Tom Ridge:Regardless of Party Affiliation?

Tom Ridge: "Regardless of Party Affiliation"

It should be no great surprise that Frank Luntz prepped Tom Ridge during Bush's re-election campaign.

I'm not surprised.

Why did Tom Ridge feel that he had to insist Homeland Security was not about politics, though?

That's my question.

In effect, he lied for political gain.

He lied.

During the campaign, he bragged to crowds:

"We don't do politics in Department of Homeland Security."

Like hell, you didn't, Mr. Ridge.

When Ridge was running the department of Homeland Security, he said the war on terrorism is "about as apolitical or bipartisan as you can get. There's no Republican or Democratic way to do it. We just have to do it right, regardless of our party affiliation."

Now, more than ever, I firmly believe Ridge was lying about that, as well.
Once again, the people's trust is breached by the discovery of bold lies.

I think back to past terrorist-alerts issued by Ridge at incredibly opportune political moments. I wonder how much of it was complete and utter deflective politics?

Regardless of party affiliation, my Homeland posterior.

I can't imagine anything LESS characteristically or traditionally "American" as painting members of your loyal opposition with the same brush as terrorists, but it's been done far too many times now for me to put an ounce of trust in the purposefully divisive Bush administration.

It all makes this spoof seem eerily close to reality.

Rumsfeld Defensive on Missile Defense

Rumsfeld Defensive on Missile Defense

Former US weapons inspector Scott Ritter is in the news again. He is saying that the new Russian Topol missile makes U.S. defenses obsolete. Russia has tested the ballistic missile and it's a weapon that would render the United States Star Wars scheme useless.

This comes on a day when Donald Rumsfeld's hawking of the Missile Defense program appears in the press. When Senator Hillary Clinton expressed her concerns about the oddity that we would deploy a system that hasn't succeeded and expect that to serve a deterrent value, Rumsfeld said this:

"If you didn't do anything until you could do everything, you probably wouldn't do anything."

Whew.
I hope you can figure that one out.

Journalists: Please Frame Delicate Syria Situation Truthfully

Journalists: Please Frame Delicate Syria Situation Truthfully

I sense that the Bush administration is beating drums that could lead to a U.S. war with Syria.

Given the seriousness of the charges we are making against Syria, I am seeing what I believe are some irresponsible statements in the media.

Allow me to give you an example. Take a look at David Schuster's recent comment, which he'd made regarding the assassination of former Lebanon PM Hariri.

The Bush administration hasn't directly accused Syria of being responsible for the thousand-pound car bomb that ripped a dozen armor plated cars to shreds. But, nothing dramatic happens in Beirut without the Syrian government's knowledge or approval.

In fairness, Mr. Schuster follows the statement up with this:

This afternoon, one of our military analysts suggested the Lebanese bombing may not have necessarily been the work of Syria..[..]..However, most analysts still subscribe to the idea that Hariri wouldn't have been assassinated without Syria's acquiescence.

Disturbingly, the first statement sounds all too definitive. It leaves an impression that Syria must be undeniably guilty of direct involvement with the assassination of the former PM. There is no supporting evidence presented with which to convince the public of this assertion.

I think that, after what we saw in the lead-up to the Iraq war, our journalists must be extremely careful in how they frame such assertions.

No Proof, But Syria Gets Blame for Lebanon bombing

No Proof, But Syria Gets Blame for Lebanon bombing

At Informed Comment, Juan Cole explains how reality-based nuance means very little when it comes to world politics. In Lebanon (and in much of the outside world), Syria will be guilty because they said so.

That is, the Maronite, Druze and Sunni Muslim leadership has largely decided to blame President Lahoud and his Syrian backers for the assassination. In a sense, it does not any longer matter who precisely was behind the blast. The political opposition in Lebanon has made up its mind whom to blame. It is not that they are necessarily wrong. On any list of suspects in the killing of Hariri, the Syrians would have to rank high. They had means, motive and opportunity-- which does not, however, establish that they murdered Hariri.

The other angle, of al-Qaeda-like groups hitting out at Saudi-related targets (Hariri had Saudi citizenship), cannot in my view be dismissed. (If, as is now being reported, the blast was in part the work of a suicide bomber, that would rule out a mafia-type business dispute). Given the 250,000 tons of missing munitions in Iraq, there are lots of very high-powered explosives on the market in the Middle East. This proliferation of explosives may be among the major ways in which the Iraq war ends up destabilizing the Middle East, since the explosions are unlikely to remain only in Iraq. Already, some Iraq-related violence has spread to Saudi Arabia.

But the Lebanese opposition and most of the outside world have decided that Syria is guilty because it is guilty.

Letter from Banda Aceh

Letter from Banda Aceh

We don't see a lot about Banda Aceh in the headlines these days, but there is still tremendous suffering.

From a Letter from Banda Aceh, written by Dr. Laurence Ronan, who is aboard the hospital ship USNS Mercy off Banda Aceh with a 42-person medical team from the Massachusetts General Hospital organized by Project Hope.

"One child sits outside with the cats and dogs, his 12-year-old sister beside him. They lost their parents and four brothers in the flood. Terribly devoted to one another, they share one plate of food between them and make sure each carefully has his or her proper share.

Most of the parents are in shock. Many live in the displaced persons camps. All have lost someone and hope for their return. The great horror of the tsunami is not knowing what happened to a loved one.

Stressed, a mother delivers prematurely, a 30-week-old preemie, 4 pounds. We likely would save this child in Boston; here, she dies slowly, quietly, in front of our eyes."

From The Guardian: Aceh: A story half-told

Christian Reflection: Demilitarize Iraq

Christian Reflection: Demilitarize Iraq

Retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski (USAF) wrote this article last December. With the Easter/Lenten season upon us, I thought it was an appropriate time to repeat Kwiatkowski's words.

From MilitaryWeek.com:
Without Reservation
by Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)
What would Jesus do?

"At this time of year, we take time to remember the importance of humility and love for our brothers and sisters, even in the face of hate or contempt. We think about Jesus' radical command to turn the other cheek, his rejection of the old law of "an eye for an eye."

Americans are citizens of a nation created with Saint Augustine's distrust of human government foremost in mind. This time of year, we should thankfully recall the primitive Christian message that one's devoted public service to the state is not the same as one's quiet individual service to God.

The American invasion of Iraq was based on lies, as has been the continued American occupation of her major cities. The lies put forth by the administration ought to remind Christians of those lies the Devil told Jesus up on that mountain in the wilderness. Promises of peace, whispers of wealth, visions of total control of the earth.

At this time of year, we also look for answers. It is truly difficult to know what to do in Iraq, whether you are the President, the Secretary of Defense, his military leaders, the soldiers and Marines in the field, their families or just a single individual who cares.

Something tells me we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and try to help that country by first demilitarizing it. Such a solution would require great humility, a turning of the other cheek, and a re-examination of the correct level of American devotion to the state and its propaganda."

Fleischer on Gannon:"It's All A Bit Odd"

Ari Fleischer on Gannon:
"It's All A Bit Odd"

Ari Fleischer knew of and about Gannon. But he didn't know he was a Guckert.

He said that, even if Gannon was a gay hooker, and a White House Press Corps reporter at the same time, it would have been AOK. It wouldn't have mattered.

Even Guckert's ties to several sex Web sites and allegations that he worked as a male prostitute should not necessarily keep him or any other reporter out, Fleischer said. "The last thing our nation needs is for anyone in the White House to concern themselves with the private lives of reporters," he said. "What right does the White House have to decide who gets to be a reporter based on private lives?"

If allegations that Guckert ran Web ads offering his services as a male escort prove true, however, this would represent more than a “private life” issue. Asked what he thought about the recent revelations about Guckert's past, Fleischer said only, "It is all a bit odd."

A bit?! Yathink??!?

