I was reading today's CNN.com report on President Bush's visit to Great Britain when I came across the following paragraph:

Bush also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying Israel "should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences."

My first thought at reading this was that it was further evidence that a certain New York Times columnist was wrong when he wrote:

Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America's good intentions if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon does.

After reading the actual text of Bush's speech, it became apparent that Bush wasn't being one-sided when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- but CNN.

From Bush's speech:

Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, who tolerate and profit from corruption and maintain their ties to terrorist groups. These are the methods of the old elites, who time and again have put their own self-interest above the interests of the people they claim to serve.

The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders, capable of creating and governing a Palestinian state.

Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel.

Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.

Who is Bush talking about? Yasser Arafat, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and who routinely makes statements about a "million martyrs marching" to Jerusalem.

Yet CNN makes no mention of this? Instead highlighting an illegitimate Palestinian grievance. (I say illegitimate because there would be no fence if Arafat hadn't decided on terrorism instead of peace back in 2000.)

On the whole, Bush's speech was excellent, but dishonest reporting can paint a completely different picture.