Newspaper Story

Former President Clinton fired back to cirtics durings an interview on Fox News, about his administrations handling on the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
On Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday Clinton answered questions about whether his administration did, "enough to connect the dots and go after Al-Queda." Clinton responded, "No, I didn't get him, but at least I tried. That's the difference between me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. I tried, and failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try."


In 1998 Al-Queda bombed the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. At that time Bush's allies accused Clinton of being "too obsessed" with Bin Laden. Now, his critics are charging that he didn't do enough. Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden after the Nairobi bombings. Clinton continued "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole." Referring to the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing by terrorists in Yemen.

Later Sunday, Chris Wallace, of Fox News, said he was "suprised" by Clinton's reaction and "conspiratorial view" to his "very non-confrontational question" - suggested by viewer e-mails according to Wallace. "I think it was a legitimate news question," said Wallace. "I was suprised that he would conjure up that it was a hit job."

White House spokesman Peter Watkins: "The record paints a very different picture than what President Clinton is expressing. "Looking forward we will fight the war by staying on the offense." Currently, the U.S. has about 21,000 troops in Afghanistan and about 138,000 in Iraq. Clinton said the U.S. did not have a comprehensive couterterrorism operation until his administration took office.

Clinton accused the Bush administration of downgrading the role of former White House counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke who worked for 4 administrations - Repulican and Democratic- and failed to focus on Bin Laden in the 8 months between taking office and the September 11th attacks.

"If I were president we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him (Bin Laden)," said Clinton.


Story compiled by: Kyle Taylor, Karen Hastings, Stephanie Smith, Brent Yoder, Daniel Duol.

Don't Vote?

The American Association of Retired People began their new advertising campaign this week with a plea for voters to skip the polls and not vote. Not vote? The advertising campaign was released in a series of print advertisments like the one that ran in the Denver Post (See Above) and television commercials (Click Here. It isn't until you visit the website or hear the end of the ad that you hear the AARP's message. It truth the campaign is asking voters not to vote until they are informed about the issues and positions of the candidates. This is a very intersting ad that shows the power of suggestion. Using the 'don't think of an elephant' trick, the AARP is counting on voters to visit the website to figure out the real message. It worked on me!

McChesney's "Problem of the Media" Part II

McChesney argues that the Right has been working together since the 70's to paint the media as a liberal giant. Some may see the move as calculating since the effort has resulted in a media that goes out of its way to cast the Right in a positive light. McChesney contends that the argument of a liberal media isn't kept alive by "the quality of the arguments. It is kept alive by hardcore political organizing." In fact, many conservatives will admit in private that the media is very favorable to the Right, but will use the "liberal media" attacks in fund-raising mailers the next day. McChesney explains that these attacks have unfortunate lasting attacks on both the media and democracy. Journalists, who go out of there way not to seem liberal, often do not investigate questionable actions by Republicans. Indeed, we saw this exemplified by the media's hesitance to question the President about the War in Iraq. This fear of looking liberal effectively means that the media can not do its job as a watchdog for society. Republicans are receiving a free ride by the media at the expense of the public.

As McChesney points out earlier, democracy cannot survive without the media and the media cannot survive without democracy. He argues that because of a diminished role the media will no longer be able to support democracy. If politicians are able to escape tough questions and investigations the power will be continually be ceded to them. Our leaders need checks and balances by the media so that our government is free from corruption. This will leave the public without any significant means to exercise democracy. McChesney points out that these attacks could leave a lasting stain on democracy as the media will no longer be able to perform its job as watchdogs.

McChesney's "The Problem of the Media"

Robert W. McChesney outlines four points of conservative contentions of the media:

1) The decisive power over the new lies with journalists - owners and advertisers are irrelevant or relatively powerless

McChesney responds that this contention is completely fabricated and not intellectually based. He explains that journalists do not decide what news stories to cover, or how to cover them, rather it is the media owners and editors that make those decisions. McChesney explains that since journalists are doing less investigative journalism than 25 years ago their power to shape the news has also declined. I agree with McChesney on his rebuttal, because it is evident that owners and advertisers dictate the media from a variety of angles. This includes telling journalists what stories to follow and what headlines to put on the front page. The rise of commercial journalism means that owners are tied to their pockets rather than to producing quality journalism. This means that owners often cater to advertisers. McChesney includes evidence of this and cites specific examples on how the media uses the news to sell advertiser's products.

2) Journalists are political liberals

McChesney responds that this is true as journalists tend to vote democratic. He counters that although journalists are politically liberal, media owners and editors vote Republican. McChesney also makes it clear that although journalists tend to be liberal on social issues that are very conservative when it comes to business. Journalists are often pro-business, pro-militarism, and anti-regulatory.
McChesney seems to make a good argument, but it lacks the same support his other rebuttals receive. McChesney tries to argue that journalists are no more socially liberal than other Americans by stating a poll with that suggestion: "A 2004 Chicago Tribune state-wide poll of Illinois residents found them overwhelmingly supportive of women's rights, gay rights, and gun control." This poll does not support the argument as it is a state-wide poll of liberal-leaning Illinois, no way indicative of the rest of the country.

