better known as The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, formally stated the intentions of the United States to overthrow Hussein. Here's a direct quote from Section 3 of the text:

‘It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.' 

That same law outlines some of the reasons behind the decision to bring down Hussein. Among them are war crimes, the documented use of chemical weapons, genocide, a failed Iraqi plot to assassinate an American president, and the fact that ‘Iraq has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.' That's another direct quote from the law. Look it up at your local library. It's interesting reading.

In October of ‘98, when The Iraq Liberation Act was signed, George W. Bush was campaigning for reelection as governor of Texas. His name wasn't even in the hat for the presidency when his predecessor and the 105 th Congress committed America to replacing Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. You won't see that on the front page of the national newspapers.

Ask the average American citizen about U.S. casualties in Iraq, and you're likely to get an earful about our unprecedented losses. The media encourages the belief that we're taking a beating over there, because it frightens us and it angers us. What they won't tell you is that the casualty rate in Iraq is lower than in any other armed conflict we've ever engaged in. They won't tell you that our total losses in thirty-eight months of fighting are less than a third of our average monthly losses in World War II. They won't tell you that more Americans choke to death in restaurants every year than we lose in Iraq. They won't mention the fact that, even adjusted for the scale of the conflict, our casualty rates in Iraq are so low that they are statistically anomalous. There is no historical precedent for protracted operations with such a low death rate, but you won't see that on cable news.

A few months ago, I watched a news report about the body armor in use by U.S. troops in Iraq. A grim-faced correspondent announced sadly that the current generation of armor leaves our Soldiers vulnerable to injury. The subtext of the report strongly insinuated that indifferent military leaders are callously sending our troops into harm's way with substandard protective equipment. What I didn't see in the report was any mention of the fact that all body armor leaves the wearer vulnerable to injury. I saw no attempt to point out to viewers that there is no design or level of quality that can protect against all injury; that there never has been, and that there never will be. Nor did I see any mention of the Pentagon's extensive research into the compromises between armor coverage and physical agility. There is a point at which the weight of additional armor and the accompanying loss of mobility combine to make a Soldier more vulnerable to injury rather than less. Working in the desert, a Soldier with too much armor can actually die from heatstroke without the enemy firing a shot. But there was no mention of that in the news report. A large percentage of the military personnel serving in Iraq believe that wearing less armor would make them faster, more maneuverable, and ultimately safer. None of that came out in the report, because a dispassionate consideration of the facts takes the drama and tension right out of the story. Not a lot of people are likely to get spun up over a reasoned decision based on the limitations of existing technology and the tradeoffs between protection and mobility. But apathy and incompetence on the part of heartless military leaders? That's a story! It fairly screams controversy. So the news correspondent skipped over the research and decision-making process used by the military and went straight for the angle that would send the average viewer into emotional overload.

There's a joke email circulating around the internet under the label “Men's Rules,” or “The Man Code.” It purports to be a sort of macho manifesto: a list of rules that women must understand and accept in order to live peacefully alongside male members of the species. Most items on the list are silly and a few are patently offensive, but there's one that always brings me a smile: “If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.”

With a few revisions, I think that so-called rule could become a fair summary of the journalism-for-profit manifesto. “If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you frightened or angry, that's the one we meant.”

It's not about conspiracy; it's about controversy. It's about circulation figures and rating shares. It's not politics; it's profit.

I almost hesitate to submit this column, because I can already see the flurry of angry emails it's going to bring me. Before you break out the poison pens, you should know that I'm staunchly against any attempt to rein in the American media. The Bill of Rights makes Freedom of the Press sacrosanct, and I think it should be. Although I'm frequently disappointed by the media's tendency to elevate sensationalism over truth, I wouldn't want to live in a country where the media doesn't have the right to disappoint me. An unregulated press is one of the core components of a free society. I've spent most of my adult life working to defend that right, and I will gladly do it again. But the same First Amendment that protects the press also gives me the right to voice my disapproval when the press falls short of its promise.

I must also note that there are a lot of journalists out there who do try to get it right. There are people in the news industry who do their very best to shoot straight, and to treat conflicting views with equal weight. Unfortunately, big-ticket reporters often marginalize straight shooters. Un-slanted news invites contemplation, research, and thoughtful discussion. It doesn't create the storms of emotional discord that drive up ratings and circulation. So the balanced and reasonable stories don't make the headlines. They end up below the fold on page 6, if they make the news at all. And most of us miss the balanced stories entirely because we've learned to settle for headlines, fifteen-second sound bytes, and the ticker at the bottom of the cable news screen.

If you want to know what's going on in the world, you have to dig. You have to investigate, inquire, and -- where possible -- talk to people who have a personal connection to the events that interest you. If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, turn off your television and talk to a few Soldiers who've been there. If you want to know how the Iraqi people feel about the U.S. military presence in Iraq, find some Iraqi citizens and ask them. Turn to page 6 or page 11 and read the stories below the fold. And when a story on the news pushes your blood pressure through the roof, remember that it was almost certainly engineered to do precisely that.

The media gives you about 5% of the information that you need to reach an intelligent conclusion on most world events. Go read some of the other 95%. More often than not, the rest of the story is easily available through records that are open to the public. The media is counting on the fact that you'll never bother to check up on their version of things. Fool them. Find out for yourself. And remember: it's not bias; it's business.