What Liberal Media? #1

Bush reaffirms Pakistan alliance

U.S. President George W. Bush gains reassurances from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan is doing everything it can to help in the so-called war on terror -- and that both sides will remain in close coordination in the hunt for al Qaeda terrorists.

So I'm reading the news this morning and go by CNN.com where one couldn't help but notice the above lead story with a very peculiar caption underneath.

"So-called" war on terror???

Harry Belafonte Has Gone Totally Senile

Harry Belafonte: Bush Kept Me from King Funeral

Bush-basher Harry Belafonte blamed President Bush for the calypso singer’s no-show at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

Belafonte, a friend of Martin Luther King Jr., had been scheduled to speak at the funeral in suburban Atlanta on February 7.

But he told reporters that Bush influenced the King family to withdraw his invitation, and he was told about the decision the day before the funeral, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports. "I received a phone call which told me that since the president of the United States made the statement that he was coming to the ceremonies, the invitation that was extended to me would be withdrawn," Belafonte said.

The King children made the final decision, Belafonte said, but they were "fiercely intimidated by the president's representatives."

In January, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" during a trip to Venezuela. He has also been critical of the war in Iraq and the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Although he was unable to attend King's funeral, Belafonte said he doesn't take back his statements about Bush.

Now based on concern for personal safety alone, why anyone would want to be in the same room with someone they themselves have labeled "the greatest terrorist in the world" is beyond me. Unless, of course, your real reason for wanting to attend Coretta Scott King's funeral was to bash the President to his face as opposed to eulogizing Mrs. King's memory. But then, using funerals for personal & political attacks are considered disrespectful by most . . . unless, of course, you're just a Bush-hating liberal who gets off on that sort of thing.

South Dakota Abortion Measure Goes Too Far

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds

Abortion measure could mean big legal battle

Restrictions on abortion that would be the most severe since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the practice 33 years ago are likely to turn South Dakota into an expensive legal battleground should they become law.

Legislation on Republican Gov. Mike Rounds' desk would ban abortion in virtually all cases, punishing doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison, and directly challenging what is currently the law of the land.

The measure would ban abortion if a woman was pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or if giving birth would damage the health of the mother. It would allow an abortion to save a woman's life.

Rounds indicated he would sign the proposal into law after scrutinizing it. He vetoed a similar provision two years ago on a technicality, although he favored it on merit.

"If the bill is correctly written, then I will seriously consider signing the bill. It would be a direct frontal assault on Roe vs. Wade," the Republican governor said on ABC News' "Good Morning America" on Saturday.

Even before he acts, there is money on the table. An anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to help the state fight the inevitable legal battle for the measure, backers of the provision say. Abortion foes also are urging those in their camp to mail in donations of $10 each to Rounds for the same purpose.

While the intent of South Dakotan's with this bill may be just, I think it goes too far and will eventually be turned down by the courts due to Roe vs. Wade being current law and gut feeling that we don't yet have the votes to overturn it. Besides that, while I don't support Roe vs. Wade in any way, shape of form, I do support abortions in cases of rape or incest because I believe that the emotional suffrage from either act greatly impacts the ability to bear and raise a child. To make a woman feel obligated to bear a baby created due to an act of violation is wrong, unjust and tremendously insensitive. There's just no way around that.