This is raving idiocy. Note she provides no facts, references or links to anything tangible. Just pure steaming and streaming delirium.

I recall an entire week devoted to the SBV for Lies, even though they had a ton of credibility problems. I saw John O'Neil, a crony of the corupt Nixon, on several primetime interviews. Just look O'Neill up on Mediamatters.org. Lots and lots of coverage.

It would be more correct to site the 2 year investigation of Whitewater in this case. 2 years of rock solid front page coverage - for nothing. No charges. Is that "screwing Bush?"

Besides, Hardball asks the important questions:

"Why does the media like [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ]? I mean, what's going on here? Does he seem to be more authentic than other politicians?"

I mean, clearly they want to not only "screw Bush" but the entire Republican party. Lame.

"Why does the media like [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ]? I mean, what's going on here? Does he seem to be more authentic than other politicians?"

If you have been around long enough, bringing up McCain as some sort of standard of Conservative Republican isn't gonna get you far here. He has few fans at Wizbang.

It would be more correct to site the 2 year investigation of Whitewater in this case. 2 years of rock solid front page coverage - for nothing. No charges. Is that "screwing Bush?"

Flat out wrong, buddy...there were charges and convictions.

Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals — including Clinton friends Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker — were convicted of federal charges unrelated to Whitewater. Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency (see list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal

I'll take back the second point. I thought it said "related" instead of "unrelated" (See, at least when I make a mistake, I'll admit it.)

However, the whole Independent Counsul creation came about in the first place from a democratic Congress, and furthermore, it was Reno's Justice department that got the ball rolling:

From same link:

Following Bill Clinton's bid for the presidency, reporters from the New York Times asked him about the failure of the Whitewater development. After they published an article critical of the real estate dealings, Vince Foster, White House deputy counsel, who had been a former law parter of Hillary Clinton's at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, completed and submitted several years worth of delinquent tax returns for the project. On July 20, 1993, at Fort Marcy Park in Virginia, Vince Foster was found dead from a bullet wound. After Foster's death, chief White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed documents concerning the Whitewater Development Corporation from Foster's office and gave them to Margaret Williams who placed them in a safe in the White House. [7]

Because of the allegations made in the New York Times article, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the failed Whitewater deal. At Clinton's request, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske in 1994 to investigate the legality of the Whitewater transactions. Two allegations surfaced: that Clinton had exerted pressure on an Arkansas businessman to make a loan that would benefit him and the owners of Madison Guaranty, and that an Arkansas bank had concealed transactions involving Clinton's gubernatorial campaign in 1990.

So, bitch to Reno and the NYT.

And they're not curious enough to ask Patrick Fitgerald why he continued to target the White House, when he already knew the source of the leak was Richard Armitage. I haven't seen any interviews with Armitage himself, nor of Colin Powell who also knew. I haven't seen them interviewing themselves for continuing a phony drumbeat against the White House, when at least some on their staff (Woodward and Isikoff and probably many more) knew the source.

You can put all the examples above together, and they won't equal the press's perfidy of the Plame business.

I think that in some cases it extends to purposely hiding, or at least understating, inconvenient facts. - Lorie

Shut the moonbat noise off for a moment.

Further toward the your statement, acknowledge those many powerful editors steering their journos. They act with impunity as illustrated by the recent NYT editor's treasonous reveal of a U.S counter intellegence program. He may be roundly critized in the news for a week but never locked away forever like little double agent that turned informant and got pinched. Partisan loyalty defines our news. That's why it's consistently incurious, secretive, and inconvenient and a whole lot more. It's just biased way over to the liberal side and the bloggers exposing that imbalance is what makes life so gosh darn good.

It is refreshing to hear people correct their mistakes. Wizbang would run out of hard-drive space if they adopted the tactic. I have no idea why the "unrelated" people are even in the Wikipedi - they should be removed. You see how willing you were to believe it though - clearly you didn't pay attention to the original investigation, seeing that the "unrelated" were complete tangents.

"And they're not curious enough to ask Patrick Fitgerald why he continued to target the White House..."

Didn't a White House official get indicted? Worked for Cheney? Maybe that's why...

