This Just in: Operation Iraqi Freedom was a Slam Dunk

One of the benefits to being a conservative is that you aren't required to lie in order to win political arguments.

But let's pretend for a second that President George W. Bush was forced to lie to the American people as frequently as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And let's pretend the media went with it...

After all, Mr. Obama claims the bailout bill is not a bailout bill. Despite grainy video evidence where he states the exact opposite, Mr. Obama now insists he does not support a single-payer healthcare system. Do the media question Mr. Obama about these and other discrepancies?

Not for one second.

From 2001 - 2009, what would the media have reported if W. possessed the same hypnotic power?

Not only would they have reported lies as the truth, they would have gone out of their way to campaign for the already-elected president.

Matt Lauer would have undoubtedly announced to millions of early risers, "The United States has officially conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Though minor skirmishes continue, our military was able to accomplish this awesome feat the very same day on which we attacked each country. Mr. Bush is doing everything in his power to limit the number of civilian causalities and the toppling of Saddam Hussein statues throughout Iraq prove our brave soldiers are viewed as liberators."

Later, on MSNBC, a teary-eyed Chris Matthews would elaborate. "The tingle currently running up my leg is the result of seeing our troops boldly enter Iraq, and the reality that these heroic men and women are inspired by their fearless Commander in Chief."

The mainstream media would have reported that the war in Iraq was won long before Mr. Bush arrived with his infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Regardless of their aggression level, Code Pink and other anti-war protesters would have been labeled by the media as lunatics on the verge of violence. "After the break, we'll ask Dick Morris if Code Pink founder Madea Benjamin could be the next Timothy McVeigh," are words Bill O'Reilly would have used to tease the Factor audience.

The media would have bent over backwards to blame 9/11 on anyone other than George W. Bush, going as far as openly wondering whether or not his political adversaries had anything to do with heinous attacks.

"Though his short stay in the White House makes him blameless for the attacks on America, George W. Bush still had the guts to invade two countries. Of course the international community, whom we protect militarily, will unjustly criticize Mr. Bush for what they deem unnecessary aggression. He didn't start the war on terror, but he'll put his butt on the line to finish it. This is exactly the type of man we need leading America," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would have informed his readers.

Of course, with the exception of the "fair and balanced" Mr. O'Reilly, these pundits despised Mr. Bush, making the above scenarios laughably unbelievable. Yet the enthusiasm contained within each fabricated snippet mirrors the actual vigor with which the real mainstream media supports President Barack Obama.

As a conservative, the last thing I want is for the American media to behave in an overtly partisan manner, even if my side benefited as a result.

I just want them to tell the truth.