The normally milktoast-lame John Dickerson had some refreshingly feisty words to say about GW's latest floundering tactic regarding the war:

In the fall of 2003, the president complained the media filter was distorting the news out of Iraq, and during the 2004 campaign, Bush political advisers told me about discussions in which they flirted with getting into a public debate with the New York Times over its war coverage as a way to build public support for the president.
<..>
No matter how many upbeat stories one might hear about better electricity or rebuilt schools in Iraq, it's never going to balance out the horror of violence. And it shouldn't. To talk about press bias in response to questions about violence suggests an equivalence between dead soldiers and new hospitals. An increase in the number of positive stories is not going to rebuild support for Bush's policies.

The genie is out of the bottle on that front. Just look at most Republicans scrambling to create as much distance between themselves and GW/Cheney.

Even assuming this latest MSM bashing rings true (it doesn't), why is it we never heard similar harsh criticism from the right about the media's lapdog, water-carrying coverage leading up to the war? Where was their objectivity then (in particular, the "liberal" NY Times)? It's a two-way street.