Americablog says: McClellan said he knew Gannon used a fake name. How did he know when Ari didn't?

Attitudes

Attitudes

When Israeli warplanes attacked deep inside Syria for the first time in decades, here were comments from US ambassador to the UN John Negreponte and the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a bombing attack this week.

Quotes Regarding Israel's Strike in Syria

"The United States believes that Syria is on the wrong of the side of the war on terrorism. We believe it is in Syria's interest, and in the broader interest of Middle East peace, for Syria to stop harboring and supporting the groups that perpetrate acts such as the one that occurred yesterday."

- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Lebanon ... calls on the international community and the United Nations to restrain Israel and the Sharon government, which alone poses a danger to international security and peace by attacking a sovereign state and an effective member of the Security Council and the United Nations."

- The late and former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri

These are things that can't help but make you go hmmmmmmmm....

______________


David Frum is acting highly irresponsibly, in my opinion, for putting this out into the ether:

"It might seem incredible that young Bashar Assad, if it was Assad, would choose the path of confrontation with the United States. And yet this is a choice he seems already to have made, by for example sheltering leaders of the Iraqi insurgency. And if he did give the order for the Hariri killing...."

This type of soft accusation is not only utterly irresponsible, but it falls in with the tried and true method that led us to unjust war with Iraq.
Spread rumor and innuendo.
Use manipulative liars like Chalabi to support necessary misleadings.
Depend upon your Right wing mouth machine to gear up. You've got your FOX, your NRO, your Rush Limbaughs. Go boys, go!
Have no facts or proof to back it up.
Lie if necessary. (Make them scary lies).
Use words like watershed, freedom, democracy. Use them like whores.
Make sure it all fits in with the NeoCon desire to effect a quick regime change in Syria...
and VOILA!
The Bush administration gears up with warnings for Syria to cooperate with the UN, even though Bush and his NeoCon administration have overtly stated that the UN is yesterday, it's powerless and it's nearly meaningless.

It's a path to war, boys and girls!

MoDo: White House Cred Hits Rock Bottom

MoDo: White House Cred Hits Rock Bottom

"At last month's press conference, Jeff Gannon asked Mr. Bush how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." But Bush officials have divorced themselves from reality.

They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.

Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy. It's worse than hating the press. It's an attempt to reinvent it."

LINK- MoDo

Negroponte? No Way!

Negroponte Intel Chief? God Help America!

Bush Nominates Negroponte As Intel Chief?!

Get outta town!

You've got to be pulling my leg.

Mr. Death Squad? No way!

Uh uh.

Nun-killers need not apply.

A Vet says: "Perfect, don't you think? Who better to track down terrorists than one who knows very well how they operate?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Negroponte speaks no Arabic and has no background in the Middle East or the Islamic world. What he does have is a good deal of experience with counterinsurgency. Bad experience."

--Matthew Yglesias

And who looked the other way while Jordan and Turkey were granted embargo-breaking oil sales throughout the course of the Oil-For-Food scandal?

Egypt: Democracy At What Price?

Egypt: Democracy At What Price?

"A bit of patience is sometimes wise--and now may be one of those times."

- Joseph Braude, from his article at TNR

_______________


To what extent do we believe that Islamist victories are an acceptable price to pay for the arrival of democracy in Muslim countries?

Where Egypt is concerned, Joseph Braude causes us to ponder this question with his latest article at TNR Online. Mr. Braude is the author of The New Iraq: Rebuilding the Country for Its People, the Middle East, and the World.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni, Egyptian-dominated international movement which has been ratcheting up its anti-American rhetoric. In Egypt, a democratic government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood would set back the cause of freedom that President Bush had so boldly championed in his second inaugural address.

For Egyptians, true democracy is on the horizon and Mr. Braude explains how and why, given the realities in Egypt today, it is worth waiting for.

Liberals are exceedingly weak and radical nationalists and Islamists are strong. This is a mess of Mubarak's making. But ironically, for reasons unique to Egyptian politics, Mubarak may also be the person best suited to clean up this mess, paving the way for liberal democracy in Cairo. And strange though it may seem, the longtime foe of liberal reform could soon have every incentive to do just that.

One of the aspirations of The Muslim Brotherhood is to undo the entire framework of Arab-Israeli peace.

Mubarak has long used the strength of the Brotherhood as an excuse for his authoritarian rule. But he has done more than merely talk up this threat--he has done his best to make it real by working to undermine Egypt's liberal movement and outdo his Islamist rivals on religious matters.

Political survival for leaders in the liberal movement in Egypt today must involve paying homage to the Brotherhood.

Ironically, Mr. Braude writes that "the skewed political environment that has been created by Mubarak's long years of anti-liberal manipulations would only be enshrined if free and fair elections took place now."

Democracy-enhancing projects would best be facilitated by Egypt's liberals themselves, such as opening Egyptian broadcast media to progressive voices, advancing a secular humanist agenda through the educational system, and opening the organs of the Egyptian state to exchange programs with democratic countries.

All of these will need President Mubarak's support and our patience.

I recommend a full reading of Mr. Braude's article at TNR.


- Jude Nagurney Camwell

Feds "Scooping" Up Leftover NeoCon Dirt?

Feds "Scooping" Up Leftover NeoCon Dirt?

Get this:

Remember Douglas Feith, who was the No. 3 official in the Defense Department but surprised many by abruptly quitting "to spend more time with his family"?

It seems that some DOD/CIA types are frantically trying to cover someone's tracks over something or other (who knows what?). Now, I could be on the wrong track here, and I will say that clearly before I begin to talk about real and meaningful issues that don't make me look like a fan of conspiracy theories.

A team of five federal agents ( from CIA, DoD, and DoE ) showed up at the University of Washington to search through the archival papers of the late Washington Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson.

Where does "Scoop" Jackson come in? Feith's mentor was former Pentagon official and influential conservative policy advisor Richard Perle. And from 1969 to 1980 Perle was a member of Jackson's staff and at times his most influential advisor, dubbed by some "the Prince of Darkness" during that era. Perle is so close to the Jackson legacy that he remains a member of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation that the senator established.

from Campaign Extra

Background:

When Perle was working for Senator Scoop Jackson, he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel.

"Jackson's influence is more powerful now than when he was alive," said Charles Horner, who worked beside Mr Perle on the senator's staff, in his "bunker" - Room 135 in the Senate office building, from where they fought against detente and the peaceniks in their own party."

It's interesting to consider that Robert Novak (who outed Valerie Plame) found "common cause" with someone suspected of espionage.

At Kos, Dem in Knoxville wonders:

"He [Scoop Jackson] was in the senate from 1953 until his death in 1983. Towards the end he was on the committee for Energy and Natural Resources - would this include Atomic Energy Commission / DOE type stuff? Maybe he knew something about nuclear technology transfer? Tie in with North Korea/Iran/Pakistan? I'm just making wild ass guesses - but why now? It might tie in with something that just happened?"

Eliot Abrams (who is son-in-law of NeoCon gurus Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz) has been tapped to be head of President George W. Bush's Global Democracy Strategy. Abrams worked for Scoop Jackson. I wonder what might be lurking in Scoop's drawers that Abrams might have to hide?

Please understand these are only out-loud thoughts, but I can't help but wonder how we American citizens can go on with our everyday lives and not care that, deep within our White House, lies the seed of misguided idealism sprouted by those who have been accused of espionage. Worse yet, this cult has gotten us into an unnecessary war and is clearly still favored by our President.

Allow me to say that this could have something to do with the Hanford nuclear site in eastern Washington state. A Seattle newspaper had an advance story on the archive search'n purge.

Still, I suspect our government of assisting an ascending NeoCon to erase his past with another stained NeoCon who's about to walk the plank. Perhaps some of those documents will simply have to disappear.

_________________

"First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize."

The NeoCon creed. You can look at up on Google and see which one said it. They're all alike. Either they're incredibly naive, or they're out for endless war. You decide.

