It's not so much putting press here or there or freedom of speech - what it is is some common sense... do you put your efforts to report on anything you find out above and beyond anything else, thus hurting the country and its people in the process? The press seems to think that they're doing this great deed by doing full public disclosure of sensitive security information and that's utterly careless of them to put it mildly, and certainly could be looked at as treason if you consider the fact that their jeopardizing security of the country for the sake of selling of a few dead trees.

The ironic thing is that all of these 'heroes' reporting on the NSA wiretapping and now this are doing the...

It's not so much putting press here or there or freedom of speech - what it is is some common sense... do you put your efforts to report on anything you find out above and beyond anything else, thus hurting the country and its people in the process? The press seems to think that they're doing this great deed by doing full public disclosure of sensitive security information and that's utterly careless of them to put it mildly, and certainly could be looked at as treason if you consider the fact that their jeopardizing security of the country for the sake of selling of a few dead trees.

The ironic thing is that all of these 'heroes' reporting on the NSA wiretapping and now this are doing the country in. The question is why? Once the country is gone - what will they have accomplished?

This 'us against them' mentality within USA does nothing but harm. If anyone can point out how that's not so - I'm all ears.

Eric, not when people are cutting our heads off and others trying to launch nuclear missiles our way. Then inter-bickering isn't so great. If you don't faith in your government - you have a choice to elect a different one, but undermining the one that's been elected isn't a way to get things done right. There are people laying their lives on the line daily, while we sip Starbucks and swim with sharks in Florida... Putting out information that may give any info to the enemy isn't a good way to win wars. The other side doesn't even need spies - they have NYT to get all of the info. You can't just look at this whole thing with 'liberty or death' blinders on, it's not that simple any longer...

Eric, not when people are cutting our heads off and others trying to launch nuclear missiles our way. Then inter-bickering isn't so great. If you don't faith in your government - you have a choice to elect a different one, but undermining the one that's been elected isn't a way to get things done right. There are people laying their lives on the line daily, while we sip Starbucks and swim with sharks in Florida... Putting out information that may give any info to the enemy isn't a good way to win wars. The other side doesn't even need spies - they have NYT to get all of the info. You can't just look at this whole thing with 'liberty or death' blinders on, it's not that simple any longer. We're not fighting the redcoats here.

The way I see it is very simple - we get to choose the government. Obviously we never get 100% of what we want, but we still elect people and they only stay in office for a relatively brief amount of time (not counting Ted Kennedy, of course). So, if someone gets in there (by us electing them!!! very important point here) and we don't like them - they get voted out, that's how the system works. But undermining the security of the entire nation just because of difference of opinion or dislike of elected officials does nothing but harm, makes us look bad the the lack of unification only gives our enemies strength and will to keep going.

You say 'healthy skepticism", and in the same breath condemn the current administration while the following is true:
a) you don't know precisely what they've done, since all of the stuff you know came from some reporter who may have told the story wrong, semi-accurate or plain lie. He/she may not have, but you don't know that's not the case
b) there are plenty of stuff going on behind the scenes that only people in the administration know... again you're not even aware of them, so certainly can't make any related comments of any kind, since you simply don't know

It's the job of the administration to protect you and yours. You say 'at the very least they should be dealt with skeptically"... based on what? Based on the fact that the nation hasn't been attacked since 9/11? Or have you seen anything of any value of abuse of things like the NSA wiretapping or similar programs on US citizens? Can you honestly tell me that your liberties have been ACTUALLY, not on paper or based on some report somewhere, but ACTUALLY been altered in any way and your life has changed since Clinton was in power? I know - I can't. Has the current administration with allies prevented attacks? Well, we know for a fact about a few recently and I'll bet there are numerous ...

It's the job of the administration to protect you and yours. You say 'at the very least they should be dealt with skeptically"... based on what? Based on the fact that the nation hasn't been attacked since 9/11? Or have you seen anything of any value of abuse of things like the NSA wiretapping or similar programs on US citizens? Can you honestly tell me that your liberties have been ACTUALLY, not on paper or based on some report somewhere, but ACTUALLY been altered in any way and your life has changed since Clinton was in power? I know - I can't. Has the current administration with allies prevented attacks? Well, we know for a fact about a few recently and I'll bet there are numerous ones we never even heard about. So, based on the track record of the government protecting you and yours - I don't see how their track record could've been much better.

