's one thing Moore's film is not, it's a credible news source.

But several weeks have now passed and it appears the Times is trying to keep the Fahrenheit 9/11 "buzz" alive. On page A5 of today's paper, we have the story, "Moore Film's Success Stirs GOP Unease". This is nothing more than an advertisement for the film, pure and simple.

It's a total fluff piece; there is absolutely nothing newsworthy as far as I can tell. Apparently, we Republicans are terrified of the film and the effect it will have on the upcoming elections in November. This is about the time it's due to comes out on video. Some polls are cited and the data shows that everyone and their dog "plans" on seeing the film eventually. And then there are quotes from moviegoers like, "Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life", blah, blah, blah.

Of course, what's missing from the piece is even a cursory discussion of the accuracy and truthfulness of the film's assertions. The ONLY hint of a reference to the truthfulness of the film comes in a quote from a women who says, "I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate....[but] I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect." Well then, it must all be true.

Bottom line, this is an extremely biased piece as there are only positive references to the film (unless you count the above quote as skepticism). If the Times was really fair and balanced, as it claims to be, there would be a least some mention of the proven falsehoods the film contains. The love affair the Seattle Times has with this movie is utterly transparent.

Berger Affair: Textbook Example of Bias

As I wrote Tuesday, the Seattle Times is trying the best it can to both minimize the significance of Sandy Berger's classified document theft, as well as attempt to shift the blame to the Bush administration. I challenge anyone who doubts that liberal bias exists at the Seattle Times to simply look at the coverage of this incident over the last three days.

Yesterday's story on page A4, "Berger Quits Kerry Role as Document Investigation Generates Political Fallout", is really just a repeat of Tuesday's story. We get more apologies and explanations as to why this was an "innocent" mistake. The second paragraph starts, "Berger expressed regret over the incident, which he called an 'honest mistake'." And there are a number of quotes from prominent individuals including Bill Clinton claiming Berger is innocent. Details of the crime itself are glossed over. I'll get back to that in a minute.

While Tuesday's story only hinted at a political motivation for making this issue public, yesterday's story was more overt. "'So is this about sandy Berger or is this about politics?' asked Sen. Barbara Mikuslki, D-Md."

Today, however, the Seattle Times let the Bush Administration have it with both barrels. On page A5, we get the story, "White House Criticized Over Berger Leak". This is truly terrible journalism, even for the Seattle Times. The story is simply accusations from the Kerry team that Bush was involved in leaking the story. There is absolutely no evidence to back this up. I'm sure the Times would defend itself by saying, "Hey, we're just reporting what Kerry's team is telling us", but this is NO EXCUSE for printing absolutely factless accusations. The Times should NEVER have printed this piece and I am forwarding this letter to the Times.

What the Times SHOULD have printed, however, is some more background on the crime itself. The New York Post reports:
After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case. . . . The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it. At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

None of this information appears in any of the Seattle Times stories. The fact that Archive staff had suspected him of taking documents in the past is pretty damn relevant to the story, it seems to me. Instead of all those quotes from folks telling us what a wonderful guy Sandy Berger is, perhaps the Times could have included these key details.

I said it Tuesday and I'll say it again, had this happened to a Bush staffer, you can bet your bottom dollar the Times would have presented this story COMPLETELY differently. In fact, I have NO DOUBT there would be Democratic lawmakers (and perhaps the Seattle Times) calling on Bush to resign. I can just hear the mock outrage. Can't you?

Headline: Adviser to Clinton Took Terror documents, BUT IT'S NO BIG DEAL!

You know, in all fairness, I'm surprised this story made the front page of the Seattle Times. I suppose, as it is the lead story for virtually every other news outlet, they had no choice. But just the same, two points for the Times.

That is until you bother to actually READ the story. Of course, the story I'm referring to is today's front page, above the fold piece, "Advisor to Clinton Took Terror Documents". Apparently, Sandy Berger "inadvertently" removed classified documents from the National Archive prior to the 9/11 commission hearings.

The second paragraph states, "Berger inadvertently took copies of several versions...". I understand that this is the type of liberal bias that is hard to prove, but I assure you, if the situation was reversed and it was a Bush advisor who removed classified documents prior to the 9/11 commission's hearings, the Times WOULD NOT state the facts this way. At the very least, the Times would say something like, "Rice alleges she inadvertently took copies of several versions...". I would stake my very life on this assessment.

After the first two paragraphs, the Times devotes, I swear to God, the entire rest of the story explaining how this is not a big deal. I want to identify all the quotes that attempt to minimize the importance of this story:

"We've been trying to work with the government on this...he's only a subject of the investigation no more, they're just looking into this".

