AP Shows It’s Bias Against Sarah Palin: Eleven Reporters Assigned to Fact-Check Palin’s Book While Assigning None to Fact-Check Obama’s Book When It Came Out

The Associated Press is so biased against Sarah Palin that they’ve assigned eleven reporters to fact-check every part of Palin’s new book; contrast that to how they treated President Obama’s book when they assigned no one to fact-check it.

And how does one fact-check someone’s opinion of events?

I have not read Palin’s book, and have no intention of reading it. My opinion of her is already formed, to the point that I don’t need to read her opinion of events to know that I’ve already got the basic facts.

Even with President Clinton’s book, most of it was his opinion of political events that happened during his time in power in both Arkansas and in the White House. A politician writing a book about their life and times often try to repaint the picture that’s already taken shape. I took the time to read President Clinton’s and came away with a sense that he had tried to re-write history. And I didn’t need openly biased individuals in the liberal media to point that out, either.

What interests me more is the hypocrisy in how the media treats politicians from different parties. My interpretation is that they don’t treat everyone the same, even though they should. If they hold one politician’s feet to the fire, they should hold ALL of them to the same standard.

All the Associated Press is doing is reinforcing the belief that they don’t like Sarah Palin, and are trying to discredit her, while ignoring glaring deficiencies in the works of their favored politicians.

Is Alan Greenspan Running for Something?

With former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's new book about to be released on Tuesday, some of the media outlets--most notably CNN and 60 Minutes--obtained copies early and were quoting passages from the new book almost incessantly. The only thing that got him out of the headlines were the antics and arrest of OJ Simpson in Las Vegas.

Some of the most-quotes passages (quoted, I might add, with the same kind of reverence shown to the Bible during Sunday services) included Greenspan's opinion that the Iraq War was largely over oil, about how the Republicans had sacrificed principles for power, and that the Republicans deserved to lose as badly as they did in the last election.

This sounds like Greenspan is running for something at the same time that he's promoting his book. I don't think this is the end of this story.

Tenet's New Book: Telling Everyone What He Should Have Said When He Was CIA Director

Former CIA Director George Tenet went on a media blitz over the weekend, promoting his new book which blasts the Bush Administration of how it handled 9/11, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It looks like an exercise in shifting blame to others; most notably Vice-President Cheney.

For instance, he was very aggressive in his book and on his media blitz about his "slam dunk" comment being taken out of context with regards to Saddam Hussein's possessing chemical and biological weapons.

For someone in such an important position, such as the directorship of the Central Intelligence Agency, he should have been very wary about using a term like "slam dunk" in ANY context.

He had the ear of the President from 9/11 to the end of his tenure at CIA, and he should have gone after the incorrect political interpretation of his agency's intelligence data. But instead he played it safe and went with the flow, which helped to lock our nation's future with an Iraq that may not hold together. And by saying "went with the flow" I meant he didn't do enough to get around administrative roadblocks that were there.

And now he has a book deal, and is telling everyone what he should have been SCREAMING at Cheney, Rove, and the other hawks during those meetings. Too little, too late.

What a shame.