You want to step away from the war on terror and discuss domestic stuff, like corruption etc? Fine... let's do that - there have been a number of people indicted and convicted and in jail based on improprieties. Nobody ever said that people are perfect (otherwise we could go the communist route very successfully), but they aren't and so we have some issues and people have been convicted under the current administration and put in jail, i.e. justice was served. No question that sometimes corruption gets to the highest level of government, just look at Clinton pardoning Mark Rich on the last day of his presidency.

In any case, we need to watch what the government is doing and certainly try to right any wrongs that are clearly visible, but we should NOT be undermining the government during the time of war just for the sake of 'reporting the news' and 'making public aware'. This will NOT help to protect us, puts our own people potentially in harms way (and no news reporting is worth that), and emboldens our enemies to pursue their calling.

No, your not getting it... My point isn't that the dixie chicks said something people didn't like & they were shunned. That's fine.

My point is they said something that was thier opinion. That opinion was vastly disliked in one region. Why? In MY opinion, it is because there is such an airof patriotism, and saying anything agains the President, and therefor the country is unfathomable. This is BLIND faith. I may not like what Stevie nix says, personally, I think she is an airhead, but I still like her music.

The people of the southern states are so blinded by tthier patriotism, they can't distinguish opionon from music. They have banned them from the airwaves because they didn't ...

No, your not getting it... My point isn't that the dixie chicks said something people didn't like & they were shunned. That's fine.

My point is they said something that was thier opinion. That opinion was vastly disliked in one region. Why? In MY opinion, it is because there is such an airof patriotism, and saying anything agains the President, and therefor the country is unfathomable. This is BLIND faith. I may not like what Stevie nix says, personally, I think she is an airhead, but I still like her music.

The people of the southern states are so blinded by tthier patriotism, they can't distinguish opionon from music. They have banned them from the airwaves because they didn't share the same opinion.

How the hell is that freedom of speach? When you get beaten down for having an opinion?

It's sad... (again)

@TheCatWhisperer
Nothing sad or hard to understand about it. Certainly you can dislike someone and still listen to their music, heck we still like Babs in Hello Dolly and Alec Baldwin in Malice and "Glengary Glen Ross"... however, it's a question of throwing your financial support into the hands of people who dis your country and that's where for a lot of people a line gets drawn. Dixie Chicks aren't the Beatles, i.e. they're not the only band on the planet of this caliber... so some people are so put off that they simply don't want to support them.

My ex-boss had an agreement with me that when we go to lunch - there's no music in the car (even though both of us intense fans of music). ...

@TheCatWhisperer
Nothing sad or hard to understand about it. Certainly you can dislike someone and still listen to their music, heck we still like Babs in Hello Dolly and Alec Baldwin in Malice and "Glengary Glen Ross"... however, it's a question of throwing your financial support into the hands of people who dis your country and that's where for a lot of people a line gets drawn. Dixie Chicks aren't the Beatles, i.e. they're not the only band on the planet of this caliber... so some people are so put off that they simply don't want to support them.

My ex-boss had an agreement with me that when we go to lunch - there's no music in the car (even though both of us intense fans of music). The reason was simple - the man claimed that Classical music was the only decent music and everything else was 'crap' and I vigorously disagreed (after being a victim of Classical music abuse for many years in the old country). But one thing he said once that was very interesting and that is that you REALLY start appreciating music when you read biographies of composers of that music. To him - that was as important a factor in the overall scheme of things as music itself. And to a degree it's true in this case. When McCartney jumps on the wagon of protecting some animals - I may not totally be there with him, but I still love his music and still buy it today. However, if he started touching some other more sensitive issues, like anti-US rhetoric, that would've been serious enough for me to stop supporting him. I think it's the same with Dixie Chicks - it's not that they have an opinion on something, they're crossing the line in some people's minds and so the drop in support of them and their music - there's plenty of other country talent that can and is supported.

As for asking "why should they be shunned"? Why shouldn't they? Nobody HAS TO run out and like them and buy their music, regardless of reasons why.

