Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Double standard over coverage of drone strikes?

Details

  • Description

    How is media handling targeted killing policy?

  • Duration 3:45
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Happening Now

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

-- is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter author and Fox News contributor.

Bret Stephens is a foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal leave it to Jon Stewart sometimes to get to the nugget of an issue we went back and and took a look John Yoo was the White House and did -- the Department of Justice.

Deputy who wrote the bush administration's policies on enhanced interrogation techniques.

When that broke it got -- And the on the Washington Post -- on page three in the Wall Street Journal.

Now you flash forward to this memo about.

Drone strikes and whether they can be used to kill Americans.

-- -- six in the New York Times page -- one in the post but only a day later.

And the Wall Street Journal as we understand it didn't run anything.

-- so what gives here Judy.

Outlook it's just it's obvious what happens.

President Obama.

Has authorize these drone strikes and therefore they are good.

Whereas.

President Bush was or -- raised authorizing the torture and therefore it's bad we have an unbelievable double standards here in the press and it is really highlighted.

By the way in which the drone strikes are being covered.

-- you see it differently.

I mean I think that's right but you know okay look this is a democratic president who is essentially validating.

A Republican policy there's an old saying that pocket sees the homage that vice pays to virtue.

I'm fine with that I -- and I'm glad that the Democrats -- are getting a dose of -- medicine but why is it that it was so horrible for President Bush to be -- really a handful of terrorists to enhanced interrogation techniques and in the media excoriated.

-- right -- it's totally -- it's okay so from 101000 feet into someone's.

-- and blow up them and anybody else who happens to be nearby just we're.

As a -- why that okay -- -- everything I think you've answered.

-- I think you've answered your own question but at least you see here I -- someone needs to say good for the president good for the president.

President Barack Obama for rebuking.

Senator Barack Obama when he was excoriating the bush.

The bush White House in the long term effects of this are going to be good because it's part of what it was called a war on terror which was authorized.

By congress in the days after 9/11 and its right that this should be a presidential decisions.

And most of the criticism of the president's decision this is President Obama and hours leading up has really focused on his passion for secrecy.

Rather than on the action itself so most people are not questioning.

The right to kill people rather than capture and interrogate them which might be a value to our national security.

-- should acquaint themselves with the Federalist papers -- not secrecy and executive dispatch is the reason we have a president not just a parliamentary.

System and so that's what President Obama has discovered but we also got rid of king has become our you know set up a government that doesn't involve kings because we didn't like having one person out of the -- -- sort of order life and death decision.

Right but we also understand that when it comes to making war.

War is best conducted.

By a president that's why the president is vested with with the extraordinary war powers and by -- this is done with the authority of congress this is not.

President Obama sitting alone doing -- -- -- -- -- as congress can't see the legal bond document on which this is fixed the total voted the arguments left and right still go on it's really a fascinating discussion but again I think the media treatment of the two presidents is -- totally different.

Judy Miller -- Stephens thank you both.

Load More