"He returned them and papers which he had taken notes about materials he had reviewed".

"...it is not at all clear to us this represents a violation of the law".

"Berger's actions were the result of sloppiness and were unintentional".

"...he has offered to cooperate."

"...I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission".

"I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives".

"I immediately returned everything I had".

"The commission members...did not view the documents as crucial".

There are two paragraphs devoted to former CIA Director John Deutch who apparently did a similar thing and was pardoned by Clinton. This has absolutely no relevance to the story, except to show that apparently this kind of thing occurs all the time?

"Clarke said it is illogical to assume Berger would have sought to hide versions of the memo because everybody in town had copies of these things".

"Condoleezza Rice testified she did not recall being briefed on the report during the transition..." Apparently, this demonstrates how unimportant these documents were.

And, of course, questions are raised about the timing of this investigation, "...a couple of days before the 9/11 Commission's report comes out, the whole thing gets leaked". This suggests there are political motivations behind this, which there probably are, ha ha.

Again, in a parallel universe, it would be fascinating to contrast this story with one involving a Bush adviser.

Bush Attacks Wrong Country

This is the headline the Seattle Times would have prefered to use for today's front-page, above the fold story about Iran's connections to Al-Qaida. The second paragraph states, "...the evidence raised new questions about why the Bush administration focused on the possibilty of Iraqi ties to Osama bin Laden's terror network after Sept. 11, when there may have been far more extensive evidence of an Iranian connection."

OK, I think I can do this quickly because I have things to do today. First of all (for the 100th time), Bush DID NOT focus on Iraqi ties to Osama bin Laden. Bush focused on Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism around the world, in particular, terrorism in Israel. But MAINLY, Bush focused on Iraq's utter disregard for UN resolutions dealing with (among other things) weapons inspections, going back an entire decade!

Now, it turns out that this really, really, really BIG connection between Iran and Al Qaida consists of Iranian officals not stamping Al Quaida member's passports when they passed through Iran. That's it. It has absolutley nothing to do with 9/11.

Basically, this entire story would be nothing more than a small footnote in the 9/11 Commision's findings if it were not for the political damage the Seattle Times thinks it can inflict on President Bush.

Another Ad for a Political Action Group

Note: BlogSpot has done some formatting changes that are completely screwing up the look of my posts. I'm sorry about this, and please bare with me.

There is a piece today at the bottom of the front page, "Are Young People Ready to Get Out and Vote?", that at first glance, appears to be free of any liberal bias. It focusses on Seattle Works, a nonprofit organization, dedicated to encouraging young people to become politically aware and to vote. Now the author of the piece tries REALLY hard not to let the politics of Seattle Works seap through in the story. Seattle Works is never described as liberal, Democratic or left wing.

But the first paragraph of the story told me all I needed to know about where this was going. The piece starts, "It's not that there are no big issues to worry about. Young people these days face unfathomable costs for education, health care and housing. Social Security could be gone by the time they're ready for it." How about terrorism? Isn't dying perhaps the BIGGEST issue a young person faces? Well, not if you're liberal and you believe the war on terrorism is fiction created by Bush.

Later in the piece, Seattle Works' true colors begin to emerge. A participant of one of their forum's says, "I have friends from high school I can't convince to register...And with the last election-they always figured people were screwing around with their vote, and it turned out they were right." These are the kind of people who turn out for these forums? Count me out.

There are several other quotes from young people and Seattle Works organizers, however, none of it sounds even remotely conservative. This is nothing more than yet another advertisment for a liberal action committee. Sure, I'll concede that most twenty-somethings are liberal. But do you think the Seattle Times will do a story on a conservative youth organization? Don't bet on it.

Optimism Vs. Anger

My one reader (my mother) may have noticed there was no blog yesterday, and after reading through the paper today, again, nothing hits me as particularly biased. Two days in a row with no A section bias? Perhaps I'm becoming more liberal and not noticing the bias. Nah.

So I wanted to write something today in the remote chance someone (accidentally) links to my site, and thinks that perhaps I've lost interest in this endeavor. I assure you, I have not.

Since I started this blog, I haven't really editorialized myself, but rather critiqued what I see as
liberal bias in the Times. However, in the process of analyzing this bias, my own perceptions and values have certainly come through. But today, I'm going to throw caution to the wind and
talk about what I want to talk about, and today's topic is anger. It must be said that the idea came from a piece in today's Op/Ed by Ellen Goodman, "Hail to the Optimist". She contends that "optimism" has itself become a political platform and that each presidential candidate is trying to position himself as the "Optimistic choice". While there is some truth in what she says, I believe it is anger that defines politics today, not optimism.

