Explain, please, how the public was duped into supporting the invasion of Iraq, if the media is so liberal.

Illustrate please, which of the so-called liberal media gave front page or prime-time coverage - and follow-up - to informed analysis, which was available by mid-'02, exposing the patently phony Niger yellowcake claims.

Recall, please, how the mainstream media endlessly repeated the bogus aluminum tubes story, the pathetic drones story, the 45-minute story, and all the rest of it, in breathless, screaming headlines, and hard-hitting reportage from Wolf Blitzer and all the rest of the adminstration shills who were working overtime to scare the public out of its collective wits about the clear and present danger posed by Iraq.

Where's the demand for accountability for Pres. Bush's lack of action on 9/11? Where are the hard-hitting questions about the failure by NORAD to scramble against the highjacked jetliners in accordance with established procedures?

Where's the sense of outrage that the indestructable black boxes on the suicide jets could not survive the WTC implosion, but Mohammed Atta's passport could.? Not in the mainstream American media.

Where's the coverage of 911 widow Ellen Mariani's recently filed lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al?

If the media were liberal, it would going after Bush and his neocon cronies on several fronts, but instead, by contrast, note how the phantom WMD's have dropped from the news like those flies you imagine you're swatting.

Where's the coverage and follow-up on the story of the bogus Osama tape, which you keep dodging, as well?

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating," Cervantes noted. The proof of right-wing media bias resides in the coverage, or the lack of it.

So keep swatting those flies, but watch out where you step. The flies may be imaginary, the BS is not.

The mighty Wurlitzer runs on it.

S