By MARC McDONALD
"Has the President so failed in his duties to the nation that he should leave office? The answer to that question is yes, and the time for the President to leave is not after months of continued national embarrassment but now. Clinton should resign."
---USA Today editorial, Sept. 15, 1998
George W. Bush is a crook.
He has violated the Constitution. He has violated his oath of office. He lied America into a disastrous war of aggression that killed 650,000 Iraqi men, women and children. He made the United States the most feared and hated nation on the planet.
By contrast, all Bill Clinton did was lie about a blow job.
Guess which president our nation's media called upon to resign?
In 1998, Kenneth Starr released his special counsel's report, the product of a $50 million, blatantly partisan GOP witchhunt aimed at bringing down the Clinton presidency. Despite this incredibly intense probe into every detail of his life, the only real "dirt" the report had on Clinton was that he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Americans never really gave a damn about the Lewinsky affair. Even at the height of the impeachment "crisis," Clinton enjoyed strong approval ratings in the high 60s. I always got the feeling that the American public just wanted Congress to move on from this silly affair and get back to the real business of the nation.
What's remarkable is the American people believed this way despite the fact that, day after day, the "liberal media" was desperately hyping the Lewinsky story and trying to convince the public that it was a serious "crisis" for the White House.
In fact, after Starr released his report, dozens of major U.S. newspapers called upon Clinton to resign. The biggest circulation newspaper in America, USA Today, led the way.
In a Sept. 15, 1998 editorial, USA Today said:
"Has the President so failed in his duties to the nation that he should leave office? The answer to that question is yes, and the time for the President to leave is not after months of continued national embarrassment but now. Clinton should resign."
Many other major newspapers joined in the call for Clinton to resign, among them The Seattle Times, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, The Des Moines Sunday Register, The San Jose Mercury-News, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Looking back on all this eight years later, it's difficult to fathom what the fuss was all about.
Today, America is saddled with an unbelievably corrupt occupant in the White House. Bush is guilty of a long list of serious crimes, from embracing torture as official state policy to illegal wiretaps to lying America into a war that has turned out to be the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history.
And what's the U.S. media's reaction to all this? (You know, the same "liberal media" that was screaming and hollering for Clinton to resign for lying about a blow job?)
Silence.
Not one major newspaper has called for Bush to resign.
In fact, since Bush first took office six years ago, the nation's media has fallen into an eerie slumber. From GannonGate to PlameGate to the Downing Street memos, the media has snoozed through one major Bush scandal after another.
Not to worry, though. With the Dems now back in power in Congress, we can expect the media to shake off the cobwebs and go back to its watchdog role of holding Democratic politicians' feet to the fire (even if this "watchdog" role will consist of non-stories with no basis in fact: see HairCutGate, Whitewater, etc.)
It's great to live in a democracy with a free press. Someday I hope I have such an experience.
Posts
Did Merrick Garland End Our Democracy?
1 hour ago
38 comments:
it's break up the media time. no more corporate concentration in every town and across the country. give 'em 1 year to divest, then penalties (big ones) and do it ourselves. then, keep it that way.
good job.the big lie that the corporate media is liberal is the basis for all this country's problems
The American media needs a serious lesson in what their responsibilities are to the public. Once upon a time, news reporters did not offer their own views on the events of the day; they simply reported it. Those days ended with the advent of 24/7 cable news channels with a lot of hours to fill with something they hope will draw viewers and the real biggie...sponsors, and we are far worse off for it.
But something important is happening now, and that's the internet news sites as well as the blogosphere. There are leftie bloggers who have a huge following, and these are people who have nothing to lose by telling the truth about the things that are going on in Washington and Iraq. As more and more people turn to the internet for balanced news and views (in the sense that they can access both left and right blogs) it may eventually occur to corporate news bosses that if they're going to retain any credibility, they're going to have to compete with the internet. And that's a good thing.
The commoners finally have a public voice, and it's being heard all over the world.
There's one reason for the difference: If Clinton had resigned, Al Gore would have become president. If Bush resigned, Dick Cheney would (still) be president.
