-Caveat Lector-

"I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to
the REPUBLIC for which it stands,  one Nation under God,indivisible,with
liberty and justice for all."

Remember:More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died in
United States Commercial Nuclear Power plant operations

 visit my web site at
http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904
for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto:
http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:36:01 -0700
From: Media Research Center <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MRC Alert: Networks Jump on 'Anonymous' Book Author's Critique of
    Iraq War

             ***Media Research Center CyberAlert***
    11:35am EDT, Thursday June 24, 2004 (Vol. Nine; No. 112)
 The 1,749th CyberAlert. Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996

> Networks Jump on "Anonymous" Book Author's Critique of Iraq War
> Gibson & Couric Tougher Than Rather on Bill Clinton, But...
> Clinton Complains About Media, But Starr, Dole, Reagan Got Worse
> "Top Ten Things Overheard in Line at the Clinton Book Signing"

    #### Distributed to more than 14,000 subscribers by the Media
Research Center, bringing political balance to the news media
since 1987. The MRC is the leader in documenting, exposing and
neutralizing liberal media bias. Visit the MRC on the Web:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T5ZbnP6cxb/ CyberAlerts from this year are 
at:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T50bnP6cxb/
For 2003: http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T51bnP6cxb/
    Subscribe/unsubscribe information, as well as a link to the
MRC's PayPal donation page, are at the end of this message.
    When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T52bnP6cxb/ ####

1) An "anonymous" CIA officer who was demoted from the position of
leading the tracking of Osama bin Laden, lashed out in a new book,
Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism, at
both the administrations of Presidents Clinton and Bush. But in
jumping on the book's criticism of going to war in Iraq, the
networks on Wednesday night concentrated their stories on his
attacks on the policies pursued by President Bush. Only NBC's
Andrea Mitchell gave a sentence to his criticism of how the
Clinton administration didn't take seriously the hunt for Osama
bin Laden and only CNN's David Ensor, in outlining what U.S.
policies the author says bother bin Laden, such as demanding low
oil prices, noted that he suggested something which is an anathema
to liberals: Drilling in ANWR.

2) ABC's Charlie Gibson and NBC's Katie Couric were a lot tougher
with Bill Clinton in their taped interviews played back on
Wednesday morning than was Dan Rather on 60 Minutes, though both
saw their roles more as cuing up Clinton to comment on various
subjects than challenging his answers. On Good Morning America,
Gibson wanted to know "why didn't you just come out and tell the
truth?" about Monica Lewinsky, but he also suggested, "you could
have said, 'It's none of your damn business, it demeans the
presidency, and I'm not going to do that in public.'" Couric
empathized about how "you write, sort of a heartbreaking story,
about not getting an Easter egg because you were too heavy to kind
of chase after it," but she also hit Clinton's record, even if she
stuck in a dig at Bush too: "Do you wish you had responded more
aggressively to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in which 17 sailors
were killed? Some people feel that the inaction by your
administration and the Bush administration somehow emboldened al-
Qaeda."

3) In his just-published memoir My Life, and in related publicity
interviews, former President Bill Clinton has castigated the media
for supposedly punishing him with negative coverage while
adversaries such as Ken Starr got a free ride. But the Washington,
D.C.-based research group Clinton cited as proving he received
mostly bad press published research showing that Starr, Newt
Gingrich, Bob Dole, the first President George Bush and President
Ronald Reagan all received tougher coverage than did Clinton.
Starr earned 87 percent negative coverage and in the 1984 campaign
91 percent of Reagan's coverage was negative. Plus, Clinton
praises a quote that was in the MRC's Notable Quotables.

4) Letterman's "Top Ten Things Overheard in Line at the Clinton
Book Signing."


    > 1) An "anonymous" CIA officer who was demoted from the
position of leading the tracking of Osama bin Laden, lashed out in
a new book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on
Terrorism, at both the administrations of Presidents Clinton and
Bush. But in jumping on the book's criticism of going to war in
Iraq, the networks on Wednesday night concentrated their stories
on his attacks on the policies pursued by President Bush. Only
NBC's Andrea Mitchell gave a sentence to his criticism of how the
Clinton administration didn't take seriously the hunt for Osama
bin Laden and only CNN's David Ensor, in outlining what U.S.
policies the author says bother bin Laden, such as demanding low
oil prices, noted that he suggested something which is an anathema
to liberals: Drilling in ANWR.

    The Wednesday New York Times featured an article about the
book, which is not scheduled for release until August 1, and then
the publisher, a company called Brassey's Inc, apparently made the
author available, in silhouette, for interviews with all the
networks. During the 5pm EDT Wolf Blitzer Reports, CNN treated
David Ensor's session with the unnamed man as breaking news.