And radio stations get to make their own call as to what they play or not, regardless of reasons. Perhaps they don't play them because they lose public support they had otherwise, thus advertising dips, thus revenue dips - I'm sure they're sensitive to such matters regardless of the causes and ideologies as well they should be, since they're trying to conduct business as anyone else would. That doesn't make them ignorant, just better business organizations.

And they aren't shunned "everywhere" just as no one else is shunned everywhere. Contrary to popular media reporting - there are ton of people who support the country, the administration (including the President) and there are others w...

And radio stations get to make their own call as to what they play or not, regardless of reasons. Perhaps they don't play them because they lose public support they had otherwise, thus advertising dips, thus revenue dips - I'm sure they're sensitive to such matters regardless of the causes and ideologies as well they should be, since they're trying to conduct business as anyone else would. That doesn't make them ignorant, just better business organizations.

And they aren't shunned "everywhere" just as no one else is shunned everywhere. Contrary to popular media reporting - there are ton of people who support the country, the administration (including the President) and there are others who don't and those are the ones that buy Dixie Chicks tickets

The people of the southern states are so blinded by their patriotism, they can't distinguish opinion from music. They have banned them from the airwaves because they didn't share the same opinion.

So people in the southern states are unable to distinguish opinion from music? Are they stupid? Are they ignorant? I suppose from your statement it is ALL southern states? Please, enlighten us on your findings.

Since I'm one person, I can't speak for ALL the people living in southern states, but I can tell you what I didn't appreciate about the Dixie Chicks.

At a time when the United States believed there to be a legitimate threat and common enemy... At a time when the United...

The people of the southern states are so blinded by their patriotism, they can't distinguish opinion from music. They have banned them from the airwaves because they didn't share the same opinion.

So people in the southern states are unable to distinguish opinion from music? Are they stupid? Are they ignorant? I suppose from your statement it is ALL southern states? Please, enlighten us on your findings.

Since I'm one person, I can't speak for ALL the people living in southern states, but I can tell you what I didn't appreciate about the Dixie Chicks.

At a time when the United States believed there to be a legitimate threat and common enemy... At a time when the United States had sons and daughters overseas who were placing their faith and lives in the hands of a government and a president.... the Dixie Chicks went to foreign soil and criticized the President of the United States. They didn't criticize George Bush. They criticized the leader of the United States... an extension of the United States itself.

Regardless of whether you agree with Bush or not, regardless of whether you think he's doing a poor job running your country, you DO NOT AIR YOUR DIRTY LAUNDRY TO A FOREIGN AUDIENCE.

The fact of the matter is... that they criticized the president because they were playing to the audience. They were stirring the crowd. Their opinion... was part of the show.

And calling southern residents ignorant or stupid because they "can't distinguish music from opinion" is well... ignorant and stupid. Is it so unreasonable to stop using a product based on the philosophies of its creator/distributor? Do we not boycott corporations all the time based on who they are selling to or how they perform their research or where their investment dollars go? So how is this different?

You also must realize that for entertainers, the "talent" is only part of the package. If this fact weren't true, 75% of today's popular music would be gone. Today's music celebrities are about how they dress, how they party, who they sleep with, what they overdose on, how violent is...

And calling southern residents ignorant or stupid because they "can't distinguish music from opinion" is well... ignorant and stupid. Is it so unreasonable to stop using a product based on the philosophies of its creator/distributor? Do we not boycott corporations all the time based on who they are selling to or how they perform their research or where their investment dollars go? So how is this different?

You also must realize that for entertainers, the "talent" is only part of the package. If this fact weren't true, 75% of today's popular music would be gone. Today's music celebrities are about how they dress, how they party, who they sleep with, what they overdose on, how violent is their show, how little they wear on stage, etc., ad infinitum. It is selling an image as much as it is selling a voice or song.

Apparently, the southern states don't appreciate the Dixie Chicks' image.

PS: i'm personally not a big fan of the chicks, my g/f loves them and I got her some sweet tix for thier concert here ina couple months. And I agree that Natialie's waffleing is a bit odd, but what would I do in her shoes...

She did a concert, where she simply spoke her heart (let's giver her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is not taking sides for the money), and then she comes back to find most of her "base" hsa disowned her. Now she has the record company breathing down her neck to fix it.

I might be pressured to issue an apology, especially if I saw all I had worked hard for about to dissapear....

After that seeing that thos lost fans still can't forgive me, I'd say screw it ...

