The Times:
Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case
The concept of executive privilege rings a special bell with readers of a certain age. It was relied on by the Richard M. Nixon White House seeking to shield documents and personnel from inquiring congressional committees and prosecutors during the Watergate investigations.
Actually, that "certain age" is quite a bit younger than the LA Times would have its readers believe. They're skipping an incident only ten years (and one administration) ago in favor of one which occurred well over three decades ago:
Clinton invoked both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to prevent Starr from asking deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top officials about conversations regarding the Lewinsky case.
And let's not forget this incident:
President Clinton on Thursday claimed executive privilege and refused a congressional subpoena seeking details of his clemency offer to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists.
Nor this one:
In June of 1997, the Clinton administration engaged in an executive privilege battle with Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz, who was investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. Smaltz sought 84 documents that had been withheld by the Clinton administration. The documents pertained to Espy's acceptance of bribes.
Need more? We're just getting started. Bill Clinton apparently invoked executive privilege no less than fifteen times during his administration! How odd that the Times seems to have forgotten. They must not have access to the same kinds of search tools we amateur bloggers can access.
Gosh, we're going to miss them.
I love how the media so frequently does this sort of thing. They tend to ignore what is inconvienent and expect people not to question it. It makes reading the new a pain when you have to keep in mind the author's intentions and personal biases. Many people don't think about that though.
Posted by: Hannah on July 28, 2008 10:05 PM