The MSM is guilty of flawed to down right dishonest repoting,but the worst offence to are sensibilities is what they dont cover or print.Selective coverage is a crime commeted on the public,its shameful.They are not getting away with it any more,thanks to people like Laurie Byrd,Rush,and all dedicated bloggers,and for that I'm thankful.

lol

Aeneas; and he was indicted for nothing related to the purpose his office was to look into.Clinton could have been indicted 500 times for all the lies he told,and for that matter so could you,you see truth is foreign to Demorats.

Yea gods that was tough to get through. Punctuation and grammar my friend. Anyways, I found you last comment funny - I should explain. Who reaches more people (and therefore has more media power): Limbaugh or NBC Nightly News?

Aeneas,

How do you compare the MSM coverage of Plamegate at the time Libby was indicted with the coverage now?

I see a big difference in scale and enthusiasm.

The story has collapsed; it was foam, nothing more.

It is refreshing to hear people correct their mistakes. Wizbang would run out of hard-drive space if they adopted the tactic. I have no idea why the "unrelated" people are even in the Wikipedi

Because some of the (McDougal) were involved in the Whitewater development venture. (Guy Tucker is probably the only one who only had a peripheral relationship to the case)

But again, Reno's Justice Department and the NYT (the Left's champion these days) started this ball rolling. Again, the whole concept of the Independent Counsul was a Dem Congress invention. Live by the IC, die by the IC.

As for "Wizbang would run out of hard-drive space if they adopted the tactic." True, but the left side of the aisle here rarely do that, so the hard-drive space will stay pretty defragged.

Well, I blame JonBenet.

Who reaches more people (and therefore has more media power): Limbaugh or NBC Nightly News?

This is relevant to the discussion, how, exactly?

Well, I blame JonBenet.

And I blame the joooooz and Haliburton.

You have to read the back comments. I was responding to a tangent w/ a tangent.

"True, but the left side of the aisle here rarely do that"

Maybe so. But they are anonymous, aren't they?

Aeneas-

Anchoress is opinion and honest about it -unlike the punditocracy on TV that parade as "journalists".

Hell-now you're interested in facts and sources...

You know when Lieberman said not to criticize a war President according to the Liberals out on a witch hunt for him-that was taken out of context what he meant was don't just try to find any crap you can "make up" to throw and hope it sticks 'cause if you play with doo-doo long enough-well hell you might just rank a showing at the MOMA.....er, you stink worse than your "art".

Dear Anchoress-

You said:They weren’t curious about Sandy Berger’s pants.

Ummmmmm, are we really not able to empathize here?

Yoi!

For more on Incurious Media, please see http://www.uncuriousgeorge.org/citeuncurmedia.html . There you will find that the media are uncurious about Uncurious George. Have a nice day.

Keep up the great work here Lorie

On the topic of myths about Bush and Iraq being shattered I'd like to invite the readers of this blog to my interview with top Clinton advisor Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson about what the Clinton administration knew about Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Please go here for more...
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/08/interview_with_lt_col_buzz_pat/
Links to the audio file and podcast subscription are also available.

Actually the post was kind to the left wing media. A simple statement that the biased media would rather lie to the American people on a daily basis than to tell the truth about one of their own (lefties) would tell it all. That's the way I view the antique MSM and see nothing in the future that will change that view. In the meantime I will not believe one word that comes from them. If the past year of Katrina lies, the recent Israeli war in Lebanon (all lies reported) and the past 5 years of favorable terrorism coverage doesn't wake you up, nothing will be lost when you are killed in a terrorist attack. A dead mind should be in a dead body.

It amazes me when I read posts like Byrd's. I'm really beginning to think a significant portion of the right wing is stark raving mad. What a whiny screed she writes. But then that's her usual post. Whiny generalizations supported by an (empty) vacuum of space. Paranoia, delusions of a persecution complex, as represented by this baseless, unsupported screed, seems to run rampant on the right's blogs.

Everything is black and white. Questions about the war in Iraq? It's the MSM fault or you're just a terrorist-loving America-hating lefty. It's ignorant and worthless and represents thinking that most Americans have begun rejecting. The people you're turning off with this garbage are those in the middle-overwhelmingly. If you think you can win elections without them you're as delusional as I think you are.

if those of you who believe this tripe actually read the news and didn't get it from Limbaugh, Hannity at al you might actually learn something. My guess is that most of those of you who rail about the NYT have never read it. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I doubt it. You get your daily marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity and Malkin et al - a "fair and balanced approach." One a snake oil salesman (Limbaugh); one a scary true believer (Hannity) and the other a xenophobic racist (Malkin). Bleat all you want about that statement -nothing could be truer.