    "Book by C.I.A. Officer Says U.S. Is Losing Fight Against,"
read the June 23 New York Times headline over the article by
reporter Douglas Jehl. See:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T53bnP6cxb/

    On ABC's World News Tonight, anchor Elizabeth Vargas touted
how "a new book about the inner workings of U.S. intelligence is
getting some attention. It is written by a member of the CIA and
it is extremely critical of how the Clinton and Bush
administrations tried to fight terrorism." But that was the first
and last mention of Clinton by ABC since reporter Jake Tapper
concentrated on how "he calls the war in Iraq 'an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate
threat.' The war played into bin Laden's hands, he writes, by
fostering further hatred of America." Tapper, however, gave equal
time to Bush defenders.

    CBS focused on the anonymous author's ominous prediction of a
worse attack on U.S. soil and on the CBS Evening News reporter
David Martin didn't air any contrary views as he noted how "he
says the invasion and occupation of Iraq has only made it easier
for bin Laden to recruit more followers who see the U.S. as an
aggressive, infidel power."

    Over on the NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw intoned: "He says the
U.S. is fighting the wrong war in the wrong place." Andrea
Mitchell echoed that, relaying how "this active 22-year CIA
veteran says the CIA is losing the war on terror in part because
of the war in Iraq, what he calls a dream come true for bin
Laden." But, unlike ABC and CBS, she pointed out how "after
hearing his secret testimony, the 9/11 Commission said his early
warnings about bin Laden, beginning in January of 1996, were not
taken seriously."

    Mitchell also outlined how the author is, to an extent, coming
at Bush from the right: "In a new book, Imperial Hubris, bound to
stir controversy, the anonymous author says the U.S. is fighting
the wrong war against terrorists instead of against a new form of
radical Islam. He even says, quote, 'Killing in large numbers is
not enough to defeat our Muslim foes.'" Mitchell challenged him:
"What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against
Muslim people is really only going to make the situation worse?"

    This morning, Thursday, CBS and NBC re-ran their stories from
the night before with NBC's Today following up with an interview
with Washington Post editor Steve Coll about "Anonymous." ABC's
Good Morning America, however, the MRC's Jessica Anderson informed
me, didn't mention the book.

    A rundown of the Wednesday night, June 23 stories:

    -- ABC's World News Tonight. Anchor Elizabeth Vargas intoned:
"A new book about the inner workings of U.S. intelligence is
getting some attention. It is written by a member of the CIA and
it is extremely critical of how the Clinton and Bush
administrations tried to fight terrorism. It is very unusual for
someone in the intelligence community to issue this kind of
indictment."

    Jake Tapper began: "'Anonymous' is a senior CIA official who
was once in charge of tracking down Osama bin Laden. His new book,
Imperial Hubris, is an indictment of how the U.S. is fighting the
war on terror. Still an employee of the CIA, he was only allowed
to write the book, and speak to ABC News, anonymously."
    Author, blacked out in front of yellow curtain: "I wrote it
because I think America is in trouble. I think we have not yet
appreciated the dimensions of the problem or the size of the
problem."
    Tapper: "In the book, he calls the war in Iraq 'an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate
threat.' The war played into bin Laden's hands, he writes, by
fostering further hatred of America. This contradicts the view
held by the Bush administration."
    President Bush, June 18: "Iraq is better off today. America is
more secure today because Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell."
    Tapper: "The 22-year CIA veteran describes an apocalyptic
future. Claiming bin Laden is in the Islamic mainstream, he says
the U.S. is fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency. And he
predicts the war the war on terror could mostly be fought on
American soil. Defenders of the administration take exception to
the book."
    Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute: "It's not the
job of the CIA to do horoscope-like predictions. It's the job of
the CIA to give our policy-makers the tools to fight those
threats."
    Tapper: "The author also disagrees with other central premises
of U.S. policy."
    Author: "We need to face the fact that Muslims are angry at us
not because of who we are, not because we vote, not because women
go to school, but because of what we do in the world."
    Tapper concluded: "Within the intelligence community,
'anonymous' has both supporters and detractors. His detractors
noting that he was removed from the hunt for bin Laden, perhaps
freeing up his time to write a book."

    For the online version of Tapper's piece, with a picture of
the man with his face blacked out:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T54bnP6cxb/


    -- CBS Evening News. Following a report on the swearing in of
an Ambassador to Iraq, Dan Rather segued: "The dangers Ambassador
Negroponte may face in accomplishing those tasks are reflected in
a new book by a ranking active CIA officer who criticizes U.S.
strategy in the war on terror and is making some dire predictions.
The book is called Imperial Hubris. CBS national security
correspondent David Martin spoke with the author."

