Marc Perkel Rantz

Press Coverage - Clinton vs. Bush

When Clinton was president the press referred to him as "Mr. Clinton". When the press talks about Bush they refer to him as "The President" or - at least "President Bush". They do this even though Clinton won the election by a landslide and Bush lost the election and was appointed president by the Supreme Court.

You see how the bias works? I remember there was a joke going around at the time - it went like this. "The Pope and Clinton were fishing and the Pope's hat blew off. Clinton walked across the water and fetched the Pope's hat. A reporter saw the even and went off to write the story. The headline - CLINTON CAN'T SWIM!"

Wag the Dog - Bin Laden in 1998

Republicans posing as being "tough on terrorism" seem to have a short memory of what they were saying back when Clinton was going after Bin Laden. Here's what the Republican controlled press (CNN 08/21/1998) was saying about the war on terrorism at the time:

'Wag the Dog' Back In Spotlight

LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, Aug. 21) -- A president embroiled in a sex scandal in the Oval Office tries to save his presidency by distracting the nation with a made-for-TV war far from American soil in an obscure country.

It's not the latest news out of Washington, but the plot of the movie "Wag the Dog." In the 1997 movie, a shadowy spin doctor played by Robert De Niro recruits a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to invent a war against Albania.

The film came out just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke -- and no doubt benefited at the box office and then at the video store from the publicity. Now, the film is all the buzz again because of President Clinton's announcement -- three days after admitting for the first time an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky -- that he ordered military strikes in two countries.

From the moment Clinton went on live television Thursday to announce the bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan, "Wag the Dog's" producer-director Barry Levinson and producer Jane Rosenthal were inundated with requests for comment.

"The world's media right now are giving the filmmakers far too much credit for being clairvoyant," said their spokesman, Simon Halls. "The filmmakers put together a movie that was entertainment, and it was well received, but that's what it was: entertainment. Anything that is happening in the world today really has nothing to do with the movie."
A reference point

But the movie is serving as a reference point in the debate over Clinton's motivations.

"Look at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems."

Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: "It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that's not the situation and I trust that it isn't."

One of the first questions asked of Defense Secretary William Cohen at a nationally televised Pentagon was how he would respond to people who think the military action "bears a striking resemblance to 'Wag the Dog."'

"The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities," Cohen said. "That is the sole motivation."

The movie's title comes from an old joke, shown in the opening credits of the film: "Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog."

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

It makes you wonder - if the Republican press wasn't harassing Clinton about sex and focused on terrorism - would 9-11 have happened? With reporting like this I have to say that the press is partially responsible of 9-11 and the illegal Iraq war.

Rumsfield wanted to attack Iraq on 09/12/2001

This Yahoo Story tells an amazing tale that should shock all Americans to their core. The day after 9-11 Rumfield wanted to attack Iraq even though he knew Iraq had nothing to do with the attack. Here's the story:

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush (news - web sites) to consider bombing Iraq (news - web sites) after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.

Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan (news - web sites)."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

This is amazing. From the very next day the Bush administration saw 9-11 as an opportunity to go after Iraq's oil.

A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.

Clarke makes the assertion in a book, "Against All Enemies," that goes on sale Monday. He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites); Clarke appears Sunday night on the network's "60 Minutes" program.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said in an interview segment that CBS broadcast Friday evening. "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."

Clarke also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration's efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush's presidency.

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

What's clear here is that none of this has anything to do with fighting terrorism. In fact - Bush is completely indifferent to terrorism. He uses it merely as a phrase for political posturing. In fact - terrorism works to Bush's political advantage.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

There have been earlier published accounts of the administration's suspicion during the week after the 2001 attacks that Iraq might have been involved, but none by a direct participant in such senior-level meetings and none that suggested there was a push to attack Iraq so soon afterward.

A discussion among President Bush and Cabinet members at Camp David. Md., on Sept. 16, for example, included remarks about whether it was prudent to attack Iraq after the terror attacks.

Bush told reporter Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that he decided not to heed advice on Iraq by some officials who also had served his father's administration during the first Gulf War (news - web sites).

"One of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for a new war," Bush told Woodward for his 2002 book, "Bush at War." He said discussion later that day "was focused only on Afghanistan."

Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in 1992 from the State Department to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.

Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI (news - web sites), CIA (news - web sites), Justice Department (news - web sites) and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.

