Where exactly was the "liberal media" in the early part of the Iraq War?

Look at where all liberals were at the beginning, and before the war *fLiP FlOp*:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - NANCY PELOSI 1998

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." - BILL CLINTON 1998

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." - HARRY REID 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - EDWARD KENNEDY

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... - HILLARY CLINTON 2002

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

And now they say Bush lied??????

?? Well, I provide you this, you researched your query. So I definately admire you for going via the situation. And I checked for accuracy (on a few of it, now not all) too. Good process!! I have a pair problems with this although. a million. You are evaluating apples and oranges. Each conflict is unique. Our WWII losses might have doubled if we did not drop the bombs. Should we don't forget doing that now, as Nixon it sounds as if did throughout Vietnam? two. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Was that the tip of the conflict? Technically, we aren't in a conflict correct now. Maybe that's why the dems are disappointed. What is the assignment in Iraq? First it was once WMD's. Then whilst that grew to become out to be a bald-confronted lie, we shifted to "is not it bigger now that Saddam is not in energy?". After that, it was once "we ought to furnish steadiness till a central authority is shaped". All that has been performed. So, what is subsequent? What is the assignment? Oh, now we need to wait till the Iraqi navy is as much as assignment. BTW, take into account how Rumsfield demanded that the Iraq navy be disbanded? Would it now not were bigger to maintain them in provider? three. Have you requested the mamma and papa of #two,582 for your stat sheet approximately how they think? You are lacking the complete factor of the talk by means of targeting "deaths", and displaying us that it's not quite that dangerous. The factor is, we're caught, similar to Vietnam and Korea. When are the troops coming house? We nonetheless maintain 30,000 plus (I believe, think unfastened to right me if I'm improper) in South Korea. But our troops in Korea are not demise. Iraq troops are. And, the democrats ask, WHY? It has not anything to do with demise charges, however why we're over there, what's the assignment?

First of all, Hitchens is not a liberal. He is still for the war as he opposes all religions so in his eyes, we are fighting Islam.

Secondly, the media is not liberal. It is more conservative than liberal. Unfortunately, because of the retards at Fox News and their loyal red necks and subscribe to their BS everyone now labels anything that isn't super right wing, retarded, conservative, christian, racist, homophobic, etc.....as liberal. So, if you don't hate gay people with everything in your heart....you're left winger in their eyes. These people are the garbage of this country and have been the only reason our country is so divided now.

The truth is this. "Liberal" media reports the truth. Hate it or love it. It's the truth. Fox News and the other morons report just the parts of the news they like and then fill in the gaps with their opinions and propaganda all disguised as legitimate news. Fox News is not a news station. It's an entertainment station. The Daily Show has more credibility than Fox.

Classic - "Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"

(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

The American people will solute to whatever the professional opinion makers throw up the flagpole. The media was complicit in denying the full story. This happens anywhere after a country is attacked. It's was so easy for right wing hardliners to take the helm after 9/11. Now we are getting to the truth and we'll get our country back.

Our media is, in fact, a conservative bunch. The whole liberal media thing is a hoax spread by the right. The media is owned by major corporations whose first motive is profit. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS by Westinghouse, NBC by General Electric. None of these companies put news as a priority...and why would they...they are huge multinational companies whose decisions are driven by profit. It was not profitable before the war to ask questions and scrutinize the administration. Any network that did that would have been called 'traitor' and a mass boycott by the war supporters would have ensued. That, is NOT good for business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAXtLgMedyI

The behavior of the American media would make Joseph Goebbels proud. There is no liberal media.

The Liberal Media myth is a propaganda tool employed by conservative radio hosts, columnists and pundits as a convenient excuse why after 20 years their ideology has failed to convince the public at large, and as a memetic inocculation of the public against the evidence that the media bias is in fact a conservative one.

Not only does the liberal media claim have no basis in fact, it also does not make sense considering the issues of media ownership and influence of advertisers. Most media outlets are owned by a handful of conservative corporations and individuals, and funded by usually economically conservative advertisers who have no need for an educated, alert, independent and critical citizenry. What they need is a dumb, bored, cynical and apathetic public that has abandoned all critical faculties and is easily distracted by celebrity gossip and mindless sports games. A public that will believe anything it is told, or nothing at all, which amounts to the same end result. This pro-corporate conservative bias of the media is well-documented and shows itself in consistent under-reporting or ignoring of any information that would lead people to question the fundamental status quo.

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.h...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

The liberal media had no reason to doubt its information then. Only when the promise of a quick and victorious war seemed less likely did the media change its tune. The report on no WMD was quite the turning point as well.

Don't forget that even the real (fake) so-called NPR (National Petroleum Radio) never presented a dissenting view of the war in the beginning.

At the start of the war, they were "embedded" with the troops.... and the news was PRAISING the conduct of the troops and our level of humanitarian aid.

The day they stopped being embedded "journalists"... the newsroom editors decided to attack our troops and talk about the "tens of thousands" of innocent civilians WE are "killing".... the number of OUR soldiers (aka the "real terrorists") being "needlessly slaughtered like Casey Sheehan".

As soon as the Libs got back to the comfort of their little secluded bubble..... the liberal bias returned WITH A VENGENCE to our "free press".

You see, most liberals were on board in the beginning. It was not normal for liberals to be against the war then. They just changed their minds and acted like they were against it the whole time. If a liberal was able to admit when he was wrong he would be admitting it all the time.