PS: i'm personally not a big fan of the chicks, my g/f loves them and I got her some sweet tix for thier concert here ina couple months. And I agree that Natialie's waffleing is a bit odd, but what would I do in her shoes...

She did a concert, where she simply spoke her heart (let's giver her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is not taking sides for the money), and then she comes back to find most of her "base" hsa disowned her. Now she has the record company breathing down her neck to fix it.

I might be pressured to issue an apology, especially if I saw all I had worked hard for about to dissapear....

After that seeing that thos lost fans still can't forgive me, I'd say screw it and stick to my guns.. maybe even a bit out of spit.. she seems full od spite

As has been pointed out, monitoring of banking transactions by the Treasury Department has been public knowledge from day one of the introduction of the PATRIOT Act. Bush himself made reference to the practice in several televised speeches.

Did you press-haters hate the press just as much during the Clinton years, for instance? There is no way the impeachment process could have gone so far as it did without the help of the press.

This is what the media does in our democracy. It oversees, criticizes, and pokes holes in the agenda of every institution since its inception. Every administration hates the press for making its job hard! During this time of war and unprecedented sec...

As has been pointed out, monitoring of banking transactions by the Treasury Department has been public knowledge from day one of the introduction of the PATRIOT Act. Bush himself made reference to the practice in several televised speeches.

Did you press-haters hate the press just as much during the Clinton years, for instance? There is no way the impeachment process could have gone so far as it did without the help of the press.

This is what the media does in our democracy. It oversees, criticizes, and pokes holes in the agenda of every institution since its inception. Every administration hates the press for making its job hard! During this time of war and unprecedented secrecy is when we need the oversight of the press the most, when governmental powers are most likely to be abused. Conservatives, who intrinsically distrust government, understand the importance of oversight at all levels at all times. And they're right.

What would you haters suggest? That the mass media outlets cease all operation during times of war? (Would that include Somalia and Kosovo?) Or just cease publication of any fact that could be construed as inconvenient to the president's desires?

Finally I assume you guys also save as much wrath for the following treasonous media outlets: Fox News, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Christian Science Monitor, Weekly Standard, National Review, American Spectator, Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Belief Net, Power Line, Instapundit, Free Republic, Michelle Malkin, etc.

They're all part of the popular press, and rightly so. Or do right-leaning outlets get a pass? Once a Democrat is in ...

What would you haters suggest? That the mass media outlets cease all operation during times of war? (Would that include Somalia and Kosovo?) Or just cease publication of any fact that could be construed as inconvenient to the president's desires?

Finally I assume you guys also save as much wrath for the following treasonous media outlets: Fox News, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Christian Science Monitor, Weekly Standard, National Review, American Spectator, Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Belief Net, Power Line, Instapundit, Free Republic, Michelle Malkin, etc.

They're all part of the popular press, and rightly so. Or do right-leaning outlets get a pass? Once a Democrat is in office fighting his or her own war on terror, logically consistent press-haters will argue for their banishment as well.

Partisan ones will not.

And Kore7, with right-leaning people being totally behind the troops, totally against the terrorists and and pro-US - yes, they get a pass for the time being. The whole nation should have the same sentiments during a war, if it wants to remain a nation. You want to take on Bush for drinking 40 years ago - fine, but think about taking attention off the ball during a war. He was elected into this office and under his direction you didn't have a bomb explode in your backyard. It's not due to Dixie Chicks comments, nor is it due to Dan Rather or even Al Gore - it's due to cops, FBI, CIA and other people working in this administration, under the President. The mainstream press here sucks and...

And Kore7, with right-leaning people being totally behind the troops, totally against the terrorists and and pro-US - yes, they get a pass for the time being. The whole nation should have the same sentiments during a war, if it wants to remain a nation. You want to take on Bush for drinking 40 years ago - fine, but think about taking attention off the ball during a war. He was elected into this office and under his direction you didn't have a bomb explode in your backyard. It's not due to Dixie Chicks comments, nor is it due to Dan Rather or even Al Gore - it's due to cops, FBI, CIA and other people working in this administration, under the President. The mainstream press here sucks and not because they're so obsessed with getting Bush somehow, someway - it's because they have no idea what news and reporting is. If you have a major news channel, like Fox for example, who discusses for hours without end a girl who disappeared in Aruba or a cruise incident where a groom disappeared or other such 'important' events, one would think there's nothing else going on in the world, Aruba being the center of universe. And the print media, trying to find anything they can to screw their own country for sake of personal politics.

