Ohhh, the media...

Direct quote from Neal Boortz website...

THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE INTERVIEW?

I heard a TV news anchor this morning questioning a Republican Congressman Robin Hayes about the president's speech and our efforts in Iraq. Here are some of the questions the anchor asked Hayes:

"One of our listeners wrote to say that Bush should really be making this speech at Arlington National Cemetery, Not at Fort Bragg. Was it appropriate for President Bush to speak there?"

What? Did a journalist actually ask a politician whether or not it was appropriate for the President of the United States to make a speech about a war before the very people who are fighting that war? The very people who are expected to put their lives on the line in that war? Did I really hear that?

"Isn't he in part using Ft. Bragg as an appropriate backdrop to cheerlead the war in Iraq?"

Oh ... Arlington National Cemetery wouldn't be a backdrop? And stating the reasons we're at war is "cheerleading?" "Gimme a W! Gimme an A! Gimme an R!" Gimme a break.

"President Bush in his speech said that we're there to fight terrorists, but he failed to explain how a war to remove a dictator who was bent on using nuclear weapons has turned into a fight against Muslim militants. Doesn't he owe us an explanation?"

It's been explained, over and over again. That dictator was, himself, a Muslim militant with access to massive destructive power. Doesn't a news anchor owe us a little more intellectual diligence?

"But there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to Al Qaeda."

Sorry ... factually wrong. That evidence does exist. The 911 Commission itself reported on efforts by Saddam Hussein to make contact with Al Qaeda for the purpose of providing support and training. At least Congressman Hayes had the guts to say "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken."

"I know of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, and also there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Wrong, Wrong. Wrong. How can she say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What in the hell did Saddam use to gas hundreds of thousands of his own people? Cheese Whiz? What about those implements used in the creation of nuclear weapons that were found buried in the back yard of one of Saddam's nuclear scientists? That's not evidence found in Iraq? What about the artillery shells containing sarin gas? That's not evidence? What about the documents detailing Saddam's weapons program? Not evidence? What about the statements from Saddam's scientists that they were ready to reinstitute their weapons program the very moment that UN sanctions were lifted and the inspectors were gone. Not evidence?

It was an amazing segment. Both a Republican and Democratic congressman were interviewed in this segment, but the argumentative interview style was saved for the Republican. The Democrats was not challenged .. not once. Remember, though ... there is no bias in the media.