Exposing the Liberal Media Game

Back to the Government-Media Page

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wayne Allyn Root
Saturday, April 5, 2003

My name is Wayne Allyn Root. I am not your typical conservative Republican – actually, my credentials sound quite liberal. I am a Jewish New Yorker and an Ivy League graduate (from Columbia University, one of America's most liberal institutions of higher learning). I am an author, TV host and CEO of a public company.

I have spent the last 15 years on television – as anchorman, host, expert guest, network NFL analyst and star of sports programming on major American TV networks. Some of those shows were network-owned, some were infomercials owned by me or my public company.

Because of this career amongst the media, I've gotten to know and understand the media and their agenda more than most. And the picture is NOT pretty.

I've also been witness to two shocking acts that literally define America's liberal media – a media so radical, so extreme, with an agenda so out of the mainstream and a prejudice against conservative Republicans so strong and so vicious that it borders on outright hate and loathing.

These two acts were so revolting that I kept them to myself (and my close circle of friends) for over two decades. But now that I see the game being played by that same liberal media – out to humiliate and destroy my president at a time of war – I feel the stories must be publicly told.

The first act I witnessed was so despicable that I could not believe it to be true. But it certainly debunks the myth that liberals are compassionate do-gooders out to save the world – somehow better, nicer, fairer to those less fortunate. In reality they possess a hate so strong toward those with opposing viewpoints that it evokes memories of McCarthyism.

The roots of that hate and moral superiority can be summed up in one event I witnessed back in 1981. I was then a college student, a sophomore at Columbia University majoring in political science. My teachers were radical leftists – bordering on socialists. My fellow students were almost to a man extreme liberals.

I was sickened by the political views I heard day and night – views so left-wing they would make Mario Cuomo and George McGovern cringe. These were people who hated America and everything it stood for.

As a student at one of America's finest academic institutions, I was subjected to a nonstop verbal attack on America, its values and even the very idea of God! This was the definition of "education" and "higher learning" at Ivy League institutions (and still is).

But I was naive – a nice butcher's son from a small blue-collar town on the Bronx borderline, I had never met people like this before. I actually laughed and shook my head at their radical, anti-American beliefs.

I actually thought they were misguided but well-meaning people and that none of this was "personal." I wouldn't hold a person's political beliefs against them – surely they felt the same way. I was very wrong.

What I learned at Columbia was that liberals feel morally superior to others. They are on a mission to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, intolerance and inequality. The success America has achieved is a sign of everything these radicals despise – worse, it is living, breathing proof that everything they believe in is wrong.

And so they resent this country, anyone who has achieved success through American values and/or capitalism, and anyone who disagrees with their "morally superior" point of view. Anyone not on board with the same agenda is labeled ignorant, racist, intolerant, greedy, close-minded or dangerous. We as conservatives are "the enemy." I learned that politics is ALWAYS personal to radical liberals – like those teaching and being educated at Columbia University.

Watching Bill Maher's show "Real Time" on HBO the other night, I was reminded that nothing has changed. Radical Hollywood liberal Janeane Garofalo attacked America, the war effort, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, and Southerners – on multiple occasions labeling all of them as "ignorant" – to wild applause from the left-wing Hollywood audience.

Her verbal attacks were never questioned or countered by guests or liberal host Bill Maher. (In the interests of disclosure I must admit that I was a frequent guest on Maher's old show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC.) But let's be honest – who in Hollywood would have the audacity to question a vicious attack against either conservatives or Southerners?

After all, if conservatives don't agree with liberals, it's just fact that our disagreement must be based on "ignorance." What else could possibly explain the fact that our opinion is different?

In the new McCarthy era in Hollywood, there can be no dissent. There is only one truth. Any other viewpoint is just repugnant and out of the "mainstream" (once again, only liberals' definition of "mainstream" is relevant).

One need only look at last week's Academy Awards to understand that sad truth – yes, Michael Moore was booed for his anti-American diatribe. But look who did the booing – only guests in the balcony and stagehands behind the curtain. Moore himself pointed that out on "Real Time."