And when in the hell are you people going to stop whining about Bill Clinton? Good god, you've been running everything for six years -get a life.

Aeneas complains about no references. It's hard to reference stories that were never written.

I'd like to see Aeneas reference one story where John Kerry was asked about Christmas in Cambodia. It never happened. Only Jon Stewart could do it on his comedy show and, of course, he didn't require an answer.

Hugh:

Everything is black and white.

As opposed to the infinite shades of grey that make up the lefties frame of mind? I'll tell you why everything seems black and white to you on the right...it's because we're a lot less swayed by this mythical monolith of "public" or "world" opinion. Correct decisions, concerning both moralilty and strategy are not dependant on what some guy in France thinks.

If people like John Kerry could have stood for something rather than sway aimlessly with his finger in the wind...trying to tell what others wanted him to stand for...he may have had a better chance at the presidency.

Questions about the war in Iraq? It's the MSM fault or you're just a terrorist-loving America-hating lefty. It's ignorant and worthless and represents thinking that most Americans have begun rejecting.

Questions about the war in Iraq? Since when has the left or the MSM started asking questions? All I ever see is criticism, accusations and insults.

And when in the hell are you people going to stop whining about Bill Clinton? Good god, you've been running everything for six years -get a life.

Speaking of black and white. Hugh, when presidents change office it isn't like changing a lightbulb. One inherits the legacy of the one before him...just as the next president, regardless of political alignment, will inherit Bush's legacy...a legacy that will likely affect his entire presidency.
For instance, when Clinton decided to get a blowjob instead of giving the orders to capture Osama Bin Laden, that affected Bush's presidency in 2001. See how that works?

And if nothing else, you folks have been foaming at the mouth and attacking Bush for six years, that may want to make some of us retaliate by attacking your most recent power-holder.

Thanks for your response Heralder. Just a couple of points in response if I may.

Questions: yes such as....why not enough body armor, where did the 2 billion go that has disappeared from Iraq, why do soldiers have to do a third tour of combat, why is the green zone the only safe place in Baghdad, why iraq and not North Korea or Iran? Those are just a few. I can list lots more.

Clinton and his blow job. So, Clinton's BJ caused OSB to go free and cause 9/11? I can then safely assume from your logic, that Bush was getting a blow job when OSB and most of his leaders escaped from Tora Bora? And when we are hit again or another soldier dies in the Middle East it will be because George Bush was otherwise pre-occupied when OSB escaped?

Hugh threw out:
Questions: yes such as....why not enough body armor, where did the 2 billion go that has disappeared from Iraq, why do soldiers have to do a third tour of combat, why is the green zone the only safe place in Baghdad, why iraq and not North Korea or Iran? Those are just a few. I can list lots more.

...and most of them were answered long ago, but you guys didn't like the answers so you pretend they weren't given.

HTH. HAND.

Hugh,

Those questions are perfectly legitimate, and as Patrick has said, they have been answered already. Some are moot points by now such as the body armor question as well as the green zone question.

Clinton and his blow job. So, Clinton's BJ caused OSB to go free and cause 9/11? I can then safely assume from your logic,

gah...hold up, you're going down the wrong path. What I was saying was not a literal translation of events or of cause and effect, is was a satirical condensing of events.

What I'm saying is things Clinton has done in his presidency have had negative effects on today's world stage (and I'm not talking about the blow jobs). So when the republicans are criticized for "ruining the world" or "destroying America's reputation" one often forgets to look back before 2000.
I have no interest in poking fun at Clinton as a basis for argument, however, unless his actions are directly related to what's happening.