And remember, it's your kids who will go to this war-without-end and die for these ideal-zealots. Come on, America. Your own child's blood must be worth at least the small amount of time it would take for you to look into this.

Try stepping away from Reality TV for a few moments.

What Do They Have In Common?

What Do They Have In Common?

.........
Sheik .. Barack ..Abu ..... ..... Rev Daniel
Omar .. Obama ..Musab al.....Berrigan, Jesuit
Abdel .. ..... ........Zarqawi........Priest
Rahman

They're all on that David Horowitz' wall of "enemies". America doesn't need inhuman monsters like Horowitz.
He's the hateful symptom, not the cure America requires to heal this land.

Dear God. Anyone who can stick the face of a beloved man of the Jesuit faith alongside a murderer..and the fresh face of a hopeful young black-American politician next to a terrorist wholeheartedly deserves the name of hateful monster.

When, I ask you, will we wake up to hatemongers like Horowitz?

Mullah Robertson Urges GOP to Change Filibuster Rules

Mullah Robertson Urges GOP to Change Filibuster Rules

"[Pat] Robertson, head of the Christian Broadcasting Network and one of the original leaders of the grass-roots Christian conservative political movement, urged Senate Republicans to change the chamber's rules to prevent Democratic filibusters against the nominees.

Bruce Ackerman warns:

The neo-con religious agenda is nothing short of revolutionary. The modern Supreme Court has consistently barred the state from endorsing religion, and it has protected each American’s right to make intimate decisions about sexuality, child-bearing and child-rearing. Neo-cons would reverse these priorities; they would strip away the constitutional right to privacy, and empower politicians to engage in endless theological disputes.

MSNBC: U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses

"What we saw, I know the American population wouldn't stand for."

MSNBC: U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses

I saw four men featured on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams last night. They were saying that they witnessed the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed civilians by poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqis. The young Kurds were heavily armed security operators on missions conducted by Custer Battles, a company hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. The four men, all contractors for Custer Battles, were sickened by it; heartsick over it. They will not be returning to Iraq.

The very name, Custer Battles, inspires a vision of brown-skinned men at defensive war with occupiers of their native land. I wonder if they couldn't have come up with a better name?

I wonder what the right-wing collective blog-mind is thinking right now? I'll bet they're seething. Will Brian Williams be their next target?

Gannon story: Let's Get to the Heart of Serious Matters

Gannon story: Let's Get to the Heart of Serious Matters

I know newspapers love gossip and controversy. It sells. In the case of Jeff Gannon, there's more than enough Enquirer-style gossip to go around.

I always thought newspapers like The Washington Post were above that type of journalism, especially when there's so much more to a particular story than meets the eye.

Howard Kurtz (and Post editors), I''m sorry to be critical, but I have to be critical.
I'm a blogger.
It's my job.

"Online Nude Photos Are Latest Chapter In Jeff Gannon Saga"
Is that the best title you could come up with?
Sure, it's an eye-catcher. Nude Online Photos.
It looks like a porn site come-on.
It makes the whole Jeff GAnnon story look like kerfluffle.

Shame on you.

Your focus on the story is wrong, if you expect your readers to take the more serious aspects of the story to heart.

And there ARE serious aspects.

QUOTE:

More than anything, though, it is Gannon's personal online activities that has kept the story churning.

Maybe there's a method to that madness? Perhaps this story has to be kept in the "churning" stage so the deeper, far more serious issue can finally be brought to the surface by the painfully-slow-to-react (and ethically misguided) mainstream media.

I can hardly believe that Howard Kurtz felt it was terribly important to add the "woe-is-she" commentary about Gannon's poor elderly Ma getting phonecalls from those nasty liberals. What is that supposed to prove? Life is tough in the fast lane. We're all accountable for what we choose to do. Gannon lived fast and knew the consequences.

Did Howard Kurtz write a sob-story about Eason Jordan's family?
Sh*t, no.

This is the kind of double standard that gets me fired up. It's no wonder the mainstream media gets played for fools by the Right.

Gannon sought out an interview with Joseph Wilson just after Wilson's wife was outed as a CIA agent, likely by someone in the upper ranks in the Bush administration.

As a person with natural curiosity and who has closely followed the Joseph Wilson story, I can only suspect that Jeff Gannon, whose politics I have come to clearly understand, was planning a purposefully antagonistic and hopefully damaging story on Wilson.

Worse, he had access to information in a very sensitive internal memo. Where he got it (or information from it) is in question. He says he got it from a legitimate source, but frankly, I wonder why anyone should believe him.

This is dirt, people. I think we're talking bottom of the scumbucket.

There was a bitter vendetta involved. Joe Wilson dared to come out and challenge President Bush's State of the Union comments. The attitude of this ethically ugly administration would lead me to believe they would think: No one does that and gets away with it.

Gannon's been made a part of the investigation of the outing of Ms. Plame. His shady outline is being filled in by blogger investigation. Someone made sure his shiny head was in that White House Press room asking snarky, underhanded questions about the loyal political opposition. I want to know who that was. If we're going to have any trust in the White House at all, it's important that we get this clear in our minds.

Everyone should care about this. Not just "liberals".

The mainstream media should have a reporter concentrating on getting to the serious facts about Jeff Gannon. How did he get access to the White House Press Corps with such ease?

What if Gannon (as your doctor) did a botch-job on you in the ER, and afterward you found out he was someone totally different than he was supposed to be - that instead of going to medical school, he'd had a three-day crash course? What would you do when you discovered that he wasn't Dr. Gannon, ER practioner, but that he was Jim Guckert, gay escort of the Internet? Wouldn't you ask the hospital some tough questions?

____________

Lex of Lex Files comments:

"..we also should be wondering who on Gannon/Guckert's client list was a government official with access to sensitive information. Patronage of a prostitute by such a person (irrespective of sexual orientation) could leave him/her open to blackmail and so represents a huge security risk."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has asked the White House for documents showing how Gannon got his White House credentials. I wonder if the Washington Post has jumped on that story? I would hope so. After all, a newspaper in the heart of Washington D.C. is the first newspaper about whom you would think a scoop would be forthcoming! I checked and saw nothing thus far!

MSNBC: U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses

"What we saw, I know the American population wouldn't stand for."

MSNBC: U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses

I saw four men featured on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams last night. They were saying that they witnessed the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed civilians by poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqis. The young Kurds were heavily armed security operators on missions conducted by Custer Battles, a company hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. The four men, all contractors for Custer Battles, were sickened by it; heartsick over it. They will not be returning to Iraq.

The very name, Custer Battles, inspires a vision of brown-skinned men at defensive war with occupiers of their native land. I wonder if they couldn't have come up with a better name?

I wonder what the right-wing collective blog-mind is thinking right now? I'll bet they're seething. Will Brian Williams be their next target?

Wolcott on GOP: Flautulent with Hubris

Wolcott on GOP: Flautulent with Hubris

You've just got to love James Wolcott.
Really. How can you resist?

"I wonder if Dems are learning the wisdom imparted by Bull Moose, that there's mischievous and useful fun to be had in being the opposition party, particularly when the party in power is as flatulent with hubris and corruption as the fiefdom of Tom DeLay. Dems should resist the temptation to be statesmenlike and bail out Bush should he stumble, the way they shamefully rescued Reagan in his second term. Bipartisanship has gotten Democrats nowhere for four years, has earned them nothing more than a fine spittle of contempt falling like a constant drizzle. They should let a smile be their umbrella as they enjoy the spectacle of House and Senate Republicans promoting Social Security privatization as if they'd been ordered by their commander in chief to suck lemons."