    Martin began: "The book, still three weeks away from
publication, offers a spies-eye's view of the war on terror and it
is a stark picture."
    Martin to author: "Simply put, are we winning or losing the
war on terror."
    Author, faced blacked out: "I have to say I think we're losing
ground."
    Martin: "The author, who insists his identity be kept secret,
is not just another arm chair analyst. He is a serving CIA officer
who spent two decades working in the agency's counter terrorism
center and once headed the unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden.
He's certain bin Laden will make good on his threats to carry out
more attacks inside the U.S."
    Author: "I'm certain he's going to attack again because he
said so, and because I think we have not done the damage many
people believe we have to his organization."
    Martin: "You also say you're certain it's going to a more
devastating attack than 9/11."
    Author: "Yes, sir. He certainly will attempt that. He has a
very clear record, again based on open source material of
incrementally more powerful attacks."
    Martin: "It's rare for a serving CIA officer to break ranks
and go public. He reveals no secrets -- the CIA censors made sure
of that -- but he exposes what he says is a self-defeating
strategy which is only playing into bin Laden's hands. He calls
the war in Afghanistan an unfolding nightmare."
    Author: "We're faced with a long term insurgency there and at
some point, as I write in the book, we're going to have to decide
to leave the country or greatly augment the size of the forces we
have there."
    Martin: "And he says the invasion and occupation of Iraq has
only made it easier for bin Laden to recruit more followers who
see the U.S. as an aggressive, infidel power."
    Author: "If Osama was a Christian, it was the Christmas
present no one ever expected to get."
    Martin concluded: "According to anonymous, anti-American
movements are growing, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but
throughout much of the Muslim world."


    -- NBC Nightly News. Tom Brokaw reported: "And in this
country, a career CIA officer who cannot reveal his identity is
making some bold and controversial claims in a new book about his
specialty, which is fighting terrorism. He says the U.S. is
fighting the wrong war in the wrong place. NBC's chief foreign
affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, has more on this anonymous
insider's perspective."

    Mitchell opened her story, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad
Wilmouth: "For three years, he led the CIA's war against Osama bin
Laden."
    Author, in black in front of yellow curtains: "I genuinely
think that we have underestimated the scope of the enemy."
    Mitchell: "A key secret witness to the 9/11 Commission, this
active 22-year CIA veteran says the CIA is losing the war on
terror in part because of the war in Iraq, what he calls a dream
come true for bin Laden."
    Author: "Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaeda, and other of
America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion
of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted
and never expected to get."
    Mitchell: "After hearing his secret testimony, the 9/11
Commission said his early warnings about bin Laden, beginning in
January of 1996, were not taken seriously."
    Christopher Kojm, 9/11 Commission staff: "Employees in the
unit told us they felt their zeal attracted ridicule from their
peers."
    Mitchell: "In a new book, Imperial Hubris, bound to stir
controversy, the anonymous author says the U.S. is fighting the
wrong war against terrorists instead of against a new form of
radical Islam. He even says, quote, �Killing in large numbers is
not enough to defeat our Muslim foes.'
    Mitchell to author: "What do you say to those who say that
your call for a war against Muslim people is really only going to
make the situation worse?"
    Author: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be."
    Mitchell: "Even if it means civilian casualties?"
    Author: "We should err on the side of protecting Americans
first."
    Mitchell: "The conclusions of this veteran CIA man are already
stirring controversy with former CIA colleagues."
    Reuel Marc Gerecht, former CIA Middle Eastern specialist: "So
I think serious damage has been done to al-Qaeda. It is, by no
means, dead, but I think the Bush administration can rightfully
claim some credit."
    Mitchell concluded: "The CIA allowed 'Anonymous' to write this
book. He insists that although he's been sidelined at the agency,
he has no axe to grind. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington."

    For the full text of Mitchell's interview with "Anonymous" and
a picture of him in silhouette: http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T55bnP6cxb/


    -- CNN's NewsNight. Aaron Brown opened his newscast: "A short
page tonight for the program is very full. Our lead tonight deals
in a fundamental way with the nature of terrorism itself and the
conflicting views on why it exists. The President says often that
the enemy here hates us because we love freedom and, while that is
simple and easy to understand, we suspect even he knows it is far
more complicated than that. There are reasons they hate us, and
hate us they do, and it is almost certainly true we have spent too
little time trying to understand that.
    "Our lead tonight deals with that fundamental question and it
is also where we begin the whip. The whip begins with a CIA
officer, a book, and theories about what the country has done
wrong in the days since 9/11, David Ensor working on that, so
David start us with a headline."