Hugh,
Body armor: Who defines "enough"? Ask a marine or soldier about the body armor they are issued. Find out how much is left in the barracks because the added protection doesn't offset the loss of mobility. I will grant you that the helmet upgrades should have come faster and sooner, but the rest of the armor "debate" is mostly politics.
The missing money? Ask the Iraqis. Is it a shock that a country first run the Turks, then as a European colony then by a brutal thugocracy would have growing pains? While we are wondering where the money went, how about the relief funds sent to LA?
Green Zone? Why is the north and south of the country safe, but the Sunni Triangle still so violent?
Why Iraq and not Iran or NKorea? Which country was in volation of a ceasefire with us? Which one was in violation of numerous UN security resolutions? Which one tried to assasinate a former President? Which one paid the families of suicide bombers abroad? Would you prefer those other targets. or are you just bringing them up to confuse the issues?

Heralder:

Thanks for your response. Just to clear the air my response was to your assertion that the only thing the left ever does is complain...those were and some still are very legitimate questions. That's my point in reponse to you and nothing more. I did misunerstand the BJ reference. Of course Clinton's actions have an effect years later. Just as I am afraid Bush's will. But again my (satircal) point was Clinton is often the foil for things gone wrong that may, just may I say, be the responsibility of the responsibility president.

scsiwuzzy;

Your response is typical of those who pay no attention to what the issue being debated is. Just a knee jerk...we're right response.

Hugh,

I'm not going to pretend that I agree with you. I don't.

You do bring up some interesting points.

First you argue that the right says the leftist media is the problem, and that the right is wrong to think that.
I'm afraid that you'll never win that argument here. I doubt every conservative poster here approves of all the actions of GWB, but they will quite happily point out time after time that the MSM has piled on our current president without having good reason other than what appears to the right to be an unreasoned hatred of Republicans.

Its the same when Iraq becomes a topic of discussion. I don't know any republicans that applaud and support everything that has happened there, but most absolutely hate the way the media has covered it. I live in San Diego and have friends who are marines out of Camp Pendleton. The ones I talk to wonder where the MSM gets its reports because what they are seeing in person when stationed over there does not match what gets written in tne NYT. Most republicans have heard this story too many times to trust the media, and now we are starting to look for the flaws in every story. too many cases of open bias have been found to be accidental.

That is what the anchoress and Lorie are writing about. The fact that the advocacy journalism that is practiced today is destroying the trust many once had in the MSN. Your post shows the same feeling, but from the other side of the aisle. Lorie is openly conservative, so you refuse to trust anything she posts about. Many here know that the NYT is extremely liberal, so we won't trust anything they post and will look for patterns displaying their abuse of their position to advance liberal causes.

You should stop fighting this one, as should the NYT. Conservatives will continue to attack this topic until the MSM is destroyed as a news delivery system. They have lost all faith in it, and since groups like the NYT refuse to admit that their stories are biased against the conservative position, they feel they have to expose the fact that "the emperor wears no clothes"

Hugh,

Thanks for the reasoned discussion:

But again my (satircal) point was Clinton is often the foil for things gone wrong that may, just may I say, be the responsibility of the responsibility president.

Naturally so. It's important to place credit or blame where credit or blame is due.

Mark:

Thanks for your response, and I do agree with some of what you have to say. But here's the rub for me.

Frequently, when someone on the left disagrees with Bush's policies on Iraq we are accused of "hating America", being "traitors", "hating Bush", being "appeasers". That, from my perspective, comes from this anti-MSM, anti-NYT perspective. Speaking only for myself, I served voluntarily in the Army from 1969-1977. I did this with the same liberal perspective I have today. I am a tax payer, church goer and a community volunteer. How do I hate America? Most of my friends have the same background and lots have the liberal views I have. They don't hate America. They're not traitors. To make that accusation is disgusting. I don't "hate" Bush nor do most of the people I know. I despise some of his policies and some of his methods. That's not hating the person. Lastly, the hypocrisy on this point is astounding when you consider the views lots of these folks had and have to Bill Clinton.

Admittedly, there are many many liberal views in the MSM and in the universities. But, so what? If that view was as anathema as so many right bloggers feel it is how do those organizations continue to exist? They are corporations, in business for profit. Obviously they have a market. I would say build your own media-Fox is an example. If there are more conservative newspapers and other media and there is a market than god bless them. The right is supposed to believe in the market. If there is a market got get it.

I think it is naive to believe that advocacy journalism is a new phenomenon. Perhaps I am wrong and I would appreciate it if someone who knows will give me the history.

