The Mainstream Stenographers

Let's talk Dick. Here's some selected quotes from the linked article, placed out of order in a search to find the real story.

Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract [to Halliburton] last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

But this is what the beginning of the article says.

Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker [Rep. Henry A. Waxman] said yesterday.

So what does The Big Dick do when he's caught in a lie? He, uhm, lies.

"The policy of this office always has been and continues to be that if a staff member is approached with information about a pending government contract for Halliburton, the standard response is to state that we don't get involved in those decisions and do whatever is best for the country," one aide said.

So who should we believe, Waxman or a Dick? It may depend on who has something to hide.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., who was briefed by Pentagon officials last week, issued a letter to the vice president yesterday demanding full disclosure of the top-secret process that led to awarding the contract to the Houston-based oil services company.

I hate to be horribly biased, but what the hell? I know the media is supposed to report the news in an unbiased manner, but does that automatically mean they are just supposed to be stenographers for the government? Do we really have to dance around the actual story?

Here's the actual story: Dick Cheney, who could defend himself by releasing doucments that Waxman has asked for, chooses not to. Why? Could it be because he's guilty?

And why isn't the media requesting these documents from Cheney? How come there's no blurb in this story about the reporter or the newspaper being denied the same documents Waxman has also asked for?

I know the media is supposed to be unbiased, but if you have a high government official caught in a lie, why isn't his feet being held to the fire? They had no problem leaving Clinton out to dry for a blowjob, so what's the problem when there are actual crimes being committed? Isn't it also the media's job to be critical, to dig for answers, and to get the story? And if we don't have a media that functions properly, how are we supposed to have informed citizens? We have to have informed and educated citizens for democracy to function properly, otherwise we just have a bunch of brainless idiots walking into the voting booth.

I just find it disappointing that little shit bloggers like myself can look at an article like this and see the real story, but editors making more money then I'll ever see in my life can't. If a statement like that can be made, then there's some serious problems within our mainstream media.

[Crossposted to Blunted on Reality.]