Hollywood's biggest stars sat frozen in their seats – shocked at the booing and silent to protect their box office appeal. (It was obvious that their agents and managers had warned them before the show that any anti-war views would hurt their gross receipts at the box office.)

But the fact that no other celebrities attacked America viciously and openly is not a sign of Hollywood's moderation, support for the war or diversity of opinion. One need only realize that not one single celebrity thought to thank the troops – not one.

Not one celebrity pointed out that our soldiers were in a faraway land, risking their lives to protect the free speech of war protesters.

Not one celeb was willing to say a prayer for our POWs – even though one celeb had no problem offering a prayer to Allah.

Not one celebrity thought to wear an America flag pin – not one! Only peace pins were worn.

Several celebs either made a quick mention of the importance of free speech (when it serves them, it's precious!) and protest, others asked for prayer and blessings for the Iraqi people, Susan Sarandon flashed a peace sign. But not one thought it politically correct to wish our troops well or to pray for victory.

Not one celeb thought it safe to even mention a prayer for our president. Should anyone be surprised? After all, just the idea of God or prayer itself is taboo in the liberal Hollywood community!

Yes, it should now be obvious for all the world to see that McCarthyism is alive and well in Hollywood – it was clear that night that to dare to support the GOP, support the president, or show actual support for the war would result in damage to your Hollywood career.

I now realize that those are the same intolerant liberals I attended Columbia University with.

But that was mild compared to the event that truly defined my four years at Columbia University. Back in 1981, I was sitting in a political science class taught by extreme leftist professor Esther Fuchs – in a large theater-style classroom seating 100 or more students.

Suddenly our lecture was interrupted by a door swinging open violently – whereupon a breathless fellow student raced into our room screaming: "The president has been shot! They've just assassinated Reagan!"

It hit me like a ton of bricks – I instantly felt sick to my stomach and tears flowed down my cheeks. But it was the response of the rest of the class that I will remember for the rest of my life. They cheered! They clapped, they yelled and whooped in sheer unadulterated joy.

My fellow classmates (the ones I was naively trying so hard to befriend despite their radical views) were HAPPY that my hero President Ronald Reagan might be dead! They were celebrating an assassination attempt on America's president. Simply because he had the audacity to be a Republican. That's how deep liberals’ hatred goes.

That's the dirty little secret the liberals don't want you to know. That despite the fact that they claim to be "compassionate," that they claim to love others less fortunate, that they abhor hate and prejudice, that they protest against any war as inhumane and unjustified – despite all this compassion and goodness, this same liberal elite hates, with a deep, unbridled prejudice, anyone ignorant enough to disagree with their definition of what is "right."

To liberals, that form of hate, that form of prejudice, that form of intolerance toward others with different views is acceptable. It's justified to hate conservatives, to hate Republicans, to hate those who support war, to hate those greedy individuals who actually have the audacity to want to lower taxes (God forbid anyone should think taxes are actually OUR money – how ignorant and selfish!), to hate those so ignorant that they would support the death penalty, or to hate Charlton Heston because he has the gall to want to own a gun.

To liberals, that kind of hate, prejudice and intolerance is justified. Heck, it's encouraged! To want to see "those kind" of people dead is okay – after all, it would make the world a better place!

To liberals, to root for the death of a conservative Republican president is morally right – it's actually "compassionate" because the death of a Reagan (or even worse, George Bush) would make the world a better place, safe from prejudice, racism, inequality, intolerance, corporate greed and pollution.

That day at Columbia University, over 20 years ago, I got physically sick. I ran out of class, the CHEERS of my classmates at the possible death of Ronald Reagan reverberating in the halls behind me. I ran into the bathroom, got on my knees and vomited. I cried and shook violently for what seemed like an eternity.

And I felt sick for America, for the people I had just watched cheer and celebrate the shooting of our president were undoubtedly the future leaders of America. Unfortunately, I was right – 20 years later, as I read my “Columbia College Today” alumni magazine and see updates on the career success of my classmates, I see the names of future Supreme Court justices, of close advisers to presidents (George Stephanopoulos was a classmate), of the best and brightest legal minds in the country (any wonder that lawyers seem to be at the root of most problems in our society?), and mostly what I see are journalists and media executives.

