FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Clinton Defends His Record (aka Clinton Gets Aggressive) (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Clinton Defends His Record (aka Clinton Gets Aggressive)
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
I think both sides do this, it's just a question of subject matter.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Nah. You can make the case that he's not if you care to. I'm tired of doing the research in response to glib, unsupported opinions when the makers of such opinions can't bother to do it themselves.
Considering that this was basically an assertion made by Bill Clinton, I don't think your description of the people making it is accurate. Regardless of what you think of the former president, I don't think that you could say that he generally offers glib, unsupported opinions and can't bother to do research himself.

I tried searching for a Chris Wallace interview with any of the major players (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice) that asked the sort of questions he asked President Clinton. I couldn't find one. I expanded that search to just Fox news. Still couldn't find them.

To be fair, though, I could only find I think 7 interviews and a couple were really on different topics. I did, however, post a link to an interview with Condoleeza Rice, who was National Security Advisor during the lead up to 9/11/2001. This interview was done on the anniversary of 9/11 as part of the media coverage of this 5 year anniversary. It was also done during the time that the "Path to 9/11" thing was going on, which was, as Chris Wallace said, one of the main reason he asked Bill Clinton these questions. And in that interview, not only didn't Mr. Wallace as Secretary Rice any questions of the type he said he has asked to people in the Bush administration, but he also let her get away with seriously misrepresenting the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

I did the research for that specific claim. Since you've represented that (granted not directly to this specific claim) this can be definitely said to be false, I think sharing the information you have that allows you to claim this would kinda be incumbent on maintaining that position.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Mig,
So do you agree that President Bush and his administration really screwed up in a reasonably preventable way in regards to 9/11?

The way I see it, if you're saying that President Clinton should be expected to have done more, then the people who took over for him, knowing what he knew, who had the support of a Congress that was pretty hostile to President Clinton, and who also received a strong urging from the departing administration that this was a threat they should take very seriously, should obviously be expected to have done even more than he had. Instead of much less, which, despite you're belief otherwise in the face of statements made in the interview, several people on this thread, and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, is what they did.

I don't see that this is something that can be brushed aside with just a "that's a fair point". If what they did was worse than what President Clinton did, how can you still support them as strongly as you do? If they really dropped the ball this badly, how can you expect people to trust them? In my view, this is especially relevant in that, unlike Richard Clarke and President Clinton, the Bush administration has and continues to maintain they were not at fault.

[ September 25, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Considering that this was basically an assertion made by Bill Clinton
It was an assertion made by Lyrhawn that I replied to.

quote:
I did the research for that specific claim. Since you've represented that (granted not directly to this specific claim) this can be definitely said to be false, I think sharing the information you have that allows you to claim this would kinda be incumbent on maintaining that position.
No you didn't. The specific claim was "Why is former President Clinton being asked harder questions, and being asked them more often, than CURRENT President Bush?"

You've apparantly researched this with respect to a single interviewer and to a single network. Not remotely enough to support the claim in question.

Since Lyrhawn represented that it can definitely said to be true, I'll wait for someone to provide some evidence before I waste my time doing the research.

Suffice it to say I've heard and seen such questions asked of Bush and of high-level administration officials, and I didn't bother to take notes of the dtae and time.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag,
My mistake. I was, for I think understandable reasons, focused on the bit I researched. Ultimately, I find the idea of comparing how "hard" the questions people are getting asked to be just about a big snipe hunt. Except by comparing specific cases, such as I did, I don't even know how or why you'd go about it.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My mistake. I was, for I think understandable reasons, focused on the bit I researched.
My blanket denial was very specifically targeted at a specific assertion which was not specifically targeted.

quote:
Ultimately, I find the idea of comparing how "hard" the questions people are getting asked to be just about a big snipe hunt. Except by comparing specific cases, such as I did, I don't even know how or why you'd go about it.
Which would be why making such a claim is fairly ludicrous to start with.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I was watching The Daily Show and I really do love Jon Stewart, he does a very good job of pointing out the idiocy in others. He showed Bush at a Church on Martin Luther King Day where prominant people got up supposedly to speak about Dr. King and instead we got Jimmy Carter mentioning "illegal wire taps being installed in Dr. Kings home, hint hint Bush! Followed by appaluse." And some reverend (sorry I do not remember his name) in a southern baptist revival build up spouts off nonsense about "But we know there were no WMD's in Iraq!" What!? It sure is nice to know that people felt the need to put Dr. King's posthumous stamp of approval on their opinions regarding foreign policy.

