I fail to see any of the "attempts to slander Bush" in the mainstream media. They rallied behind him for the war, and then stuck with every party line given.
JQ, I do think there is a tendency to downplay the case for war in Iraq, in media coverage.
I also think that there is an overemphasis on what is going wrong in Iraq, and a downplay of what's going right. From the beginning of the war, there was speculation constantly in the opening days of the war that we were taking heavier losses, and walking into a trap.
I loved Rumsfeld's response to a question in this vein, where a reporter questioned if we were walking into a trap, and Rumsfeld said: "I don't know of a strategy where you allow 75% of your men to be killed, and then launch a counter-attack with what's left." Or words to that effect.
I think at every stage, there was a network news attempt to say: There, see, things are going bad. We TOLD you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. And each time, that turned out to be wild speculation.
The missing WMD's are overplayed, the evidence of an ongoing WMD program is downplayed. The 10 U.N. resolutions against Iraq over the previous 12 years --Bush's main stated reason for invasion-- is downplayed. The rhetoric of Democrats (including Hilary Clinton) stating a clear danger of WMD's, and the need to act quickly in Iraq, right on up to March 2003 is downplayed. The 240 mass graves found in Iraq since March --an estimated 1 million executed, mostly still bound and blindfolded Iraqi corpses-- are downplayed.
I might think that kind of coverage is as much liberal bias as it is sensationalism that gives a greater sense of drama, and pulls in viewers.
Except that the dramatic footage that would justify Bush's invasion, footage that would make great television, is ignored. Which makes me lean toward liberal bias as an explanation.
