- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I found it interesting that Conason chose to compare media treatment of Bush's lie about weapons inspectors in Iraq with media treatment of Clinton's lie about Lewinsky. Such a comparison does indeed reveal a remarkable contrast. But what happens if we substitute press treatment of a different Clinton lie: say, about weapons inspectors in Iraq? In at least one instance (and probably more if my memory is correct), a 2004 interview with the BBC, Clinton asserted that in 1998, "Saddam kicked the inspectors out to try to force us to lift the sanctions." In fact, the weapons inspectors were withdrawn in anticipation of US bombing. So what do we get if compare press treatment of this lie with those of Bush? In that case we find a remarkable similarity! The Washington Post and many other papers have repeated this canard time and time again. Such a comparison perhaps leads to more useful lessons about the bipartisan nature of US foreign policy and the media's enabling of it than the comparison made by Mr. Conason.
