Slick Willy's 'combative' interview outshines facts

By Chase Miller
Collegian Staff
October 4, 2006

What bizarre dimension have we entered? Has someone broken the space-time continuum, leaving the fabric of our existence frayed at the edge? Are Jupiter, Mercury and Pluto the dwarf planet aligned? It just doesn’t make sense, is all.

Of course, I am talking about President George W. Bush, and former President William J. Clinton, making recent appearances on cable news stations that are each of the opposite political persuasion. On Sept. 20, 2006, our resident president and self-proclaimed “Decider” made an appearance on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room while former chief executive Slick Willy sat down with Chris Wallace of FOX News two days later. The problem is that the subsequent news coverage of the Bush interview was a trickle compared to the deluge of news outlets around the country picking up how “combative” (NBC, Sept. 25, 8:02 a.m.), “combative” (FOX, Sept. 25, 7:01 a.m.), and lets not forget, how “combative” (CBS, Sept. 24) the former president was during the interview.

So three separate news organizations use the same word in describing the presidential sit-down akin to Jerry Springer. At least they followed up with some commentary of the informative, in-depth substance of Clinton’s argument, right? Not quite, and therein lies the problem.

He could sit there all day and deliver hard-hitting retorts like, “After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights for Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there.” The collective media, however, would rather paint Clinton as the presidential Bruce Banner, hulking out on Chris Wallace on cable TV.

The fact of the matter is that there is a growing illegitimacy among the nation’s go-to news sources. The real news, the cutting content of the Clinton interview, is smothered by coverage of the tenor of some of his responses. Moreover, the point is the media is wrought with frivolity. They make the phrase “that’s just a bunch of bull” from Clinton’s discourse a headline, while really reprehensible comments fall through the cracks.

Take Bush’s interview on the Situation Room for example. During his sit down with “Woof” Blitzer, as he called him, the president was very deflective, giving short, matter-of-fact answers. He also gave a new definition to poor diplomacy, pushing the limits of self-imposed presidential isolationism.

Nowhere was this seen more than Blitzer’s line of questioning about Iran. Blitzer asked why the president wouldn’t try and set up a sit-down talk with Iran while the United Nations was meeting in New York to try and diffuse the nuclear bomb looming over our respective horizons. Bush responded, “Our position is very clear with the Iranians, that if they want to sit down with the American officials, they first must verifiably suspend their enrichment program. They know our position, the world knows our position – I clarified it at the United Nations.”

Why doesn’t the media pick up on this egregious cowboy mentality when nuclear war is at stake? They will do specials on Clinton’s reference to a “conservative hit-job,” but Bush’s CNN interview of culpable content gets over-looked because he didn’t raise his voice at “Woof”? So while you watch the team coverage of Clinton’s furrowed brow, be prepared for nuclear fallout, because our president feels “in order to have effective diplomacy, you can’t keep changing your word.” If there is a war though, I’m sure that might garner some media attention.

millerc10@lasalle.edu