How can anything that anyone says not be biased? Anytime anyone is speaking about the reason for something, they have to impose some of their beliefs into their speech. Especially politics is all about biase.

The BIG problem today, is more severe then biase. It is the constant portrait being painted of those in the administration who either don't want to hear contrarian points of view, or worse, want to cause damage to anyone who would propose alternative points of view, so they can discourage others from coming forward.

Personally, I still am not convinced about George Bush. I'm not convinced he is really a leader who is making decisions based on enough information, or if he has insulated himself, and is making decisions based on a very small subset of available knowledge.

For example (An analysis of one of Bush's more recent speeches):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/12/01/BL2005120100736.html?referrer=email

I holeheartedly agree with the points made, that the speech makes no attempts to address reports coming from Iraq describing torture, events that could be construed as events that could lead to civil war, and other more big picture events.

As someone stated previously about working with Bush, that he has little international knowledge, and really doesn't want to increase his knowledge. The world is a big place these days.



>>"Quick: Name one thing the old continental European powers have done to help stabilize Iraq."
>>
>>First the US goes in alone (or with the so-called "coallition"), despite the opposition of just the rest of the world, then when it's broken, what? Single out Europe for not wanting to go in and take a part of the blame? And that's the example this guy pulls to make his point?
>>
>>Biased, if I ever saw one.
>
>Of course he's biased. I would posit that all writers are biased, to some degree. Journalists too, although the better ones hide it well.
>
>That aside, the article is about much more than the Iraq war.