RSS Feed
Loading ...
by Brent Bozell as seen at NewsBusters:
The March 13 Washington Post erupted on the front page with the revelation that the White House played a role in the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. “Firings Had Genesis In White House,” screamed the headline. Documents showed that back in 2005, White House counsel Harriet Miers recommended the idea to the Justice Department that all 93 U.S. Attorneys be replaced. Instead, the Bush team dismissed only eight.
But something quite amazing was omitted by those hard-charging Post reporters Dan Eggen and John Solomon digging through White House E-mails for their scandalized front-page bombshell. Didn’t Bill Clinton’s brand new Attorney General Janet Reno demand resignations from all 93 U.S. attorneys on March 24, 1993? Wouldn’t that fact be relevant to the story? Wouldn’t it have the effect of lessening the oh-my-God hyperbole on the front page if the reader was shown that what Bush did was one-tenth as dramatic as what Team Clinton did? Yes, and yes.
Bush’s attorney general fired eight. Clinton’s fired 93. The media think the eight dismissals were a scandal so massive some have begun calling on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. But they thought the 93 Clinton firings were not worth investigating for the length of a cigarette break. Can a liberal double standard be any more obvious?
The Washington Post was by no means alone. The March 13 New York Times also hyped the story of the White House looking into dismissing U.S. attorneys on page one – and reporters David Johnston and Eric Lipton also completely skipped the fact of Janet Reno’s “March Massacre.” ABC’s “Good Morning America” on March 13 carried a story from Justice Department correspondent Pierre Thomas, and he also completely skipped the Clinton-Reno firings.
Worse yet, in the middle of this episode of amnesia, ABC brought on George Stephanopoulos – who defended the Clinton firings as the White House spokesman in 1993 – to describe this as an urgent matter putting pressure on Karl Rove to testify before Congress and for Gonzales to resign!
But surely the media gave the Reno order equal, if not ten-fold coverage back in ‘93, right? Think again. ABC never reported it. The New York Times front-page headline yawned: “Attorney General Seeks Resignations from Prosecutors.” (At least an editorial the next day blasted Reno’s move as “an odd first step in the wrong direction.”)
The Washington Post demonstrated a much richer double standard. While the Post has filed six heavy-breathing front-page stories on their newest Bush scandal, back in 1993, the story was over within a day or two. They reported Janet Reno’s purge on the front page, utterly without suspicion: “The Clinton administration yesterday requested that the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys submit their resignations, a move that likely will mean the quick departure of two figures who have played prominent roles in the politics of the District and Virginia.”
The headline was simply “Washington Area to Lose 2 High-Profile Prosecutors; All U.S. Attorneys Told to Tender Resignations.” They then added helpfully that Reno said it was routine.
The Post noted mildly that the canned D.C. prosecutor was Jay Stephens, who was right in the middle of investigating corrupt Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the man who was sure to play a major role in passing Hillary’s socialist health-care plan. Was the mass firing a way to get rid of him? Stephens protested. The Washington Post editorialized and answered: Get lost. “Jay Stephens Strikes Out” was their headline.
The suggestion that the White House had a political agenda was a contemptible reach, editorialized the Post: “The innuendo in which U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens has indulged in the past few days can only be calculated to undermine the integrity and reputation of the prosecutorial process he claims it is his goal to protect. Attorney General Janet Reno announced at a news conference Tuesday that all U.S. attorneys across the country were being asked for their resignations. No surprise there. These are political appointees who owed their jobs to the last administration and have expected to be replaced ever since last November’s election.”
So in 2007, the firing of a U.S. Attorney is an egregious ethical offense, but in 1993, it was merely a customary transition of administrations.
The American people deserve Washington reporters who report the news in full historical context, not Democratic Party context. Every so-called “objective” reporter who reproduces Senator Chuck Schumer’s talking points about how this is an unprecedented Gonzales outrage without remembering Reno’s March Massacre is making a mockery of journalism, and history.