If the people of this country don't wise up to what's really going on and who the actual enemies are (for those wondering - it's NOT George W. Bush)... do some reading on Roman empire (the tail end of it) and others like it... you'll get this country into exact same state... and then the mainstream press will really have something to report.

jklugman, so if Kore7 is right and conservatives are right - why aren't you a conservative then?

It's more of a question of how and why conservatives lost their skepticism of government and the power-hungry people we elect to run it. Up until recently, conservatives have had a valid claim for distrusting government more.

You didn't answer my questions about support for Somalia and Kosovo, though I understand why.

I'm trying to find out if you value partisanship to the GOP above all other issues. Because if you do, it's pointless to debate any of this. Do you claim you have zero skepticism for our President's ability to protect us? He can do no wrong ever, no matter wha...

jklugman, so if Kore7 is right and conservatives are right - why aren't you a conservative then?

It's more of a question of how and why conservatives lost their skepticism of government and the power-hungry people we elect to run it. Up until recently, conservatives have had a valid claim for distrusting government more.

You didn't answer my questions about support for Somalia and Kosovo, though I understand why.

I'm trying to find out if you value partisanship to the GOP above all other issues. Because if you do, it's pointless to debate any of this. Do you claim you have zero skepticism for our President's ability to protect us? He can do no wrong ever, no matter what? On a trust scale of 1-100%, where would you place your trust in the Bush administration? You don't even have to give a number if you don't want, just tell me if it's 100% blind trust or some number less than 100%.

And if a Democrat is elected in 2008, will it remain at the same level? If it doesn't, and you complain that the new administration is soft on terror, how will you counter the new majority who criticize you for being unpatriotic and treasonous for opposing the Chief Executive in a time of war? This is not a wild hypothetical either. If not 2008, then eventually a Democrat will take over the Oval Office...and the "war on terror" will not have been solved by then. Where will your loyalties lie in this case and how will you defend that decision?

If suspect you won't answer these questions, but I look forward to being proved wrong.

Nope, nothing to find out - have no attachment to GOP at all. To be totally honest, after a number of years living under the communist party - I'm pretty much done with parties.

As for Clinton - I was totally opposed to most things he did, but you'd never hear me saying to anyone outside or waiver in any way shape or form to disrespect the US government. He was the elected President and thus he was my President as he was yours. Did I respect him as a man who cheated on his wife, during work hours, with someone half his age and then lied to my face about it? Of course not, but I was just as pro-US then as I am now. And since I wasn't into his politics - I didn't vote for him, but he was...

Nope, nothing to find out - have no attachment to GOP at all. To be totally honest, after a number of years living under the communist party - I'm pretty much done with parties.

As for Clinton - I was totally opposed to most things he did, but you'd never hear me saying to anyone outside or waiver in any way shape or form to disrespect the US government. He was the elected President and thus he was my President as he was yours. Did I respect him as a man who cheated on his wife, during work hours, with someone half his age and then lied to my face about it? Of course not, but I was just as pro-US then as I am now. And since I wasn't into his politics - I didn't vote for him, but he was elected anyway, so he was the President, just as Bush is now.

I had no idea who Reagan was and the only reason I voted for him then was because he was anti-Soviet, which was good enough for me. The reason I support Bush is because he's had to deal with extremely hard conditions both abroad and here and the country is still pretty strong, with strong economy, no major terrorist attacks and I don't for a second say that he made no mistakes, but everyone does, so it's silly to look at the fact that mistakes were made.

I didn't look at the Cosovo/Somalia with as much zeal for several reasons - I wasn't educated enough on the subject to make any kind of decent conclusion and yes, I did have faith that the organizations and people involved in coming up with the decision to attack/defend knew better than I. I'm much closer to the Iraq situation in terms of research etc. and this is different - because these people want to a) kill us all; b) at a minimum change everyone walking to pray 6 times a day to whomever they pray and c) they want to kill us regardless of what we believe or don't believe. Neither Yugoslavians nor Somalis had the same goals and aspirations. They did NOT take down 2 tallest buildings in New York and kill over 3000 of fellow Americans.