    Ensor summarized: "Aaron, the book is written by Mr.
Anonymous. He won't give his name and the interview today with us
was in silhouette but he says that the West, that the United
States is losing the war on terrorism. He says it's underestimated
Osama bin Laden and he says that the reason this war is going on
is not because they hate us for our freedom, as you mentioned, but
because they hate our policies."

    Setting up the subsequent story, Brown announced: "We begin
with the premise that nearly everything done by two Presidents in
the name of fighting Islamic terrorism has been wrong, more so
since 9/11, especially so with Iraq. Coming from the radical
fringe, the message might be simpler to dismiss but that's not
where it comes from. It is the central theme of a book written by
a top professional within the CIA, cleared by his bosses and soon
appearing in stores, which is raising eyebrows and hackles, not to
mention some very chilling possibilities."

    Ensor explained: "In the book, Anonymous says President Bush
and the west have seriously underestimated Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaeda."
    Author, in silhouette: "I think there's a certain amount of
what can guys with turbans squatting in the desert do to the
United States of America? I think we have just grossly
underestimated this threat and I think there's no more, there's no
more, there's no more perfect validation of that contention than
the fact that we went to war in Iraq."
    Ensor: "Anonymous writes he is certain that al Qaeda will
attack the Continental United States again, that its next strike
will be more damaging than that of 11 September 2001 and could
include the use of weapons of mass destruction."
    Author: "This war could continue far into my children's
lifetime."
    Ensor: "It was the CIA which insisted on his appearing only in
silhouette, officials saying they don't want anyone to think he
speaks for the agency. Ironically, the anonymity frees him to be
more blunt. He blames intelligence Director George Tenet and other
members of the Bush national security team for not giving
President Bush a clear view of al Qaeda."
    Author: "He is being ill served by his briefers, his senior
bureaucrats."
    Ensor: "Anonymous says President Bush is flat wrong when he
says the terrorists hate us for our love of freedom."
    Author: "Bin Laden hates us for what we do in terms of our
foreign policy."
    Ensor, with list on screen: "He points to the six policies bin
Laden has listed as anti-Muslim, U.S. troops on the Arabian
Peninsula, U.S. support for corrupt tyrannical Muslim governments,
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. support for
suppression of Muslim minorities by Russia, China and India,
American pressure on Arab oil producers to keep oil prices
artificially low, and U.S. support for Israel, right or wrong."
    Author: "Our support for Israel is one of them. If we decide
to keep a current level of support that's fine. That's a
democratic decision but you pay a price for that. If you continue
to want cheap oil, you pay a price for that also."
    Ensor: "Why should anyone listen to a man in silhouette?
Terrorist expert Peter Bergen knows him well."
    Peter Bergen: "He's regarded as one of the foremost
authorities on bin Laden, al Qaeda, either within the government
or outside it, so his views carry some weight."
    Ensor: "Other CIA officials describe Anonymous as quote, 'kind
of an angry fellow' and they say that he's been shunted off into
meaningless work at the agency. They suggest he's angry and
clearly he is, angry he says because the government is not doing,
in his view, the right things to protect this country -- Aaron."

    Brown asked: "And the right things to protect this country
would be, in his view?"
    Ensor answered: "To look at those six policies that were
listed a moment ago and change some of them, to change our embrace
of Israel, to change our embrace of Saudi Arabia, to become more
energy independent, to do a lot more drilling in Alaska and to
take a whole series of measures that face up to the fact the
country can't afford to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil --
Aaron."
    Brown: "Doesn't he, David, doesn't he also argue that if we're
going to wage war, we have to be a lot more aggressive in the kind
of war we wage?"
    Ensor: "Yes. He advocates killing quite a few people. He says
if this is going to be all out war and, if we're going to decide
we're going to have these policies that are so unpopular with the
Muslim world, the only way is to try to win that war and that may
mean a lot of casualties on the other side and we've got to be a
lot less squeamish about that in his view -- Aaron."

    Amazon.com's page for Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing
the War on Terrorism:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T56bnP6cxb/
r=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-8396337-3340037



    > 2) ABC's Charlie Gibson and NBC's Katie Couric were a lot
tougher with Bill Clinton in their taped interviews played back on
Wednesday morning than was Dan Rather on 60 Minutes, though both
saw their roles more as cuing up Clinton to comment on various
subjects than challenging his answers. On Good Morning America,
Gibson wanted to know "why didn't you just come out and tell the
truth?" about Monica Lewinsky, but he also suggested, "you could
have said, 'It's none of your damn business, it demeans the
presidency, and I'm not going to do that in public.'" Referring to
Clinton's claim of having dark demons, Gibson wondered: "Is the
parallel life, in Bill Clinton's case, in any way a fatal flaw of
Shakespearean dimensions?"

