LoftyPines Wrote:Jon Stewart had a good bit on the coverage of the Clinton interview last night. It basically showed how all the networks completely ignored the facts that Clinton presented, and completely hyped up the fact that he 'freaked out'.
If you get the chance to see a re-air of it I recommend it.
While I agree that Fox News can get a tad annoying with their "fair and balanced " on air hype, I have to point out that CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are just as slanted in their coverage, if not more in some instances, as Fox News is. The network media come across, in my opinion, as patiently biased in their coverage and presentation of the facts. They are not interested in a broad overview of the facts, but on the facts and opinions they think will grab people's attention, thus generating high ratings. If it bleeds, it leads. And the network media is not above making deals with the devil or pursuing stories in an effort to make somebody look bad.
For instance, CNN routinely ignored or supressed evidence of Saddam's torture and killing of his fellow citizens that came from their reporters at their Baghdad bureau. They did this because they wanted to keep access to Baghdad for their reporters, because on the ground live feeds from Baghdad increased viewership and thus ratings. They claim they suppressed those reports because they were worried about the safety of their local reporters, but I highly doubt this was the case.
Dan Rather pursued a story about Bush's Air Guard service in an effort to "get the president". I don't think he did it out of personal bias, but mainly out of fear that his source would go to another network and he'd lose a big scoop. My main fault with the network media in Washington generally isnt their politics, its their obsession and game of "getting" the president or anyone they think should be brought low. It's an old saying in the Washington press corps that if you aren't a source, then you are a target and that's not what news reporting should be.
More to the point of LoftyPines's post, I think that while Clinton did make an effort to get Bin Laden, I think he did it in a way that was penny wise and pound foolish. He says he contracted with groups to kill Bin Laden, but when he had a chance to eliminate him, he bungled the opportunity. They had a chance to arrest him or do something with him when he was based in Sudan in 1994, but all they managed to do is to get him ousted by the government of Sudan, whereupon he set up base in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Bush is accused of being too chummy with the Saudi's, but Clinton is as guilty as Bush in not being decisive enough to force the Saudis to take Bin Laden down or bring him to justice. Another point, when Clinton retaliated for the embassy bombings in Africa, the best he can do is cruise missile strikes against an Al Queda compound of in Afghanistan and a pharmacutical (sp?) factory in Africa? Meanwhile his secretary of state warns the Pakistanis that an air strike is imminent so they can deal with the diplomatic repercussions. It just boggles the mind how inept Clinton's anti-terrorism policy was.
cratch: 
