Karl Rove: The real 20th hijacker?

If much of the press can't figure out that Joe Wilson is a liar, why should we expect them to figure out al-Qaida has ties to and operations in Iraq?

If hundreds of ''top'' journalists can't grasp the possible role of the Sun in the warming and cooling of the Earth, why would anyone expect them to grasp the impact of liberty in reducing Islamo-fascism in the Middle East?

If the media can't remember what today's Democrats said five years ago about Saddam Hussein and his quest for WMD, why would we expect them to remember the slaughter of human life that occurred in Southeast Asia immediately after we pulled out of Vietnam?

On this fifth anniversary of one of our nation's most tragic days and most needed wake-up calls, I find myself wondering why so many in the American media are so cavalier with their slanted and misleading coverage of our struggle against terrorists. Absent the devastation that took place in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, I might be more forgiving as to the failure of some in the media to appreciate the danger posed by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il. But that attack, to me, was a clarion call of such magnitude that I will never comprehend the failure to not only give our commander in chief the benefit of the doubt in carrying out his duty to defend our country, but the active and irrational portrayal of America as a provocateur in this great conflict.

Perhaps I'm hyper-sensitive during this time of war, but I could swear I have seen more articles about the danger Karl Rove poses to our Republic than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And I know for a fact bloggers on The Daily Kos, Moveon.org and The Huffington Post have directed more hysterical outrage toward Mr. Rove, President Bush and Sen. Joe Lieberman than toward those who plotted to detonate ten jets in mid-air just a few weeks ago.

Along those same lines, we are now in the midst of a controversy whether or not to air, or how much to censor, the ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11." Without question, there is a far more impressive and coordinated protest over the details of the Clinton administration's obvious lack of focus on the metastasizing terror movement in the 1990s than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blind pursuit of nuclear weapons or his declaration to wipe Israel off the map. Strange, isn't it, that the hundreds of thousands of protest letters that has been reportedly sent to ABC have all been delivered by people who have yet to see the mini-series? Which brings us to the better-late-than-never comparison of the Bush and Clinton doctrines:

The Bush Doctrine: To act preemptively to prevent damage to U.S. targets and to participate, diplomatically or militarily, in the transformation of the Arab world from endless tyranny and intolerance to liberty and democratization.

The Clinton Doctrine: To act preemptively to prevent damage to the Clinton legacy, utilizing legal and political threats, and protesting potentially harmful events before those events actually occur.

From what I have seen this past week, the left-leaning media have worked far harder to defend the Clinton Doctrine than the Bush Doctrine.

And only five years after we were attacked on our own soil.

The war forced us to deal with depraved and deranged fascists who claim divine inspiration and permission for their naked evil. And, one would think it would be advantageous to have a war with so easily discernable good and bad guys. This is ''Star Wars'' made easy. Yet, we witness the daily barrage of angry, reckless, and whacky speculation from the left about Karl Rove's role in arranging November elections just two months after Sept. 11 (!); Karl Rove's role in tricking Joe Wilson to out his own CIA/desk jockey/non-undercover agent wife; Karl Rove's certain capture and concealment of Osama bin Laden for the purpose of creating the "Mother-of-All-October-Surprises'' ... and on and on.

The American media have so miserably failed to ignore bizarre and unsubstantiated slanders and accusations pertaining to our military and their commander in a time of war and have failed to expose the frightening truth about our enemies while enthusiastically promoting the agenda of solution-less, out-of-power, Bush-hating, left-wing politicians, that they have been, and remain a liability in this war on terror. How else can one interpret the media's deep understanding and vigilant reporting of the unacceptable behavior of Mel Gibson, yet fail to report with the same vigor the unacceptable behavior of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, Kim Jong-Il's, Kofi Annan's, Saddam Hussein's, and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's of this world?

It is distressing, if I may use the technique of understatement, to observe the five-year anniversary of the declaration of war against our country, knowing much of the American media have rejected their role of fact-finders and fact-checkers in favor of acting as lobbyists for liberals and those who share their transparent hatred of our president. A president, by the way, who can reflect upon this, the five-year anniversary of our country, not being attacked by terrorists.

I choose to reflect upon that accomplishment, as well. It didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen as a result of the tireless investigative journalism unleashed upon the one enemy the press is convinced we must capture and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law – after prolonged torture – if we are to remain safe and free: Karl Rove.

Now there's a miniseries the left would never protest.