    Both shows aired segments in their 7am and 8am half hours and
while by the second segment Gibson moved on to prompting Clinton
to talk about his wife's potential presidential candidacy and to
play political prognosticator about this year's election, Couric,
after empathizing about how "you write, sort of a heartbreaking
story, about not getting an Easter egg because you were too heavy
to kind of chase after it," got back to Clinton's record, even if
she stuck in a dig at Bush too: "Do you wish you had responded
more aggressively to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in which 17
sailors were killed? Some people feel that the inaction by your
administration and the Bush administration somehow emboldened al-
Qaeda." (In another part of the interview aired on Thursday's
Today, Couric asked him about Hillary's future and this year's
presidential race.)

    In the first part aired on Wednesday, Couric did oddly
maintain: "Many people have remarked how open and candid you've
been in the book."

    Most entertaining were Clinton's bizarre claims, such as about
the "they" behind Ken Starr: "After 1968 they thought there would
never be another Democratic President. They thought the only
reason Jimmy Carter was elected is 'cause of Watergate. And they
really believed when I won it interrupted the natural order of
things."

    Below are the questions posed in the interviews taped on
Tuesday, June 22, in what looked to be a fancy hotel room, and
aired Wednesday morning, June 23, as taken down by the MRC's
Jessica Anderson and Geoff Dickens:

    # ABC's Good Morning America.

    7am half hour segment:

    Gibson: "As everyone no doubt knows by now, President
Clinton's autobiography 'My Life,' all 957 pages of it, is in
bookstores right now. We showed you some people lining up almost
as if it was a rock star about to appear yesterday to get a first
copy. Some early sales figures suggest that the former President's
book is even beating his wife's bestselling memoir. The former
President himself is using the personal touch to pump up sales of
the book, which covers his life, from birth nearly 58 years ago in
Arkansas until he left office. So when we sat down yesterday to
talk, I began by asking about the scandal that threatened to end
his presidency."

    -- "Those who were out to get you, the right-wing conspiracy
as Mrs. Clinton has called it, in the end, though, didn't you just
hand them the sword?"
    Clinton: "Mm-hmm, I did. Well, you can say I handed them the
sword alright, but that does not excuse what they did in trampling
the Constitution....I hope no other American ever has to live with
years and years and years of somebody trying to put you and your
wife in jail and hurting innocent people, and knowing the whole
thing is a lie."
    Gibson: "But that's what I think will always been inexplicable
to people -- what the hell were you thinking?"
    Clinton: "Would you be right, first of all, most personal
encounters are not entirely rational. Secondly, I'm not sure most
people would be entirely rational if they had been bankrupted and
seen their friends indicted because they wouldn't lie, seen
innocent people sent to jail and seen people in your business
[points at Charlie] cover it up and legitimize what happened. So,
I was pretty wigged out. I was mad. I was mad at myself for losing
the Congress because I tried to jam too much change down the
American system in '93 and '94...."

    -- Gibson: "But in January of '98, why didn't you just come
out and tell the truth?...When you go back now and see that
soundbite, which people have seen, everybody, hundreds of times,
when you're wagging the finger."
    Clinton: "That was a mistake, and I say it was."
    Gibson: "What do you think when you see that now?"
    Clinton, in 1998: "I did not have sexual relations with that
woman, Miss Lewinsky."
    Clinton: "I think I shouldn't have said it. I think what I
should have said was the truth. I should have said, 'I didn't
violate the law and I never asked anybody else to violate the
law,' and that's all I should have said."
    Gibson: "Well, I was going to ask about the third way, whether
you could have said, 'It's none of your damn business, it demeans
the presidency, and I'm not going to do that in public.'"

    -- "You write about parallel lives and you define them as an
external life that takes its natural course -- in your case, happy
and quite successful -- and an internal life where secrets are
hidden -- 'it's dark down there,' as you write. Is the parallel
life, in Bill Clinton's case, in any way a fatal flaw of
Shakespearean dimensions?"
    Clinton: "I don't think so because it was not evil, it was not
designed to hurt people...."

    Gibson's agenda during 8am segment:

    -- "Let me talk politics for a minute, a subject you know
well. Does Senator Clinton want to be President?...You think she
will run someday?"

    -- "Handicap this one for me, 2004. Can John Kerry win and
how?"

    -- "In '92, your people famously kept saying 'it's the
economy, stupid,' and a lot of people think that's really where
elections do turn. Arguably, George Bush might have a good case
there, or if it turns on Iraq, and the polls show support for him
slipping strongly there, he might be in some trouble. Which do you
think will be the predominant issue?"

