Welcome to PatsFans.com

Frontline: Bernstein on Bush vs. Nixon

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Feb 15, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    from Frontline's latest great piece of investigative journalism:
    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545556

    essentially he's saying: "Bush's lies are not biased reporters' opinion, they're demonstrable fact."

    New York - Part one of the new PBS "Frontline" four-page series on the media debuted last night, mainly looking at the Plame affair. As usual, only snippets from dozens of interviews will make it on the air, but PBS.org is helpfully putting complete transcripts of many of the interviews up on its Web site (as we note in a separate article).

    Here is a brief excerpt from the interview with Watergate sleuth Carl Bernstein. The interviewer is Lowell Bergman.

    Q: Finally, I just want to get your reflections on the [famously contentious] relationship of Richard Nixon and the press.... How does that compare to George W. Bush and the press?

    Bernstein: First, Nixon's relationship to the press was consistent with his relationship to many institutions and people. He saw himself as a victim. We now understand the psyche of Richard Nixon, that his was a self-destructive act and presidency.

    I think what we're talking about with the Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth - a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself - is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale.

    The lying in the Nixon White House had most often to do with covering up Watergate, with the Nixon administration's illegal activities. Here, in this presidency, there is an unwillingness to be truthful, both contextually and in terms of basic facts that ought to be of great concern to people of all ideologies....

    This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth. We have gone to war on the basis of misinformation, disinformation and knowing lies from top to bottom.

    That is an astonishing fact. That's what this story is about: the willingness of the president and the vice president and the people around them to try to undermine people who have effectively opposed them by telling the truth. It happened with [Sen.] John McCain in South Carolina. It happened with [Sen.] John Kerry. It's happened with [Sen.] Max Cleland in Georgia. It's happened with many other people. That's the real story, and that's the story that [the press] should have been writing....

    It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what [counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know - it's demonstrable.

    It's fact. Now, how do you quantify it? That's a different question.

    But to me, if there is a great failure by the so-called mainstream press in this presidency, it's the unwillingness to look at the lies and disinformation and misinformation and add them up and say clearly, "Here's what they said; here's what the known facts were," because when that is done, you then see this isn't a partisan matter. This is a matter of the truth, particularly about this war. This is a presidency that is not willing to tell the truth very often if it is contrary to its interests. It's not about ideology from whence I say this.

    It's about being a reporter and saying: "That's what the story is. Let's see what they said; let's see what the facts are." ...
    [/COLOR]
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2007
  2. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Oh, yeah, the "dishonesty" card.

    So, you guys really want to revisit Bill Clinton's lying to Grand Juries, his defilement of his marriage and the Oval Office?

    Whew.

    -----------------------------

    OT, but related:

    Now, we got Jane Fonda doing "Peace" rallies again, just like in 1970 -- with John Kerry, again, no less.

    All that remains is her trip to the al qaida secret headquarters and videos of her in mock shoot downs of U.S. planes.

    Weehew.
     
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +816 / 27 / -33


    There is a difference about lying about a hummer and lying about national security to the American People.. I know the righties get great comfort playing this card. YOu are comparing Grapefruit and raisins.
     
  4. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    nevermind... he never has anything to say to refute the lies of an administration that has us on the brink of global catastrophe... he's still fixated on a blowj0b...

    but then, perhaps if the PNAC made a better effort to ever get a blowj0b once in their lives we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place...
     
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Hey, the "righties" aren't the ones trying to make a big deal out of Libby, et. al.

    If you want integrity it stands for all, every time. Period. *Your* value judgments on whether lying of extra-marital sex/b-jobs are as bad as "national security" don't change the facts: Clinton lied to a grand jury. Last time I checked the laws on lying do not have any exceptions for lying about "only" sex. Lying is lying, period.


    //
     
  6. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Yeah, nobody is ever going to take you guys seriously until you start calling the same rules for everybody. The longer you selectively choose and pick *which* law-breaking is OK and which law-breaking is "not" OK, the longer your hysterics fall on deaf ears.

    What goes around will come back. That's it.

    //
     
  7. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0



    Institutionalized deception and propaganda? No wonder the cons all watch Fox Noise.
     
  8. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    stop crying. Millions of our tax dollars were spent on a witchhunt against Clinton. 99% of the charges you types levelled against him were simply dropped as they had ZERO merit. (whitewater, etc.) You had to settle for what you got in the end.

    Its funny how you equate the two lies. One outed a CIA agent and very possibly damaged our national security in limiting our counterproliferation ability. The other was a lie that people like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guliani tell all the time.

    But okay, yeah...the two are almost identical.
     
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Who's crying!! :D

    As for the "outing" of Valerie Plame, I think it is safe to say that anybody who could do anything credible to harm U.S. interests knew a long-g-g time before any leaks in this decade who she was or what she did. She and her husband kept a pretty high profile around town. So, a big "ding" for any such non-"damages" done.

    As for the other lie, gee, I didn't know Giulliani or Newt were hauled before federal grand juries!!! Didn't know they had been convicted of lying to said Grands!! Did they have to drop their drawers for "official physiology" exams, too!! No, didn't think so.


    //
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2007
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Oh Foggy, you amuse us.

    Oh, so according to you Plame was a known, high profile CIA operative. :eek:

    Reporter: "Who is that?"
    CIA dude: "Oh thats Wilsons hot wife Valerie Plame, wink wink"
    Reporter: "Whats she do?"
    CIA: "She undercover working in counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction...she looks for loose nukes"
    Reporter:"Cool! Hey guys....check it out!"

