Liberal bias gone rampant
Recently, two columns printed in The Oracle presented a completely biased liberal viewpoint. As members of the greatest nation on the planet, they are entitled to do so; however, it is only fair that a conservative viewpoint be provided so that both sides can share equally in the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
In a June 3 column, a writer attempts to make the case that the war against terrorism is essentially a war for oil, a popular liberal rallying cry that is not being reported because “the media is largely Republican-owned and operated.” The media is largely Republican owned and operated? You must be kidding! With the exception of the FOX News Channel, which claims to be “fair and balanced” but is in fact largely conservative, please name one major media outlet that is not a liberal, John Kerry drum machine? CNN? No. CNBC? Nope, no way. The Washington Post? Hardly. The New York Times? Give me a break.
The fact is that media organizations in the country are far and away liberal. And to insinuate that they are not covering the war on terrorism? Do you even watch the news? They are there everyday. Hours are dedicated to what is going on in Iraq. And way too many hours are focused on the prison photos from Abu Ghraib prison.
That same column continued with a quote from an organization called FOIL and said “We must wean America off foreign oil.” This is a great idea; in fact, President George W. Bush said the very thing in a recent speech. He seems to agree with the folks at FOIL. So, where is the problem there? How about the fact that the environmental extremists fight against drilling for oil in this country because it could damage the environment?
In a separate column, another writer touts the virtues of the new- and-improved John Kerry. He goes so far as to suggest that Kerry will be losing media attention because his campaign has not raised as much money as President Bush. While he may not have as much cash as Bush, Kerry does not need to worry about a lack of media attention. They are his biggest supporters. And this may come as news to some of you, but both candidates will receive $75 million after their respective parties in their bids nominate them for the Oval Office. So, money should not be an issue either.
According to that same column, the president has “ignored” advisers while Kerry “has shown in practice (by being on a panel) how he plans to listen to experts and take their advice seriously once he takes office.” This is just ludicrous. If the president has ‘ignored” advisers, what was Colin Powell doing at the United Nations laying out the proof of the WMDs in Iraq? And yes, Sarin gas or any other nerve agent is considered a weapon of mass destruction. Why does he consult the CIA on a near daily basis? This is ignoring his advisers?
While he may not have done everything everyone advised him to do, he is after all the president and the final decision is ultimately his. Besides, it seems, according to Richard Clark’s testimony that former President Bill Clinton did not listen to him either. What does that say about Clark’s expertise?
And the only thing Kerry has proven by being on any panel in central Florida in an election year is that he is campaigning for the presidency of the United States, and he knows his party lost Florida in the last election.
The writer also refers to President Bush as “the self-proclaimed ‘war president,'” and that he “is not willing to acknowledge any mistakes he made — let alone take any blame — …”
The fact is, we are at war and Bush is a “war president” despite what the Kerry camp would have us all think.
Michael D. Holt is a junior majoring in History and Political Science email@example.com