Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	7/20/2004 2:47:57 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

<font size=4>Cleland Attacks Bush The former senator goes ballistic. <font size=3> Byron York - NRO <font size=4> Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a close friend and supporter of presidential candidate John Kerry, today launched into a blistering attack against President Bush. In a conference call with reporters, Cleland said the president went to war in Iraq <font color=blue>“because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president”<font color=black> for not having removed Saddam Hussein from power after the first Gulf War. Therefore, Cleland explained, the younger Bush decided to <font color=blue>“be Mr. Macho Man”<font color=black> by removing Saddam himself. Cleland also said the president <font color=blue>“flat-out lied”<font color=black> when he asked Congress to authorize war in Iraq. <font color=blue>“He told us four things,”<font color=black> Cleland said, listing Bush’s claims of Iraq weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons programs, attempts to acquire yellowcake uranium in Africa, and ties to al Qaeda. <font color=blue>“All of that was a pack of lies,”<font color=black> Cleland said. Both Cleland and Kerry voted to authorize the war. <font color=blue> “The president is living in a world of denial,”<font color=black> Cleland said. <font color=blue>“So is the Vice President, and so is the Secretary of State.”<font color=black> Cleland also said the president’s famous <font color=blue>“16 word”<font color=black> contention that Iraq sought uranium in Africa <font color=blue>“is a lie.”<font color=black> When asked if he believes former ambassador Joseph Wilson, the Bush critic whose story was substantially undermined in the new Senate report on pre-war intelligence, Cleland said, <font color=blue>“I do believe that Joe Wilson is telling the truth. I believe he has tremendous credibility, and I’ve met with him personally for hours.”<font color=black> Cleland condemned the Bush administration for what he said were its illegal efforts to discredit Wilson by publicly identifying his wife, a former covert CIA operative, as the person who recommended him to investigate the African uranium matter. Cleland said there will <font color=blue>“probably be some indictments coming down, because they [the Bush administration] broke the federal law on that.”<font color=black> <font size=3> nationalreview.com Ö¿Ö

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	7/21/2004 12:53:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Max Attacks Best of the Web Today - July 20, 2004 By JAMES TARANTO <font size=4> Sunny John Edwards, as we've noted before, is singularly ill-suited to the traditional vice-presidential role of political hatchet man. So the Kedwards ticket has outsourced that job to a surrogate, someone John Kerry apparently never seriously considered as his running mate: Max Cleland, the patriotic former senator from Georgia. Agence France-Presse reports that in a conference call with reporters yesterday, <font color=blue>"Cleland said that Bush went to war 'because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president and one of the ways he failed was that he did not take out Saddam Hussein' in the 1991 Gulf war. 'So he (Bush junior) is Mr. Macho Man.' "<font color=black> Cleland did not note that Bush also went to war because he was authorized to do so by Congress, or that Cleland himself was among the 77 senators who voted in favor of the war. There's no nice way to say this: Cleland is talking like a lunatic. <font color=blue>"His daddy"<font color=black>? <font color=blue>"Mr. Macho Man"<font color=black>? This is how the Democratic Party talks about matters of war and peace? And when Cleland suggests that the Iraq war is some sort of personal psychodrama for the president, he is engaging in what psychologists call <font color=blue>"projection"<font color=black>--attributing one's own faults to others. As a devastating Los Angeles Times profile points out, Cleland claims his 2002 Senate re-election loss was more traumatic than being maimed in Vietnam: <font color=blue> As difficult as it is physically, Cleland has visited more than 20 states, appearing at countless VFW halls and veterans' memorials and barbecues and picnics and Democratic fundraisers. He has to, he says, to preserve his mental health and stability. Inside, he's a mess. For months after his defeat, Cleland sank into a black hole. He joined the support group Al-Anon, and doctors prescribed three kinds of medication to treat his depression. It was "worse than coming back from Vietnam," he says. "Worse than being blown up." "The Senate gave me a sense of meaning, purpose and destiny," Cleland says in his soft drawl. "When you lose that you've lost something profound. It's more than an arm. It's more than a leg." Cleland insists his election crusade is not motivated by hatred or vengeance. It's the best tonic, he says, for the emotional upheaval he still suffers. <font color=black> The article notes that <font color=blue>"it is striking to hear Cleland speak with such ambivalence about becoming, as he puts it, 'the poster boy for what the Republicans did to me.' " Cleland adds: "I'm a veteran, not a victim. I've never been comfortable with that role."<font color=black> The Kerry campaign apparently views the dignity of a patriot like Max Cleland as a small price to pay if it'll help beat George W. Bush.