And I don't have zero skepticism, I'm just looking at the record of protecting America since 9/11. As for the scale of trust - I'm not sure exactly how accurate any answer would be, but certainly much higher than Clinton, Carter or even his father, who should've listened to General S. and finished it off in 93.

Nobody's advocating having blind 100% trust, but what's advocated is to use reason and common sense and protect your own country, not undermine it for the sake of partisan politics or hatred of a man and as Kennedy pointed out "Think what you can do for your country!". Wise words from a Democrat... too bad we don't seem to have those anymore, just the ones that accuse our troops of...

And I don't have zero skepticism, I'm just looking at the record of protecting America since 9/11. As for the scale of trust - I'm not sure exactly how accurate any answer would be, but certainly much higher than Clinton, Carter or even his father, who should've listened to General S. and finished it off in 93.

Nobody's advocating having blind 100% trust, but what's advocated is to use reason and common sense and protect your own country, not undermine it for the sake of partisan politics or hatred of a man and as Kennedy pointed out "Think what you can do for your country!". Wise words from a Democrat... too bad we don't seem to have those anymore, just the ones that accuse our troops of being evil murderers without waiting to get all details and due process. I don't know how anyone could love their country and bet on a party who counts on own country's demise as the only seeming means for own success.

oh my dear lord jesus the NYT is gonna deliver us right into the hands of those evildoers! I'm so afraid! I'm so afraid! Let the government do whatever it wants! I don't need freedom of the press. I'm not a rational independent thinker.W is such a good guy. I trust him he's simple like me. He goes fishing! I love fishing! and he hunts hes a man's man if some ay-rab comes up to him and tires to pull anything funny Dubya could shoot him. I'm so scared! I could be blown to bits any second. I have to go to mcdonalds and get really fat to cushon myself from the blow. I have to get the latest britney album. I have to watch tv all day long. I have to drive my suv to wal mart and stock up on chips,...

oh my dear lord jesus the NYT is gonna deliver us right into the hands of those evildoers! I'm so afraid! I'm so afraid! Let the government do whatever it wants! I don't need freedom of the press. I'm not a rational independent thinker.W is such a good guy. I trust him he's simple like me. He goes fishing! I love fishing! and he hunts hes a man's man if some ay-rab comes up to him and tires to pull anything funny Dubya could shoot him. I'm so scared! I could be blown to bits any second. I have to go to mcdonalds and get really fat to cushon myself from the blow. I have to get the latest britney album. I have to watch tv all day long. I have to drive my suv to wal mart and stock up on chips, dunkaroos and propane. I have to go to church and pray to god who says I'm a born sinner and wants to punish me if I do anything human.I'm so scared!

Sage, at least you admitted that you retain some sense of skepticism and that mistakes were made by the White House's "war on terror".

My original point was that it was nonsensical to attack the straw man of the "media" because we all get news from the media. But then I got you to admit that the right-leaning press "gets a pass" for being consistently pro-war. However, this is evidently not the case and hasn't been for years. E.g.:

* Why conservatives must not vote for Bush
* [url=http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/84115818-22AF-4640-BAF0-7832828780A7/]Conservative Christians Criticize Republicans ...

Sage, at least you admitted that you retain some sense of skepticism and that mistakes were made by the White House's "war on terror".

My original point was that it was nonsensical to attack the straw man of the "media" because we all get news from the media. But then I got you to admit that the right-leaning press "gets a pass" for being consistently pro-war. However, this is evidently not the case and hasn't been for years. E.g.:

* Why conservatives must not vote for Bush
* Conservative Christians Criticize Republicans - David D. Kirkpatrick
* A Collapsing Presidency
* Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Bush
* After Neoconservatism: Francis Fukuyama
* Andrew Sullivan Admits Some Regrets
* American Conservative Magazine's Guide to the 2004 Presidential Election, where only one editor could bring himself to recommend Bush for re-election and that with great reluctance.

The primary concern amongst these conservative thinkers is the Bush administration's record of eroding America's national security. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Wall Street Journal, Bill O'Reilly, and even Ann Coulter criticize Bush's use of the military. Are you claiming all of these media institutions harbor anti-American sentiments for questioning Bush and the war?