What do I mean by this? Well, though I am only 36, it seems to me that years ago, conservatives were the angry folks. In the fifties we had Joseph McCarthy, angry at Communists. In the 60's, Richard Nixon seemed angry at everyone, and by the 70's, the quintessential conservative was Archie Bunker, incredibly angry at the social upheaval he perceived all around him.

The Archie Bunker model continued through the eighties as many conservatives longed for a more simple time and blamed gays, feminists, blacks, immigrants, the homeless, etc. for the social problems of the day. Indeed, the eighties saw the rebirth of white supremacy with the rise of skinheads and the birth of organizations such as The Order. This period also marked the emergence of extreme right-wing, anti-government "survivalists", Timothy McViegh being
perhaps the most famous example of this type of angry conservative. With books like "The Turner Diaries", these people foresaw an inevitable race-war and were determined to be ready.

Liberals (or the political left), on the other hand, for the last forty years have been typically
characterized by peace, love and understanding. As we all know, this movement has it's roots in the freewheeling 60's, where baby-boomers became socially aware in the era of Vietnam, a war they percieved to be the construct of irrationale hate, fear, and anger. The hippie movement and protest spirit of the late 60's became the seminal event for a huge number of Americans. For
these people, anger (like hate) was evil and the cause of most the world's ills.

But something very strange has occured in the last few years. The situation is now completely reversed. Today, it is the likes of Michael Moore and liberal actors like Sean Penn who use the most angry, hate filled rhetoric. Let's face it, comparing anyone to Hitler is pretty much THE WORST thing you can say about a person. Internet searches of the phrase "I hate Bush" turn up thousands of sites.

On the conservative side, well sure, there are still angry bigots in this world. But mainstream
conservative leaders such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly preach messages of empowerment, and self reliance. When they look at the social problems America faces, they don't point their fingers at any individual or group. Instead, they criticize a way of thinking that
places too much reliance on the government, and they reject the notion that certain segments of society cannot achieve their dreams without help. I personally find this a powerful, uplifting message.

So what's happened to cause this reversal in attitudes? I believe there are many reasons for this. Part of it, I'm sure, is certainly frustration on the part of the liberal left that conservative ideas have proven so successful in the last 20 years. Or, perhaps more precisely, that liberal ideas such as racial quotas and the welfare state have proven so disastrous. Classic bread and butter issues such as women's rights and racial equality are no longer relevant today. Liberals today seem to be grasping at straws in an attempt to find issues that define their ideology. In the meantime, their angry rhetoric becomes more shrill and hateful, as if to fill thevoid.

I believe anger is really just a mask for other emotions that lie just below the surface, such as frustration, jealousy and fear. Sure, the "vision" thing is important, and there has been a lot of talk lately about "values" and "optimism". But the anger level of any given candidate, to me, speaks volumes about who they really are.

Yet Another Outrage by E.J. Dionne Jr.

Today's paper's really wasn't too bad from a bias perspective. In fact, it's funny how it swings from day to day. Part of the answer, however, lies in the fact that most of today's stories are syndications from Knight-Ridder and the AP. When they come from the LA Times, the New York Times, or the Seattle Times' own editorial staff, on the other hand, bias city!

So I wasn't even going to blog today because, as I've said before, I'm not going to write just to write. But then I saw the new garbage, I mean piece, "Bush team's 'values', not CIA failures, pushed us into war" by E.J. Dionne Jr., in the Op/Ed page.

Now, I typically don't write about things in the Op/Ed pages (except the "Newspaper's View") because, of course, they're meant to be biased. I focus on bias that SHOULDN'T be there. But just the fact that the Seattle Times would print such a hateful, factless, frankly moronic piece really says more about the Times (and the Editorial Page Manager, Jim Vesely) than it does about Mr. Dionne.

I could honestly believe that Mr. Dionne has spent the last four years on a desert island with statements like "The president was determined to scare the hell out of the country and make the case for war by whatever means necessary". Scare us? Has Mr. Dionne heard of a little thing called September 11th? I, for one, was already scared as hell.

I could go on and on deconstructing Mr. Dionne's arguments and making the case that our very lives are threatened by millions of Islamic fundamentalists. But there is a simple truth that resonates louder than all the E.J. Dionne Jr., Michael Moore, Democratic Underground, liberal media garbage that fills the political landscape: On September 11, 2001, 3,000 Americans died as a result of an attack by Islamic fundamentalists. Because of George Bush's leadership, there has not been a subsequent attack on US soil. This is irrefutable.

