neo-cons attacking Clinton on "hired journalists" issue

[davidinalameda]

so if Clinton did it, it's okay for Bush to do it? is that their rationale?

so if Bush starts getting hummers in the oval office or starts banging an intern and lies about it, it's okay?

I thought Bush and his administration was supposed to be so morally superior to Clinton and the Democrats?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/27/114029.shtml

Apparently Mr. Kurtz and the rest of the media ethics posse slept through the 1990s, when a number of reporters with much higher profiles than Williams and Gallagher supplemented their income with checks from the Clinton White House.
CBS News in particular seemed to have no qualms about some fairly blatant conflicts of interest, having Rita Braver and Linda Douglas cover the White House even though they both had financial relationships with the Clinton administration


but Braver and Douglas weren't taking money from the Clintons--they were married to people working for the administration

I see a big difference there

[Mr_Spock]

1. These fuckers better start taking responsibility for something or...

there's gonna be death and destruction in this country. If we run the country like children would - what's gonna happen when someone has a meltdown? Exactly.

[liberal N proud]

2. They will only use Clinton when they need him.

Someone to blame when it is broken
Someone to use as scapegoat when caught doing wrong

[eShirl]

3. and I suppose if Clinton jumped off a bridge

then Bush would, too?

(hey Bill, take one for the team)

[MichaelHarris]

4. Someone needs to remind them

Clinton's not in the White House, bush is. Report on current events, not trying to justify this administrations actions using the past. If I wanted that kind of news I would watch the history channel.

I mean since Roosevelt was bopping his secretary that means get Clinton should get a pass using their logic.

[ComerPerro]

5. That seems to be the trend: Clinton did it. But the funny thing is

That in just about every example, the Bushes have done it to a more extreme, corrupt degree.

CBS had reporters covering the White House who were married to people in the Clinton Administration.
while
Bush paid reporters to promote his programs using taxpayer money.


Clinton bombed Iraq with UN approval becuase of violations of UN sanctions.
while
Bush invaded Iraq without much international support, sent in ground troops, killed thousands of Iraqis and over 1300 US soldiers, and diverted funds from the hunt for bin Laden all because of overblown, forged, and cherrypicked intelligence.

But Republicans like to pretend that its all the same thing.

[displacedtexan]

7. Ahem. What does Mrs. Alan Greenspan have to say about this?

How low can these people go?

[tom_paine]

6. NewsMax is Reichspropaganda. I don't believe them

Wow! And I finally read the article and see that it doesn;t even have any credible accusations.

But since when does Reichspropaganda have to make sense in the least?

Either now, here in Amerika where it has been revived in a big way, or back in the Germany where it originated, it has always been the same.

Millions of Kinder and Gentler Nazis will buy this Bullshit (when in fact even this pathetic Reich Article makes no assertions of direct payoffs just the usual blend of Nazi Smokescreen and Nazi Self-Righteous Vitriol) and shut their minds off.

So will more than a few "Good German" Imperial Subjects of Amerika.

[Demit]

8. what a feeble attempt by newsmax! Is that the best they've got?

That's their idea of parallel situations? Laughable. In fact, they are disproving the point they are trying to make.

[displacedtexan]

9. By Newsmax (cough) standards...

Michael Powell and the rest of the BushCo Nepots (nepotism + despot = de-pot) should fit into this category, too.

[fishwax]

10. Williams was paid to promote an agenda

while ostensibly an independent "journalist." I agree it's a big difference.

Newsmax is desperate and lame.

[KC21304]

11. I don't see any examples of Rita Braver or Linda Douglas

slanting their coverage towards Clinton. I remember being very upset with some of Linda Douglas's reporting. It was just as hair-brained and vacuous as the rest of the media. When we have media people with a connection of some kind to a Democrat, the always go overboard the other way to show they are not taking sides.

[jpgray]

12. By that logic, Mary Matalin shouldn't have talked about Kerry's campaign

Because she had a financial relationship with the Kerry campaign via her husband. What bullshit.

[leftynyc]

13. What part of using TAX DOLLARS do these

maggots not understand. Are the people who read this crap really that stupid? Apparently so.