Wednesday, December 21, 2005
SURE, NO BIAS
Stolen from Opinionnation.
Clinton launched an illegal and immoral war in Bosnia and Kosovo, appeased terrorism, lied (and I'm not talking about Monica), killed innocent civilians in Iraq, bombed Iraq on the same Intel Bush used, made regime change in Iraq US policy, divided the country, is a redneck from Arkansas, Pardoned hundreds of criminals, Halliburton was used for contracts, employed shady staff like Sandy Berger, and many more. Using Liberal logic Bush and Clinton are the same.
So, if there's no bias towards Bush in the mainstream media, Za, why did they never harp on this stuff. Other than the redneck from Arkansas thing that is, being that I'm a redneck from Oklahoma. I don't remember BM calling Clinton a criminal for his illegal attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan or sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo or Mogadishu like they do with Bush & Iraq. Other than Monica, he was pretty much sainted by the media. Hell, they make it seem like he was impeached for receiving oral sex from her rather than his crime of lying under oath.

Mogadishu. That's something a lot of people seem to have forgotten. Thank God Bush isn't some yellow coward like Clinton was. Pulling out the first time things got hairy. Then leaving Somalia in the hands of the U.N.

5 comments:

Za said...

They did harp on most of that stuff, and a lot of other stuff besides. Would you like me to give you quotes?

Za said...

Let's see:
Bosnia and Kosovo had UN approval, so not illegal.
No oil in Bosnia and Kosovo, so no immoral.
Lied, well there was a lot on that.
Killed innocent civis in Iraq - yeah, a bit on that.
The CIA didn't make any mention of not having that intelligence at the time, so I dunno.
He didn't divide the country anywhere near the point the Bush Administration did.
Don't give a damn about "redneck" or nay.
Pardoning criminals... dunno.
An ex-Halliburton executive wasn't a part of his administration, so no.
Shady staff, definitely - quite a furor about that in fact.
But I agree - many more.

The Republicans, during Clinton's time, said the exact same things that they deride the Democrats for saying now (you know - all that stuff Bush says is "irresponsible" to say).

There were stories about travel office firings (a relatively inconsequential issue you'd imagine) that lasted for weeks.

Now you look at the current news stories, see them all (or mostly - since you do get the support of Drudge and Fox) anti-Bush. Would you rather that they only said good things about him? Never criticised him? That'd be as partisan as you make them out to be currently! Similarly, if a news outlet found legitimate problems with Bush's policies, the only way for you not to call them "biased" based off this, is if they had a regular section specifically designed to counter the problems they find. That is also non-partisan, because they're going out of their way to find things to counter the facts they find.

So the only way you'll be happy is if they either make stuff up, or stretch beyond the immediate issues, or are biased in a way you'll like.
Sorry, but that's not how reporting should work.

They found a lot of problems with Clinton, they find a lot of problems with Bush. Reading through the comparisons, they inflated a lot of (compared to what Bush has done) minor issues with Clinton, while they downplay most of Bush's stuff, to the point that if any discussion of Bush's failures are to last (in the news), they require something massive to happen - like several thousand deaths.

To prove this, look at yourself. You yourself CONGRATULATE Bush for wiretapping US citizens illegally, and yet at the same time villify Clinton for doing the same thing even though he did it less!

Continue in your beliefs if you like, but it's quite plainly obvious that you do not WANT to see the facts as they stand.

One other thing worth mentioning:
Bush has been taken to court over buying out news media to say specific things, and employing fake reporters to ask him specific questions.

So the question is QUITE ridiculous. No truly liberal media would even take him up on the offer.

Indian Chris said...

The War in Iraw was approved by the U.N. as well, not that it matters. Read all the resolutions he violated. They didn't give their blessings because Saddam was good friends with so many on the council.

I love that. When all else fails, oil. Yeah, we've stolen so much oil from Iraq we're swimming in the streets in it.

Clinton didn't divide the country? Democrats loved him with passion and Republican hated him with passion. The only difference is that the Dems hatred for Bush is filled with more vitriol than ours was for Clinton. Not Bush's fault, Dems in this country are just like that.

Dude, look up some of the people Clinton pardoned. Especially on his last day in office.

Oh. So, Halliburton bad under Bush but okay under Clinton. Sounds just like the Democratic party here.

Opinionnation said...

Clinton's Pardons: Pardons

UN, Nato and Kosovo

John K said...

I think if Za lived in the US; he would see the slant more clearly.
Of coarse then..I would have to move.