3) Journalists abuse their power to advance liberal politics - thus breaking the professional code

The author claims that there is very little evidence to support this claim. In fact, journalists today are going out of there way to prove they are not liberal. He cites evidence of the 2000 election when reporters lambasted Democrat Al Gore, but gave very favorable news coverage to George Bush. I defiantly agree with McChesney on this point as reporters are scared to be labeled liberal. This is further supported by newscasters like John Stossel and Brit Hume receiving little criticism by their far-right-winged segments.

4) Objective journalists would almost certainly present the world exactly as seen by contemporary U.S. conservatives

McChesney responds that this a ridiculous, partisan request. It is the equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Republicans are saying that, "favorable coverage of the Right is quality unbiased journalism. Unfavorable coverage of Democrats is equally unbiased." I agree that this charge is silly as few Americans hold the same perspective as Ann Coulter or James Dobson.

Confronting the Media

Tucker Carlson’s top story last week was his debut on “Dancing with the Stars” followed closely by the story that Brittany Spears had given birth to her second child. After fifteen clever references to “Oops she did it again,” Tucker spent a few minutes delivering hard news. That was shortly followed by 22 minutes of discussion on his performance on the previous night’s dance-off. As students of academia we scoff at the mention that this is considered a newscast. We reply that newscasters should be devoted to delivering hard-news stories and reporters should leave the fluff to Entertainment Tonight. Yet, stories about where to find the biggest pizza in town often end up on top during sweeps week.

For years Americans have been discouraged by the network’s slogan, “if it bleeds it leads”. Instead Americans have asked for more positive newscasts that offer a solution-oriented approach to news stories. The network responded by issuing Katie Couric, the perky morning-news host, a seat at the 5:30 news slot. The excitement has quickly worn off and after a few days on top, CBS News with Katie Couric is now in dead last among network newscasts. Americans must have gotten over the idea of perky news.

The days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite have long past and many Americans are searching for an alternative. The idea of an anchor that speaks his/her mind is exhilarating. Both Murrow and Cronkite realized the importance of objectivity, but knew that issuing an equal argument to both sides of argument was not always feasible. However, when anchors today speak their mind like Keith Olberman or Bill O’Reilly we cry foul. Journalists are lambasted that they are not being objective and offering both sides of a debate. Perhaps, during Olberman’s monologue on 9/11 he should have given reasons why it was good to still have a hole in the ground.

Americans ask for news instead of fluff, but then watch the fluff. Americans ask for happier news, but then watch the high-speed chases. Americans ask that journalists speak their mind, but yell that they are not being objective.

So I ask you, “Do Americans really know what they want?”

25 Signatures

I was wathcing some Tim Russert interview reruns a couple weeks back and he had Michael Moore on as a guest. Russert asked Moore how he became involoved in politics and so began my favorite Michael Moore story to date. Moore said that he always had the attitude that something needed to be done and if nobody was going to do it he would do it himself. He went on to say that him and the prinicpal often butted heads and he did not like the man. When Michael graduated from high school he called the supervisor of elections to find out what he could do to get involved. The supervisor told him he could register to vote or run for office. Michael asked, "How do you run for office". The supervisor responded, "You need 25 signatures". So Michael asked a few of his pot-head friends to sign and he ended up winning a seat on the school board. Nine months into the job Michael convinced the rest of the school board to fire the principal.

A Political Power Play?

There is no doubt that Republicans will once again use national security as their top campaign issue, effectively scaring voters into voting for their candidates. In fact, earlier this month the President took advantage of the 9/11 anniversary to hit the airwaves and issue a 17-minute address to the country. The primetime speech put to a close a week-long offensive by the White House to build support for the War on Terror/War on Iraq. Some Democrats may be hesitant to use national security as a campaign selling point when the latest Gallup poll bares a 39-point spread in favor of Republicans when voters are asked who is better able to handle the issue . However, if there is anything we can learn from Karl Rove it is that effective campaigning means attacking the opposition strong-holds. Republicans used this strategy in 2002 to attack Democrat’s position on the economy. Voters have long trusted Democrats to handle the economy better than Republicans, but Republicans were able to turn that around by attacking Democrats’ position on tax cuts and the estate tax. In the beginning of 2002, while the country was in the midst of a recession, Republicans were chosen as the party better able to handle the economy by nine-points in an ABC News poll. President George Bush even received a 62% approval rating on the economy, during a recession!

Republicans have been effective in using this issue to attract a large portion of the electorate, to narrow the gender gap, and effectively shut Democrats out of every branch of government. Republicans, to their credit, have been successful in painting Democrats as Osama loving, Hollywood liberals. At the same time, Republicans have done more to damage homeland security than to help it. In March of 2006 Republicans defeated Rep. Sabo’s (D) Amendment (Amdt 733) that would have increased funding for the Department of Homeland Security by $1.225 billion . The money would have provided $300 million to fund the inspection of high risk containers at all 140 overseas ports and an additional $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. In fact, next year’s budget has cut overall national homeland security funding by 37% meaning that “almost every state will face cuts in homeland security funding – many of them severe.

Republicans may hold the lead on terrorism in a generic poll, but it is only because Republicans have better defined Democrat’s position than Democrats. Let us not forget the number one rule in politics, “Define your opponent before they define you.” There are seven weeks remaining and it is important that Democrats define Republicans as the party unable to handle homeland security.

Welcome