And specifically, it isn't the CIA or the Department of Homeland Defense that is keeping us safe. It is because after watching the demise of the Taliban, Al Quada and Saddam Hussein, George Bush has been able to "scare the hell out of" terrorists.

Intelligence Failure Took Us To War?

This is my third entry today, and I need to make it short because I really do have a life besides this blog. But I finally just turned to the Op/Ed page and it would be a severe dereliction of duty on my part if I did not note this outrageous bias on the part of the Seattle Times.

I just wrote and fired off this letter to the Times:

Dear Seattle Times:

In the "Newspaper's View" section we have the piece "The Intelligence Gaps That Took Us to War". The title says it all. The Times is apparently outraged about the "intelligence failure that took us to war".

I neither have the time nor the space to list all the reasons we went to war, but suffice to say Iraq's WMD's were only a PART of the overall case. The Seattle Times would have us believe this was the ONLY reason.

Does the Times REALLY believe that Saddam might have tried to nuke us if he had a bomb? I don't. His WMD's were the LEAST important reason for going to war for me. It was his support (financially and in other ways) of terror organizations around the world that scared me the most. THAT was the compelling reason for me. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner
Camano Island, WA

Bush Just Can't Catch a Break

On page A9 of today's paper, we have the story, "Bush Defends US Decision to Invade Iraq". It's the usual stuff, talking about the "Senate report debunking White House justifications for attacking Saddam Hussein's government". It also states "Three days ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee said the administration's belief that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons was wrong, based on false or overstated CIA analyses".

What got my attention, though (and prompted me to write this), was something near the end of the piece. Apparently, Bush recently spoke about his success in motivating Libya's Gadhafi to dismantle his nuclear weapons program. However, the Times states "Many specialists say the decision grew out of diplomacy with the United States and Britain that began during the 1990's when Bill Clinton was president".

So wait a minute, Bush is being blamed for intelligence Clinton had also relied upon and is taking the blame for a CIA director Clinton appointed. Yet, the Seattle Times is suggesting the success in Libya is a result of work Clinton started. Go figure.

Bush Attempts to Postpone Elections

Today we have a text-book example of how the Seattle Times shades the news. I'm referring to the story on page A4, "November Elections Not Likely to be Postponed". Apparently, the Election Assistance Commission (a federal advisory office) advised the Homeland Security Department that no government body has the power to postpone elections. This comes after concerns from the Department of Homeland Defense that Al Quada very well may try to disrupt our elections in November.

But, the second paragraph begins, "Congress could postpone a federal election, but only by passing a law to do so, while the Bush administration has no legal authority to act on it's own". Don't they mean the "President's" administration? It's subtle, I'll grant you, but the sentence should have generically referred to the President's administration, not specifically to Bush. The implication here is that Bush was interested in postponing the elections, while in reality, Bush personally had nothing to do with any of this. In fact, Bush has been emphatic that elections would go on no matter what.

And then, in come the Democrats, to save the day. The Times quotes Nancy Pelosi, "We should be an example for democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections as scheduled". Drat! Bush foiled again!

Close-Up Section: An Accurate Portrait of Bush

I spend an awful lot of time ripping the Seattle Times, so I want to give credit where credit is due. Today's Close-Up section on page A3 (which I have frequently complained is more like an editorial page) features a story about Bush's political evolution and his deep religious faith. Though it's not what I would call a glowing piece, it is certainly accurate and fair. I know many on the left believe Bush's faith and strong moral convictions are a negative trait, and I know for a fact that this is the foundation for much of the hate directed towards Bush. In other words, this piece will likely reinforce the hate many already feel. I, on the other hand, believe Bush's faith is an asset and the source of his strength.

The rest of the paper, however, is business as usual. We get more stories about how Bush's presidency is in trouble because of Iraq. On page A3, the story, "Conservative Republicans express concern over Iraq war" states, "Conservatives, the backbone of Bush's political base are increasingly uneasy about the Iraq conflict and the steady drumbeat of violence in post-war Iraq." It seems to me, the only "drumbeat" is the Seattle Times using bad news in Iraq to attack Bush.

And, of course, we get more Kerry fluff stories like the piece on page A4, "Kerry courting conservative vote". Now that's news, a candidate trying to attract voters from the opposing party. Normally, candidates prefer that members of the opposing party not vote for them.

Bush Not Expected to Resign From Office

I had a reader E-mail me and suggest that the bias I see in the Seattle Times might just simply be the way things are in the world. What I perceive as bias might just be the news, and right now most of the news is not good for Bush.