I knew that Howard Dean was doomed after he said quite clearly on the Chris Matthews show that the media conglomerates should be broken up. I am convinced that the news coverage turned hostile towards him after that, culminating in the fake story about the scream. It is all over now, we will never have a media again that would investigate real crimes, not Whitewater or Travelgate.
Since 2000, we no longer live in a democracy and the pro Bush media has been silent about that as well. Our country wouldn't now be in this disaster if all of the uncounted Florida votes had been counted as Florida law clearly required. Had that happened, Bush would've spent the last 6 years back in Texas where we the people had voted for him to be.
Bill the spinman from Fox stated last night that america needs another 9/11. All Americans should be outraged at that comment.
http://archives.cjr.org/year/98/6/boylan.asp
Here's a partial list of those papers calling for Clinton's resignation.. A good story to boot.
Only hours after the release of the report of the Office of the Independent Counsel on Friday, September 11, editorial writers sprang to their terminals. Over the weekend, a hundred or so daily newspapers (out of the country's fifteen hundred) called on the president to resign. By the end of September, resignation.com, a site created by the political freebooter Arianna Huffington, listed 181 publications favoring resignation, most of them dailies.
This was not a partisan outburst. Newspapers of all sizes, regions, and political coloration joined in. They ranged from USA Today to Nevada's Daily Sparks Tribune, and included a share of the traditionally moderate, pragmatic press -- the Des Moines Register, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Chicago Tribune. I read twenty-two of them.
Clinton only screwed Monica. Bush has screwed the whole country.
This is one of the reasons why I am so pissed off about Pelosi declaring that there would be no impeachment of Bush or Cheney.
The republicans began their attack on Clinton as soon as he took office in January of 1993.
Then once they stole the White House their mission was to completely sideline and marginalize us Democrats. They were relentless on this right up until they lost the House and Senate.
I do not believe we should be so eager to work in a bipartisan manner, if the shoe were still on the other foot they would still be treating us the same way.
I say it is time for the republicans to get a taste of their own poison and see how they like it.
MAYBE, and that's a big maybe, after that they will never attempt to treat us that way EVER again.
You know, I had forgotten all about this. Bear in mind, that I turned off the "news" long before Starr's Porno Report, and only read the NYT, skipping all the Monica BS.
This should be sent to Olbermann. Think I will, if the author doesn't mind. I am not a huge Clinton fan, but what was done to him was an abomination in a Democracy, and he was so far superior to Chimpy, as a president, that there just simply is no comparison.
Still, there is another reason, other than the corporate-whore MSM that no one is calling for Chimpy's resignation. We are at war, haven't you heard? We were attacked by a religious nutcase living in a cave in Afghanistan!
9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Blah, Blah, Blah!
Until there is a REAL investigation of the excuse for all the insanity which has ensued since, meaning since 9/11, the American people will never fully comprehend what has happened and why.
At the very least, they allowed 9/11 to happen for their hidden agenda.
May they rot in GITMO
the French knew what to do.
the Saudis still do it. Clearly it is a method approved of by their closest friends in the Bush familia. The Queen of Hearts said
it best. Let's redeem ourselves before the world. Let justice be done.
Notwithstanding Nancy Pelosi (impeachment is off the table) I believe she has acted prematurely...I say Bush needs to be IMPEACHED along with Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and others...The American people demand this procedure..Bush refuses to listen to folks and the Iraq Study Group..he is still fantasizing about victory in Iraq...throw the bum out!
The media and most of the Dems have always driven the getaway car.
The bigs should be broken up with extreme prejudice.
Forget impeachment, and move straight to war crimes tribunals.
True, all of those papers are hypocritical and the ones that aren't calling for impeachment of Bush are simply wrong. The only ironic element in all such discussions about Clinton's impeachment is that, had Clinton been convicted, we might have all been better off with Gore as president.
Life's a mess.
For those of you who don't know, it is difficult, if not impossible, for Pelosi to call for the impeachment of
Bush and Cheney.
Why?
Because as majority leader, she would become President. Study your Constitution people. Everyone else should call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, but not Pelosi.
I long have predicted Bush would leave office with an approval rating in the 20s. He's almost there now with a 30 percent mark. None of this is surprising for a guy whose two "victories" are at best questionable. He had a 47 percent approval rating prior to the 2004 election, then a 47 percent approval rating after. Surprise!
