Media Unbiased?

I oppose the war in Iraq, and I have many questions about how real the possibility is that the Iraqi people can take control and sustain a democracy after so much turmoil. Nevertheless, I do believe that the Iraqi people are better off having the chance to do this without living under the oppression of a brutal dictator. I have had an interesting time trying to form a balanced opinion about this matter - especially when thinking about who has the better plan to see the situation in Iraq all of the way through to really keep it from becoming a future haven for terrorist networks. But where can we really get a balanced view of things?

Chris at Veritas reports:

So, yesterday the Iraq Survey Group -- which was/is responsible for finding WMDs in Iraq -- released its long-awaited, 1000 page report.

Now, if all your news comes from the MSM -- like this AP story -- then you're bound not to hear certain things, like the fact that Saddam bribed politicians, journalists, and anyone else he thought would help him get rid of the sanctions on Iraq. Specifically, he went after France, Russia, and China, three countries which -- surprise! -- happen to have veto power on the UN Security Council.

In addition, the ISG found that Saddam's intent was that once sanctions were gone, he would begin -- again -- to actually develop WMDs, because the infrastructure for their production remained.

In other words, though there was no evidence of the physical existence of WMDs in Iraq, the future of the world is better without Saddam in power. I listened to details about Duelfer's report on all of the various networks, but the most balanced account, which included details about Saddam's bribery of the very countries responsible for imposing sanctions, was on FoxNews. Can we really trust those whom we like to call our Allies?