I agree that things could be better in Iraq, but I have never criticized the Times for simply covering a story. It is HOW they cover the story that frequently angers me.

But, there are on occasions, those stories that I DO object to being published at all. Case in point, on page A8 today, we have the story "Bush Not Expected to Dump Cheney". What in the world is the point of this story? There are a great number of things Bush is not expected to do (walk on the moon, become Secretary General of the UN, etc.).

The ONLY point of this story is to try and convey that the Bush campaign is in trouble (which it is not), and yet again criticize Cheney (as the Times did last Monday when "Fahrenheit 9/11" was referenced in a story on Cheney). The piece is filled with statements like "Detractors (who are they, Democrats?)say his political liabilities have reached the point where Bush should toss him overboard".

This story is NOTHING more than an excuse for the Seattle Times to hammer away at the Bush campaign. By repeating these messages over and over again, the Times hopes to persuade readers. It contains absolutely no news. This story is very much the exact opposite of the fluff pieces the Times has been running every day about Kerry's campaign. Both types of stories contain no real news. They are simply political ads, both for and against.

These stories have truly gotten out of hand. I invite any reader of mine who doubts this to take a look at the A sections from the last week and make up their own mind.

Oh, the Hypocrisy...

On page A4 of Friday's Seattle Times there is a story "Ridge Warns Nation of Impending Attack" in which the Department of Homeland Defense Warns of possible upcoming attacks on US Soil. A story like this clearly deserves to be on the front page as it deals with our very safety. But, if you, like me, have been reading the Times for a while, you have become used to the Times downplaying our war on terror. This time they do it by suggesting that this warning is a political ploy. The third paragraph starts "The Warning caused some skeptics (who?) to ask whether it was politically motivated to help President Bush's re-election chance". WHERE THE HECK DID THIS COME FROM? This IS NOT a political story, nor an Op/Ed piece. It's a warning! The fact that they are, in a sense, dismissing this terror-warning as a political stunt shows a flagrant disregard for our safety.

But, oh, the hypocrisy. Today we get a huge front-page, above the fold, headline "Airport-security system in US riddled with failures". Now this apparent paradox in story prioritization would make no sense unless one understood the mentality of the Seattle Times. I mean, who really cares about Airport security if the war on terror is all made-up anyway, right?

Of course, the answer to the riddle is that the Seattle Times hopes to discredit the Office of Homeland Security with this story, and by association, discredit Bush. It is ironic that it is the Seattle Times who is "politically motivated".

I just started reading today's Sunday paper so there is, no doubt, more blogging on the way today. Stay tuned...

Shame...Shame...Shame...on the Seattle Times

I wrote this letter today to the Seattle Times:

Dear Seattle Times:

I haven't written you in a few days because I started this blog to document bias at the Seattle Times:

http://www.libseattletimes.blogspot.com/

This has been a good outlet for my frustration with your paper. But today's Seattle Times is simply so biased, I just had to write. There are so many items, I don't know where to begin. I can put it this way, however, it's almost easier to list the stories that are not anti-Bush (or pro-Kerry) in the A section today, than it is to list the Bush-bashing stories. The worst of these was the ridiculous piece about Bush undermining science for politics.

Perhaps part of the reason people are so divided (as you point out in the piece on page A7) is because conservatives, like myself, are extremely frustrated by liberal news organizations distorting the political landscape. One example of this (and there are MANY) includes the line in today's front-page story on the Patriot Act, "With President Bush's approval rating slipping as a result of setbacks in the Iraq war, lawmakers in both parties appear emboldened to defy the White House and the House GOP leadership". It's interesting the way the Times just slides that part in about Bush's approval slipping because of Iraq, like this is a widely held belief. To me, this is the most insidious kind of bias because I don't believe the authors are purposely trying to shade the story, this is just the way they see the world.

Here is something I would LOVE to see. Wednesday, you did FOUR stories in the A section about Kerry's choice of Edwards as running mate. Yesterday, there was that important story about Kerry's belief that the two posses better hair than the Republican incumbents. Am I joking? Not really, there was nothing to that story other than perhaps polls that show Democrats think the choice of Edwards is "excellent" or "good". Today, we get yet another fluff piece about the campaign of Kerry and Edwards on page A7. Monday, when you discussed Cheney's strengths and weaknesses, you brought up Halliburton and "Fahrenheit 9/11", as if that piece of propaganda is a reputable news source.

How about a nice, non-hit piece, on the campaign of Bush and Cheney? Is that even possible for the Seattle Times to do? All I'm asking is something like these fluff pieces you are doing on Kerry/Edwards. Please consider it. If you are truly a fair and balanced news organization (as you claim to be), you owe it to the Bush campaign.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner
Camano Island, WA

Seattle Times: Edwards is a Good Choice! You Don't Say?