    -- "Is it Kerry's to win or is this an election, in some
nature, between George Bush and not George Bush, because he does
also excite real passions in people, for and against."

    -- "Final question. It is presumptive to ask an author to sum
up a 950-page book in one question, but if you were a journalist
and you had your book in your hand, what would be the lead?"


    # NBC's Today.

    7am half hour segment:

    Couric: "On Close Up this morning President Bill Clinton. He's
off on a nationwide media blitz selling copies of his highly
anticipated autobiography, My Life. Fans at his book signings are
turning out in massive numbers but perhaps foremost on people's
minds isn't Clinton policy but the continuing controversy over his
personal life. You well know, President Clinton, that a lot of
people are gonna turn to the index and look up under L, for
Lewinsky. Does that bother you that, that, that's the first thing
they're gonna be interested in, many people?"

    -- Couric: "I have to ask you, do you feel sorry for Monica
Lewinsky? She was a young woman, what, 22-years-old and I feel
like in many ways her life has been irreparably damaged and she's
a real victim."

    -- Couric: "Many people have remarked how open and candid
you've been in the book. And I'm sure it was quite painful to
relive that episode in your life and of course the other person in
this whole thing was your wife, Senator Hillary Clinton. And I
guess many people don't understand, Mr. President, how you allowed
her to go on national television? How you sort of hung her out to
dry while she defended you that January morning on the Today show.
And I know you write in the book that you were ashamed watching
the interview."
    Clip from Hillary Clinton on Today in January of 1998: "The
great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it
and explain it is this vast right wing conspiracy that has been
conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for
President."
    Bill Clinton: "What she said was true."
    Couric: "I know you've said that. On the other hand she was
defending you. C'mon."
    Clinton: "That's right and I explain that. But what you have
to come to grips with and all the people in the media have to come
to grips with is that both things are true. I did a bad thing. I
felt I couldn't tell anybody about it at the time because of the
circumstances. It wasn't like when Grover Cleveland had to admit
he had a child out of wedlock. There was no Kenneth Starr trying
to put people in jail. Keep in mind Mr. Starr even violated the
Justice Department guidelines and made Monica Lewinsky's mother
testify. It was a crazy time and people can make their judgments
about that. But what you have to come to grips with is both things
are true. It is true that I did a bad thing and I did a bad thing
in misleading everybody about it. And it's true that Starr was
wrong and the people who covered up what he did were wrong."
    Couric: "Let me ask you a question though. If you hadn't done
A do you think there would be B?"

    -- Couric: "You said before you wrote this book that this
wasn't about settling scores but you are pretty angry at Ken
Starr. You call his tactics, 'cheap and sleazy.'"
    Clinton: "In con-, in the context of calling Hillary before
the grand jury. That was a cheap, sleazy publicity stunt...."
    Couric: "He, in response to your book and some of the things,
I guess he's heard about it. He says he hasn't read it yet, but
will. He said, 'I understand the depths of his feelings. People
tend to not like prosecutors."
    Clinton: "That's not true. I liked Robert Fisk just fine.
People don't like prosecutors who prosecute people instead of
crimes. He just kept-"
    Couric: "But you said, you thought, he thought he was doing
the right thing."
    Clinton: "He absolutely did."
    Couric: "How could this be so?"
    Clinton: "Because he believed that it violated the natural
order for me to be elected President. That's what he believed. You
don't understand. After 1968 they thought there would never be
another Democratic President. They thought the only reason Jimmy
Carter was elected is 'cause of Watergate. And they really
believed when I won it interrupted the natural order of things.
But I don't quarrel with that. And I don't think that Starr
believes he's a bad man. I think he believes he's a good God-
fearing Christian man who was driving an infidel from the temple.
But his goal was to drive me from office whether I committed a
crime or not. And the American people need to know that."

    Couric set up the 8am half hour segment: "Now part two of my
interview with former President Bill Clinton. It's no secret that
Bill Clinton had a hardscrabbled childhood but what you might not
know is that the former President also struggled with his self-
image and fitting in....But a kid that didn't have a lot of self-
confidence, wasn't particularly popular or liked by the girls. You
write, sort of a heartbreaking story, about not getting an Easter
egg because you were too heavy to kind of chase after it."

    -- "But how did all these things, I mean, feeling sort of
different and frankly unattractive, affect your view of yourself
and do you ever still feel like that fat band boy?"

    -- "Let's fast forward a few years to the presidency. When
asked about your greatest accomplishment you said the conventional
wisdom would be the economy. But I'm not as interested in the
conventional wisdom as I am in your own perspective."

    -- "What was your biggest disappointment?"

    -- "One of your biggest disappointments, I understand, Mr.
President is the fact that you did not kill or capture Osama Bin
Laden."

