Bozell falsely compared Bush warrantless domestic surveillance program to Clinton response to OKC bombing
SUMMARY: In his nationally syndicated column, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell drew a false comparison between the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program and Bill Clinton's call for expanding anti-terror legislation following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. In drawing the comparison, Bozell ignored key distinctions: Clinton publicly called for Congress to pass legislation; Bush secretly authorized a clandestine surveillance program without informing the public or seeking congressional approval.
In his February 8 nationally syndicated column, L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, drew a false comparison between the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program and former President Bill Clinton's call for expanding anti-terror legislation following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Bozell specifically faulted CBS News, claiming: "CBS didn't shriek about 'domestic spying' or commission a poll then questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties." Bozell, however, ignored a key distinction between Clinton's and Bush's attempts to expand the government's ability to investigate suspected terrorists. Clinton publicly called for the legislation; Bush secretly authorized a clandestine surveillance program without informing the public or seeking congressional approval. Additionally, the April 25, 1995, CBS report Bozell pointed to did, in fact, note that there was public concern at the time over possible threats to civil liberties posed by Clinton's proposed legislation, and following Clinton's proposal, CBS did commission a poll asking if the government should have more authority to combat terrorism, even if Americans' constitutional rights were violated.
From Bozell's February 8 column:
In April of 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton called for more agents to investigate domestic terror suspects, and more power to infiltrate terrorist plots and examine suspects' "phone, hotel, and credit card records," as CBS explained at the time. CBS didn't shriek about "domestic spying" or commission a poll then questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties. They noted Clinton's handling of Oklahoma City "sent his approval ratings soaring."
As Bozell himself noted, however, Clinton "called" for this legislation on April 23, 1995 -- publicly announcing his plans and urging Congress to carry them out. The New York Times reported on April 26, 1995, that "Administration officials said today that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its parent agency, the Justice Department, wanted new authority to monitor, investigate and infiltrate groups suspected of planning terrorist attacks," and "members of Congress said there was widespread support for such changes on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers appear eager to move quickly." Bush, however, never made a public call for the authority to monitor domestic communications without a warrant, nor did he petition Congress for legislative approval. Rather, the administration assumed it had the authority and exercised it without consulting with Congress or the courts. During his February 6 testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the domestic surveillance program, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was asked by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) why the administration did not consult with Congress when implementing the program; Gonzales responded: "Sir, the short answer is -- is that we didn't think we needed to, quite frankly."
Also, Bozell's claim that CBS did not "commission a poll then questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties" is false. According to The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut, an April 25, 1995, CBS poll (available via the Lexis-Nexis database) asked respondents about the expansion of governmental authority to combat terrorism and the potential risk to civil liberties. Though the poll's question did not mention Clinton by name, it did reference the authority to "plant undercover agents in possible terrorist groups" -- one of the powers Clinton requested. From the CBS poll:
"Do you think that in order to fight terrorism, the Federal government should have MORE authority to investigate and plant undercover agents in possible terrorist groups or would this violate Americans constitutional rights?"
Total
Republicans
Democrats
Independents
Yes
76%
81%
78%
70%
No
16%
13%
13%
21%
DK/NA
8%
6%
9%
9%
Moreover, Bozell's suggestion that CBS did not question "Clinton's commitment to civil liberties" is false. From the April 25, 1995, CBS report:
BILL PLANTE (correspondent): The president urged Americans to stand up to the people he called promoters of paranoia, saying freedom of speech makes silence in the face of hatred unforgivable.
CLINTON: So, exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake. I never want to look into the faces of another set of family members like I saw yesterday and you can help to stop it.
PLANTE: Mr. Clinton also wants new legislation to combat terrorism, making it easier to infiltrate terrorist groups and examine their phone, hotel, and credit card records. Some worry that that could mean FBI harassment of any unpopular group.
JAMES DEMPSEY (Center for National Security Studies): We could see a return to the time of the '60s and '70s, when the FBI was investigating people based purely on ideology.
PLANTE: The administration shrugs that off -- says those disputes over civil liberties can be worked out. They're also very well aware that the call to be tough on terrorists is a political winner. And although no one around here would have the bad taste to mention it, the White House staff is very much aware that Mr. Clinton's handling of the crisis in Oklahoma City has sent his approval ratings soaring.















Why does the Right keep invoking Clinton in some false way to make a point that can be easily refuted with a simple Lexis-Nexis search? Someone please do an intervention. Oh, that's right. There's one coming up this November.
Bozell. It's a favorite device of his to try to link Bush's actions with Clinton's. MMFA does a good job of bringing out all the facts.
Have you guys ever visited the MRC site?
It's a joke. Just one straw man, house of cards argument after another.
"This person did such-n-such and said such-n-such and that's liberal because we say so."
Not one tenth of the research ethic of MMFA. Here we see full context of quotes, links to back up assertions, and verifiable analysis of the misinformation and ridiculous spewed by the Right on an hourly basis.
Bozell wishes his site was as good as MMFA.
I think my favorite example of the MRC argument was an incident where they noted that a reporter said that DeLay had said Ronnie Earle was a partisan, and after that they said something to the effect of "as if there is any question about this". Of course, there was question. That's the MRC's view;if you report what a Republican says as what they say, instead of as undisputable truth, that's liberal bias. And if you report anything damaging to the right wing, no matter how valid, credible or established, that's liberal bias. Anything short of RNC spin is "proof" that the media leans left.
I once told Tim Graham (the poster below, who claimed to be the same one who works for the MRC) that his site was a contemptible joke, and that I would debate the merits of MMfA stories vs. MRC stories any day. He didn't take me up on the challenge, oddly enough...
Just another example of how the right just makes things up out of whole cloth. El Bozo probably didn't even bother to research it before he wrote it.
In light of Media Matters' exposure of Bozell's false claim, the last line of his Feb. 8 column is priceless:
"Americans can’t trust a liberal media, so partisan in this debate, to tell it to them straight."
In the Rovian world of Hell Bent Bozo, homonyms are good enough when comparing presidential approaches to surveillance:
Clinton calls...
Duhhbya crawls...
Same-o same-o, right?
This Nexis clip does not show CBS questioning CLINTON commitment to civil liberties. It clearly states that Clinton's proposing one thing, and then will weasel around with it depending on what the ACLU drones demand.
I'm sorry, most of us here don't speak newsmax.
Sounds like a freeper got lost on the way to the whine fest that is Free Republic.
How is the following comment not questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties;"We could see a return to the time of the '60s and '70s, when the FBI was investigating people based purely on ideology"?
Is your muddled, inarticulate "point" the only defense you have for your boss? It seems the rest of the article must be accurate if you passed up an opportunity to point out its flaws, right?
Thank you for your implied admission that Bozell's column was wildly inaccurate and misleading. I'm sure he appreciates your representation here.
And your post makes me wonder if you really are Graham, as your handle and previous post suggested. Is this really the type of comment that reflects the work of a clear-thinking professional? Or is making cogent, legitimate arguments not as much of a concern as your level of partisanship, as far as such employment is concerned? From the deceptive and intellectually bankrupt work I have seen in my visits to your site, I think I already know the answer.
Clinton made his legislative proposals public and you use words like weasel to describe his methods?
That makes me wonder...just how exactly would you describe a president who secretly interprets the Constitution as self-servingly as possible (and apparently in direct conflict with the 4th Ammendment) behind our backs?
I'd bet you are the kind of guy who naively believed Fearless Leader would "bring back honesty and integrity to the Whitehouse".
We need more weasels like Clinton.