Steal resident Bush's P back before it's too late!
missingPproejct.com
I long have predicted Bush would leave office with an approval rating in the 20s. He's almost there now with a 30 percent mark. None of this is surprising for a guy whose two "victories" are at best questionable. He had a 47 percent approval rating prior to the 2004 election, then a 47 percent approval rating after. Surprise!
Steal resident Bush's P back before it's too late!
missingPproject.com
The bigwig Editorial boards have lost all credibility with their readership. Thank you for stating what I have been thinking for years now. Their complicity and silence during this horrible crisis known as the Bush/Cheney years will not soon be forgotten by those paying attention.
"You are wrong"
The length of your comment with all its citations completely distorts the facts.
The majority of voters DID elect Gore in 2000. So, I guess Clinton's reputation was not bad enough for the PEOPLE to want change. It was just that the Supreme court, manned by prior republican presidents' appointees, wanted the son-of-a-Bush in office.
Consequently and unfortunately, Bush and his henchmen stole the election. This is the first and most outrageous crime committed by Bush and the Bush dynasty.
The cowardice of the MSM seems to revolve around the idea that "9/11 changed everything," (not to mention that only the so-called liberal media and only Democrats received anthrax right after 9/11 as a "warning.") The American fascists have capitalized on 9/11 the way the Germans did with the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. After 9/11 everything about our democracy did change. In fact it has been used to destroy the democratic process, civil liberties, and to stage wars of imperalism instead of justice. Justice, (or even revenge), is what the American people were conned into believing they would get. If someone on your block killed several people you would hope the authorities would capture and punish them, not invade and destroy everything on the next block over. Last I checked Osama has still not been captured "dead or alive." For the American people, (to hell with a complacent and fearful press), not to be demanding, if not rioting in the streets, for this administration to be investigated and punished is why we are where we are right now.
Perhaps all should read the "Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush" compiled by The Center for Consitutional Rights. This document also contains the Articles filed against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and WIlliam Jefferson Clinton. I leave it to you to compare and assess who committed the most egregious violations of his oath of office.
To the anonymous right wingers who have posted since my comment... The Clinton "scandals" were the product of right wing fantasies. The scandels of the Bush Administration are no fantasy! My littlest brother is currently serving in Iraq and rather than blame Clinton for where we are now I suggest you walk away from your computer right now and enlist. Yes, the country did have scandal fatigue only because they were bombarded with fake scandels of little importance that were harped on daily by corporate media whores. The crimes of the Bush administration are crimes against humanity and the Constitution. Real Americans and patriots would want those crimes to not go unpunished.
Furthermore, the media whores themselves have ignored the facts that the Anthrax attacks were specifically directed at ONLY the so-called liberal media and Democrats. Nobody at Fox news received the deadly spores and NO Republican received them either. (even though, oddly enough, administration officials were already taking Cipro prior to the first case) Was this to silence them? Was this a warning? I also found it curious that the very first case was in Florida at the building where the National Enquirer and other tabloids are published. Who cares about tabloids? They are definitely not part of the Liberal media. Or are they? Even more curious is the fact that those tabloids are far removed from politics. HOWEVER, they were printing about the scandals of the Bush twins and ran a story on Prescot Bush's financing of the Nazis. It seems to me these are obvious signs it was a right wing hit job meant to silence critics of the administration. The corporate media DOES have financial reasons for spewing right wing propaganda, but there are still REAL journalists around who want to report and investigate the truth. The question is - Are they fearful of doing so?
John N Missouri ,
I didn't talk about why there was a Clinton scandal.
But that the Clinton scandal was the main reason why Gore was 15% behind Bush in early 1999, why he was the underdog despite his high job rating and the CW that the country was on the right track.
Why did 56% of voters choose Bush in 1999?
Why was Clinton himself losing to Bush in the polls?
Certainly not because the economy was bad. There had to be something else. If not the scandals then what? How do you explain that?
Kerry was only a few points behind Bush when he started his campaign.
So the fact that Gore was 15% behind him was because of what if not the scandal? Do you have an alternative explanation?