Finally, the issue of extremism on both sides is accurate. The responsibility lies with both sides. Paul Hackett makes a despicable reference yesterday and Ann Coulter would like a bomb tossed into the NYT building. Both views are disgusting.

The Party of Perpetual Fraud and their liberal Media sidekicks are all up in arms because we won't even allow them to live in their own fantasy world where they are in the Majority and always right and everybody loves them. It just that we are only concerned with the truth , the facts and reality. I hear Pluto is nice this time of year and just your Party's size.

Hugh,

It appears we can amiably disagree on most of the points, although I think you digressed a bit. However, since you were polite enough to respond to my points, it would be churlish not to continue the discussion.

Frequently, when someone on the left disagrees with Bush's policies on Iraq we are accused of "hating America", being "traitors", "hating Bush", being "appeasers". That, from my perspective, comes from this anti-MSM, anti-NYT perspective. Speaking only for myself, I served voluntarily in the Army from 1969-1977. I did this with the same liberal perspective I have today. I am a tax payer, church goer and a community volunteer. How do I hate America? Most of my friends have the same background and lots have the liberal views I have. They don't hate America. They're not traitors. To make that accusation is disgusting. I don't "hate" Bush nor do most of the people I know. I despise some of his policies and some of his methods. That's not hating the person. Lastly, the hypocrisy on this point is astounding when you consider the views lots of these folks had and have to Bill Clinton.

I'll agree that the constant litany of "you hate Bush" coming from the right doesn't add to the conversation. My father and I often talk politics and while he dislikes the policies that Bush pushes I won't say he hates Bush. (he does have a very low opinion of him, but honestly mine isn't much higher, although I do feel that Bush sees the problems, I just dislike some of the solutions he comes up with.)

The other charges of "Hate America" are based on the fact that conservatives often have a fairly static view of what makes America great. They feel that too many liberal positions are attacks on the true spirit of the Constitution and therefore the US itself. This is philosophic more than political, but the cynical way that some political footballs were moved into the courts where unelected judges could make the decisions has left some lasting damage to the political dialogue. (and yes, I know that conservatives have used the trick as well as liberals, but Roe v Wade still reigns as the most blatant case of legislation by judicial edict.)

on "Appeasing". Its a case of how you view the old saying "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Conservatives remember that part of why WW2 was so bad was that France and Britian kept apologizing for Hitler and accepting his, in hindsight, empty promises. Today we hear empty promises from lands like Iran, but again the left demands more and more dialogue and retreat. Conservatives worry that in the end something worse than Hitler and WW2 will rise from the failure to smite evil when it first appears. I completely agree with this position.

Admittedly, there are many many liberal views in the MSM and in the universities. But, so what? If that view was as anathema as so many right bloggers feel it is how do those organizations continue to exist? They are corporations, in business for profit. Obviously they have a market. I would say build your own media-Fox is an example. If there are more conservative newspapers and other media and there is a market than god bless them. The right is supposed to believe in the market. If there is a market got get it.

Very true. And most conservatives don't disagree with this position, that's why Fox and talk radio have become big in the last few years as Conservatives seek media they feel is less biased. They just want media like the NYT to admit that it is biased and stop trying to claim its not practicing advocacy journalism, just like liberals want "Faux" to stop claiming to be "Fair and Balanced".

I think it is naive to believe that advocacy journalism is a new phenomenon. Perhaps I am wrong and I would appreciate it if someone who knows will give me the history.

Advocacy journalism has existed since the dawn of the SU at the very least. I saw a documentary about the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton and it talks about how the two men used editorals to attack each other in rival newspapers. Reading the history of politics in the US reveals that until the 1920's most newpapers were honest and open about their bias. It was the age of radio where the media started trying to pretend they were impartial.

Finally, the issue of extremism on both sides is accurate. The responsibility lies with both sides. Paul Hackett makes a despicable reference yesterday and Ann Coulter would like a bomb tossed into the NYT building. Both views are disgusting.

Extremism is always disgusting. Sadly its also a function and result of the 50/50 split of the nation. The divide is growing so vast and so few are still in the middle that the idealogues of both sides now feel a level of freedom to demagogue they never had before. Its not like they can really hurt their side in their mind. There are few undecided individuals to influence.