That's right, Columbia's best and brightest often wind up in the media. These are the reporters, anchors, journalists and producers who influence the news we watch and read every day.

The same kind of human beings who protest against a war with Saddam Hussein because innocent civilians will be killed (conveniently ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have already been killed, gassed and tortured by Saddam Hussein for the past 20 years); who join PETA protests and splatter paint on expensive personal property to protest the "murder" of animals – those same compassionate, Ivy League-educated elites cheer for the death of Republican presidents.

I learned over my four years at Columbia that to a liberal, a Republican doesn't have the same value as a terrorist, a poverty-stricken Iraqi peasant or a dead animal turned into a fur coat.

Today, I have no doubt that if George Bush (God forbid) were assassinated, glasses would be raised in toast to his death or demise by many of America's media elite. No, they would not dare cheer out loud – my classmates are now 40 years old, not enthusiastic kids anymore. But they would applaud and celebrate quietly and with "dignity."

Their children, on the other hand – now attending Columbia or Harvard or Princeton – would undoubtedly cheer and whoop loudly and emotionally at the death of an "ignorant" and intolerant opponent. The death of a spotted owl, a rat, a fox or, worst of all, an Iraqi or Palestinian terrorist – those are to be mourned by liberals. But the death of a conservative Republican is a reason for celebration.

So much for the unbiased press. So much for the compassion of liberals. Now, my fellow readers, you have some insight into the true mindset and agenda of America's liberal media. You understand them they way that I do – an insider with a front-row seat for two decades.

And I ask you a simple question: Do you now feel it's possible for a conservative Republican to ever get a fair shake from people who hold the views espoused above? I've known the truth about liberals all these years – now you do too.

It's the reason that every time I watch CNN or Dan Rather (among others) I feel a need to take a shower. But it never helps – nothing can scrub away the echoes of those cheers 20 years ago in that classroom at Columbia University. That was the day I learned the real truth about liberals.

In my last commentary here on NewsMax (see "Exposing the Liberal Media Game – Part I"), I told the shocking story of my liberal classmates at Columbia University back in 1981, cheering and celebrating the news that an assassination attempt had been made on the life of President Ronald Reagan. I described my shock and disgust, how I literally grew sick to my stomach and raced out of the room to vomit.

The sad and disgraceful image of that day – the sights, smells, sounds – has never left me. I think back to it often while watching liberal journalists/reporters/anchors on CNN or CBS (think Dan Rather) or outright traitors to our country like Peter Arnett on MSNBC (who was fired for his outrageous decision to offer anti-American propaganda to the Iraqi TV network).

Because of my front-row seat at Columbia University and my 15 years since on television and radio, I understand only too well the true motivations and agenda of the left-wing extremists who populate the American media. Knowing what these media executives and journalists were like 20 years ago tells me that objectivity and fairness are just not possible in today's news media.

I know from experience that their pure, unadulterated hatred of President George Bush automatically colors everything they write and report. Their objectivity was lost long ago.

For those who would argue that what happened at Columbia University 20 years ago has no relevance to what the news media report today, I would beg to differ. It has EVERYTHING to do with the way those same journalists now report the news (except that it isn't really news at all, just personal opinions and prejudices disguised to look like unbiased, factual reporting).

The events I personally witnessed 20 years ago are very relevant to the bias I see and read every day in the news media. After all, psychologists report (and liberals love psychologists, don't they?) that a child's personality and core beliefs are often formed by age 6! Certainly the beliefs, core values and personality traits that one exhibits in college are relevant to who you are going to be and how you are going to think for the rest of your life.

A college student who cheers for the death of the president of the United States simply because he disagrees with the political views of that leader is showcasing a character trait ("character flaw" might be a better description) that might one day influence or prejudice his or her view of the news he or she is reporting.