As I stated yesterday, the Seattle Times is beside itself with glee over the choice of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate. After a total of six stories yesterday dealing with Kerry's choice for Veep, we have the positively pointless story on page A4, "Kerry, Edwards Celebrate Values, Ambitions". After reading through the entire piece, the ONLY new thing I learned is that the two believe they posses better hair than the Republican incumbants.

I am truly only half joking here, folks. This fluff piece seems to only convey the fact that both men are extremely pleased with one another. Oh, and that polls show that most Democrats think Kerry's choice was "excellent" or "good".

And then, as if we really needed to be told this, on the Op/Ed pages the Seattle Times states that they believe "John Edwards is a good choice" for Vice President. This appears in their "The Newspaper's View" section.

This is one of those times when little interpretation is necessary, the bias speaks for itself.

Evil Bush Operatives Out to Get Edwards

The Seattle Times is clearly excited about the choice of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate. How do I know? Well, first, it's noteworthy that there are FOUR stories (including the front-page headline AND the full-page Close-Up section) dealing with this in the A section, as well as two pieces in the Op/Ed section. One thing I have learned about the Seattle Times (which is probably true for all newspapers) is that by simply noting the number of stories on any given topic, you can pretty much tell what the Times wishes to emphasize, and what it wishes to hide. Or, it's perhaps more accurate to say that the number of stories reflects the importance the Seattle Times places on any given story. Abu Ghraib? Tons of stories. Sarin gas or Americans beheaded? Minimal stories.

Second, the stories themselves are very telling. When the Times reported on Vice President Cheney's strengths and weaknesses with regard to the upcomming elections (in Monday's paper), they trotted out his connections to Halliburton and made reference to "Fahrenheit 9/11", a factually inaccurate piece of propaganda. In today's stories dealing with Edwards, are there any quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any other popular right-wing pundit? No. Instead, when the Times did try and (lamely) present potential Edwards weaknesses, they used murky, non-specific sources like "Republican Operatives", the "Republican National Committee" and the "Bush Campaign". This was particularly true in the piece "GOP Welcomes Edwards-with a Blast" in which Edwards' critics are made to sound sneaky and devious. Near the end, we read "Taking the high road as his political operatives tried to undercut Edwards, Bush politely welcomed the senator...".

So, let me get this straight, Bush's (evil) operatives go around "undercutting" Edwards, while apparently "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a perfectly good reference source when discussing Vice President Cheney. Hmmm...

Those Poor Terrorists....

Today was "Sympathy for Terrorists Day" at the Seattle Times. There were three stories in the A section dealing with the lives of Guantanamo Bay detainees and Iraqi suicide bombers.

The worst of the three was the "Close-Up" piece on page A3. The relatively new "Close-Up" page has more and more begun to resemble an Op/Ed page, rather than an objective, in-depth news forum. Today, the Times looked at the detainees and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. The first thing I noticed in reading the piece is how the Times glosses over the crimes committed by these terrorists. The only reference to crimes is the nebulas assertion that they are "accused of links to the fallen Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terrorist network". This makes it sound like perhaps Osama bin Laden's barber may be detained. I hate to always go back to Abu Graihb, but the Times never failed to detail the terrible acts committed by US soldiers. In a piece this size, one would expect a more detailed description of who these people really are and what they did.

And speaking of Abu Ghraib, the Times doesn't miss an opportunity for a cheap shot. About halfway through the piece, we get the sentence "Before moving this spring to the Abu Ghraib prison, the US-run prison in Iraq where some troops are accused of abusing detainees, Guantanamo center's former commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller...".
Is there any point in reminding us what went on in Abu Ghraib? Well, yes, because clearly the Times is attempting to make connections between Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Apparently, the Times believes conditions are very bad at Guantanamo: "twenty-one detainees have tried to kill themselves in 34 incidents" and "...other groups contend prolonged detention has harmed detainees' mental health...the result of harsh interrogation techniques". Boo-hoo. And it is so unnecessary, the Times believes, because "few detainees at Guantanamo still retain any value as sources of intelligence about terrorist activities".

It amazes me that liberals in one breath complain that Bush did not do enough to stop the attacks on 9/11, yet in the next breath they complain about the status of the terrorists in Guantanamo, that the Patriot Act goes too far, and they whine every time a terror warning is issued by the administration. As I've said before, there is NOTHING Bush can do to satisfy them or quell their hate.