At least Clinton (to the best of my knowledge) does not have to put up with that garbage when he attends similar functions.

"We know that Martin Luther King was unfaithful to his wife, just like old Slick Willy behind me! They would have gotten along just great!"

Dagonee: If I find myself trying to prosecute somebody, can I pay your plane ticket and hire you to come down and represent me?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mig
Member
Member # 9284

 - posted      Profile for Mig   Email Mig         Edit/Delete Post 
Mr. Squicky, I don't think that either administration took the AQ problem seriously enough, but Clinton had eight years to react, Bush only had eight months before the first attack under his administration. Clinton failed to act or to take the AQ threat seriously despite several attacks during his term. But the focus here is on Clinton. If he thought that AQ was a threat, why did his administration final national treat assessment (prepared by Clarke I believe) not even list AQ.

Seeing as Clinton is relying on Clarke to defend himself hears another interesting quote from Clarke. The Bush team had to start from scratch when it took over. Why? Clarke said:

quote:
Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
quote:
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

Clinton was working so hard on AQ that he didn't even have a plan to pass on to the new administration! Is that what you call paying attention to a threat? See FOX interview with Clarke interview here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

But it sounds to me that the Bush team was trying to come up to speed before 9/11 from the dead stop Clinton had put the country in:

quote:
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

Mr Squicky, you should have looked harder. I did a quick seach and found that Wallace asked Rummy essentially the same question in 2004:

[QUOTE]What do you make of his basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?[QUOTE]

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html

Notice that Rummy didn't have to fake a tantrum to avoid the question. Clinton would rather fall back on the "vast right wing conspiracy" defense that served him so well with monica and and his serial abuse of women than to be honest about his record.

Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag -

I stand by it, and what I followed it up with.

Asking questions and letting the answerer to use your question as a bully pulpit is worse than not asking the question at all. It gives them a chance to be intentionally misleading.

I've said in other threads that I wish the Legislature treated the President much the same way that the House of Commons treats their PM. They ask him hard questions, often, and if he tries to stonewall them they spend about 2 seconds pausing before they call him/her on the BS. Democrats are starting to get serious about asking the hard questions, some, but not many newscasters are doing the same thing. The media is getting better bolder in Press Conferences, and I think their badgering is part of why Scott McCllelan is gone, mostly because he couldn't deal with it, and was much better dealing with a tame media.

I stand by my opinion that he isn't being asked good questions (I'll modify that from hard, because it's even more subjective), not often enough, not good enough, and that even when he does, he isn't being pressed well enough to provide quality answers that actually address the question.

I won't ask you to provide evidence to the contrary, though the fact that he's only given a tiny fraction of press conferences to what Clinton gave during his term in office is an indicator of the direction I'd head in if I were to look it up myself.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, Mig, you're so intellectually dishonest that it hurts.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Van Pelt
Member
Member # 5767

 - posted      Profile for John Van Pelt   Email John Van Pelt         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
Ultimately, I find the idea of comparing how "hard" the questions people are getting asked to be just about a big snipe hunt. Except by comparing specific cases, such as I did, I don't even know how or why you'd go about it.
Which would be why making such a claim is fairly ludicrous to start with.
Yes. And contradicting such a claim, likewise.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yes. And contradicting such a claim, likewise.
Not if it forces someone to actually make an attempt at providing analysis and reasoning for it.

There's still an ideological lopsidedness to the tolerance for ludicrous political statements on this board. I thought I'd fill in the gap, since it seems the pouncing on the ludicrous conservative statements happens quickly enough without me.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I stand by my opinion that he isn't being asked good questions
That's not the opinion I've challenged. Specifically, I've challenged the factual assertion that Clinton is being asked questions of hard more often than Bush.

Same challenge applies to "good," too.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I've challenged the factual assertion that Clinton is being asked questions of hard more often than Bush.
You know, I'm almost game for this one. Can you quantify "hard" for me, so I know which questions to discount? [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Wow, Mig, you're so intellectually dishonest that it hurts.