    -- "Did you sense during the course of your administration
that Osama Bin Laden would change the world in a very bad way."

    -- "Do you wish you had responded more aggressively to the
attack on the U.S.S. Cole in which 17 sailors were killed? Some
people feel that the inaction by your administration and the Bush
administration somehow emboldened al-Qaeda."



    > 3) In his just-published memoir My Life, and in related
publicity interviews, former President Bill Clinton has castigated
the media for supposedly punishing him with negative coverage
while adversaries such as Ken Starr got a free ride. But the
Washington, D.C.-based research group Clinton cited as proving he
received mostly bad press published research showing that Starr,
Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, the first President George Bush and
President Ronald Reagan all received tougher coverage than did
Clinton. Starr earned 87 percent negative coverage and in the 1984
campaign 91 percent of Reagan's coverage was negative.

    [The MRC's Rich Noyes, a veteran of CMPA, submitted this item
for CyberAlert.]

    In his current round of interviews, the former President has
been using the media to scold the media: "Kenneth Starr would not
be allowed to be a prosecutor against me as a defendant in any
decent court in the land," Clinton griped on BBC's Panorama on
Tuesday night. He lumped BBC interviewer David Dimbleby in with
the rest of the press: "One of the reasons he got away with it is
because people like you only ask people like me the questions. You
gave him a complete free ride."

    It's a point Clinton frequently raised in his book. On page
619, for example, he cited the work of the non-partisan Center for
Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) as proving his contention that the
media were overly negative. Writing about the run-up to the 1994
midterm elections (which ended with Republicans winning both the
House and Senate), Clinton insisted his administration had a good
record but the media's negativity had deluded voters. An excerpt:

"We were in trouble heading into the last six weeks of the
election, for a variety of reasons: many people hadn't felt the
economic improvements yet; no one believed the deficit was coming
down; most people were unaware of the legislative victories and
didn't know or didn't care about the foreign policy progress; the
Republicans and their media and interest group allies had
constantly and effectively attacked me as a wild-eyed liberal who
wanted to tax them into the poorhouse and take their doctors and
guns away; and the general press coverage was overwhelmingly
negative.

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs issued a report saying
that in my first sixteen months, there was an average of nearly
five negative comments a night on the evening news programs, far
more than the first President Bush had received in his first two
years. The center's director, Robert Lichter, said I had the
'misfortune of being president at the dawning of an age that
combines attack-dog journalism with tabloid news.' There were some
exceptions, of course. Jacob Weisberg wrote that 'Bill Clinton has
been more faithful to his word than any other chief executive in
recent memory,' but that 'voters mistrust Clinton in part because
the media keeps telling them not to trust him.'"

    END of Excerpt from My Life.

    The CMPA report that Clinton referred to, the July/August 1994
edition of the group's Media Monitor newsletter, did conclude that
the early coverage of Clinton was more negative than the early
coverage of the first President Bush. But CMPA issued a number of
similar research reports showing Clinton faring better --
sometimes much better -- than his political adversaries:

    # Clinton-Gore got better press than Bush-Quayle: In their
August/September 1992 Media Monitor, CMPA found the three networks
tilted in favor of the Democrats: "Since June, evaluations of Bush
have run three to two negative, while assessments of Clinton have
been balanced. The gap between their running mates is far greater.
Three out of four sources have praised Al Gore, while two out of
three have criticized Dan Quayle."

    # The networks minimized Clinton's scandals: The same
July/August 1994 report Clinton cited in his memoir also
documented how, even in the wake of Whitewater and "Troopergate,"
the networks spent little time on scandal. "All told, scandal
items have accounted for barely five percent of the
administration's coverage -- only 240 out of 4,256 stories," CMPA
reported.

    # Newt Gingrich got really negative coverage: While Clinton
claimed his media coverage was hostile in the months prior to the
1994 election, the November 1994 issue of MRC's MediaWatch picked
up on a CMPA press release: "The Center for Media and Public
Affairs found that in political stories on the networks between
Labor Day and October 20, Gingrich drew 100 percent negative
evaluations from reporters and talking heads." See:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T57bnP6cxb/

    # In 1996, the networks were friendlier to Clinton than to
Dole: "Incumbent presidents typically endure highly negative media
coverage when they run for a second term," the November/December
1996 Media Monitor observed. "This year, however, Bill Clinton has
enjoyed the best press of his presidency....Conversely, Bob Dole
received his worst press of the year just after Labor Day."

    # During the Lewinsky scandal, the networks were harsher on
Starr: According to the September/October 1998 Media Monitor,
while the President was the topic of more news stories, "the
Independent Counsel received proportionately worse press than Mr.
Clinton. The 136 evaluative sound bites directed toward Mr. Starr
and his team of prosecutors ran seven to one negative (87%)."

