Posted on 11/16/2001 1:06:27 PM PST by DCBryan1
OPINION: Right-wing media continue to savage Clinton
GENE LYONS
Many things have changed in this country since Sept. 11, but not the brazen distortions of the right-wing media or the craven failure of "mainstream" journalists to confront them.
The result is a decadent national press unwilling to stand up for the ethical standards that supposedly govern the "profession" of journalism and a steep decline in the quality of public discourse in our democracy.
Last week saw yet another ludicrous, but ugly controversy stirred up by journalistic fraud. As usual, the malefactors were The Washington Times, National Review, Fox News, Matt Drudge, and Rush Limbaugh and his army of talk radio imitators. The hyperventilating shills of the World Wrestling Federation have nothing on this bunch. Even a normally skeptical Democrat-Gazette columnist got taken for a ride. Also as usual, the immediate target was Bill Clinton.
Next time you're flabbergasted by some preposterous lie in the gutter press of Baghdad or Cairo, remember that this bunch duped millions of credulous boobs into believing that Wicked Bill told a college audience, as one outraged letter to The Washington Times put it, that "America got what it deserves" at the hands of Arab terrorists. Or, as the Democrat-Gazette columnist suggested, that he delivered a "rant of justifiable homicide" that must have made Osama bin Laden feel vindicated. The fierce intellectuals of the National Review declared that having "pardoned the unpardonable, now [Clinton] has justified the unjustifiable."
Remember, too, that hardly anybody in our vigilant national media pointed out what an alert golden retriever would have suspected, that the whole flap was caused by a comically grotesque distortion of what Clinton actually said. Here's how it happened.
On Nov. 7, Clinton spoke at his alma mater, Georgetown University. A next-day account in the Times was misleadingly headlined, "Clinton says U.S. is paying for its past." The article, written by one Joseph Curl, turned his speech upside down, insinuating that an inconsequential (and factually indisputable) aside he'd made about 19th century mistreatment of slaves and native Americans constituted an excuse for terrorism.
Almost the direct opposite is true.
"I am just a citizen," Clinton said at the outset, "and as a citizen I support the efforts of President Bush, the national security team and our allies in fighting the current terrorist threat. I believe we all should."
Clinton brought up past atrocities only to illustrate his point that terrorism is morally abhorrent and militarily futile.
"The killing of noncombatants for economic, political or religious reasons," he observed, "has a very long history, as long as organized combat itself, and yet, it has never succeeded as a military strategy standing on its own."
At no point did Clinton suggest any causal or moral connection whatsoever between America's ancient sins and contemporary terrorist acts.
He did say that this country is "still paying a price" for its past. Who can deny it? But he also said that "the people who died represent, in my view, not only the best of America, but the best of the world that I worked hard for eight years to build . . . The terrorists killed people who came to America not to die, but dream, from every continent, from dozens of countries, most every religion on the face of the earth, including Islam. They, those that died in New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, are part of a very different world and a very different world view than those who killed them."
He described the campaign against bin Laden and al-Qa'da as a "struggle with the soul of the 21st century."
In a pungent essay on his Daily Howler Web site, Bob Somerby has shown that the phony claim that Clinton basically said we are getting what we deserve in the terrorist attack was created by techniques journalists profess to abhor: yanking partial quotes out of context and the dark art of malicious paraphrase. Even the Clinton-phobic pundit Andrew Sullivan, after denouncing the former president before troubling himself to read the speech, subsequently admitted that Times account was "appallingly slanted."
Yet scarcely a peep was emitted by the so-called liberal Establishment press. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz produced a bemused item about the right's obsession with Wicked Bill, but nowhere hinted at the Times' methods. It's simply not done for two reasons.
First, it's seen as futile, like starting a campaign to convince 20 million morons that pro wrestling is fixed. Second, fear. The crack-pot ideologues of the far right are shameless, relentless and well-funded. Why provoke them merely to defend democratic values?
Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award
That line alone shows what arrogance Clinton still has..as for Gene Lyons..once again it's everyone is a liar except him and the Clintons...
Well if the leftist media would stop shining the spotlight on our ex-rapist-in-chief, we'd all soon forget about that terrible cretin. But the damn media can't seem to stop fawning over their favorite rapist ... nor can the rapist himself get off the stage. Then there's his hideous wife serving as a constant reminder of the scumbag ... not to mention the c**t herself making stupid comments linking Bush's tax cut with 9/11 ... an obvious attempt to deflect from her and her husband's culpability.
Well.....If they mean the past 8 years, they're right.
Anything beyond that is Clinton penis worshiping.
Lyons is clearly delusional. This is one of the funniest sentences I've ever read on this forum.
It does go to show that liberal "journalists" get the best drugs, though...
The lie that "we are all terrorists" undercuts America's moral superiority to the terrorists who attacked us without provocation. This is exactly what the Taliban and bin Laden say to justify their murderous acts. So Bill Clinton's speech was almost as bad as saying outright that we deserved it.
Lyons also fails to mention that while one columnist for National Review Online took the tack that the Washington Times did, the editorial board of the magazine refuted that interpretation. Of course, if he points that out, he'd be an honest writer -- which everyone on this forum knows he is not.
Here we go again. If you don't like Clinton there must be something clinically wrong with you. You can't possibly have any good reason for it. "Clinton-phobic", "Clinton-hater", "Anti-Clinton", all have the connotation of being unreasoning and unreasonable, and beyond the ability of the "sufferer" to overcome.
Hey, Gene! The man is scum and no amount of wordplay is going to make that go away.
Ah, "inconsequential" it was, wasn't it? Explain how and why? Does the lying Mr Lyons know the meaning of the word 'infer'? The first report in Wahington Times was correct, the belated backpedaling in OpinionJournal.com and elsewhere were pathetic attempts to go easy on who these DC/NY axis establishmentarians automatically regard as an 'elder statesman' who deserves their utmost respect. Unlike, yes, unlike... I'll change the above opinion when they all apologize to Falwell and Robertson.
Remember "the work of the people", "let's move on", "only about sex", "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?
This clymer wouldn't last 10 minutes in a decent locker room discussion with informed citizens. Oh, wait. He's a Democrat Journalist (redundency), so he'll never be in one of those.
Thank God the air is more clear and this bullshit is pretty obvious to everyone with a brain right now.
Rippin
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.