Let's use an example that even liberals can understand. In my last commentary here on NewsMax, I reported on Janeane Garofalo's disturbing comments on HBO's “Real Time” with Bill Maher. This most liberal of all Hollywood liberals called Southerners "ignorant." Her comments are similar to those I've heard espoused by many liberals.

So, let's use that very example to prove my point. Let's assume that a Southerner who met Garofalo's definition of "ignorant" was put into a position of authority at a major American corporation. Let's assume that under his authority were women, African-Americans, Jews and gays. Let's assume this supervisor (or worse – senior executive) in his youth was a racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, anti-Semitic bully.

Let's go a step further and assume that he had once belonged to the KKK, wore hoods, attended white supremacist rallies, marched in KKK protests, opposed desegregation, blocked blacks from entering school buildings and participated in cross burnings. Would any liberal accept the idea that the women, blacks, gays or Jews working under this supervisor's authority would be treated fairly and objectively? Would any liberal accept the idea that he'd judge the work of a black employee in an unbiased way?

Yet all of this hate and negativity happened 20 years before. Why not give this executive the benefit of the doubt and assume he has today become a tolerant, fair, open-minded sweetheart of a boss? Why not assume that how he judges the work of a black employee today will not be colored by his views in the past?

Because liberals know – as I believe, too – that people rarely change. That the way you think at age 20, and the prejudices developed by then, often form the foundation of your thought process for the rest of your life.

So, now let's move a step further to relevancy. Would any liberal trust that same supposedly "ignorant" Southerner to objectively report the news? Hey, it's 20 years later – give the guy a break! What he thought and did in his youth is not relevant to his ability to objectively report the news 20 years later.

Or is it? I can assure you that to liberals it is very relevant. So much so that I have no doubt that if a background like that was leaked to a liberal watchdog organization, it would organize nationwide protests to force the TV network to terminate that journalist's employment. What that journalist thought or did 20 years ago would have EVERYTHING to do with how liberals judge him and the quality of his work today.

So, why should a radical liberal background be judged any differently? Someone who cheers for the death of conservative political opponents certainly may have a hard time reporting on conservative politicians or issues without exhibiting those earlier prejudices and biases.

After what I witnessed at Columbia University back in 1981 – as well as what I see every single day on the news – I know I cannot trust the media to objectively cover any politician or political issue without their intolerant, virulent hatred of conservatives poisoning their objectivity.

Today's liberal news media are much like the scorpion that stings the turtle carrying the scorpion on its back across the lake. Because of the bite, they'll both drown. Why did the scorpion do it? Because it was in his nature – he had to!

Liberal journalists are in the same boat – they just can't help themselves. They were raised to be liberals, they discussed liberal views at the dinner table growing up, they were praised for their liberal ideals at college, they see the world in liberal terms, they vote liberal, they just can't (even if they try hard) see a Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich or George W. Bush fairly or objectively.

They are incapable of reporting on a conservative's actions or viewpoints without causing the story, the message or the final impression (or all three!) to be slanted. Like the scorpion, they just can't help themselves.

But now allow me to report on a second event that I witnessed "up close and personal." One that is even more relevant and damning to the media – because it occurred during a presidential election, not in a college classroom.

The year was 1996. As a nationally recognized author (“Root on Risk,” “The Joy of Failure!,” “Positive Addictions”), motivational speaker and TV host, I received a coveted invitation to The Renaissance Weekend. This is an exclusive four-day get-together built around F.O.B.s (friends of Bill Clinton). A sort of vacation turned into liberal think tank.

It started in the 1980s when a group of intellectual, elite friends of Bill and Hillary got together to talk politics and important issues of the day. It grew bigger each year as they extended the circle of invitees to super achievers from all walks of life. By the 1990s the guest list looked like a Who's Who of America's best and brightest – from Olympic Gold medalists to astronauts, Emmy Award winners, former Supreme Court justices, famous actors, poets, scientists, social activists, TV journalists, celebrated lawyers, financiers and doctors.

