NY Times' Sanger, Bumiller smeared Clinton over Pakistan trip
SUMMARY: New York Times staff writers David Sanger and Elisabeth Bumiller used the opportunity presented by President Bush's March 3 visit to Pakistan to contrast Bush's "more public landing" on Air Force One with Clinton's 2000 visit, in which, Bumiller wrote, he "slipped into Islamabad for six hours on an unmarked military jet." However, both Sanger and Bumiller ignored the historical and political context of Clinton's trip to Pakistan and the security measures taken by Bush that undermine any notion that he "arrived with a roar on Air Force One."
During the March 3 broadcast of PBS' Washington Week, New York Times staff writer David Sanger used the opportunity presented by President Bush's March 3 visit to Pakistan to assert that Bush "didn't sneak in [to Pakistan] the way President Clinton did" in March 2000, because Bush "landed Air Force One there." Sanger echoed a comparison Times staff writer Elisabeth Bumiller made in a March 3 article, when she contrasted Bush's "more public landing" on Air Force One with Clinton's arrival aboard an unmarked military jet. Then, in the March 6 edition of the paper, Bumiller wrote: "Unlike Mr. Clinton, who slipped into Islamabad for six hours on an unmarked military jet, Mr. Bush arrived with a roar on Air Force One." But, while security was a factor in Clinton's trip, other factors also contributed to his decision to visit Pakistan, reportedly reached amid "intense disagreement within the administration," over conditions under which the visit would be made -- factors wholly ignored by Sanger and Bumiller. Moreover, contrary to Bumiller's and Sanger's suggestions, Bush traveled to Pakistan under intense security measures that included decoys and deflection, undermining Bumiller's assertion that he "arrived with a roar on Air Force One."
At the time of Clinton's 2000 visit to Pakistan, only five months had passed since Gen. Pervez Musharraf had seized power from then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a coup during a time of escalated tensions between Pakistan and India over the disputed Kashmir region -- a fact that the Times reporters overlooked. The March 26, 2000, edition (subscription required) of the Times noted that Clinton's brief visit was "an effort to defuse tensions in a region that he has described as the most volatile in the world," and that Clinton had decided to visit Pakistan following "intense disagreement within the administration." Moreover, PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer suggested at the time of Clinton's visit that one reason for the Clinton administration's hesitation in making the trip was that it "didn't want to appear to legitimize the new military government" of Musharraf.
Notwithstanding Bumiller's assertion that, unlike Clinton in 2000, Bush "arrived with a roar" on March 3 in Islamabad, Bush's own trip also involved tight security. The Washington Post reported on March 5 that the Pakistani and U.S. governments jointly enacted "extraordinary security measures to protect Bush and his entourage" in advance of the visit, including clearing the streets in Islamabad and cracking down on demonstrators who had planned protests. And, as Bumiller noted in her own story, Air Force One landed in Pakistan with its running lights off and window shades drawn to reduce the plane's visibility. In addition, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted, a limousine motorcade and two unmarked Blackhawk helicopters awaited Bush's arrival. Which mode of transportation he used once Bush landed was not disclosed publicly.
Sanger's comments came after Washington Post White House correspondent Peter Baker asked him whether Bush's trip would "do anything to sell him and his policies."
From the March 3 broadcast of PBS' Washington Week:
BAKER: This comes at a time when Muslims were very upset with these cartoons that were printed in the Danish papers. And in Islamabad and throughout Pakistan, there've been protests and so forth, which has sort of morphed into an anti-American generally -- sentiment or expression of that. How much is a visit to Pakistan do you think -- do anything to sell him and his policies to the Islamic world?
SANGER: It may help a little bit because he's done a few things, Peter, that we didn't expect. One of them is: He landed Air Force One there. He didn't sneak in the way President Clinton did. He's staying the night. He's showing that he's making some kind of commitment.
From the March 26, 2000, edition (subscription required) of The New York Times:
In an effort to defuse tensions in a region that he has described as the most volatile in the world, President Clinton today asked the military leader of Pakistan to show restraint in Kashmir, where Pakistan and India most recently battled last summer, and to reopen a dialogue with his Indian neighbors.
But after more than an hour and a half with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Clinton received no assurances, said a senior administration official who participated in the meeting.
[...]
Mr. Clinton, who decided to come to Pakistan after intense disagreement within the administration, spent barely six hours in this country, arriving from an extensive five-day tour of India under some of the most elaborate security precautions ever devised for his travels.
After his meeting with General Musharraf, Mr. Clinton made a direct appeal to the Pakistani people in a live television broadcast in which he addressed them as friends of the United States. Instead of looking toward a future of economic collapse and potential war, the people should choose the path of economic security and peace, the president said.