Error

For some reason, I keep getting this message while searching the net for believable quotes from the Bush administration on Iraq:

Jeff Gannon Update

Jeff Gannon Update

At The Nation, David Corn has a few things to say today about recent blog-outings. I think he's going far too easy on the people who've worked in concert to "kill off" Eason Jordan. I'd imagine David would have felt differently had he been the target.

"..let me raise a cautionary note or two. The blogosphere in recent months has become the piling-on-osphere. When there is blood in the water--or on the keyboard--bloggers rush in for the kill...So far all of the victims have deserved the whacks..CNN executive Eason Jordan did not immediately clarify, back up or retract comments in which he reportedly claimed that US troops in Iraq had purposefully targeted and killed journalists. Yet the speed and drama of these trials-by-blog may be cause for quasi-concern not unfettered celebration. Am I being a semi-old fuddy-duddy? Could be."

I have to say I was left a bit cold by David's assessment. Eason did immediately clarify, but the ones who wanted his head never wanted to hear them.

On Jeff Gannon, I somewhat agree with David. think the Internet/gay-escort angle is a bit of a circus sideshow (The guy was a total creep). Yet, I don't think David or any of us should run away in fear of being called a "vigilante" over this particular story.

The aspect of the story with which I am seriously concerned is the one which surrounds any involvement he may have been allowed to play in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame..before or after the time she was outed. I ask myself, why would this untrained, inexperienced journalist who squeezed himself, somehow, into the White House Press Corps, be privy to confidential information and internal memos when seasoned, hard-scrabble journalists couldn't get to them? It just doesn't "smell" right. Since Gannon has run away from the public's sight so very quickly, it should make any curious investigator want to latch onto the story.

Corn says:

"....Another serious angle in the Gannon/Guckert story. In October 2003, Gannon/Guckert interviewed former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a Bush critic whose wife months earlier had been outed in a Robert Novak column as an undercover CIA officer by unidentified administration officials. During this interview, Gannon/Guckert cited "an internal government memo prepared by US intelligence personnel that details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports." The question is, how did a hooker-turned-reporter end up with this leak of classified information? Did White House officials hand it to Gannon/Guckert because he was in cahoots with them? Gannon has refused to say if he had a copy of this memo or if someone had read him what it said. In December 2003--when he was not under fire--Gannon/Guckert wrote that this "information did not come from inside the administration," and he strongly hinted that his source was on Capitol Hill, referring to the Senate intelligence committee...

..Gannon/Guckert has noted that FBI agents working on the Wilson leak probe did contact him and that he would not tell them the source of the information. Apparently, he has not been subpoenaed by Patrick Fitzgerald, the Justice Department attorney investigating the Wilson leak...

...There has been some public confusion about this aspect of the Gannon/Guckert story. Representative Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, has called upon Fitzgerald to "investigate the leaking of a classified Central Intelligence Agency memo containing the identity of undercover agent Valerie Plame to a man at the center of the White House Press Briefing Room scandal, 'Jeff Gannon.'" The classified memo came not from the CIA but from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and by the time its contents reached Gannon, Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) had already been identified as a CIA officer.

Gannon/Guckert, according to the record so far, was a bit player in the Wilson affair. The leak he received was an after-the-fact leak. But it is certainly rather curious that this particular reporter obtained any classified information from any government source. Slaughter and others are justified in calling for an investigation. It is not beyond belief that partisans in the White House or on Capitol Hill saw Gannon/Guckert as a safe outlet..."

Anthony Wade strongly disagrees with David Corn on many of his points.


Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest says:

"If you are following the Gannon story - the right-wing fake "reporter" who was somehow able to infiltrate the White House using an alias, even gaining access to the President and classified CIA documents - then you know that the whole right-wing machine is now saying this is all an attack by "liberal BLOGGERs" on the guy's "private life." Wow. This is how the supposed National Security crowd - "keep us safe" and all that - react. Do they demand that this huge hole in our national security be closed? Do they demand that someone answer for this? OF COURSE NOT! They use it as an opportunity to attack "liberals" while just making things worse."

Skippy says we should be wondering how a miscreant breaking the law somehow got access to a classified memo about valerie plame.

Temerity Leads to Grave Injustice

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

-- John Adams


Temerity Leads to Grave Injustice

Self-righteous temerity mixed with just enough lies necessary to convince good people of a moral purpose has led to the Iraq war.

The same self-righteous temerity and jabber-jawing about a higher purpose (while covering the actual reason - vigilante justice) has caused Eason Jordan to be professionally removed from the mainstream.

Self-righteous rhetoric is often spewed about a respect for life. In the past four years, I have seen a tremendously disturbing breakdown in our culture's respect for life.

For instance, you cannot possibly think of using a stem cell gleaned from an embryo, but you can see a perfectly innocent family of ten eliminated with a misguided bomb and not blink an eyelash.

You brand others as 'evil' for demanding equal justice for a prisoner who was too poor to afford a hotshot attorney and is sitting on death row, but you can hear about 3 of your own soldiers dying in Iraq one day, and you go on eating your dinner, accepting it as just another day, just another body, for the fight against WMD...I mean rogue leaders with terror connections...I mean, tin pot dictators with rape rooms...I mean, in the grande march toward freedom...I mean, the rush for pipe line domination.
* Just what are they dying for, anyway, after we sort through all those lies?

American citizens: How is it that you have lost your sense of reality? How have you so easily forgotten your sense of humanity? Compassion? Truth? Empathy? Honesty? Why do you fail to speak out for these values, if they are values you espouse?

In a recent blogpost on Eason Jordan's resignation, Bernard Moon asks:

"Imagine if Jordan's statement went unchallenged and taken as truth?
What effect would it have on the morale of our troops?
And a further battering of America's image abroad?"

I ask my readers to think about the government that fails to cherish or respect the truth.

Gee, I don't have to imagine that the Bush administration's irresponsible statements in the lead-up to the Iraq war went unchallenged by the mainstream press.
They did.
The lies were, for all intents and purposes, taken as Gospel truth.
They were never investigated.
Hard questions were omitted from the press.
Soft questions were given the back-seat treatment on page 8, far from the focus of the public.

Bernard Moon raises a red herring when he asks "What if Jordan Eason's words had gone unchallenged?"

In an open society with a working and healthy democracy, we can always expect statements like Jordan's to be challenged.

Moon wonders, what would be the effect, on troop morale, of his (highly unlikely) scenario of Jordan's completely "unchallenged statements"?
Troops have fought and died for freedom of speech.
Moon is clearly lacking faith in a democracy where everyone has an equal right to speak. He comes off sounding something just short of paranoid.

What effect has the (real and present) lack of truth-telling by the Commander in Chief had on troop morale? That's the real question.
A line of soldiers refusing to return to Iraq is shattering evidence that our troops are questioning the reasons for the Iraq war.

Is anyone so blind that they cannot see that the Bush administration was responsible for America's reputation being "battered" abroad? And yet we blame journalists?

How could anyone be in denial about the fact that it was the gross misleading of the Bush administration, with their backhanding of the international community, which caused America's reputation to spiral downward?

Imagine: What if the Bushite-NeoCon crowd's statements were taken as truth in the lead-up to attacking Iraq?

No imagination necessary.
They were.

Self-righteous temerity has made real-life decisions about our nation going to war far too easily made, because of an absence of journalistic investigation through intimidation. NeoCons have created a narrative borne of idealism - a story with a nice-sounding moral vision. The problem is, in reality, it spells d-e-a-t-h for many inncocent people. This cult of death is hidden by the sweet-sounding folly of the NeoCon dream.

I submit to you that NeoCon temeriy and intimidation have directly contributed to the degradation of the traditional American values we share. Our culture has lost a respect for intellect, life, truth, honesty, and the forthright spirit that is required in a healthy open democratic society.

Life has been rendered far less precious in an atmosphere of right-wing intimidation and an all-too idealistic cult-style vision.

The cult of death reigns today, and if a journalist says one cautionary word about it, they are swiftly removed, with the help of right-wing blogger lynch-mobs, from the market's sight.