This was an Academy Awards ceremony for smart, accomplished people! And 90 percent of them happened to be liberals – the invitation list was, after all, determined by friends of Bill and Hillary. Some F.O.B.s must have read my book or watched my television show (obviously without any inkling of my Republican views) and decided I was worthy of an invitation.

I gladly accepted and left for "the very heart of liberaldom" and what I thought might lead to interesting insights into what makes liberals tick. I took my wife, Debra, and daughter, Dakota, then 4 years old. And we spent four beautiful days in Aspen, Colo. (who says liberals are "compassionate" – liberals in D.C. and Hollywood live lives of wealth and privilege only imagined by the rest of America) discussing/debating/philosophizing about America and its problems.

I went hoping to find that things had changed since my old college days at Columbia. Instead I found that nothing had changed at all – 30 and 40- and 50-year-old liberals were exactly the same as my 20-year-old Columbia classmates – arrogant, intolerant bleeding hearts still intact, and with a strong sense of moral superiority.

These people really thought they knew the answers to all the world's complicated problems – and somehow those answers always involved giving away my money and yours! But what I found out about liberal journalists on the last day shocked even me – they were cheering for Reagan's assassination all over again!

Most of the Renaissance guests stayed at The Ritz Carlton in Aspen. (As I said – pretty tough life for these "compassionate" do-gooders. Must be a lot of money in this do-gooding business, huh?) On the last afternoon, after I'd given my lecture (trying hard to not sound too conservative) and listened to several others, I headed to the outdoor hot tub at The Ritz.

As I was enjoying one of the last few days of Aspen summer, a fellow speaker that I recognized from Renaissance joined me. I decided to strike up a conversation about the ongoing presidential campaign between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. The stranger knew nothing about me, just as I knew nothing about him. No agenda – just two new friends talking in a hot tub in Aspen.

I asked him what he did for a living; he replied that he was a journalist. I grew more interested. I asked the topics he covered; he replied that politics was his area of interest and particularly this current presidential campaign. We got on the topic of Bill Clinton, and there the fun began.

At the time there were inklings of scandal – like Whitewater, Travelgate and lots of girls, girls, girls. I asked the journalist what he thought of Clinton's many rumored scandals. He answered that it was all "much ado about nothing." He continued by saying that sex in office is no scandal – our greatest president, Kennedy, had it all the time.

I replied that neither Bush, Nixon or Reagan had it and that it was unbecoming America's leader. "Come to think of it, Carter didn't fool around either. This isn't about liberal or conservative," I said. "It's about honor and values and integrity. Carter – whether his politics was good or bad – was a man of honor. So was McGovern. So was Humphrey. So is Cuomo. Clinton is not."

I brought up those liberal icons purposely to show examples of integrity among liberals in stark contrast to the poor moral character of Clinton. It was a comparison I thought even a liberal would understand. I was wrong. He disagreed vehemently and called Clinton a great man and a great president.

"Just a bit too opinionated and biased for a supposedly unbiased journalist," I thought. The topic quickly turned to Bob Dole. "Now, there's an example of a man of integrity," I ventured. "Even if you love Clinton's politics, you have to admit Dole is a man of great character."

"Man of character," my new friend sneered. He laughed out loud. "You mean getting shot in battle means you have character?"

I was shocked by the mean-spiritedness, but I gave the journalist another chance to moderate his extreme views. "Dole wasn't just shot in battle," I said. "He was leading his troops up a hill – he literally had his whole arm and shoulder blown off. He was left for dead on the battlefield. He spent three years in hospitals. He was paralyzed – couldn't do anything for himself. Doctors expected him to die or, at best, never leave the hospital again. He did all this for his country. He was shot because he was willing to die for all of us. That isn't character? That isn't courage?"

"No," the journalist retorted, "that's called being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the poor unlucky bastard."

I felt as if I was back in Columbia again – the views of this intolerant liberal were as extreme as my classmates cheering for Reagan's death. But this was a 40-year-old journalist, a man given the responsibility to report the news in unbiased fashion, yet he was vicious and mean-spirited. This man HATED Bob Dole.

