Bush VS Clinton = Fair Fight?

I couldn’t really find any negative reviews so I wrote my own I with the personality of one who lacks a vast political knowledge and writes solely based his devoutness to the Bush administration.

The only problem with doing this is that I really enjoyed this excerpt from the book and felt that the media’s idleness during the war was beyond comprehension, it also showed more in depth how bad it really was. I only currently realized the media’s lack of action since all the things they obvious doubts they should have asked about the war are turning into big issues right now. So although I understood what they did I never really understood in what ways it was done. In respects to that I fell the book was terrific. Regarding its goal of this information I will express my feelings toward that later on in the blog.

Despite my fondness of this book I figured it would be a lot more fun to pretend I was someone who would hate it. So I introduce you to my Alter-ego Christopher O’Brien.

Review of Lapdogs: Christopher O’Brien

This article was obscene to me, as I read the first page I was struck with extreme disgust for this anti-American. Eric Boehlert says in this article that American journalists took a nap during the war on terror coverage failing to ask any important questions regarding Bush’s reasons for declaring war. What exactly did he want them to ask, where are the weapons of mass destruction, are there weapons of mass destruction, why not go after Osama instead of declaring war against Saddam! Clearly not of these questions were asked because they were fairly obvious and would have been a waist of breath for our great leader to even answer them.

Why cant this man understand that maybe people actually do love their country, and at during such war which happens to be an emotional time for everyone (I would hope), people tend to be citizens first no matter what their current occupation is this would even apply to journalists. Nobody has a problem when a sports analyst roots for his team during the playoffs, why such hostility towards our liberal media, why can’t they be fans once in a while also. Just because you’re a journalist doesn’t mean you can’t be patriotic

One thing that really shocked me was that he had the audacity to bring up the story of Cindy Sheehan. He says that although Cindy Sheehan put together many anti-war protests the media seemed to give her little press coverage. This was a habit of the press whenever there was an anti-war protest, to either downplay it or not play it at all. Well first of all why would the news want to show a bunch of hippies crying for piece when more important things in the world are going on in the world like the war itself? Secondly in regards to Cindy Sheehan, is it really a wonder that the media ignored her little protests. There have been many wars all over the world no matter who wins or loses them they all have one thing on common, casualties. So do I feel bad for this grieving mother yes of course I do, but does every mother do this when her dies? Surely not. Cindy Sheehan was most likely pro-war before her sons death and would have still been had her son not died, and now that her son dies certainly does not give her the right to jump ship.

This is why the media has given this women little press, they understand she is not in a proper state of mind right now and later will regret what she has done once her grieving period has passed. Therefore when she wises up she wont have to constantly be reminded about her mistake’s because nobody really paid attention to them.

Our country has been a country at war therefore we all must come together. This means that despite our differences with each other we must forget them and invest all our hate against the enemy. This doesn’t mean media likes Bush better, it simply means that this is a time of unity not controversy. I am very sorry Mr. Boehlert cannot understand this.

Being our country’s state over the past couple of years it is rather preposterous to compare its media coverage of the president to any other one’s. I don’t understand why Boehlert is so obsessed with this conspiracy theory of media-bias towards Bush. Bill Clinton received plenty media bias in his day if not more. If you forget about his sex scandal was the media really so awful to Clinton? The correct answer to this question would be no, to add it seemed as if the media was relatively find of our former president. It is inconceivable to me how anyone can make this accusation and even more so write a book that tries to legitimize this paranoid conspiracy theory.

To sum it up Eric Boehlert is just an angry anti-American man. He is ungrateful to a country that is simply trying to protect him form terrorists world wide. He is angry because the journalists love their country and he hates it. This real purpose of this book can be explained by an age old quote “misery loves company”. Eric Boehlert is a miserable and angry man he wrote this book hoping people would share his unexplained negativity, hopefully for America’s sake he will not succeed.

Although I disagree with many of the things Christopher O’Brien said he did make one valid point. When he said that this is country is in a significantly different circumstance then when Clinton was President I thought he couldn’t be more right.

This book and specific article is one that has “evidence” that the media was warmer to Bush than it has been to Clinton. I while agreeing with many of his points regarding the media’s lack of initiative and courage during the war on terror, disagree with the point its trying to bring out. It is unfair to the media to say that they favor Bush and were much worse to Clinton.

As said before these two presidents were leading the country at two very different times, if Bush had a sex scandal right at the beginning of the war not much would be made of it and same would have gone for Clinton had he been president at the time.
Furthermore its not like the media has been so pleasant to bush, the guy choked on a pretzel and the media made it seem like he is the biggest moron in the world, they turned his one cocaine indecent into him being addicted to it, they said he was an alcoholic so many times that alcoholic is usually the first thing people put together with name Bush, and they still never shy away from drawing comparisons to Bush’s brain and a peanut. Yes Bush did have a nice two or three years that the media hasn’t harassed him because of the war, but now that we are failing to realize a point to the war the hostility towards our president is back and stronger than ever.

Bill Clinton however didn’t really have to endure much suffering from the media. His incident happened in 1998 which was at the tail end of his term. Yes he had to go through a rough couple of years but let me stress they were only a couple of years and before them the media was rather warm to him. Additionally the type of negativity he received wasn’t nearly as bad as the kind Bush got and will get. The worst thing that can be said about Clinton is that he cheated on his wife and has a very technical meaning of the term “sexual relations”. Despite this the media still toted him as a family man and had constant press on how Hillary forgave him. I would say that’s a lot better than having your IQ compared to that of mouse.

Bush has had two or three pleasant years from the media only because of the war and most presidents who enter a war after a result like 9/11 will receive the same kind of comfort that the media showed towards Bush. Clinton received six pleasant years from them and one really bad year, his last year though wasn’t so bad because much focus turned to Hillary with her campaign.

Again this book while having many good points regarding the media’s inability to accurately cover the war is immediately diminished because of the point it used to bring out. I may seem redundant but its strengthening my point so I don’t care(no this is not a propaganda tactic), it is pointless to compare Bush’s regime to Clinton’s being the fact that one was president of war and one was a president during prosperity.

A sufficient way to compare the media coverage of them would be to look how the media treated bush before the war and how they treat him now that the war is over. Surely it will be quit obvious to anyone that aside for the war years the media has been extremely critical of bush while Clinton despite his one scandal was treated very nicely by the media. If you go by that then it seems that Clinton was treated better.

So technically yes bush received better treatment, but this would only be if you pick out specific years of the two presidencies and compare them. Which as you can see is pointless, because if you compare every presidents media treatment to that of Clintons scandal year then every president will look like the media is in their back pocket.