The media meta-theme is clear. People asking important questions or otherwise opposing Bush's rush to war are not creditable. On the other hand, Bush administration officials who lie to us and distort the words of others are above criticism.

The Washington Post, considered one of the most "liberal" newspapers in America, is beating the war drums for Bush and beating up on anyone who dares dissent against the mad rush to a first-strike attack. Post reporter Dan Balz is making critics of Bush's War of Aggression appear aggressive and hypocritical (Jimmy Carter), or weak and hypocritical (Sen. John Kerry). In this article, Balz' seeks to mock and ridicule Democratic critics of Bush's positions for supporting and opposing Bush's rush to war at the same time:

"Last week, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) warned President Bush against a 'rush to war' with Iraq. This week, shortly before the president's State of the Union address, Kerry said he would support telling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein he has just one more month to disarm or face military action. After the president's speech, Kerry blasted Bush for 'blustering unilateralism.'"

See Democratic Rivals' War Dilemma, Hopefuls Must Reconcile Primary Voters' Doubt With Their Own Calls to Act, Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer, January 31, 2003; Page A01: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3707-2003Jan30.html

Balz tries to claim Kerry is contradicting himself. He makes Kerry -- one of Bush's most effective political rivals -- appear as an opportunist, a liar and / or a fool "playing politics" with an eye on the Democratic Primaries with this critical issue. Is this fair? Is it accurate? Once more, look closely at the techniques Balz uses to color our impressions.

Notice Balz uses a direct quote here: "John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) warned President Bush against a 'rush to war' with Iraq" and here: "Kerry blasted Bush for 'blustering unilateralism,'" where Kerry criticizes Bush. But Balz gives no quote supporting the claim Kerry really supports Bush, just a purported paraphrase: "Kerry said he would support telling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein he has just one more month to disarm...."

Kerry said that? Oh really? Then why no direct quotation to that effect? Why this unprofessional and probably dishonest creative writing exercise? Could it be Mr. Balz is trying to make Kerry seem soft and confused? This in contrast to Bush's supposed rock-steady leadership and ever changing rationale for a first-strike attack?

Balz employs this deceptive technique against other Democrats as well, but he doesn't examine Bush's string of contradictory comments. Perhaps Balz is cowed by Bush's absurd tirade last Summer in which he denied any role in war mongering, and blamed the media for whipping up hysteria about the war? Part of it was true. The media was and still is whipping up support for an unprovoked attack.

Of course even in the cases Balz actually quotes Kerry, he can't keep himself from hyperventilating. About Kerry's tone, Balz claims the Senator "blasted" Bush by voicing sensible concerns over Bush's well-established tendency toward unilateral, reckless, and counter-productive lack of diplomacy. See the utter failure of Bush's walk-away approach he applied to the Palestinian / Israeli situation, North Korea, and virtually every other international concern.

No, Dan. Sen. Kerry did not "blast" Bush. However, if and when Bush sends 100s of Cruise Missiles a day to slaughter civilians in Iraq -- as planned -- that will be "blasting." Something you might consider before blindly supporting Bush's rush to mass murder 10,000s or 100,000s of innocent Iraqis in an illegal, unprovoked first strike.

Maybe millions will die if Bush actually uses nuclear weapons as his top officials threatened he might. Once more: the Bush administration is openly planning to use nuclear weapons in an unprovoked first strike, but Balz claims Kerry is "blasting" Bush for questioning this!

Balz blows it again, telling readers one of the mildest mannered men alive is too "tough" on Bush when he proves Bush simply hasn't made a case for wholesale slaughtering of innocent Iraqis. Watch for this subtle deception: "In a toughly worded statement" when, according to Balz' article, Carter was actually taking exception to "vituperative attacks on U.S. policy."

Balz reports: "In a toughly worded statement issued as Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Carter said that even if Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presents compelling evidence at the United Nations next week that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.'"

Balz continues: "The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize said the administration bears significant responsibility for the hostility that has built around the world toward the United States, and he cited 'vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men' such as former South African president Nelson Mandela and best-selling author John Le Carre'."

See Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War, By Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 1, 2003; Page A18: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8118-2003Jan31.html

In haste to undermine Bush critics, Balz contradicts himself. From his own article, we know reality is the exact opposite of Balz' clever artifice which places Carter among those voicing real concerns much more stridently than Carter ever would. Balz is misleading his readers on the facts editorializing about Carter's alleged tone in a way that confounds Carter's message.

Balz hopes we'll dismiss Carter's comments, pretending he's joining Le Carre' and Nelson Mandela (another hot head?) making unwarranted attacks on Bush's presumably calm, sensible policies. Perhaps Carter is too kind to Bush and too tought on Mandela and Le Carre'? No, Balz can't even entertain that possibility as he editorializes -- some would say lies -- about Bush's critics.

Nowhere does Balz address the merits of the issues. Nor does he examine Bush's statements which are bellicose to the point of bloodthirsty, often contradictory, and fundamentally dishonest. Why not? Because Balz is a willing foot-soldier in Bush's propaganda war against the American people.

Sen. Kerry is neither indecisive nor confused. His concerns -- especially considering Bush's well-established record for deceit and foolishness -- arereassuring and well-founded. Unlike Bush's rhetoric and double-talk. Carter isn't tough on Bush. His tone is mild and respectful. Balz is using subtle tricks to attack and undermine thoughtful people telling the truth about Bush's deceptions and rash lack of judgment.

Balz should be ashamed. And fired. Now. The fact he remains a Washington Post staff writer after this pathetic lack of professional says everything you need to know about the lapdog media today. Shameful media behavior is hardly unique to Balz or the Washington Post.

Editors, reporters and media talking heads all slant their stories with "deceptively worded statements" in support of Bush's War of Aggression. CNN's Wolf Blitzer visibly salivates at the prospect of war, and hosts on all of the cable news networks unrelenting mock and ridicule anyone who questions the Bush line.

Where is media criticism of the Bush administration's well-orchestrated disinformation campaign? Why the silence concerning constant misrepresentation of UN inspectors which began last Summer and only increased? Drown out by the beating drums demanding to know when, not if, we should attack Iraq.

As the media conglomerates continue failing to fulfill their duty to the American people, Bush and his top officials lie with impunity. The lives of thousands of American troops -- and millions of innocent Iraqis -- hang in the balance. We are all pawns on Karl Rove's chess-board. Heaven help us all.