Then suddenly it hit me – liberals resent anyone in the military because it reminds them of their own lack of courage or moral conviction. Hearing of someone brave enough to fight for his country – and almost die – makes liberals angry and bitter. It reminds them that they would never die for any cause, any war, any country.

I decided to push my journalist friend a little more – to find out how far he was willing to go with his disturbing philosophy. "But let's contrast Bob Dole with Bill Clinton," I said. "You say Dole was simply a victim, not a hero. Just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"But what about Clinton? He wasn't willing to risk his life in the first place. He lied to his draft board to avoid the war. So, isn't Dole the hero just because of his willingness to die for his country? While Clinton had only one interest: smoking pot and getting laid at anti-American protest marches.

"Who is the hero? Who has the character? Separate the politics – I don't care if you're liberal, I don't care if you're personally against war, I don't care if you're voting for Clinton. Just tell me the truth: Which shows true valor and character?"

The journalist said, "Clinton is more of a hero any day. Getting shot doesn't make you a hero. Being dumb enough to go fight in a war doesn't make you a hero. Clinton is the one who showed courage by standing up to the ignorant government that wanted to send him to Vietnam to kill innocent people. Courage is protesting an unjust war. That takes courage and guts. That's my definition of character."

His reply gave me the shivers. I felt like I was in that classroom at Columbia all over again. To this "fair and objective" reporter, a president or general who sends warriors into battle is ignorant (there's that Janeane Garofolo word again!).

A brave young man willing to defend his country is a fool. If he's shot or killed, he's just unlucky. But a war protester who wants to smoke pot and get laid is a hero.

Oh my God! This is the sick, intolerant, warped thinking of many in the media.

But wait – the best was yet to come. I decided I could take no more. I stepped out of the Jacuzzi and offered my hand. Remember, I had still not revealed my beliefs and the journalist assumed that I was an F.O.B. simply pursuing a little intellectual sparring. So he was caught off guard.

"Pleasure to meet you," I said. "I hope I'll see you at the next Renaissance Weekend. By the way, who do you work for?" His answer startled me: "I'm White House Correspondent for Newsweek magazine."

I walked away in disbelief. No wonder he had been invited to Renaissance – this was one of the most important journalists in America! This man covers the president of the United States! He reports presidential decisions to voters. He is responsible for shaping our opinions about the most important leader in the world!

Yet his definition of courage is revolting. His attempt to denigrate a war hero is pathetic and cowardly. And the idea that he could report in an unbiased fashion is unimaginable – as unimaginable as the idea that Peter Arnett could report on the war in Iraq in an unbiased fashion.

I now realized that this is how many – if not most – members of our liberal news media think. Exactly the same as my classmates at Columbia. I realized at that moment that nothing had changed since that day Reagan was shot. Liberals showed their true colors that day.

It wasn't a transgression of youth. That's the way they really think. My new friend in the hot tub just confirmed it all.

Our news media are dominated by intolerant, radical, left-wing extremists incapable of being unbiased or objective. How could they be? They believe they are smarter than, better than and morally superior to the rest of us. They are on a mission to save the world from "ignorant" people like Republicans.

I believe both of these "up close and personal" stories are relevant to our understanding of the way the media operate and report our news – and in particular the Iraq war. Our news is reported and managed (remember, media executives decide what it is that we are ALLOWED to see each day) by radical leftists with a specific agenda – they hate George Bush, they hate capitalism, they despise the GOP, they resent entrepreneurs (like Bush was) and most particularly oilmen (like Bush was), they see capitalists and corporations as polluters (as Bush was in their eyes), they see the death penalty as murder, but abortion as ethical (in the interests of disclosure, I must report I am a moderate Republican who supports both the death penalty and a woman's right to choose).

These radicals oppose progress – because progress means that some people (inventors, entrepreneurs, executives, free thinkers, creative people) move ahead while others are left behind. And that just doesn't seem "fair" to radical leftists. For the same reasons they oppose free markets, capitalism and entrepreneurship – supporting income redistribution instead.