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

So - who are the bad guys here?

Saddam is a bad guy. But Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. Saddam is a brutal dictator who murdered tens of thousands of his own people. But his terrorism was local. And - because he was a dictator - he could keep the Muslims and Kurds from killing each other and he kept real terrorists like Bin Laden out. Saddam and Bin Laden are sworn enemies. Now Bin Laden can bring terror to Iraq without Saddam there to stop him.

Yes - Bin Laden is a bad guy. He's the real enemy - the one who actually was behind 9-11. While Bush was going after Iraq's oil under the pretence of fighting terrorism he turned a blind eye to Bin Laden allowing him to build his power. Bush dragged America into an unjust and unprevoked war and alienated both our alies and enemies and strenthened the real terrorists. America is far weaker today and our enemies are stronger. We are losing the war.

The real enemy is Bush. Bush is far more dangerous to the world than Bin Laden and we are on track for World War 3.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin Threatens Me over Letters to the Editor

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin is a newspaper that really sucks. A right wing rag that is now threatening to publish my phone number and encourge people harrass me. Their letter to the editor employee - Nancy Christenson - has gone balistic on me. She doesn't like my letters and rather than being a good journalist - she feels the need to threaten people who don't agree with her narrow point of view.

She called my phone number and hung up. But she wasn't bright enough to block the caller ID which came up 808-529-4700 which is the main phone number for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin

She's also made several attempts to break into my news list by sending email to the list using my email address as her identity - essentially trying to impersonate me and hack into my server to send email to my list of newspapers. And - if she really wanted off my list there is instructions at the bottom of each message to be removed - and the instructions actually work.

Here's some of the email we've exchanged. Her comments are in Red.

> Yes - you can publish my email address with the letter - but not the
> phone number.

If you ever send us your spam again, we will publish your address and
telephone number so you can enjoy being hassled the way you hassle others.

Its not spam - it is a letter to the editor. You are a newspaper aren't you?

I was not engaging you in conversation. You are not one of our readers, and
that is not a letter to the editor. You send us hundreds of these messages
each month, which makes is spam, whether you admit it or not.

Remove the Star-Bulletin from your spam list at once.

I am about to send you another letter. I do not give you permission to publish my phone number. If you publish it - it will be an act of malice. If you don't know what the means you should consult a lawyer.

You are laughably naive. Do whatever you want, little boy -- we'll never see it.

You're pathetic.

Are you really an employee of the Star Bullitin? How is it that you are getting my letters in the first place? (Turns out she really is!)

So - you're calling me up and hanging up on me? Geez - that's really mature of you.

-----------

I'm probably the most published letter to the editor writer in America. I send out a few letters a week to my list of newspapers and papers like USA Today run my letters on a regular basis. So do New York Newsday - Time Magazine - Chicago Sun Times - Kansas City Star - and the Dallas Morning News to name a few.

Normally I ignore threats. I get right wingers threatening me all the time and I just look at it as a sigh of success. If I'm not pissing off Bush supporters then I'm not doing my job. But this is a newspaper threatening to use its power to try to harrass me out of my free speech rights and it pisses me off. In the online world - I control more readers than they do - and one of the things I enjoy doing is exposing corporate and government misbehavior. So - screw you Honolulu Star-Bulletin! You're just another Bush Family Evil Empire publication.

Question for those who support same sex marriage

Letter to the Editor

I have some questions for those who support same sex marriage - should I be allowed to marry my brother? If not - why not?

I would point out that the reason for not marrying my sister is that if we reproduced - then we would likely have birth complications. However - that doesn't apply if I marry my brother because I can't get him pregnant. For that matter - should I be allowed to marry my sister of one or both of us are not capable of reproducing? - If not - why not?

Should I be allowed to marry more than one person? Why limit marriage to only 2 people? Why not 3 or 4? Why have a limit?

Should I be allowed to marry my cat - especially when a cat is much more likely to make a lifelong commitment that a human. In fact - I would bet that if someone compared the average number of years an owner and their pet stay together and a man and wife stay together - the pets would win.

For those who want to move the line on what people should and shouldn't marry - where do you want to move the line to? And - why should the line be there?

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

If it were up to me - I would move the line back the other way to include only couples with children. To me marriage is about families - reproducing - creating new generations. I would therefore - if I were King - grant civil unions to same sex couples and non-reproducing heterosexual couples.