Please take the time to read Tim Graham’s: MRC’s Brent Bozell on Media Coverage of U.S. Attorney Firings: ‘The Double Standard is Nauseating’ and Orin Kerr: Why Haven’t We Written About the US Attorneys’ Story?:
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Rightlinx, third world county, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Overtaken by Events, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
March 14, 2007 - 02:16 PM on March 14th, 2007
According to the popular MSM and Democrite culture, if Bush does it, it is wrong by definition. No matter that Klinton fired all 93. No matter what the precedent is. No matter that the Demokkkrites had no problem with Klinton firing all 93.
If Bush did it, it’s wrong. No need to go into the details.
March 14, 2007 - 02:37 PM on March 14th, 2007
Robert, you hit the nail right smack on the head!
March 14, 2007 - 02:40 PM on March 14th, 2007
I’m curious. Why are Democrats constantly mentioned as affiliates of the KKK? Seems a bit backwards to me. I always thought the backwoods Right fit the bill? Perhaps someone can explain it to me.
Maybe it was Affirmative Action.
March 14, 2007 - 03:05 PM on March 14th, 2007
4.
Ryan,
Several reasons. Robert Byrd (A democrat and memeber of the KKK) is one of them.
Another is the Dixiecrat (white supremacist Southern Democrat party) movement of the 1940’s. For a century previous (before the civil war) southerners were predominately Democrat.
Personally, I think to affiliate either party with the KKK is really demeaning the to the KKK.
March 14, 2007 - 06:35 PM on March 14th, 2007
#3 For the reasons Ted posted, plus a couple more: It was the DemokRats in the 1960s who opposed Civil Rights legislation, a fact they have managed to completely cover up in the minds of the ignorant populace.
And they are the Masters of the Virtual Plantation, which extends entitlements and privileges to minorities in exchange for fealty.
March 14, 2007 - 07:00 PM on March 14th, 2007
the rats play and the great liers run this nation on both parties. only the people can save it and the people our not one but many who hate each other, so the USA Is dead,dead,dead. civil right will disappear for the ideals of the third world Rats to play with your head. Buy Guns find some place to live without being beheaded:wink:
March 15, 2007 - 01:22 AM on March 15th, 2007
5- Stick it in your mouth and smoke it:
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 VOTING: (for-against)
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Ted was correct with his original response of “Dixiecrats”
March 16, 2007 - 12:04 AM on March 16th, 2007
Tofu there is a bit more history behind the link between the KKK and the Democrats that dates back to immediately following the Civil War when the KKK was founded.
While the laws and constitutional amendments gave blacks the ability to vote which they used throughout Reconstruction to elect REPUBLICAN candidates (a large number of whom were black!), once the federal troops were withdrawn, the blacks, who had been disarmed to prevent a racial uprising, were at the mercy of the armed southern whites. Under the guise of the hooded riders of the KKK and similar groups, southern white Democrats terrorized entire black communities to prevent them from voting. Since the blacks were too afraid to vote for fear of retribution, the white southern DEMOCRATS, elected themselves into power and then instituted the Jim Crow laws that were in effect until the voter rights act overturned them over 70 years later.
There is a reason why the Democrats and the KKK are linked. The KKK was founded by and supported the Democratic party for the first 80+ years of its existence. The “backwoods right” as a whole are NOT Republicans, they are Democrats. They tend to be union members who are heavily in league with the Democrats.
March 16, 2007 - 02:10 AM on March 16th, 2007
#7 fine, great stats. But the point is that it is the DemokkkRat party that acts like it was the party that did it, and that is not wuite true. Just another Big Lie. But the Demokkkrites take credit nonetheless.
The racist DemokkkRats have just moved blacks onto their virtual plantation, that’s all.
March 18, 2007 - 05:02 PM on March 18th, 2007
Hmmm, I wonder why I so seldom get snarky remarks when I start giving libs history lessons that they don’t really want to learn? BTW Ryan there is your answer as to why the Democrats and the KKK are so frequently linked. The Dems founded the KKK after the Civil War in order to get themselves elected.