[ROFL]

I love how he thinks that setting up just about the same explanation for why Clinton went for it in an interview as was posited by YOU, (albiet, he did it first here, but its the same thing many people are saying/thinking), but couching it all in his biased language is going to change what it means.

"Clinton had to go to Fox to get mad," is pretty funny, since its exactly what you said, but just spun into a negative thing. Sure he had to go to fox to confront an interviewer who he knew was going to act a certain way- that's what everyone does- that's why people go on the Daily show, or Larry King, or anywhere. Of course you go in with an idea of where the interviewer is going to go- there is nothing dishonest in accepting the interview you know is going to go a certain way. Or if there is, then every celebrity, politician, author and artist, pretty much ever, has been dishonest in this regard- a certain amount of theatricality and DUH politics are to be expected. Beyond that, the interviewer should have been so dumb as to play into Clinton's deck if he DID get set up as a strawman! You'd be stupid not to prepare yourself when you're going to play hardball with a President.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Part of what makes a question hard, is the insistance of the interviewer that the person being questioned actually gives a straightforward, honest answer.

I've very rarely seen Bush given those kinds of questions. Lobbing up a softball for him and letting him use the interview as a personal address to the nation is useless, the interviewer might as well not even be there.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Van Pelt
Member
Member # 5767

 - posted      Profile for John Van Pelt   Email John Van Pelt         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
Yes. And contradicting such a claim, likewise.
Dagonee wrote:
Not if it forces someone to actually make an attempt at providing analysis and reasoning for it.

You have a point there, but as a matter of fine reasoning you have to admit your contradiction was ludicrous to the same degree and for the same reason as the original point. You could have as easily said "Prove it" or the like.

I do sometimes wish you wouldn't so often lob in your assertions (sometimes argued, sometimes not) that the poster is wrong or misled or whatever, without actually stating what you believe (on the topic), and why. It comes across to me as a kind of hands-off refereeing, which feels arrogant.

But this is arguing at the fringes, and I am guilty of it as well. I think I deplore illogical thinking as much as you deplore related sorts of intellectual dishonesty. (And there's a role for that kind of post, as well.)
quote:
There's still an ideological lopsidedness to the tolerance for ludicrous political statements on this board. I thought I'd fill in the gap, since it seems the pouncing on the ludicrous conservative statements happens quickly enough without me.
I see an interesting parallel between this comment and the themes in this thread. [Smile] And you may be right; I'll watch for that.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I do sometimes wish you wouldn't so often lob in your assertions (sometimes argued, sometimes not) that the poster is wrong or misled or whatever, without actually stating what you believe (on the topic), and why. It comes across to me as a kind of hands-off refereeing, which feels arrogant.

Why? Because it's 'arrogant'? I'm genuinely curious. He didn't make up the rules. Perhaps he is reluctant to do as you ask, because so often when he does what he does, it gets somewhat or completely ignored in the rush to focus on what he 'must' believe because he states the rules.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nighthawk
Member
Member # 4176

 - posted      Profile for Nighthawk   Email Nighthawk         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/

"And, like that... he's gone."

Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
*blink* Do we in fact know this, or even know that Clinton knew this?
Does it matter? What did Clinton do to find out if Iraq had WMDs? If Clinton couldn't have known then Bush couldn't have known. Of course that doesn't stop you from calling Bush a liar
quote:
I AM ticked that Bush lied to me about something as important as WMD
quote:
doc, the simple truth is this: Bush lied, and was less than diligent in pursuit of the truth.

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
This is the transcript of the really tough question Clinton was asked
"WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?

There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...

CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.

WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"
THAT is the really tough question? I think it was a nice softball question that he could easily hit out of the park.

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John Van Pelt
Member
Member # 5767

 - posted      Profile for John Van Pelt   Email John Van Pelt         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
I do sometimes wish you wouldn't so often lob in your assertions (sometimes argued, sometimes not) that the poster is wrong or misled or whatever, without actually stating what you believe (on the topic), and why. It comes across to me as a kind of hands-off refereeing, which feels arrogant.
Rakeesh wrote:
Why? Because it's 'arrogant'? I'm genuinely curious. He didn't make up the rules. Perhaps he is reluctant to do as you ask, because so often when he does what he does, it gets somewhat or completely ignored in the rush to focus on what he 'must' believe because he states the rules.