    Nuff said folks. Koolaids flowing...marshmallow fields, lunar brie, and cotton candy for everyone!!
     
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +816 / 27 / -33


    Let's compare:

    Clinton Blow job and subsequent lies.. efffects... orgasm, make Lewinski look like a whore, lie to a grand jury, discredit the executive branch of Gov't... sleep on the couch.

    Bush's lies... effects... orgasm, lie to the American people; weapons of mass destruction(I know they are in Syria), sell it to Congress(they are complicit), 3,000+ dead, divide the American People as they have not been divided in years, seriously effect the Republican Party, and Billions of dollars in waste and fraud..

    I dunno, a right wing talking point is to always bring up Clinton or Berger, however from my view what Bush did and is doing cannot come close to what Clinton did.
     
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,676
    Likes Received:
    277
    Ratings:
    +1,127 / 3 / -10

    In The Court Room A Lie Is A Lie

    It Matters Not What The Lie Is About

    Clinton Has The Morals And The Character Of A Bag Of Dog Sh!t, He Is A Disgusting Human Being

    :bricks:
     
  13. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +816 / 27 / -33

    Guess you feel pretty strong about this, eh?? One thing for sure is that you are not an anal retentive.
     
  14. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Well, if you'd ever stop for five seconds to consider that Saddam told the U.N. -- the Kofi Anan and anti-U.S. dominated U.N. -- to go pound poop for about five years, instead of allowing weapons inspectors, guys like Hans Blix who were *dying* to give Saddam a clean bill of health, then you'd see that maybe, just MAYBE, Geo W had a reason to suspect that there actually *were* WMD in Iraq.

    But, oh no, you've an agenda to fulfill and you cannot allow silly little things like FACTS get in your way.

    Good luck. You're going to need it. And so will the rest of us.


    //
     
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +816 / 27 / -33

    I suspect a lot of things, but in my world fact is the deciding factor.. to just suspect based on false intelligence is why we are where we are today. Not sure in your haste if you realize this or not, but in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph you claim George W has a reason to suspect, then you go on to the facts thing.. what is it bozo, facts or suspicion??. two little words that mean something completely different. Remember it is always someone else's fault, the UN, Clinton.. George W. of above all this..
     
  16. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    It is an unmitigated, uncontestable, written-in-stone FACT that Saddam stone-walled for some five years, keeping UN inspectors OUT of Iraq. This is not some agenda-driven opinon. It is FACT.

    So, you've just had the Twin Towers go down, the Pentagon attacked, a plane headed for either the White House or the Capitol go down in Pennsylvania -- and Saddam is *still* playing hard ball!!! Did that guy have a death wish or what??

    He practically invited the U.S. to go and nuke him. And not only Bush but virtually EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, from BOTH parties, agreed that Saddam had to go.

    Personally, I would not have done it the way Bush did, but I certainly understand why he did what he did, and it WAS NOT for the oil!!

    //
     
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +816 / 27 / -33

    Last comment on this is that your link between Saddam and 9-11 has pretty much been proven false in just about every arena except for right wing talk radio. As far as the weapons inspectors go, we can send in whomever we want, however we also know that our clandestine methods work better than this pro forma stuff. We knew what was going on, if we did not shame on our country and shame on our intelligence. There may have been something, but GWB lied, bottom line he lied about the intelligence that was presented. He fabricated the scenario, not going to get into the oil thing, because as simple an answer that that is, it is way to complicated for me.
     
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,596
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14


    When it comes to intel facts, lies and mistakes are pretty murky things.

    As an example. WHAT IF during the period between 8-2002 when Saddam's behavior and 3-2003, Saddam moved WMD material/equipment to Syria for example?


    Would the intel have been a lie, mistaken? Were we then misled into war?

    I certainly don't have proof that happened, but it is something to consider. It is certainly something that could have happened during that 7 month period.
     
  19. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +816 / 27 / -33

    Bottom line with the level of our technology, our advanced satelite sytems, our on the ground intelligence, our incountry operatives and everything else we cannot operate on conjecture or belief. All of our agencies FBI, NSA, CIA and the rest of them should have had irrefutable evidence before we did what we did. There is too much at stake to have done what we have done based on what something looks like or what it appears to be. There has been no conclusive evidence that he did any of this, and all of these things have been considered and proven wrong.
     
  20. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Oh, granted, there was never any credible evidence in anyone's mind that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Saddam and bin Laden hate each other.

    But the stepped up attacks on the U.S. have been coming from several different directions, not just one central command. bin Laden has his agenda, Saddam (RIP) his. The Taliban and other groups not directly linked with either have theirs. The narco terrorists in South America, for example, not saying they have actually done anything against the U.S. main land, but they've done major damage against US-backed interests in S/Central America.

    Bottom line: Saddam denied the UN from going in to inspect. Does not matter if secret intel is usually better or not; the mere fact that he denied an impartial UN team into his country made him look as if he might be making and/or harboring WMD.

    For a guy who already used nerve gas against the Kurds and who invaded a sovereign state (Kuwait), after waging an 8-year war against his neighbor, Iran, Saddam was on probation, and he violated the terms of his probation. He painted a great big X on Baghdad that said: "invade me".

    //
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>