BTW, the WaPO, courtesy of the Drudge Report, is reporting that Clinton’s memoirs has him starting his affair with Lewinsky in late 1995 (which is closer to Lewinsky’s testimony on the matter, who said it started in the fall of 1995), while Clinton’s grand jury testimony has him starting up in early 1996. Oops.
PAUL BEGALA: « And that is well documented. So if it was about the sex, then there would be no Republicans or Democrats, since everybody’s a sinner. So it wasn’t that. If it was about lying under oath — we actually know that Clinton certainly was deceptive, as most people would be about their sex lives — but, in fact, he did not lie. But, it’s absolutely clear that Bush committed perjury in a civil lawsuit, and that DeLay did as well. So we know what it’s really about. It’s really about power. »
You can find the interview at Buzzflash. I’m simply shocked, shocked. You mean you can’t trust Begala to tell the truth either? Imagine my surprise.
David Lion Salmanson – 6/
What I find fascinating here is that neither side has tackled the fact that all public statements by this administration (and indeed all administrations back the the Kennedy era at least) are carefully crafted for public consumption. Bush and VP are trying to shape policy and public opinion when they are on TV (its called the bully pulpit). So the only way we can really measure what is going on is to compare Bush’s internal memos with public online payday loans in TX statements. To the extent that we have internal memos that have become available we find that certain Bush administration officials that are less credible (Rumsfeld stands out here) and that these also tend to be the biggest hawks.
I have no particular loyalty to any television media, since they all suffer from sensationalism and appealing to the lowest common denominator (as well as, in my humble opinion, being bias towards conservative politicians). I was simply noting that your particular concerns about the CNN interview seemed rather trivial and based on things that are common in TV interviews. Former Reagan, and former Bush advisors, as well as even former Nixon advisors are routinely asked to comment on contemporary issues based on their experience but you are the first to suggest that some like, say Henry Kissinger or some other official serving in a sensitive position is no more qualified to speak on TV than a journalist that may have no government experience. I often wonder why many people, from Ralph Nader to Ann Coulter continue to get a platform on the major media networks, when so many more valid stories demand elaboration rather than brief sound bytes.
» Fox does not invariably lie. » Jason Blaire and incidents of plagiarism notwithstanding, neither do any media outlet in some systematic fashion. Why should they? You can express what ever you like in tone and choice of story, there is no need to lie.
Richard Henry Morgan – 6/
I believe the Earth is, roughly, an oblate ellipsoid in shape. I understand that puts me in disagreement with Paul Krugman and the great majority of Americans (perhaps even the great majority of planet Earth residents), but there it is. You may disagree with me if you choose.
BTW, fire away at Fox. I say give them all hell. Krugman’s comment came during a live interview at the Harvard Bookstore. He said Fox lies, and that the major media present everything as a debate. By analogy, he offered that Fox believed the Earth was flat, and that major media report it as a debate on whether the Earth is flat or not — since we all, of course, know that the Earth is round. Ha, ha, ha.
