All the Beltway nerds, left and right, out there are all just so excited over Bill Clinton's hotheaded response to Fox's Chris Wallace. This particular leftist's response is to be in an ecstacy over Clinton's effort to "challenge the lies of the Bush administration and its media acolytes."
Well, I can't say I have any problem with highlighting the cozy relationship betweem the spineless press and the Bush administration, but just 6 years ago, weren't the "media acolytes" busy adoring Bill Clinton himself? Oh, I don't like Clinton, the author says. Why?Because he didn't spend enough money on public schools or some such trifle. Somehow, Clinton's wars escape mention.
Can we ever forgot how the hideous Christianne Amanpour whined incessantly about the various crises in Yugoslavia until the American state intervened, bombing serbian women and children? Didn't the press whoop it up for war back then calling Slobodan Milosevic another Hitler and repeating the Clinton administration's deception? I'll agree the situation is much grander and more tragic now, but it's just a difference of scope, not of type.
I don't remember how the hardcore left (i.e. Mother Jones) treated Clinton's wars, but unless a sizable number of people over on the left get a clue, and quick, I'll bet 10,000 copies of The Nation that the next time some Dem is in power, 90% of the current critics of "media acolytes" be whooping it up for some "humanitarian" war and this business of accusing the media will magically disappear. One of Justin Raimondo's first columns over at antiwar.com pretty much sums up the situation.