They would prefer we leave Saddam and Osama alone rather than risk hurting or killing an obscure species of desert rat or owl (see Al Gore). They prefer to couch suicide murderers as oppressed heroes struggling valiantly to overcome oppression by Israel.

For years radical right-wing extremists accused the media of being part of a "Jewish Conspiracy." Today's media are so liberal they've even turned against Israel. That same media – Jewish or not – sympathize with the "oppressed" Palestinians.

Now the picture comes full circle with the Iraq war. The same media that in unguarded moments admit believing that war heroes are just unlucky, ignorant dupes and that war protesters are courageous now field hundreds of so-called "military experts" to second-guess and analyze every decision of Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Franks.

Every retired military man who has an ax to grind (isn't that why they are no longer in the military? They never reached the top and retired bitter – this is their chance for revenge) is out criticizing our leaders and war planners. That criticizing is nothing more than guessing and opining based on their perceptions, prejudices, expectations and wild theories.

If these "experts" were that good at planning wars, wouldn't they still be in the Army planning this one? The very reason they are on CNN or NBC is because Tommy Franks and his staff are better than they are at planning a war and running an army.

So, our liberal friends in the media – rather than risk America's wrath by attacking our popular military themselves – came up with a clever idea. Simply hire the bitter ex-military men who couldn't quite make the grade to criticize and second-guess those who forced them out in the first place. Brilliant and Machiavellian.

First those "experts" all reported that it was an "easy war" that any nation could win – not even a challenge. That was the media's way of criticizing and demeaning Bush's accomplishments, even if we won in a matter of days.

Now it's a longer, more difficult and deadly war than ever predicted. But guess who made the predictions of a short, easy war in the first place? That's right, the liberal media and military experts now trying to cover up their first mistake.

If you study the history of wars (that's exactly what I've studied my whole life), things go wrong every day on the battlefield. It's impossible to avoid miscalculations. It's impossible to avoid a "bad day." War is a violent version of chess. Winning a war is based on how you react to the constant ebb and flow – your next chess move.

Yet in this war, every mistake is translated by TV experts into a decision that "the war is going badly." But based on what criteria? More Americans were lost in one hour in one nightclub fire in Rhode Island last month than in the first two weeks of a major war involving over 250,000 American combatants! Is that bad? By those standards, we would have withdrawn from WWII in a week.

Is the war in fact more difficult than expected? Well, that may be true – but once again, that's the direct result of media expectations. It's the liberal media and war protesters that call the military murderers if innocent civilians are killed.

So, to appease world opinion and media critics, we fight a "precision war" where we avoid civilian casualties with surgical strikes. Instead of carpet-bombing Baghdad, so that by the time our troops enter there will be no one left alive to resist, we choose to aim only at select military targets.

What that means is we'll have to fight a brutal door-to-door battle in Baghdad – costing many unnecessary American lives. And who is to blame? Liberals, war protesters, the media. Who will get the blame? George Bush – by that same media.

Knowing what I know about the media, this is a no-win for President Bush. The media are rooting for America to lose. The media want American GIs to die – that makes news and raises ratings. That gives them more reason to ask more experts to criticize Bush.

They want U.S. POWs to be paraded in front of cameras – again, those images sell newspapers and raise ratings for the evening news. They want Iraqi civilians killed. That makes the protesters look smart.

They want a LONG war that lasts just long enough to raise CNN's ratings to all-time highs while causing Bush to lose the election. The Peter Arnetts of the world certainly do NOT want weapons of mass destruction to be found.

These are the goals of America's news media. I understand these people only too well. Now you do too. Bush will be attacked, second-guessed, criticized, scapegoated no matter what happens, no matter how well things go.

So my advice: Ignore the media forevermore. Do it your way, George!

Wayne Allyn Root is a Nevada Republican activist, author and TV personality. E-mail Mr. Root at ROOTINTL@aol.com

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
George W. Bush
Media Bias

Editor's note:
Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg makes more stunning revelations about Dan Rather - Click Here Now!