The reason we are at war in Iraq right now is because we were given reasons that were far less than true, and the media, most of them being afraid of the loss of advertiser-dollars, hardly questioned the government.

Eason Jordan raised questions and found out that you just cannot even mention your unfounded fears or suspicions in the public anymore, lest you be swept from the world of mainstream journalism. You can't even throw them up for discussion.

If the Eason Jordans of the market-driven mainstream are barred from professionally raising concerns, and the government continues to spout unchallenged lies, I see nothing but death for freedom of speech in the marketplace. Cultural propaganda is all the public will be allowed to see in the future.

I'm tiring of smokescreens. I'm tiring of right-wing idiots running roughshod over the decency and integrity of America while NeoCons spin their Utopian tales.

I respect life. Life has been cheapened. I love truth. Under the black lie-boot of the Bush leadership, the cult of NeoCon, and a concert of chirping right-wing morons, truth has suffered killing blows. Freedom to live in truth should be a treasured common value. In the Bush era, we are moving away from freedom in our own nation. Let's not sit on the sidelines and watch it happen.

Let's take our government back.

~~~~~~~~~

*A tip of the hat to Scrutiny Hooligans for the quote.

My Love is Like A Red, Red Rose

My Love is Like A Red, Red Rose

0, my love is like a red, red rose,
that's newly sprung in June.
0, my love is like a melody,
that's sweetly play'd in tune.

As fair thou art, my bonnie lass,
so deep in love am I,
And I will love thee still, my dear,
till a' the seas gang dry.

Till a' the seas gang dry, my dear,
and the rocks melt wi' the sun!
And I will love thee still, my dear,
while the sands of life shall run.

And fare the weel, my only love!
And fare the well awhile!
And I will come again, my love.
Tho it were ten thousand mile!

-- Robert Burns

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!

NRO Has No Defense For The Ones They Inspire

NRO Has No Defense For The Ones They Inspire

At NRO, Andrew McCarthy insists that the Wall Street Journal is wrong about the outcome of the Eason Jordan situation and it's not "kerfluffle". McCarthy claims that no one can fix the gravity of Jordan's offense with certainty because the tape was never released ( as if it would make a difference now ).

Attacking the Wall Street Journal is easier, I'd imagine, than NRO accepting accountability as representative and promoter of the ideals of their targeted reading audience. The NRO and the crowd who loves them have heavily contributed to a professional journalist losing his 23-year-long CNN career over conjecture at the bloggers' unwashed typing hands, and now the writers of NRO haughtily wish to separate themselves from those amateur blogging brutes who would have such uneducated motives!( cough! )

Coming from a radical right-wing megaphone that professionally harbors Jonah Goldberg, an ideologue who regularly chimes in on Iraq when he admits he's never even read a book on Iraq, I'm not impressed. I'm terribly sick of their hypocrisy.

Speaking of Goldberg, he wrote this line today (note the joyous-frick'n-head over-a-mantle referral)

"Jordan's head will hang alongside Howell Raines's, the editor of the New York frick'n Times and four top executives at CBS News."

These are not the words of a humble or professional journalist. Jonah's all ticked off because he's been the mainstream media's little-boy-out-in-the-cold for so long. So, with his NRO megaphone, he champions the blogger-destroyer cult:

"For the right-wing bloggers, they are the same sort of alternative that NRO has been for near a decade now and that National Review has been for 50. Conservatives still see ourselves as the out-party when it comes to the media establishment. Sure, we appear on op-ed pages and as talking heads, but almost always in the spirit of "the other view." This tokenism rarely extends to the executive suites or to the editorial offices."

While Goldberg freely admits to loving the fact that his "alternative" crowd bagged a big-time journalist, Jim Geraghty slithers away from the joy when he goes in front of a mianstream audience.

Geraghty appeared on the Jim Lehrer PBS News Hour today, and tried his hardest to make NRO, Powerline and Little Green Footballs look as if they were never donning their huntin' guns and going out loaded for bear the liberal media journalist du jour. I've never seen such blatant hypocrisy.

Today, Geraghty was the one who had a bad day on PBS. David Gergen expressed deep regret for what the vigilante bloggers did to Jordan. Jay Rosen was there to explain and defend journalistic principles. Geraghty was there to talk about what his crowd believes are bad things Eason Jordan has said in the past (having nothing whatsoever to do with the Davos stuation). Geraghty had no moral defense for his crowd...a mob of thugs and hacks who endeavor to work in concert to destroy a man and deny it later on.

Jonah Goldberg concluded his column about Eason Jordan by saying:

"..the liberals look like they want to switch places."

I'll conclude mine by saying I'm far too much of a decent and moral human being to agree with that statement.


UPDATE: Apparently, Eason Jordan's resignation wasn't enough for the Little Green Footballs crowd. It seems they are still navel-gazing about the part they played in destroying the 23-year career and reputation of a good and intelligent man. They are searching, it seems for even more reasons to reinforce the role they played in ruining the man's reputation, all after the fact. James Taranto has put them to shame, as well he should. Some of them don't appreciate the fact that I have spoken frankly about the topic. They do not like me, a blogging Jiminy Cricket, to be watching over them and appealing to their collective conscience, I suppose.

Letter to Romanesko: News judgment and majority rule

Letter to Romanesko: News judgment and majority rule

From DAVID McLEMORE:

"I find myself stunned to be in agreement with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Eason Jordan’s statements at Davos were ill-conceived and stupid. But hardly a firing offense. And CNN caved in to the hysterics of the largely blog-driven mob out for Jordan’s head.

I don't know Eason Jordan. Fact is, I rarely watch CNN, save when wars start or natural disasters wreak havoc. You know, breaking news. The rest of the time, CNN is too repetitive and self-referential to be useful. And that's the news programming. Let's not get started on the talk shows…

But the facts of Jordan's imprecisely stated concerns about the U.S. military's role in targeting journalists in Iraq -- what we know anyway -- were couched as opinion. And quickly rephrased when challenged that very day. Yet bloggers, relying heavily on their own opinions, told us exactly what Jordan meant. There was no doubt, no lack of certainty. We were also told how it would play in the major media outlets and how wrong that would be. And when Jordan's position became untenable to the corporate suits at CNN and they eagerly accepted his resignation, the blogs howled with glee. And put Jordan’s scalp next to Dan's.

When the Wall Street Journal and Corey Pein (now there’s a pairing!) suggest that the blogs rushed a bit too quickly to pile on Mr. Jordan, they are lambasted as anti-blog reactionary journalists who better get with the program. "Tomorrow belongs to me," the chorus sings.

Is this the lesson traditional journalism is supposed to learn from the blogs? Certainty based on little evidence? Opinion and snarky analysis masquerading at fact? Mind reading and a partisan rush-to-judgment as a substitute for nuance? Do we really want news judgment built on majority rule?"

Danny Schechter on Eason Jordan

Danny Schechter on Eason Jordan

Documentary filmmaker Danny Schechter explains how CNN wasn't interested in the Jordan Eason fight.

Fox News was. Hannity and Colmes called Danny in.

So Danny entered the Fox arena, the way Christians were fed to the lions.

"It was hard to shift the conversation back to the real issue – the killing of journalists and not what Eason Jordan said or didn't say – no one there seemed to know or really care in what was really a bash CNN exercise."

Then came the Fox viewers' letters.

There was no impartial mainstream forum for Danny Schechter.

This is what happens when we allow cultural propaganda to swell to monstrously tilted proportions.

Ackerman: Future of the U.S. Supreme Court

Bruce Ackerman on
the Future of
U.S. Supreme Court

I recently mention Bruce Ackerman's theory regarding amendment via "constitutional moments" in my essay discussing torture and our nation's road down the dubious path away from the rule of law.

The London Review of Books has a piece on Ackerman titled "The Art of Stealth: Bruce Ackerman on the Supreme Court".

Ackerman stresses that it's the job of the Senate to make it clear to the American people which path the president is taking, and that the stakes are very high and the Democratic minority should be careful. There are traditional conservatives and there are what Ackerman calls "radical neo-cons". Presaident Bush has three options if and when the next vacancy to the Supreme Court comes up: he can nominate a seasoned conservative, a stealth candidate or a plain-speaking neo-con. Ackerman warns the Senate against giving its ‘advice and consent’ to a stealth revolution in constitutional law. He uses the example of Clarence Thomas, who he claims was a stealth appointment, and that Thomas' performance on the bench reveals "the remarkably destructive potential of neo-conservatism". Ackerman says, if
