After the recent trifecta-plus-Rooney on 60 Minutes (three stories and an Andy Rooney segment that were either pro-Democrat, anti-war, or anti-Bush), I predicted another hit piece before the election.
To my mild surprise, there was not an overt story to influence the election. Scott ("Food Lines Under Republican Administrations") Pelley did a report that was actually favorable to one aspect of the Iraq campaign, medical evacuations. But he had to add a gratuitous introductory statement about there not being enough troops on the ground. There was also a revealing moment where an Iraqi-born American doctor was asked whether it was all worth it. When the doctor answered in the affirmative, Pelley squeaked an incredulous, "Really?" Pelley's editorializing does not appear in the online transcript.
Even in a positive report about the war, there are revealing snippets of liberal bias.
I should add that the context of the discussion over whether the war was "worth it" was a young Iraqi boy wounded in a (presumably insurgent) bombing. If a boy is maimed by other Iraqis, that would not seem to prompt soul-searching about our own involvement. If he were accidentally wounded by Americans, then of course we would have remorse. But to place responsibility on the U.S. for what seems to be Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has a whiff of Jeane Kirkpatrick's Blame America First.