Michael Moore Should Pay Kick-Backs to the Times

The Seattle Times was in rare form today. Page A3's Close-Up section can be called nothing less than a full-page advertisement for "Fahrenheit 9/11". The Seattle Times is determined to keep the "buzz" going about this movie as long as it possibly can.

I was encouraged at first by the title, "Analyzing 'Fahrenheit 9/11': It's accurate - to a degree". Good, I thought, a news organization taking Moore's assertions to task. But as I read through the story, I was soon very disappointed. First, nowhere in the piece does the Times actually say anything like "this claim of Moore's is false". Instead, the piece seems to try and discredit the criticisms the political right and news organizations like Newsweek have leveled against the film. For instance, the last paragraph of the section dealing with Saudi flights after the 9/11 attacks says "Despite some media reports, the movie doesn't allege that the Saudis were allowed to leave while U.S. airspace was still closed." The entire piece seems more concerned with defending Michael Moore's assertions, rather than an objective analysis of the key points of the film.

Then on page A5, we have a story called "Cheney is asset, liability on GOP balance sheet". Deep in the story, we get the line "Cheney's defense of his ties to Halliburton, the energy firm he headed and that is the biggest beneficiary of U.S.-funded contracts in Iraq, gets a close-up in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'."

Referencing "Fahrenheit 9/11" (like it's a news source) in a story about our Vice President, to me, is the height of biased journalism. It is crystal clear what this movie means to the Seattle Times. Like "Abu Graihb" appearing in virtually every Iraq story, we must now endure "Fahrenheit 9/11" appearing in political news. As I said in my title, the Times should really get some kind of kick-back from Moore.

Marines, not Iraqis, Toppled Saddam Statue. Well, Duh.

In a story right out of a Michael Moore, conspiracy nut web site, we find on page A8 of today's Sunday Seattle Times a story about how the now famous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein was engineered not by the Iraqi people but by one of the Army's PSYOP (psychological operations) units and carried out by the Marines. Why is this a surprise or even news? I remember clearly that it was the Marines who pulled the damn thing down with a tank.

This is one of those stories that, by merely reporting it in such a manner, they are suggesting a cover-up or at the very least some type of impropriety on the part of the administration. The Seattle Times seems to be suggesting that the poor Iraqis really wanted their precious statue to remain standing. Americans MUST have been misled in some way. Bush clearly lied about something.

I can (almost) imagine the Times doing a story about how the President travels around in a huge 747 jet. The story would talk about how the jet is much larger and more lavish than one man could possibly need. I can then imagine liberals acting outraged, believing all this time Air Force One was a single-engine Cessna. He lied! Bush lied.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

My 1 reader(my mother) may have noticed that I didn't write anything yesterday. I read through the Times and nothing jumped out at me as particularly interesting or offensive and I'm not going to write just to write. But, a new day brings new bias.

A letter of mine appears in the OPINION page (section C) of today's Sunday Seattle Times. It is always a small victory when conservative voices are heard in the letters-to-the-editor. Here is my letter as it appears:

Iraq unfettered
Left unreconciled

In reading Daniel Chirot's piece "Keys to the Kingdom" (guest commentary, June 27), I'm struck by what a difference just a few months make. It seems like only yesterday that the rallying cries from the left were "No Blood For Oil", "Leave Iraq Now", "The Iraqis Don't Want Us", and endless criticismisms that the Bush administration invaded Iraq simply to exploit it's oil riches. On the domestic front, the left criticized Bush for a sour economy and a lack of jobs.

And, low and behold, these two issues were solved. We ARE leaving Iraq to the Iraqis and the economy is roaring back with plenty of jobs. You would think the left would be pleased. Well, of course not. Now, apparently
according Mr. Chirot, Bush is leaving Iraq too soon and the new jobs created are not "good" jobs. There seems to be no winning.

I expect the Seattle Times to be critical of Bush. It would be nice, however, if the criticism was consistant.

Nicholas Tanner, Camano Island

Sarin Gas II

The first time the Seattle Times reported on the discovery of sarin gas, the front-page, below the fold headline was "Gas Discovered May Be Sarin". One week later the gas was indeed confirmed as sarin in a small item hidden in the Iraq Digest section of the paper.

This time around, apparently the discovery of new WMD's doesn't even rate the front page. In fact, it's a small story on page A19 of today's paper. The Times also does all it can in the text to minimize the story. The second paragraph starts "The shells, which date from before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, were undergoing further testing because initial tests can be misleading". I love the part about being dated before 1990. I believe the Times added this to minimize their importance in that they were manufactured before the post-Gulf War UN resolutions banning WMD's (as if their manufacture date has ANY relevance whatsoever).

