Fat Steve's Blatherings

Thursday, August 18, 2005

A Really Big Story, post II


      Why is Judicial Watch doing the MSM's job?

At Length:

      In my previous post, I linked to a New York Times story about the State Department Documents that Judicial Watch just pried loose.

      Some quotes from the story:
      The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

      Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."

      Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office.  The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks.[all emphasis added by me - St. O.]

      Now why on earth is it Judicial Watch that's probing this?  Why hasn't the Times, the Washington Post, and every other MSM outlet put in a request for all classified materials relating to the history of terrorism since the Carter Administration?  Could it be that they prefer not to know the truth?  Or, that they don't want you to know?

      And why this constant emphasis on Judicial Watch being "conservative?"  One would almost get the impression that the news pages' official working rule for good, professional, unbiased journalism is 'Democratic administrations are not to be criticized if we can avoid it; if we can't avoid reporting on someone else's criticism of Democratic administrations, we'll moderate the criticism as much as possible, and try to put the critics in the worst possible light.'  If you think I'm being too cynical, then ask yourself: why does it matter who filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit?  The story, supposedly, is what internal, previously classified State Dept. documents over nine years old show.  Who cares who got them declassified?



Post a Comment

<< Home