bias anyone?

Uncategorized Add comments

President Bush gave a major speech at the United Nations today.

He said a lot of things, very important things.

The top reuters article limits its coverage to a minor point.

The full paragraphs of his point on the matter are a little more balanced:

This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The longsuffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state.

Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace. Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations. And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.

But, I guess as we’ve learned over the last couple of weeks, the media is better at portraying its peculiar bent than actually reporting the news.

By the by, I used the foxnews.com link for the speech because no other place I found had the complete text. Fair and balanced is oftentimes gained by letting people speak for themselves. Reuters needs to learn that.

Good speech overall. Hard to argue with. We’ll see if it has any results. Should Bush get more UN involvement this campaign season really is over. Like I’ve said so many times before, Bush is hard to run against because he will take all his opponents good ideas and put them into practice.

How do you argue with someone who is already doing everything you say should be done?

— a sidenote on that last link. The first paragraph states that the ‘mission was not accomplished’. The second paragraph states that the military performed brilliantly in accomplishing the ‘first’ mission in Iraq. Isn’t that exactly Bush’s point on the matter?

Comments are closed.