From the March 24, 2000, edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which featured senior correspondent Margaret Warner:
WARNER: President Clinton has spent the last five days touring India. Tomorrow he'll visit India's neighbor and rival, Pakistan, for only five hours. Whether to make even this brief visit was fiercely debated within the White House. The Secret Service was reported to have concerns for the President's safety in Pakistan, a country that harbors more than its share of Islamic terrorists.
Today, Shiite Muslim students in Karachi staged anti-American demonstrations, shouting, "death to America," and holding up signs that called Mr. Clinton the killer of the Muslim world. The administration also didn't want to appear to legitimize the new military government of General Pervez Musharaf. Five months ago, Musharaf ousted elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's civilian government in a bloodless coup and put Sharif on trial. Yet President Clinton is also troubled by rising tensions in the region over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir, especially now that India and Pakistan have tested nuclear devices.
From the March 5 edition of The Washington Post:
Only hours before Bush's appearance, the Pakistani government cracked down on political leaders and others planning to protest the president's visit. In the city of Rawalpindi, about 10 miles from Islamabad, police arrested about 20 members of Tehrik-e-Insaaf, a small political party, as they staged a noisy but peaceful demonstration, beating some of them with bamboo sticks as foreign journalists and camera crews recorded the scene.
The protest was supposed to have been much larger, but early Saturday morning, police detained the leader of the party, former international cricket star Imran Khan, and placed him under house arrest, along with about a dozen other party officials, according to a party leader who remained at large and declined to be named for fear that he could be arrested. Later Saturday morning, blue-uniformed police blocked the driveway to Khan's palatial hilltop home near Islamabad and barred reporters from entering.
Reached by telephone, Khan speculated that Musharraf had ordered his detention because "he's just petrified that there could be a lot of people" at the protest. Khan added, "These double standards have to be exposed. ... To call this democracy is a joke."
Bush and Musharraf did not mention the crackdown in their only joint appearance in the heavily fortified capital. The city's streets were cleared as Pakistan and the United States took extraordinary security measures to protect Bush and his entourage two days after a U.S. diplomat was killed by a suicide bomber in Karachi.
From the March 4 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
On the ground, Bush, the first lady and the rest of the presidential party were greeted by local officials, as well as several television cameras.
But how the Bushes got from the airport to the U.S. Embassy was a secret. Two unmarked Blackhawk helicopters awaited the couple, as did the usual black presidential limousine. The Bushes walked toward one of the helicopters, but the view of them was blocked by the limousine, making it impossible to tell if they got in the car or on one of the aircraft.
The motorcade traveled at speeds of up to 70 mph. The president and his wife, Laura, spent the night at the ambassador's residence within the U.S. Embassy compound.
Well knock me over, I thought that was the standard liberal line "When all else fails, they always bring up Clinton".
Oh, I guess when it works in your favor the rules are different. I got it.
Sure.
I have tried and tried to understand, but I can't. Tommy, please explain how your post makes even a lick of sense.
...I thought the same thing about his post as well.
The left is always complaining that the right is constantly bringing up Clinton whenever it suits their purpose.........well this post is bringing up Clinton because this time it suits their argument to do so.
Not so hard to understand.
Bumiller and Sanger brought Clinton up, and they did so to make it look like his Pakistan trip was less commendable than Bush's. Bumiller and Sanger are not, and do not speak for, "the left," and the way they use Clinton here could only be interpreted as being beneficial to right-wingers. Your original post indicates you were looking for a "gotcha" here, but there isn't one.
i was saying ....what is this man talking about.
Clinton created a huge surplus. Bush created a massive deficit. Talking about Clinton just reminds us all of the good old days.
This looks to me like just another potshot at Clinton. Saying Clinton "snuck in" in the manner they did is obviously a putdown. While this is just speculation, I would wager that Clinton's television appearance directly to the people probably went over better than whatever Bush did in his time there. (They don't like Bush very much over there for some reason). I would also gather that by "sneaking in" and not staying long, Clinton's appearance upset the daily routine in Pakistan far less than Bush's did. The point is, there was no need to put Clinton down, especially in the context of diplomatic relations with foreign countries where Dubya couldn't even hold Clinton's jockstrap.
Is Sanger even serious here? So we should be impressed cause Bush stayed the night? Oh ok, I'm convinced Bush is THE MAN.
Does anyone recall a 6800 Mile trip with lights out aboard Air Force I to Iraq?
Landed at 5:30am had Thanksgiving Dinner and back on plane at 8:00 am.
Laura 7000 Mile trip and spent 6 hours on ground.
Clinton signed for the Draft.
Clinton was no Military Deserter during Wartime.
Clinton did not need (had brain) transmitter during a debate.
clarence swinney
If Bush wanted to "be the man" then he should have spent a couple nights in Vietnam during the 70's. Forget Pakistan.