    # The March/April 2004 Media Monitor found that Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry "had best press of any nominee
we've ever tracked -- 81 percent positive," something to remember
if Kerry ever writes a book complaining that he was treated poorly
by the media.

    # Reagan could only dream of Clinton's good press. In a press
release posted on Wednesday, "Press Praised Reagan Only After
Death," CMPA summarized their past findings. An excerpt:

....Reagan's Rocky Road: Sources on the network evening news were
heavily critical of Ronald Reagan throughout his presidency. 85%
of assessments of Reagan during Campaign 1980 were negative; 64%
of evaluations during his administration's first year were
negative; in Campaign 1984, 91% of his coverage was negative. Even
after Election Day 1988 -- as a "lame duck" president -- 65% of
all evaluations were critical of Reagan.

Worst Among Equals: No incoming administration since Reagan's has
been criticized so heavily as much on the network newscasts. 64%
of the evaluations in 1981 were negative, compared to 45% for
George H. W. Bush, 62% for Bill Clinton and 61% for George W.
Bush....

Rooting For Rivals: In 1984, 56% of evaluations of Democratic
presidential nominee Walter Mondale were positive, while 91% of
Reagan's coverage was negative. During their summits in 1987 and
1988, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev received far more positive
coverage than Reagan. (1987: Reagan 47% positive evaluations,
Gorbachev 79% positive; 1988: Reagan 46% positive, Gorbachev 76%
positive)

    END of Excerpt

    For the June 23 press release in full:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T58bnP6cxb/

    The Media Research Center seems to have an excellent eye for
the kind of liberal bias which Clinton likes. After despairing
about his terrible treatment at the hands of most reporters, in
his book Clinton glowingly cited former Newsweek reporter Jacob
Weisberg (now the editor of Slate.com) as a welcome "exception."
Sure enough, the fawning quote Clinton liked so much made it into
the September 12, 1994 issue of the MRC's Notable Quotables:
    "Well, it may seem the sheerest act of heresy to say so, but
far from being pathologically dishonest, Bill Clinton has been
more faithful to his word than any other chief executive in recent
memory. He may have skirted the truth about the draft, Gennifer
Flowers, Paula Jones, and so on. But Clinton has kept his contract
with voters. On policy issues, he does done almost exactly what he
said he was going to do, despite setbacks and enormous obstacles.
And by so doing, he has made himself an excellent President."

    Weisberg wrote that in the September 5, 1994 edition of New
York magazine. For the NQ, see:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T59bnP6cxb/



    > 4) From the June 23 Late Show with David Letterman, the
"Top Ten Things Overheard in Line at the Clinton Book Signing."
Late Show home page: http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T6abnP6cxb/

10. I've never been to a book signing at hooters before

9. Hey Gore, bring up some more books from the basement

8. Mr. President, do you know that woman under the table?

7. Could you make it out to Gennifer with a 'G'?

6. Look, Ken Starr...nah, I'm just messin' with you

5. This long line is the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy

4. Those aren't secret service agents - - those are Hillary's
people keeping an eye on him

3. He's a lot more Bubbaish in person

2. How come they're moving all the good-looking women to the front
of the line?

1. I just pray he signs it with a pen



    # Michael Moore is scheduled to appear Thursday night on
Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart.


-- Brent Baker


    >>> Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon
contributions which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-
deductible donation. To safely and securely donate via PayPal:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T6bbnP6cxb/
tem_name=Media+Research+Center&item_number=Media+Research+Center&n
o_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=USD

    Or, if you can't get the lengthy link into your browser's
address line, go to the MRC's home page
( http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T6cbnP6cxb/ ) and click on the gold 
"Support
the MRC" logo in the top right corner. That will take you to the
same place.

    To subscribe to CyberAlert, go to:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T6dbnP6cxb/

    Or, send a blank e-mail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

    To unsubscribe, use the link at the very bottom of this
message.

    Send problems and comments to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

    You can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web
site by subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every
weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to:
http://mrccyberalert.c.topica.com/maacnRfaa7T6ebnP6cxb/ <<<

====================================================================
Update Your Profile:
   http://mrccyberalert.f.topica.com/f/?bUrD57.bnP6cx.d2JhY29u
Unsubscribe:
   http://mrccyberalert.f.topica.com/f/?bUrD57.bnP6cx.d2JhY29u.u
Confirm Your Subscription:
   http://mrccyberalert.f.topica.com/f/?bUrD57.bnP6cx.d2JhY29u.c
Delivered by Topica:
   http://www.topica.com/?p=T3FOOTER

www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to