Why does it feel arrogant? Well, certainly not because I think it IS arrogant -- otherwise I would have said so. I was merely stating how it feels to me, and he can take my feelings into account next time, or not. Probably not. No problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'rules.' Do you mean rules of debate? Like, don't make unsupported assertions, or blanket claims for which you are not prepared to supply references and data?

I can't comment on what "so often" happens. I'm sure what you describe does happen sometimes. Person A makes an impassioned point, Person B points out their illogic or flawed debating style, and Person A mistakenly believes that Person B is on the other side of said argument.

Sometimes Person B is forced to explain "no, I might even be on your side, Person A, but in this case I'm not committing to a side, I'm just pointing out your deficiencies as a debater."

In a macro view, for Hatrack as a community, that's a valid role. For any given thread, I sometimes feel a frisson of annoyance, that an otherwise very wise and reasoned and intelligent voice has participated without either furthering the ideas under discussion or committing their weight to a direction.

Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
DK -

It's hard in the sense that it forces Clinton to objectively look back at his past performance and point out, recognzie, and admit to mistakes he thinks he made during his presidency. Now for Clinton, that actually isn't all that difficult. He's honest when it comes to these things, and he isn't afraid of saying he was wrong.


But this is how Bush responds to hard or difficult questions:

quote:
In December, the commission slammed the Bush administration for failing to implement many critical recommendations from that report.

President Bush sidestepped the controversy Tuesday when asked about it at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who came to power after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban following 9/11.

"I've watched all this finger-pointing and namings of names and all that stuff," Bush said. "Our objective is to secure the country.

"And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 commission, we had the look-back this, we had the look-back that. American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything we can to protect them. I'm not going to comment on other comments."

It's a serious question. Why, even years after that report came out with it's recommendations has Bush STILL not made the changes necesssary to make us safer, especially given "America's Safety" seems to always be in the forefront of his mind? He didn't even give us his usual BS answer, he gave us "no comment." Accepting that kind of answer means there's little point in even asking it. Presidents can't just be held accountable by elections every four years. The media is there to hold him accountable ALL the time. And from what I've seen, that isn't happening. Certainly not with questions and responses like that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
It's worth noting that Fox had promos for Wallace's interview with Clinton with the headline "Clinton Gets Crazed". It was later changed.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/fox-clinton-promo/

After the recent interview, Media Matters, a left-leaning website, has analyzed Fox News Sunday's (I think all interviews were by either Wallace, the current host, or Tony Snow, the former host and current WH press secretary )questions of top administration officials, and concluded that many tough and relevant questions were not asked, or asked only rarely. "Wallace falsehood: said in Clinton interview that he asked Bush admin officials "plenty of questions" about failure to catch bin Laden"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting point, DarkKnight.

So, it's safe to say that Bush and his administration also lied when they attacked Iraq?

We've all pretty much agreed here (in fact, Bush himself has agreed) that the "intelligence" they used was inaccurate--certainly no better than what Clinton relied upon (and for which you support the claim that "Clintion Lied!")

Or maybe I missed the thread where you acknowledged that the reasons for the US attack on Iraq (George W Bush era) were totally bogus.

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hitoshi
Member
Member # 8218

 - posted      Profile for Hitoshi   Email Hitoshi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:

After the recent interview, Media Matters, a left-leaning website [...] concluded that many tough and relevant questions were not asked, or asked only rarely.

Well of course they're going to come to that conclusion. They lean left. Do you expect a left, or for that matter, right leaning news source to ever pass up an opportunity to try and hurt the other party? I wouldn't put it past either left or right leaning sites to try and put their own spin on things.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Hitoshi, just because it's left-leaning doesn't mean everything they write is a self-serving lie. If the questions weren't asked, they weren't asked.

There were 35 Fox News Sunday interviews with top administration officials since September 11, 2001, and Media Matters found specific topics were routinely ignored.
quote:
But beyond this exchange [one Rumsfeld interview--Morbo], the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Anyway, if we accept your premise, it follows directly that right-leaning Fox would not press the Bush administration on it's failures and shortcomings, right? Therefore the Media Matters conclusions have to be valid. [Razz]
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2