In yet another highly controlled, one-on-one interview, President Obama told Katie Couric that he has not ruled out trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, even though New York officials and Congressmen are saying that they don’t want the trial in Manhattan.

However, the thing that stood out in that part of the interview was that President Obama stated that 190 terrorists had been successfully convicted in federal courts:

He also defended his decision, noting again that the administration of former President George W. Bush had handled terror suspects arrested in the United States in the same way.

“They prosecuted 190 folks in these Article III courts, got convictions and those folks are in maximum security prisons right now. And there have been no escapes,” Obama said. “And it is a virtue of our system we should be proud of.”

Just last week Eric Holder stated that 300 terrorists had been tried and convicted in federal courts.  It’s important to note that Attorney General Holder told a Senate panel in November that he would produce a list of the 300 terrorists convicted in federal courts, including what the actual charges were, and to date he has failed to live up to that promise.

As is often the case with the Obama administration, the ‘message’ changes based on who is speaking and who they are speaking to.  A few weeks ago, when Axelrod, Jarret and Gibbs made the rounds of Sunday talk shows, their ‘claims’ of jobs ‘saved or created’ ranged from thousands to two million.

In the case of these terrorist convictions, we have heard hundreds, 200, 300 and now 190, but the White House has continued to promise, but not deliver, a list of these convicted terrorists.

Another night and another Olbermann tirade (anyone else think he should have kept that Sportscenter job?).  Last night he lashed out at Joe Lieberman calling him an embarrassment and suggesting Lieberman should resign over his position on the proposed health care bill.

Tonight, CBS showed they are clearly on the media-bias bandwagon in attacking Joe Lieberman for simply doing his job.

Newsbusters breaks down the latest rants:

A night after MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann demanded Senator Joe Lieberman “just resign already” as he shrieked “you are embarrassing humanity!”, CBS joined in targeting Connecticut’s “independent Democrat” for daring to oppose liberals on health care. “He holds the 60th vote needed to get the health care reform bill passed in the Senate,” anchor Katie Couric intoned, “and Nancy Cordes tells us supporters of reform are angry and confused about Lieberman’s position.”

Cordes soon expanded the exasperation to include “Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson” who “successfully blocked the public option even though the other 55 Democrats support it. Nelson is still holding out for stricter anti-abortion language, leading some liberals to complain their agenda is being hijacked by a few.” She demanded of Lieberman: “Does it trouble you that you’re going against an overwhelming majority of your caucus?” (Hard to imagine a CBS reporter ever scolding a more liberal Republican for defying the party’s conservative majority.)

A frustrated Cordes concluded: “So this small group of four or so Senators has managed successfully to impose their will on the other 530 members of Congress because the changes that they’re demanding to the Senate bill will likely have to be made to the House bill, too.”

In a court of law, they often use the “reasonable person” test.  Would a “reasonable person” reach a certain conclusion?  Can any reasonable person read or watch the CBS and MSNBC reports of the last three days and honestly claim that these reporters’ liberal bias is not only clouding their ability to be unbiased, but is showing in their venomous reports?