Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 06/16/2005 6:06:26 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Last week, Fox anchor Neil Cavuto secured a White House interview with President Bush, and liberals were upset. It wasn’t tough enough.
Washington Post correspondent Daniel Froomkin reported that Cavuto asked about Mrs. Bush, John Kerry’s grades, and media overcoverage of Michael Jackson, but sneered: "Who wants to talk about that messy war in Iraq, or the Downing Street Memo? Not Neil Cavuto, Fox News executive, anchor, commentator and Bush campaign contributor."
Fox-defending blogger "Johnny Dollar" noted two problems with Froomkin. First, Bush was asked about Iraq and that memo at a press conference the day before, so would that be the best news-breaking topic? Second, Cavuto is not a "Bush campaign contributor." According to the campaign-finance search engine at OpenSecrets.com, Cavuto gave $500 each to the GOP House and Senate campaign committees to attend a presidential dinner in 2002. If making a federal contribution was disqualifying, then Maria Shriver should have been removed from every cream-puff Hillary Clinton interview she ever conducted for NBC.
But a review of the transcript shows that Cavuto’s half-hour interview on his late-afternoon show was no puff job. It was a serious news interview with some challenging questions. Cavuto asked Bush about the latest bust of al-Qaeda suspects in California. Cavuto pointedly noted that Jimmy Carter thinks we should shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay because abuse charges are "dragging our name through the mud globally." That doesn’t sound like a softball question.
Cavuto asked about the economy (angering liberals by saying it’s very strong), but also pressed on the Republican failure to pass an energy bill; how Social Security reform isn’t catching on; whether Social Security benefits should be taken away from the rich; as well as our stance on North Korea, China, and the defense of Taiwan. Bush critics can fuss about a Jacko question, but anyone who didn’t see substance and tough questions in this interview didn’t watch it or read a transcript.
What upsets liberals about Cavuto’s interview is not the questions he asked. It was the tone he displayed – deferential, respectful. Liberals believe he doesn’t deserve that courtesy, as evidenced by their daily coverage, so often filled with snide commentary.
Now, if liberals like Froomkin throw fits when the president isn’t pummeled enough, how do they feel about ex-presidents? Because on the two nights preceding Cavuto’s interview, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren interviewed Bill Clinton with a series of softballs that made no news whatsoever.
While Cavuto’s interview with Bush led his show and went on for a half hour, Fox hid Greta’s interviews by burying them deep inside her "On the Record" show (on the first night, 19 minutes into the show, and on the second night, after 41 minutes of Aruba and Michael Jackson coverage).
Van Susteren began by asking Clinton about his chummy relations with Bush "41," and then asked about political meanness: "What is the catalyst for the mean [sic]?" Clinton, of course, blamed conservatives for their bitter reaction to Vietnam and Watergate, and the rise of conservative PACs. She allowed that vindictiveness to go by, unchallenged, and then devoted another five minutes to more questions about meanness, and how it’s "strange" to see Clinton and Bush Senior get along, as well as Newt Gingrich and Hillary.
After a commercial, Greta turned to foreign policy – specifically, how Bush is flailing: "Americans are troubled with the thought of spending lots of money in Iraq, not at home. What about the foreign policy and the direction it's headed right now with this administration?" Van Susteren then asked two questions about North Korea. She never pressed on Clinton’s (mis)handling of these matters, or Osama bin Laden. It wasn’t softball. It was wiffle-ball time.
On the second night, it was back to politics. Her first on-air question: "Do you think, if Senator Clinton runs in 2008, it's going to change or whether [sic] the personal attacks will get cranked up?" Poor Hillary, always suffering from those personal attacks.
Other toughies included: "Your book is coming out in paperback...Any differences or an afterword that's changed at all?" And: "This global initiative, where you're bringing together lots of interesting people, Rupert Murdoch, who owns News Corp., of course, Governor Schwarzenegger, King Abdullah, what is this forum that you're doing?"
Nobody at the Washington Post or anywhere else offered any criticism of Van Susteren’s soft-shoe through the Clinton Library in Little Rock. That’s because she matched the Standard Ogling Procedure to Clinton interviews. On his paperback-plugging TV tour, Clinton also drew mellow how’s-your-health-and-Hillary interviews with NBC’s Brian Williams, CNN’s Larry King, and NPR’s smitten hosts and listeners.
Answer this: when was the last time Clinton was truly grilled by a TV interviewer? I can’t remember. By that standard, doesn’t President Bush deserve a fair and balanced interview once in a while?
FOX correspondents generally conduct "mature" interviews and not Larry King softballs or rude Chris Matthews-esque hatchet jobs. IMHO
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
The MSM ilk are not grown up nor are they professional journalists. They cannot understand how to treat people with respect, who command respect, like President Bush in an interview.
Dictators and enemies of society, like Saddam, Osama or Castro, are they only ones the MSM crowd deems worthy of a respectful interview. These people are truly warped...
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force....
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html
Saddam's "WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran" is a relevant talking point for war opponents, but is not evidence that the British source does not believe that Saddam has WMD. And the other bolded sections certainly tend to indicate otherwise: British Intelligence believed that Saddam had WMD.
(Apart from all that, the opinion of British intelligence is of course not necessarily reality, any more than is the opinion of US intelligence.)
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.