Out-Foxed by Clinton

I had planned a flowering narrative about my recent California road trip as my triumphant return to non-sports blogging. [Ed. Note: for Kolsky's sports blogging, try the newly created Thinking Man's Sports Reference or the soon-to-return Chicago Bulls and NBA blog which will hopefully feature some audio material this season...] Sadly my editorial tendencies contributed to a month or so muddled in the creation and revision process, and I'm afraid my short work of recent-historical fiction lost steam.

Steam, now, is the least of my concerns. And I'm bold enough to suggest that, sometimes, what it takes to rouse an erstwhile blogger from a prose-less stupor is nothing more than a former president taking a "news man" to task for his classless and clearly partisan interviewing tactics.

Many of you know of what I speak. If that's the case, go ahead and skip this paragraph. For the rest, the greatest Mr. President of my lifetime was recently invited onto Fox News under the pretext of an interview regarding the Clinton Global Initiative (which was sadly lost in the shuffle) and subsequently ambushed with rudely and smugly constructed questions about his "inability" to fight terrorism - and particularly Bin Laden - while he was in office. Mr. Clinton vigorously attempted to set the record straight on that subject and a couple others (most notably the fact that Fox News is little more than a fount of conservative propaganda.

Perhaps you've already perceived my righteous fury. Maybe that's a bit strong - but I wholeheartedly back Big Bill on this, specifically with regards to Fox's blindly partisan "news" coverage. Certainly I realize that part - if not the majority - of Clinton's motivation here is to defend himself against these accusations, but he does a very good job of focusing on the irresponsibility of the line of questioning and on what he did do to combat terrorism, most of which was undone or put on hold by the current administration.

For the court's consideration:
  1. Clinton was criticized left and right by conservatives for harping on terror on his way out of office. As he points out, he didn't have a heck of a lot of time to go after Bin Laden (given that they didn't really know anything about him until a year or so into his second term) but he did attempt to catch him and leave a work in progress for Bush Jr. Sadly, the recommendation of an adulterous democrat - never mind his Rhodes scholarship or 8 years of distinguished public service as President - was just enough to get the "terror czar" demoted and the search for Bin Laden tabled.
  2. Fox News, who booked the Clinton interview under false pretenses (say what you will about Chris Wallace's ultimate intentions to ask about the CGI, it's clear to me that his primary motive was an assault on the subject of terror), has been at the front of every piece of positive press for the current Republican Regime, while lagging behind - and often promoting misinformation, or at least misleading information - when the news brings that group's failures to light. This goes for Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, and domestic issues alike.
  3. Political specifics aside, the smug expression on Wallace's face as he asked directed questions about Clinton's admitted failure to successfully fight terror quite obviously illuminated his ulterior motives. The most upsetting thing to me, as a writer and sometime journalist, is his utter lack of regard for journalistic integrity. Even if he had asked conservatives these sort of questions, it was clear he thought to be "sticking it" to Clinton on the terror issue and loving every minute of it. It is possible to ask these sorts of questions with integrity and respect for the craft of journalism, which is supposed to be inherently balanced and bipartisan. What Wallace did was not journalism, it was an attempt at live spin.
  4. I won't waste too much time on this, but just to give you an idea, here is a transcription of the kind of question Wallace asks of conservatives (Condoleeza Rice in this case, a few days after her testimony at the 9/11 Commission): "When commission member Jaime Gorelick was questioning you about that, did you know that when she was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, that she had issued an order that, in fact, helped build the so-called wall even higher?" Forgetting the fact that this isn't even really a question at all, it contains assertions that are blatantly untrue and actually has nothing whatsoever to do with Condoleeza's job or even really the "War on Terror." It's just a lie with a question mark at the end. Among the questions not asked to Ms. Rice during this interview (which, to reiterate, came on April 18, 2004, right after she spoke to the 9/11 Commission):
    • Why was terror "czar" Richard Clarke demoted when President Clinton essentially told you he was the most important and informed person on terrorism?
    • What happened with the USS Cole, which was bombed in late 2000, and why was little done in response?
    • Did you just ignore that August '01 report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." or were you planning on getting to it somewhere around mid-September?
  5. Isn't it curious that - despite near-regular interviews with national security officials inside the White House - no questions about the USS Cole or Richard Clarke's demotion have ever been put to a Bush II administrator by Chris Wallace?
This is what irks me. Newspeople are supposed to have opinions. Occasionally, in the right scenario, they are even encouraged to express these opinions. There is no defense whatsoever for masking one's opinions as facts, nor for including assumptions, assertions or even inferences in the context of questions so as to presume there is truth within them.

Thank you, Mr. Clinton, for having the stones (and the composure, since he remained remarkably even-keeled throughout his reprimand of Wallace) to come out and say what every clear-thinking liberal has known for nearly a decade: Fox News is nothing more than a room full of conservative shills, pushing a Republican agenda and blatantly ignoring the news that discredits - or even questions - their parti pris.

Oh, and it's nice to be back. That was cathartic... I feel energized. I leave you with a topical bit of celebrity humor...
Q: What's the difference between a Jew and a bottle of tequila?



A: Mel Gibson likes tequila!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home