Bush does play the stealth card, the Senate Democrats should respond with an unconditional filibuster.

Cathy Young - Ambivalent Over Professional Murder

Cathy Young - Ambivalent About Professional Murder

In the Boston Globe, columnist Cathy Young dabbles in soft-fallacy, and I have to ask myself "Why would she do that?"
Ms. Young says:

"One oddity is that, so far, no one knows exactly what Jordan said."

On its face, it's untrue that we don't know what Jordan said. There may not be a tape, but Jordan has freely admitted what he said and has even apologized and clarified his intent. Here are Jordan's own words, which were easy to find by research:

"I stressed insurgents are to blame for the vast majority of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq. Second, when Congressman Franks said the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the unfortunate victims of "collateral damage," I felt compelled to dispute that by pointing out journalists in Iraq are being targeted -- I did not say all journalists killed were targeted, but that some were shot at on purpose and were not collateral damage victims. In response to a question about whether I believed the U.S. military meant to kill journalists in Iraq, I said, no, I did not believe the U.S. military was trying to kill journalists in Iraq. Yet, unfortunately, U.S. forces have killed several people who turned out to be journalists. In several cases, the U.S. troops who killed those people aimed and fired at them, not knowing they were shooting at journalists. However tragic and, in hindsight, by Pentagon admission, a mistake, such a killing does not fall into the "collateral damage" category. In Iraq and Washington, I have worked closely and constructively with U.S. military and civilian leaders in an effort to heighten the odds of survival for the courageous journalists in Iraq."

If Cathy Young can credit bloggers for Eason Jordan's professional demise, she needs to equally credit bloggers like Rebecca MacKinnon, who have posted words straight from Jordan Eason's mouth (or e-mail, in this instance).

In Cathy's own words: "...a journalist should be the last person to traffic in unsupported and irresponsible innuendo." Cathy should have provided this key piece of information for her column.

HERE IS THE LINK

Note that Ms. Young throws up the red herring known as "backpedaling". While clever in its framing, it is no more than a code word for:
"Jordan Eason is liar and we will not believe him - no matter what. Ignore all his follow-up clarifications.".
See Ms. Young's quote:

Yet eyewitness accounts suggest that Jordan was not so much clarifying as backpedaling.

I strongly suggest that Cathy Young is not acting in professional good faith toward a fellow journalist by brushing off (and omitting) any of Eason Jordan's attempts to have a further conversation about the subject.

Above all, let's not forget that Jordan quit. If that's not accountability, I'm not sure what is.

"Many of those bloggers undoubtedly had an ideological agenda, but the fact is that they did some solid reporting -- and that some of their information came from liberals such as Representative Frank. In some quarters of the blogosphere, Jordan's resignation was met with an unpleasant "we got him!" gloating; but "gotcha" journalism is hardly limited to blogs. Like other media, the blogs can be vehicles for vendettas and witch-hunts -- as well as a tool for openness and accountability.

Mainstream journalists should resist the temptation to view Jordan as a victim of a right-wing lynch mob. His fatal wound was ultimately self-inflicted. And, if the "old media" don't learn some lessons from this incident, there will be more such wounds.

The "solid reporting" of which Ms. Young speaks is still, when all the smoke clears, nothing more than a case of sheer conjecture. Whether we have a tape or not, Jordan is guilty. The blogworld has already deemed it to be so, and Ms. Young seems to be joining with the throng.

Barney Frank gave his assessment of Jordan's statement and Frank's words played directly into the mob's storyline. I hope Frank will realize the part he played in this, whether witting or not.

Eason Jordan committed no act which could be qualified as an offense worthy of his resignation.

Yet, resigning was Eason's choice.

Eason Jordan's "fatal wound" was taken for CNN. Let's not neglect to call that fact to mind.

Young ends her column by casting a net of warning to the "old media", which is code for "liberal media"/MSM. This indicates, to me, that she feels powerless, as a journalist, to the whim of the mob. It also tells me, from my pragmatic understanding of this piece, that Young is ambivalent about the concerted effort of right-wing blogs to kill off their next MSM journalist du jour.

I'm not ambivalent. Cathy seems to be doing too much navel-gazing while her fellow journalists' careers are being gunned down in the name of a search for truth, which I perceive as no more than a concerted effort to destroy decent people's careers.

Wait until bloggers come for Cathy. She may become strong in her conviction when it's far too late.

As a columnist for Reason magazine, I was disappointed by Ms. Young's fuzzy position.

Eason Jordan & The Low-Purposed Angry Mob

"If you're going to do this open-source journalism, it should have a higher purpose. At times it did seem like an angry mob, and an angry mob using high technology, that's not good."

- Rony Abovitz, Davos attendee, the first web poster to 'write up' Eason Jordan

I think that says it all. It's exactly what I've been saying here at Iddybud.

So goes the saga of Eason Jordan and the low-purposed angry lynch-mob.

The Right-wing blog-mob avers, with a straight concerted face, that all they want is "truth", completely forgetting that they are part of the same truth which they have venomously pursued.


*source: NY Times

____________

Rony is also quoted by Howie Kurtz today:

"The head of the largest news organization in the world, afraid of himself. There is a Shakespearean sense of tragedy and drama in this story. Eason, prince of CNN, committs (sic) a last act of valor and attempts to restore grace to himself and his overlords. His actions are classic Bushido, the way of the Samurai warrior, sacrificing himself to protect his Masters from harm. Give him at least this."

Cultural Propaganda Limits Freedom of the Press

Cultural Propaganda Limits Freedom of the Press
A blogger named Beldar has asked me to explain one of my statements, and I'd be happy to oblige:

Ms. Camwell, I have some trouble following that. Maybe it's just a syntax problem — an implied or assumed causal link between the way "blogs [are] being used" and "American journalism [approaching] another step closer to being pure propaganda." That linkage seems kinda dubious to me, ma'am. I always understood "propaganda" to be something dictated by a ruling elite, operating in absolute harmony of purpose under precisely dictated orders. I double-checked my spam blocker this morning just to be sure, and — nope, Karl Rove and the RNC still haven't even been trying to dictate what I blog about, much less what I think!

I have not suggested a link to Karl Rove or the RNC, Beldar.
The propaganda of which I speak is cultural propaganda.

By its definition, propaganda is a deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of instruments of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.

By its definition, the word cultural relates to the arts and manners that a group favors.

I find that your group, Beldar, does not favor what you consider to be the "liberal media".

With each successful trial-by-blog "kill", a journalist becomes less confident that freedom of speech in its relation to freedom of the press are not tightly restrained by a top-heavy (right-tilted) cultural influence.

The fact that the cultural propaganda of the Right, in today's political atmosphere, falls in line with the RNC and White House is no great revelation.

Regarding my original quote, I hope this explanation has served to enhance your pragmatic competence.

Regards,
Jude

MSM: Time to Scrutinize Attack-Bloggers

MSM: Time to Scrutinize Attack-Bloggers

The next time Howard Kurtz hears Jeff Jarvis insisting, to the public, that the aim was merely "truth" in the Easongate-hunting-down of Eason Jordan, he should remember to hold Jarvis to a higher standard than that to which he held him on CNN's Reliable Sources today.

Jarvis was speaking for the bloggers and others in the internet community who signed those petitions which were sent to CNN.

This was a lynching and a trial by blog with no offense sufficient to cause a 23-year news veteran to lose (or relinquish) his job in order to save the network from being unfairly tarnished.

I think that Howard Kurtz could have been better prepared.

He should have asked Jarvis to explain the easy-to-find words of the very citizens of the blogworld who are targeting mainstream journalists.

Here are some examples. They weren't very hard to find.

If bloggers and everyday people are doing the targeting and crucifying, then we need to start holding them to standards and scrutiny. It's professional careers they are seeking to destroy.

Their Neo-McCarthyism is too easily carried out, and the mainstream is letting them get away with professional murder all too easily.

Why aren't mainstream journalists asking more questions?
Are they afraid they'll be next on the hit list?

________________

At Dean's World, my blogging-colleague (and someone I consider to be a friend) Joe Gandelman posts a partial transcript from the Reliable Sources show today:

"Bloggers didn't want his head, most of us didn't. We wanted the truth," said Jeff Jarvis today on Reliable Sources. There were no other bloggers on the CNN show to counter Jarvis.

I have seen and heard the real motives of the Right too many times in my years spent on internet political forums to believe a word of this. "Liberal media" must die.

I hope Joe and other sensible people will think carefully about what I'm saying here. This does not look like justice to me. They're playing with real people's careers here. This is no game.

Future Headline: Grassroots Killed the Radio Star

Future Headline:
"Grassroots killed the
radio star"

This is how the Right wing mouth machine will eventually wind up with a clown-sized foot stuffed into its falsehood-ridden smile. Hosts of Right-wing talk-radio heavily depend upon their favorite writers in the mainstream press, the ones with big megaphones who spout off blatant lies and expect people to continue believing them.

Allow me to use the recent topic of Howard Dean's DNC win as an example:

As bizarre as it might seem, liberal media bias is proving to be a boon for the GOP. In its complete Bush-era meltdown, the liberal media elite is applying absolutely no brakes to the Dean "revolution" taking over the DNC. They are moving further and further to the left, and the media are offering nothing but happy talk. The cliff is in sight, and the Pied Piper press is set to lead the party over the edge.

--Brent Bozell

Note the "key" words.

"Liberal media bias": No such animal. With any news organization, there is an opportunity for good, investigative journalism; for sloppy, clumsy journalism; and for propagandandizing. How many people still believe Fox News' strong support for the White House claims about WMDs in Iraq?If you do not see a strong right-tilted bias in Fox News reporting, I submit that you are either deaf or politically non-perceptive. Bozell will be proven to have been dead-wrong.

"Liberal Media Elite": These are people who, until now, have offered you what you once called "the news". Back in the days when the press was supposed to ask the tough questions without fearing they'd have to "watch what they say" (*from a quote attributed to Ari Fleischer). Before some of the media-elite were jailed for protecting sources. Before party-operatives like Jeff Gannon were planted in the White House press corps to push the propaganda of the White House. Before the government paid journalists to push their propaganda and journalists concealed the all-important fact. Before the profession was dumbed-down and right-tilted. Before right-wing lynch-blogmobs acted in direct line with White House interests and averred, after destroying good men's careers, a la McCarthyism, that they were only seeking the "truth" (while, in effect, eliminating the universal truth's potential to be known). Brent Bozell will be proven to have been dead wrong.

"Meltdown": Indicating an air of desperation, which is totally untrue, in light of the fact that Dean went unchallenged and was wholly supported by the grassroots in every state. By taking his rightful, elected place as DNC Chair, Dean serves as a symbol of new hope and a united Democratic party. Bozell is trying to sell his readers on the story that "grassroots" means "liberal". Brent Bozell will be proven to have been dead-wrong.

"Revolution Taking over the DNC": Bozell makes it sound like the state party chairs went kicking and screaming. He couldn't be more wrong. What he completely neglects to tell his reading public, which is a sin in good journalism, is that Howard Dean was desired by the people and not the Washington elite. The good people of America - from all across this land, red states and blue states, wanted Howard Dean to be party chair. Bozell chooses, by his phraseology, to present the election of Dean in a controversial light. Among the people of America who call themselves Democrats, it simply is not true. We unite around our party chair. Bozell will be proven to have been dead-wrong.

"The cliff": Indicating a prediction of future total failure for the Democratic party, which I believe is terribly melodramatic for a man who's putting himself out there as a serious, unbiased political journalist. Brent Bozell will be proven to have been dead-wrong.

"Happy talk" from "Pied Piper press": Isn't this what we hear from Fox News day in/day out, until we want to puke from all the propaganda, already? Is Brent Bozell serious? What about the "happy talk" when Howard Dean's presidential candidacy was not only derailed, but obliterated by the "Pied piper press"?

Hoffmania says:

They have to launch a new pantload of lies to sell to the American public, and we have to throw up as many roadblocks as we can. Dean's on to their M.O. - much more so than Terry McAuliffe ever could hope to be.

But it won't happen by itself. We need to feed our shiny new media machine, folks.

At the end of each post, there's a button you can use to contribute directly to the New DNC. We're not going to hang ourselves out to dry this time. Thanks for coming here. Now be there.

Grassroots citizens across America are a force in politics once again. Writers like Brent Bozell are afraid, as well they should be. They will be proven dead-wrong, time and time again.

The GOP and the journalists who coddle them will not get away with smearing Howard Dean. I've devoted most of my blog, since its inception, to issues related to Howard Dean. I've been an eye-witness to the smearing as it took place. I have it all documented, concisely and neatly. This is the beauty of the art of the blog. Brent Bozell, a darling of Right-wing talk radio and Fox News, will be proven to have been dead-wrong about this smearing of Howard Dean. His code words will serve to eventually betray him and all who lurk from their right-wing spiderholes from which they spew the tripe they label and try to pass off as "professional journalism".

Right-wing talk radio is already seen by the grassroots Democrats as nothing but propaganda, and as time marches on, Limbaugh and his ilk will be proven to have been nothing more than hacks and shysters, raking in millions while trafficking political lies.

My prediction for the very-near future:
The voices of Right-wing talk radio (and Propaganda-Media) will be "killed" by the grassroots, because the grassroots are the real and true voices of America.

Triangle Bloggers Conference Takes Place in Chapel Hill

Triangle Bloggers Conference Takes Place in Chapel Hill

I'm thinking of many fine people I know, who are at the Triangle Blogger's Conference in Chapel Hill today.

There's a lot of Live Blogging going on right now.



My guest blogger and American Street colleague Anonymoses is there.

Yesterday, he'd invited the Charlotte Observer to send someone along to participate in the Triangle conference. It turned into an unlikely cross-blog discussion with new blogger and seasoned writer Bob Henry.

Ed Cone, who is also at the conference, mentioned it at his blog.

Surfette had some comments about the subject.

"Not when there are at least 100 television viewers for every one person who gets a ticket to the track. And that's a very conservative estimate: Last year, NASCAR claimed TV ratings higher than every major-league sport except the NFL, according to this article from Delaware's News Journal. And NASCAR won in a head-to-head competition with the Olympics for viewers in August.

Fortunately, the team behind Knight Ridder's ThatsRacin.com knows it--and now the quality of their Web site shows it.."

Hope you've had a good time at the conference, y'all!

Bob Henry and other NASCAR bloggers: Welcome to Blogdom!

--Jude


UPDATE: Sally Greene blogs about the conference.

Unfairly tarnished, Eason Quits

Blog-Trial: Unfairly tarnished, Eason Quits

"I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq. I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside."

-- Eason Jordan LINK-ABC News

While not particularly emotional one way or the other about Jordan's actual decision, I will say that this clearly was a case of blog-thuggery and unfair tarnishing, the kind of which I had spoken earlier in the week, and for which I was soundly whipped by Jim Geraghty of the National Review.

The 'Right-wing mouth machine' would like us all to think that Eason Jordan was "bad" and "unAmerican" for saying what he said. CNN has been complicit by their reticence to talk about tough issues. They wound up to be the biggest loser. They lost Eason Jordan. Eason was guilty before being proven innocent by no other process except one: the blog-trial.

The right-wing blogs seem to be the Supreme Court of the blogging community at large.

Why should this be so?

Why are no other rational voices important?

There was never a fair hearing anywhere in the blogworld or in the mainstream media over this case. There was only conjecture and a big agenda, which was to round up enough right-wing activists in the monkey-machine to petition CNN in the hopes they'd fire a man who was branded as a devil for daring to speak out for journalists' protection in a conference most believed was, for the most part, a private panel discussion.

These were "Easongate's" aims:

The purpose of this blog from the very beginning was as follows:

· Act as a clearinghouse for information related to Mr. Jordan's recent and past statement concerning the United States military.
· Provide analysis and commentary on the developing situation.
· Advocate CNN to take real and meaningful disciplinary action against Mr. Jordan.
· Create a petition expressing the public's displeasure with Mr. Jordan's statements.
· Gather information on CNN's advertisers and make this information available to the public.

The activists at Easongate still want the tape. (So Rush Limbaugh can play it 100 times a day *sarcasm*).

Jordan's decision to resign is neither here nor there to me, personally.

I will, however, explain to you where my passion comes in.

I am proud and happy to be a political blogger.

I am free to speak about issues which I believe are crucial to the health of our democracy and no one can fire me .

They can only target me for critcism, as National Review did. I believe that's a good thing. As President Bush would say, "Bring 'em on."

Larry Kudlow claims that CNN has been trying desperately to make the story go away. He says that "bloggers are doing their duty" by calling upon CNN to talk about the issue. To an extent, I agree with him there. CNN should have aired the issue out in public and began to talk about it realistically, from 'Day One'.

However, I have been 'trying desperately' to keep this story alive, from my own point of view. The National Review wishes to delegitimize anyone in the mainstream media who will not toe the White House line like good soldiers. As defenders of freedom and truth, journalists are charged with the duty of getting to the heart and core of matters, even when it means having to have a painful national conversation about those matters. Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth. So why are we so afraid?

In this case, CNN didn't want to have that conversation, the right-wing insisted upon it, and we all have lost something precious in the process. Until mainstream media admits they are the lap dogs of the White House and right-wing, they will always lose.

The people who are calling themselves "new media" are already giving themselves "credit" for Eason Jordan's resignation. I wonder if they realize (or care) that the "credit" signifies a degradation of fairness and freedom of speech in America?

CNN failed to realize, recognize, and appreciate the power of blogs who are in lock-step league with those in the "new media" who are trying to destroy the long-accepted scope and meaning of a journalist's freedom of speech. If that's "new media", count me out.

When I see blogs being used in a way in which I believe American journalism will approach another step closer to being pure propaganda, I will say so.

I'm saying so.
- Jude

____________________

Jay Rosen has posted a comprehensive listing of links and commentary about the resignation.


At the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz quotes Jay Rosen:

Jay Rosen [said] he didn't think Jordan "had engaged in a firing offense." Bloggers "made a lot of noise" about the Jordan flap, Rosen said. "But there was basic reporting going on -- finding the people who were there, getting them to make statements, comparing one account to another -- along with accusations and conspiracy thinking and the politics of paranoia and attacks on the MSM, or mainstream media."

Rebecca MacKinnon, who worked with Jordan at one time, says in her final thoughts about the issue:

"I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better."

Sisyphus has said:

"The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. Pull the skeleton out, shake out the paranoia, shake hands and go back to work.
Jordan's gone. The idea remains."

*My comment- While I understand, I will comment that Easongate is still heavily pressing for the release of the tape. J'accuse: I think there are far deeper motives here than getting people to "shake hands".

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:

"I would have preferred that the tape be released, that the public have a chance to mull over his comments, and then let Jordan face whatever consequences were appropriate. I have a feeling that the discussion of the "blogs as a lynch mob" is going to get a lot of coverage in the coming days."

*My comment: Hmmm. It sounds as if Jim is saying Right-wing activists got their wish far too soon, before maximum damage could be done to Jordan's reputation and to CNN. And now he expects that the activism, in itself, will be criticized..perhaps even seen for what it is. I hope so. If the hangman's rope fits, the ones holding it must learn how to explain it when it's still caught up in their grasp.


At Editors Weblog, they title their blogpost: Eason Jordan affair: when bloggers appear as the sons of Senator McCarthy

"Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair (see below the New York Times article), sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers that the defense of reporters' work! Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen! Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them claimed to be the sons of the First Amendment, they just were the sons of Senator McCarthy."

My Comment: Well-said.


Steve Lovelady, Columbia Journalism Review's CJR Daily, has written to Jay Rosen:

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only -- caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians."

Ummm..Steve...here's your Jimmy Stewart. Is anyone listening? *waving*

-- Jude

Gannon Talks (well, sort of..)

Jeff Gannon talks (well, sort of..)

Gannon aka Guckert is being cagey when questioned about the CIA memo.

"I answered their questions truthfully and honestly, but I would prefer not to say more. Guckert said he had recently contacted legal representation "for quite a few things," referring to the Plame case and the controversy over his White House access, but he would not elaborate. "I have always had an attorney on retainer, and now I believe I will have to put him to work."

__________________

*See William Rivers Pitt: The News Is Broken

"Once upon a time, working the White House Press Briefing Room was the crown jewel of mainstream political journalism beats. That was it; short of reporting live from under the President's desk or nailing down an interview with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, you weren't going to get a better gig if you were a political reporter.
To hold such a position was also to be the repository for a great responsibility. If you are privileged enough to be placed there, if you have put in the time as a reporter to earn the right to be there, you are the first line of defense in the eternal struggle between the rights and well-being of the people and governments that are always willing and ready to lie, cheat and steal in our name and 'for our own good.'
Something like that might have once existed, but it is almost completely gone now. The sad and sordid tale of Jeff "Don't Call Me Guckert" Gannon" is a final nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned."

UPDATE Feb 13:
I'm Not a Journalist, But I Play One on TV: Will Jeff Gannon Ever Meet the Press? from Mark Anderson/Poor Richard's Almanac

"This administration periodically tries to freeze out reporters who don't act like Guckert. They are trying to enforce the "Talon" code of behavior on the entire press corps.

Guckert was a plant, put there by the GOP, to help Bush and Scott McClellan avoid explaining Bush administration policy to the American people."

Rice Lied To America

Rice Lied To America

Condoleeza Rice (national security adviser) wrote a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration."

Today, her outright lie to the American public has been revealed.

Dean At The Top

Democrats who supported some of Dean's rivals -- all of whom have dropped out of the race for chairman -- have adjusted to the idea of Dean at the top.

Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders

Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders

Before my father graduated from college and became an engineer for a private defense contractor, he made his living as a musician. He was in a western band called "The Santa Fe Riders".
In 1951, the band had a radio show at WKTV, Channel 2, in Utica, N.Y.

The emcee was someone I'm sure you'll recogize.
He went on to bigger (maybe better) things.

At Channel 2, Dick did many things including hosting his own country-western television program called, “Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders.” Clark even sung on it, though he one time confessed that it was “very badly” done. He was getting a little over fifty bucks a week. He got a raise to $75 when he had an offer from Syracuse’s WHEN-TV.

Clark's chores at WKTV also included playing Cactus Dick, the host of the television station's country and western music show, Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders. Besides serving as the show's announcer, Clark did some singing. "Badly," he confessed to Ralph Emery in 1992. "They used to make fun of me."