Like the first sarin gas story, if the Seattle Times even actually bothers to confirm that the gas is sarin, it will again likely be some time later and hidden.

I still routinely read liberals complaining that no WMD's have been found in Iraq. Apparently, shells filled with sarin are not good enough. But, this sarin issue IS HUGE for both political reasons and most importantly, for the safety of our troops. Hiding it on page A19 demonstrates, more than most other recent examples, the profound liberal bias of the Seattle Times.

Cheap Shots

"Michael Moore's record certainly didn't last long. The Associated Press reports that the new documentary 'Spider-Man 2' took in $40.5 million in its first day"
- WSJ Online

I just love that, I had to throw that in.

One of the things the Seattle Times does that really erks me and helped get me started on this whole bias crusade in the first place is their use of what I call cheap shots. Let me give you an example: when Donald Rumsfeld visited the troops in Iraq there was a line "soldiers took pictures of Rumsfeld with digital cameras, similar to the type used by soldiers to take degrading pictures of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison". Oh, THOSE kind of digital cameras. Thank you Seattle Times, I wouldn't have known which kind of cameras they had used had you not given me this key detail.

The thing about cheap shots, like this one, are that they are very difficult to label with absolute certainty as media bias. It's a subjective matter. They aren't "lying" when they remind us about Abu Ghraib. They aren't even distorting the truth. But the Times CONSTANTLY employs this technique and I contend this does, indeed, qualify as bias.

These cheap shots are brought into sharp relief when you see a story like today's front page piece on Sadam's "arraignment". While we had to endure endless graphic descriptions of the deeds performed at Abu Ghraib, Sadam's bloodless sounding crimes include "ordering mass killings and other atrocities while he ruled...". What other atrocities? Jaywalking?

To me, this is kind of like the opposite of a cheap shot. Again, there is no lying here, or distorting of the truth and I'll bet most liberals would argue there is no bias here at all. But it seems to me in a story about charges being brought against him by the Iraqi people, wouldn't a more descriptive and graphic recounting of his offenses be appropriate?

Do I Hate Clinton?

In Matthew Miller's Op/Ed piece today "A Better Way to Think About the Clinton Presidency", he says "...many right-wingers have leapt to pummel the former president on his book tour, those of us not blinded by hate, ideology and a lust for power should at least pitch in with a rebuttal." Blinded by hate? Lust for power?

I don't hate Clinton and I have never heard any of my conservative friends say they hate Clinton. I don't respect Clinton, but I don't hate him and I'll bet that's the feeling of many conservatives like myself. Frankly, Clinton seems like a real nice guy. What's there to hate?

But, if I had a dollar for every time I have heard or read (especially on the Internet) "I hate Bush", boy oh boy, look out Bill Gates! Talk about calling the Kettle black. And as far as a lust for power, look no further than John Kerry and his "what's bad for the country, is good for me" campaign positions on the economy and Iraq. This is truly the ugly product of a lust for power.

The Seattle Times and Sadam's Trial

As of late, one gets the impression the Seattle Times is struggling with what they see as two contradictory issues. On one hand, there is overwhelming, widespread support for the prosecution of Sadam Hussein by the Iraqi people. Clearly, hatred for Hussein is still fresh in the minds of Iraqis. And yet, on the other hand, we are told time and time again by the liberal media that the Iraqi people regret the war and resent our occupation. Yesterday's front page story on basic services might lead many readers to believe Iraqis would prefer to have things the way they were before the war.

This contradiction is clear in today's front page story "Wide Iraqi Support for Saddam's Trial". The story states that Iraqis are relieved that the trial of Hussein is moving forward and there seems to be a consensus regarding his being guilty of genocide and murder. Yet, by the fourth paragraph, the Seattle Times reminds us all (in case we've forgoten) that Iraq is "facing ethnic and religious division, a bloody insurgency and discontent over the pace of reconstruction". In the same manner the Times brought up Abu Ghraib in EVERY story even remotely related to Iraq, we now see that the Times will do the same with what they see as "turmoil" in Iraq. As I stated yesterday, Democrats see the problems in Iraq as the key to victory in Novemeber.

When Sadam Hussein's trial begins it will be interesting to see how the media, including the Seattle Times, covers the event. The trial will be full of reports of autrocities committed by Hussein that should remind a bunch of folks why we went to war in Iraq in the fiirst place (the REAL reasons why, not the Micheal Moore, to-make-Haliburton-rich reasons). The Times, of course, will view this as support for Bush's Iraq policy and the war on terror. I predict the Seattle Times will try and keep Sadam's autrocities off the front page.