Via Tapped, a transcript from Aaron Brown last night on CNN last night:
We were taken to task today for a discussion we had on last night's program about President Bush's days on the board of an oil company called Harken. We don't need to go through all the details here again. One sentence should do it. There was a late filing of reports to the government on the sale of company stock, and over time, there's been a couple of different explanations as to why. In any case, our note writer was quite angry. "How could you dredge this all up" he asked. "This is yet another case of media bias," he asserted.
In my response, I asked a simple question and I'll put it out there tonight. What if the man in question was named Clinton? Would the reaction to this decade-old story have been the same? Would it still be bias? Would the writers still say "drop this silliness?" Consistency counts and my gut says if the president were Clinton, this decade-old story would be hyped to death all over the radio, through at least half the Congress, probably around more than a few water coolers, and maybe, just maybe the Justice Department.
While I'm sure some will take this otherwise, this is in no way meant as an attack on the president or a defense of Mr. Clinton. Regular viewers know that we've taken a shot or two at the former president's conduct over the months. But just consider the question for a moment, and decide if there's a point here. Would the same people who now urge reporters to drop the Harken story have said the same thing three years ago, a different president from a different party, different times? Does consistency count more than politics?
Why the Harken Energy case is not the same as the Clinton scandals:
1. This case has already been investigated, and Bush was exonerated of any wrongdoing. The Whitewater case had *not* been investigated prior to the Fiske/Starr/Ray probe.
2. The Bill and Monica show came about as a result of the Paula Jones SEXUAL HARASSMENT lawsuit (note the lawsuit subject) and Bill Clinton's lying (under oath) about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky. If not for the lawsuit, Bill Clinton's active sex life would not have been an issue. However, litigation (and Clinton's simple refusal to apologize to Jones) made it an issue. If he had settled (instead of allowing his lawyer to threaten to make Jones the subject of the trial), it would have ended long before anyone knew about his dalliance with Monica.
3. If this had come up about Clinton, it would have been notable only as yet another Clinton issue. The (liberal) media and Democratic Party flacks have been trying non-stop to link Bush to various scandals, but because there is no substance to their tropes, they fall apart shortly after the start. If there comes a scandal with firm ties to Bush, I'm sure we'll hear all about it.
4. Of course what Brown said was an attack on Bush, despite his protestations to the contrary. It was simply an oblique one, reminding the viewers that there is another (unfounded) accusation flying out there.
UPDATE: (9 July 2002/9:40PM) Dodd over at Ipse Dixit has more on this, including the little tidbit that Bush *did* file a report on the day of the sale (emphasis his). Check it out.
posted on July 10, 2002 08:29 PM
Comments:
Very good points. Maybe the First Lady should hold a press conference so as to expose that vast left-wing conspiracy.
posted on July 10, 2002 08:29 PM
posted by 
