(Yet again I have to ask) What Liberal Media?

From Mediamatters:

Since a March 27 New York Times article confirmed that a leaked British memo appears to contradict President Bush's repeated claim prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that he wanted to avoid war, media have failed to note the full significance of the document and in some cases ignored the story altogether.

If there really was a "liberal bias" in the media, don't you think that would be front and center? Since it is not, what's left of the "liberal bias" claim?

For those who missed it, here's the Times article.

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

Media Matters notes that:

...major newspapers have yet to feature articles on the memo, and Fox News has not once mentioned the document. CBS and ABC have limited their coverage to several brief mentions of the story. And numerous other reports have failed to contrast the memo's depiction of Bush with his public statements prior to the war.[emphasis added]

Yep, "fair and balanced" FNC ignores yet more Bush-era mendacity. Hardly surprising, I guess.

Aaaanyway, here's an interesting point:

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

And I like how it's put: "the president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable." He's the Commander-in-Chief! It's written as if he had no say in the matter. But according to Article 2 of what's left of our Constitution, he's the Commander-in-Chief!

And check this out. That day, at the news conference both men were asked:

Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

And Bush answered:

I can't make that claim.

So they doubted that WMD would be found and they stated that they couldn't claim a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 (I wonder if Stephen Hayes was watching that night), and they asserted that military action was inevitable anyway - while all the public statements point in the exact opposite direction.

And yet, Fox news and their fellow travellers in the mainstream media have yet to notice.

What liberal media?