The truth about Clinton and "Wag the Dog" (ABC)

[underpants]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/

So let's examine the record... The most aggressive strike the Clinton Administration launched against al Qaeda was in August 1998 when U.S. cruise missiles were sent to six terrorist compund sites in Afghanistan and the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum where U.S. officials say chemical weapons were being housed.

So...who impugned Clinton's motives?

After Clinton ordered the attacks in August 1998, ACCORDING TO THIS STORY in the Associated Press, "most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday, a marked contrast to the relatively sparse and chilly reception that greeted his Monday statement on the Lewinsky matter."

Here is the direct link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm
By Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 21, 1998; Page A17 <--- but I will bet it was above the fold on page A17 :eyes:

ON THE OTHER HAND...there's the mainstream media.

The conservative Media Research Council NOTED that "every network did raise the "Wag the Dog" scenario." And indeed, according to the MRC story linked above, CBS ABC and NBC all raised the notion -- with Senator Coats as a leading voice.

DATELINE NBC devoted a December 1999 piece directly using clips from the film to question the basis for the bombing.

And Frank Bruni of the New York Times devoted A WHOLE STORY TO THE NOTION.

So...quite frankly, it looks as though the "mainstream" media did a lot more to question President Clinton than did the GOP leadership apparatus, along with Ashcroft, Specter and Coats. The mainstream media along with conservative media such as WORLDNETDAILY.*






_____________________
Some LOOOONG (but well documented) posts here in the comments section. I did NOT know that it was confirmed that Clinton was a KGB agent-you learn something new everyday or there is something new that you can learn everyday.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html#comments

[K8-EEE]

1. YEP YEP YEP!! K&R!

I remember all that, why doesn't anybody else??

[The Deacon]

2. I Remember It

But remember:
"Who would control the present, must first destroy the past."

[underpants]

7. Notice that he sites ONE AP article

then PBS and NRO (surely the only comment they ever had on this matter, right?) then he sort of says "oh yeah and NBC cut footage of the movie into its NEWS REPORT"-even Brent ****ing Bozell had to admit that they were writing network copy at that point.

Amazing.

The first comment
Posted by: Ken Schellenberg | Sep 26, 2006 2:09:03 PM

In response to my earlier comment, it has been pointed out that Iraq is not al Qaeda and that this fact might arguably justify Mr. Tapper treating the Dec. 1998 Iraq attack as a 'side note' from a story on Republican reactions to the Aug. 1998 attack on al Qaeda. This is true, and I in haste focused only on the different timing, not the different target, so I humbly apologize to Mr. Tapper for my unkind words (and I promise not to seek employment with either ABC News or the Washington Post). But I will add a few points.

First, the fact that the Republican leadership supported an attack on al Qaeda in August 1998 and opposed an attack on Iraq in December 1998 certainly wasn't based on their liking Saddam Hussein more than Osama bin Laden. It was purely and simply because Clinton was in more trouble in December than in August. If Clinton had attacked al Qaeda instead of Iraq in Dec. 1998 then he clearly would have got the same negative reaction from the Republicans at that time. So, although the Republican reaction to the Dec. 1998 Iraq bombing does not itself prove Clinton's point, it certainly supports it, and does not deserve to be treated as merely an 'interesting side note' that is irrelevant to the issue under examination.

Second, examining public statements by the Republican congressional leadership following a single high profile military strike is a remarkably weak way to test Clinton's assertions that 'conservatives' accused him of obsessing over bin Laden and ridiculed him for trying to kill the man. Of course the congressional leadership of either party ordinarily will (and as a practical political matter, almost has to) support a public military strike ordered by the president. (It was utterly astounding, and a measure of just how bad things were, that the Republicans refused to support the Iraq bombing in Dec. 1998.) The fact that Republican leaders publicly supported Clinton's military leadership on a single occasion when they had almost no other choice does nothing to disprove former President Clinton's assertions that 'conservatives' generally thought he was off base on bin Laden.

Third, anyone who lived through the 1990s knows that conservatives generally considered the Clinton administration to be trigger-happy nationbuilders -- with respect to bin Laden as well as to Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, and other places -- and that they criticised him for it (and no doubt, on the talk show circuit and from time to time elsewhere, ridiculed him for it). The issue came up, among other places, in the Bush/Gore debates where Bush emphasized his humility and caution in contrast to the Clinton/Gore administration's more interventionist approach. It has also been reported (I'm not sure if it was in the NY Times, the W.Post, or the New Yorker) that bin Laden and al Qaeda were near the top of the Clinton administration's priority list when they handed things over in Jan. 2001, but that they didn't even make the top ten on the Bush administration's list before Sept. 11, 2001 -- and that during that 8 month period Bush administration officials dismissed the outgoing administration's priorities as resulting from an obsession (whether or not they used the exact word) with bin Laden, terrorism, and foreign policy in general. So former President Clinton's assertions, if possibly a little overinclusive, are essentially accurate.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. The M$M did it, not the GOP leadership.

As we say up here in da nort' woods, "yah, sure."

That's kinda like saying Bush didn't lie about WMD--his mouth did.

[BootinUp]

4. So they are in no hurry to reveal that story I imagine.

[Generator]

5. Dateline used to cover politics when a Dem was in there

I haven't watched that show in years. Have they covered wiretaps, torture, Iraq? Anytime I've seen a promo it's been for a missing woman or a murder drama.

[underpants]

8. They now specialize in GOTCHA internet predators busts

which I think there can't be enough coverage of.

They don't do politics anymore, there just isn't as much stuff going on now like there was :sarcasm: to this comment NOT the first one.

[Wilber_Stool]

6. I didn't know that.

In '98 I too was a feeder at the infotainment trough. All I remember is all of the nasty stuff.