All marriages are really civil unions in the eyes of the state because all states have no fault divorce laws. Therefore the state doesn't really recognize the "relationship" part of a marriage and marriage is really just a bad property agreement where if the relationship fails then two lawyers get to keep your property. From someone who has been chewed by the courts I say to same sex couples - be careful what you ask for - you might get it!

Rumsfield says Capturing Bin Laden wouldn't reduce Terrorism

If this isn't cluelless I don't know what is. We have to start a war with Iraq to go after terrorists - but the guy who is actually doing the terrorism isn't important.

Defense Secretary Says Capturing Bin Laden Would Not Change the Problem of Terrorism

By Robert Burns The Associated Press
Published: Mar 16, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) - Capturing or killing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden would not "change the problem" of international terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.

Rumsfeld also raised the possibility that bin Laden was dead.

"The reality is that bin Laden is spending a great deal of his time - if he is alive today - hiding and running and trying to communicate and trying to survive," Rumsfeld said in an interview at the Pentagon with WTN radio in Nashville.

Because of the pressure on bin Laden, al-Qaida and its affiliates have become more decentralized, Rumsfeld said.

"It would be a good thing if he were not there, but it certainly isn't going to change the problem. We're going to have to find the rest of the terrorists and his associates and see that they're put in jail."

The interview was one of a series that Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials gave to radio stations around the country Tuesday as part of a Bush administration public relations offensive marking the one-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. The war began March 19.

In an interview with WPHT radio in Philadelphia, Rumsfeld was asked about a reported remark Monday by the chief of France's armed forces that bin Laden several times had narrowly escaped capture by French troops in Afghanistan.

"We don't know" whether U.S. or coalition troops have come close to bin Laden, Rumsfeld said.

"We haven't caught him," he added. "Close doesn't count. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. We're trying to capture or kill this man. We don't even know if he's alive for sure."

The consensus of intelligence analysts is that bin Laden is hiding out in the Afghan-Pakistan border area.

Last weekend the U.S. military command in Afghanistan announced the start of an offensive, dubbed Operation Mountain Storm, aimed at destroying al-Qaida and the Taliban and ultimately finding bin Laden.

Dennis Miller - He just isn't funny anymore

Watching Dennis Miller is sad these days. I remember him back when he used to be funny - before he became Bush's bitch for CNBC. Dennis Miller is so unfunny that the actually have to pay people to be in his audiance and laugh at him. Swear to koresh its true. The studio ran and ad on Craigs List paying people $15 to sit in his audience and laugh and clap for him.

I'm sitting here watching him trying to find something funny and is just isn't happening for me. All I can see is Bush's hand up his butt working his mouth like a puppet. Don't they have any comedy writers for him? The camera pans to the audience where most of them arent clapping - but looking guilty like that might not get the $15 unless they do what the sign tells them to do.

Dennis Millers show is about as real as the Bush economic recovery - or weapons of mass destruction. Hey baby - we're all going to Mars! Dennis Miller used to laugh at people who are like he is now. Now he's one of them. He's a zombie!

Dennis - my pity goes out to you man for being so pathetic. What does it feel like for a comedian to have to hire an audiance and pay people to laugh at you? I mean - isn't that the very definition of LOSER? Good luck reclaiming your soul someday.

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

Here's the ad:

DENNIS MILLER SHOW
Reply to: tickets4tv@yahoo.com
Date: 2004-03-09, 3:27PM PST

Audience work, one hour tape time, cash pay at end of show. Tapes 3/10, 3/11, and 3/12(1:45pm). Reply to tickets4tv@yahoo.com, incude contact number, nationality, and age or age range(submit photo if possible).

Thanks Brandon @ SRO
Compensation: $15 FLAT RATE

Iraq - One year Later

Letter to the Editor

Its been one years since the war started - are we better off today? I think not. Saddam has been replaced by chaos. No weapons were found. We may be stuck over there forever. America is hated and feared by countries that were our allies. Tens of thousands of lives lost for nothing. The deficit is 500 billion a year and climbing. Schools are closing. Gas prices at record highs and Greenspan talks of rationing Social Security.

Clearly America did not win this war. The only one who seems better off today than they were a year ago is Bin Laden because America is far weaker and world opinion has turned against us. I think America needs a regime change.