Undoubtedly arrived in a flight jacket after helping the pilot weave through missiles to pronounce "Mission accomplished."
Isn't this the second item in two days that defends a man who no longer holds public office from some kind of insult or 'smear'?
Yesterday it was AMBULANCE CHASER, and today it's something that I can't nail down in two words, or even twenty.
Was the old Media Matters for America I used to know sold or something? To one of the Corporate Media giants maybe?
At a time RIPE with misinformation to cite (DPW, deficit projections, phony 'Lobby Reform' in the House, Iraq, Texas redistricting, and all things to do with the Senate's Intelligence Committee), why is there so much ROT on this (grape) Vine?
If they outfit I used to visit has been sold, I wish I were told about it.
So that I could say I used to visit it, when it was great.
It's the way they're trying to 'defend' Bush's trip as significant by denigrating a similar trip by President Clinton.
It's the old tactic of defending Bush by bringing up President Clinton any time they can. As I said in a post to another topic they must have a database of events during President Clinton's term so they can put Bush in a 'good light' by denigrating a similar event during Bush's. It's a favorite ploy by BushCo Inc.
Dem0202020,
This is not a defense of Clinton, per se, but an examination of the ways, big and small, every day, the media subtly transmit messages of the intrinsic bravery (sic) and valor (sic) of our current President--and, by implication, his party--as contrasted against the supposed cowardly "sneaking in" to Pakistan of his inferentially "weasly" predecessor--and, by implication, HIS party.
It is a stealth attack on any who would oppose, criticize, or propose an alternative to King George's blighted ruling methodology: ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty, brutality, and contempt.
It sets us up for the next democratic candidate for President, whom all in the media assume will be Hillary, to be depicted a priori in a negative light, as strident, untrustworthy, unworthy to carry on Bush's "glorious" (sic) initiatives.
The Republicans and their running dog lackeys in the mainstream media will find no level to low to sink to to insure the next administration is merely BUSH, PART TWO, with a different puppet carrying on the same policies.
bush roared right back to washington after the wtc attacks---not. did tough guy bush announce he was going to iraq to hold a plastic turkey? the panic is beginning to show. it's getting hard to defend bush, so what else. bring up clinton.
What Bumiller and Sanger fail to take into account is that any military vehicle is given the designation (Military Branch of Service) One, whenever the President is aboard ANY military plane. I.E. Air Force plane=Air Force One, Marine helicopter=Marine One, etc. So, Clinton may indeed have been aboard Air Force One when landing in Pakistan, even if it was a two-seater. Although, to be fair that can't be true, the designation Air Force One is only used by the FAA when the plane is in U.S. airspace, any other use outside U.S. airspace is media-driven only and not the "official" designaton.
Very informative.
When you look at the historical context on which the two trips were made it's apparent that Sanger was comparing apples to oranges. The issues, conditions, and political ramifications of each visit were different. This statement of Sanger's points out one of the main problems with our media. The lack of historical understanding or context in which to place events. Everything is treated as a 'now' event and pundits throw around these sorts of comparisons without ever being challenged or having to explain the situation and conditions of the time.
That being said, it is hard to dispute that Bush is one of the most hated leaders worldwide in the history of US and Clinton was one of the most revered leaders worldwide that the US has produced.
I'm not even a Clinton fan and I know this.
It is absolutely amazing how these so-called journalists seem to creep out from under every rock. It sort of reminds me of enemy agents being planted amongst the populace, and are awakened in the time of need. Tweety Matthews, Bumiller, Blitzer, et al are not journalists. They are shameless apologists for the Repugnants, who will not know what is the trutth, even if it hit them in the face. They are an absolute disgrace to memory of Edward Morrow, and his ilk.
Clinton was president for eight years, and in that time I can never recall anyone in the media exalting an action he took and making the direct, damaging contrast with either of his Republican predecessors ("The President took charge of this, as opposed to the way Reagan slept through that," or "The President masterfully handled this, unlike the time Bush bungled that."). Clinton appears to be the only one to be victimized by the media in such fashion.
If anyone can produce a counter-example, please let me know. I won't hold my breath.
Is our first mentally handicapped President. The media, the Republican Party both dote over Bush, pat him on the back for "doing his best." When that fails, they fabricate a fatuous comparison with Bill Clinton, our first "black" President, in order to shine the light of near-competence/near-humanity on our beloved bungler in charge, #43. Can anyone recall ANY world leader receiving a constant stream of the-benefit-of-the-doubt as wide and long and sinuous as Bush has? Will the next Democratic President receive the "special Olympics" kid gloves treatment, or will we see a return of the unreasonably high standard of perfection asked of Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter?