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."

On the Dulling of Shining Examples

On the Dulling of Shining Examples

"Do yourself a favor. Read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don't. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau's reputation, if you don't. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right."

- Jack Cloonan, an FBI officer since 1972, who has worked antiterrorism cases

____________________

In the most recent New Yorker, Jane Mayer has written a comprehensive piece titled "Outsourcing Torture", which is being discussed by many, including scholars in the legal field. John C. Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general at the time he, along with his colleagues in the Bush administration, generated the now-famous set of internal legal memos advising the President that he had almost unfettered latitude in his prosecution of the war on terror. This laid a firm foundation for a shift in perspective that had been developing in the administration's attitude toward humantarian law, which had begun soon after 9/11, when administration attorneys began to advise President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the war on terror.

Yoo has been a chief advisor in arguing that the Constitution grants the President plenary powers to override the U.N. Convention Against Torture when he is acting in the nation’s defense—a position that has drawn dissent from many legal scholars.

Some knowledgeable about Constitutional law believe that the right wing has been embracing constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman’s theory of amendment via ‘constitutional moments’ all too readily . (Not on just this one issue, but in general). Ackerman has written, "We the People can reclaim our power to rewrite the Constitution in ways that express our modern constitutional identities. We can become masters of our own house."
Yet, Professor Ackerman has also written, regarding Abu Ghraib:

"America has taken the lead in the postwar period in holding officials in other countries legally responsible for their abuses of power. It is time to judge ourselves by the same rules we impose upon others...[..]..Abu Ghraib has put America on trial before the world. More important, it forces us to look at ourselves in the mirror and define the relationship of law to our public life. Unless we act decisively, the present scandal may serve as a prelude to a grim future."

At times when many readers slap an anti-American label on American citizens like me, I would solemnly remind them of what I am saying here. The Founding Fathers crafted one hell of a constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison said, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." He wasn't just whistling Dixie. (Pun intended - look at the nation we nearly lost in the 1860s.) Madison was on to something that has kept the United States Constitution alive longer than any other charter of government in history.

A republic differs from a democracy like the rule of law differs from the rule of the masses. In the case of Alberto Gonzales and John C. Yoo, I believe they are neglecting to respect the rule of law. All of this is going to come back and bite us in the tail. Our Constitution is going to be damaged, and so is the strength and power of the United States.

Thinking carefully about the new legal perspective which Yoo has been advocating, I have a reality-based fear that our Constitution won't be "living" much longer. If a president is free and willing to ignore law on a whim, it gravely damages the theory behind having a constitution to begin with. We are at the door to the potential of tyranny, if we are not already there. It is a silent tyranny of which many Americans will miss the signs due to partisan blindness and media misinformation.

Idealistic or not, we are all schooled to believe that our nation prides itself on its republican values, form and health. President Ronald Reagan's "shining city upon a hill" is not a vision embraced by one political party alone. We are one, but we are many and diverse. We all want our nation to represent our common values and we would expect them to act morally and with the utmost respect for the rule of law in all national undertakings. Torture is not a moral value. Torture is no "chamois cloth of dignity". We are taking steps closer to the legal acceptance of torture, which will surely not enhance our "shine".

Everything that has been done at the top filters down to guys like Jack Cloonan, a veteran FBI agent. He understood that a breakdown in the respect for law would serve to dull the shining example we have set, as worshippers of democracy, as a decent people in a decent civil society, as Americans from that visionary city upon a hill. It is one of the bedrock principles of the rule of law that a law-enforcement officer cannot break the law as a means of enforcing the law. Cloonan understood that when he professionally came to face a situation where he had to decide how to handle an al Qaeda figure by the name of Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, a man who had run Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.

Read Cloonan's part in Jane Mayer's New Yorker story and think about how far the Bush administration has come to break down key legal perspective differences which have separated us from the terrorists.

From: Outsorucing Torture by Jane Mayer, New Yorker, Feb 14 & 21, 2005

A few months after September 11th, the U.S. gained custody of its first high-ranking Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. He had run bin Laden’s terrorist training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, and was detained in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in U.S. custody, and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, had both spent time at the Khalden camp. At the F.B.I.’s field office in New York, Jack Cloonan, an officer who had worked for the agency since 1972, struggled to maintain control of the legal process in Afghanistan. C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were vying to take possession of Libi. Cloonan, who worked with Dan Coleman on anti-terrorism cases for many years, said he felt that “neither the Moussaoui case nor the Reid case was a slam dunk.” He became intent on securing Libi’s testimony as a witness against them. He advised his F.B.I. colleagues in Afghanistan to question Libi respectfully, “and handle this like it was being done right here, in my office in New York.” He recalled, “I remember talking on a secure line to them. I told them, ‘Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.’”

Cloonan’s F.B.I. colleagues advised Libi of his rights and took turns with C.I.A. agents in questioning him. After a few days, F.B.I. officials felt that they were developing a good rapport with him. The C.I.A. agents, however, felt that he was lying to them, and needed tougher interrogation.

To Cloonan’s dismay, the C.I.A. reportedly rendered Libi to Egypt. He was seen boarding a plane in Afghanistan, restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his mouth covered by duct tape. Cloonan, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2002, said, “At least we got information in ways that wouldn’t shock the conscience of the court. And no one will have to seek revenge for what I did.” He added, “We need to show the world that we can lead, and not just by military might.”

After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.”

Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”