I'm not a right winger. I supported Gore and would support him again if he ran.
But the Republicans didn't have an affair with that woman and they didn't lie about it to everyone, including Gore. Clinton did it and for that he and only he is responsible.
John N Missouri,
Why do you think Gore was 15% behind Bush in early 1999?
If not because of Clinton fatigue then what?
Gore's job approval was 62%.
Most thought the country was on the right track.
And still when asked wbo they want to see as the next president 56% chose Bush and only 41% chose Gore.
Why, if not because of the scandals?
Why was Clinton himself losing to Bush in the polls?
Who gives a rat's ass about the Clinton psuedo scandals at this point? These posts were supposed to be in response to WHY the media is not reporting on the ACTUAL scandals of the Bush Administration. I am glad you supported Gore and I am certainly not intending to attack you personally. In fact personal attacks are better left to the hypocrites on the right. Yes, there are some brave reporters out there who are FINALLY reporting on these issues, (Obermann comes to mind first), but they are being attacked by the right wing propaganda machine. Not only with verbal B.S., but also with fake anthrax. My point is that until there is massive outrage that the media can no longer ignore we will be stuck in the same status quo.
let's join the world court and see what happens to bush and company
I just want to thank Marc McDonald for such a succinct and right-on post. Wouldn't it be nice if we did have a free press and honest, fair elections and a responsible government of the people and for the people, and peace and a healthy planet, and education and good jobs and care for all who need so much? And maybe even a culture and art and community and some intelligence and fun in life?
Thanks for a very insightful post. Yes, the "liberal media" will do exactly as you have stated, once the Democratic Congress is in full swing.
I argued forever with certain individuals when the Clinton debacle was taking place, that it was a partisan witchhunt. And now here we are with the most corrupt individual imaginable sitting in the White House and pretending to be president.
What will it take to impeach Bush and Co., as well as the "liberal media?"
I like the idea that someone had to send this to Keith Olbermann.
I think he would enjoy this article and feature it on his show. I am listening to him right now. I like how he ends his show. He does a count down since Mission Accomplished has been declared. Keith O is my hero.
It's very simple to understand: OBL tried to destroy, GWB is! And he's done it with the help of the MSM.
The media isn't what it used to be. They were the policemen. Now they are the mouthpiece. True journalism no longer exists today just as the Republican Party of 50 years ago doesn't exist today. Show me a Goldwater Republican and I'll show you a modern day liberal.
No, show me a Goldwater Republican and I'll show you a libertarian Republican.
You've never heard of the Republican Liberty Caucus? The RLC represents the growing libertarian wing of the GOP. Sorry to hear you libs think that every Republican is a conservative.
There are libertarian Republicans too. And we want nothing to do with liberal Nanny Staters who want to tax us to death, take away our guns, force us to wear seat belts, and appease the Islamo-Fascists.
Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
How about a billion dollar class action lawsuit against certain participants of the MSM for their complicity in intentionally covering up the misdeeds of the Bush admin including election theft, the false flag 911 event, ensuing war, war profiteering, depleted uranium, rape of the constitution etc. Bush was allowed to steal 2 elections. If 911 was a contrived event, the Afghan and Iraq wars would not have happened. Maybe the proceeds could be used to fund independent media.
As another alternative the word "NEWS' should be renamed under some kind of consumer disclosure statement. TV watchers have a false sense that they are being informed when they are being lied to and manipulated. The word "NEWS" should be reserved for objectively verifiable information and not politically motivated opinion.
How about a billion dollar class action lawsuit against certain participants of the MSM for their complicity in intentionally covering up the misdeeds of the Bush admin including election theft, the false flag 911 event, ensuing war, war profiteering, depleted uranium, rape of the constitution etc. Bush was allowed to steal 2 elections. If 911 was a contrived event, the Afghan and Iraq wars would not have happened. Maybe the proceeds could be used to fund independent media.
Reporters used to do some investigation.
As another alternative the word "NEWS' should be renamed under some kind of consumer disclosure statement. TV watchers have a false sense that they are being informed when they are being lied to and manipulated. The word "NEWS" should be reserved for objectively verifiable information and not politically motivated opinion.
Post a Comment