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	8/4/2004 1:42:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

OK, if Bush lied, what did these patriotic leaders do? <font size=4><font color=blue> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."<font color=black> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 <font color=blue> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."<font color=black> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 <font color=blue> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."<font color=black> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 <font color=blue> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."<font color=black> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 <font color=blue> "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." <font color=black> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 <font color=blue> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development! of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."<font color=black> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan" <font color=blue> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.."<font color=black> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 <font color=blue> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."<font color=black> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 <font color=blue> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." <font color=black> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 <font color=blue> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." <font color=black> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 <font color=blue> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."<font color=black> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 <font color=blue> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction!"<font color=black> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 <font color=blue> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."<font color=black> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 <font color=blue> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." <font color=black> - Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 <font color=blue> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." <font color=black> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 <font color=blue> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."<font color=black> - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 <font color=blue> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." <font color=black> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 <font color=blue> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."<font color=black> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 <font color=blue> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive! regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." <font color=black> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	8/29/2004 10:32:29 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

More Muslim <font color=blue>"Hate Crime"<font color=black> Myths Daniel Pipes I published an article today, <font color=blue>"'Islamophobic Prejudice' and CAIR,"<font color=black> that documents how one Mirza Akram of Everett, Washington, plastered vile anti-Arab graffiti on the store he was managing and planning to buy before allegedly setting fire to it. Well, the ever-vigilant Michelle Malkin, in a May 29, 2003 article titled <font color=blue>"Myth of the Muslim hate crime epidemic"<font color=black> and a May 30, 2003 article titled <font color=blue>"More Muslim hate crime myths"<font color=black> provides specifics of four other instances in which American Muslims – Ahmad Saad Nasim, Mazhar Tabesh, Nezar "Mike" Maad, and Aqil Yassom Al-Timimi – won themselves vast sympathy as victims of <font color=blue>"hate crimes,"<font color=black> only to have it turn out that they were actually the perps. She notes that what she calls <font color=blue>"hoax crimes"<font color=black> have a real price: they <font color=blue>"waste precious investigative resources, exacerbate racial tension, create terror and corrode goodwill."<font color=black> In all, then, there are at least five cases proven or alleged hoax crimes since 9/11; how many more might there be that no one has counted? Malkin wonders about this too, noting that when it comes to cracking down on hate crime hoaxes by Arabs and Muslims, the feds—too busy conducting politically correct <font color=blue>"outreach"<font color=black> with Muslim leaders who pooh-pooh hate crime fraud—have been appallingly negligent. There is no way of knowing whether fake hate crimes outnumber real anti-Muslim crimes because no law enforcement agency keeps track. (Note to frustrated cops: Send me your suspected hoax cases and let's get started.) She also blames journalists for ignoring this phenomenon: <font color=blue>"It's a shame so many in the media are more concerned with protecting the twisted cult of victimhood than with exposing hard truths."<font color=black> (August 25, 2004)

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	9/27/2004 10:26:36 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Stupid, stupid, stupid! RNC Says It Sent Mail Warning Bible Ban Saturday, Sept. 24, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee acknowledged this week that it distributed campaign literature in West Virginia and Arkansas warning voters that liberals want to ban the Bible. When reporters asked about the mailings on Sept. 17, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said he wasn't aware of the material and did not confirm that it was distributed by the GOP. However, Gillespie said it "could be the work" of the party. Contacted Friday by The Associated Press, party spokeswoman Christine Iverson said the GOP had already acknowledged it was the source of the mass mailings. The literature claims that "the liberal agenda includes emoving 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance" and shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it. It also shows a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED," a reference to same-sex marriage. The mailing tells people to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	9/28/2004 5:42:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Shameful rhetoric...... dev.siliconinvestor.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	11/19/2004 11:10:48 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Radio Host Calls Rice 'Aunt Jemima' Fri Nov 19,12:33 AM ET By JAMES A. CARLSON, Associated Press Writer MILWAUKEE - A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state. John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration. Rice has served as President Bush's national security adviser and was named this week to replace the departing Colin Powell as secretary of state. Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" — a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile. He said Thursday night that he was referring to remarks by singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte that the price of admittance for blacks to the Bush White House was subservience. As for Rice, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion," he said, adding that he feels her history as national security adviser showed a lack of competence. Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz called the remarks "racially insensitive," while Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement he joined "all Wisconsinites in rejecting" the statements. Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety. The station's corporate office received about 100 calls about his comments, Sylvester said. He added that he has a long history of commitment to civil rights and has supported Madison's black community. He said he was planning a giveaway on Friday's show of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup. "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima," he said. The incident came after a radio host in Milwaukee had his talk show taken off the air all of last week after he used word "wetback" to refer to undocumented Mexican immigrants, sparking protests from Hispanics. news.yahoo.com.

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/8/2005 1:08:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

More treachery from Kerry.... Kerry's Baghdad Disgrace Captain Ed A time existed in American politics when politicians kept foreign-policy disputes at the shoreline. In a time of war, criticizing US policy from foreign locales used to be considered a craven and disreputable act. But having a sitting US Senator and a failed presidential candidate go to the theater of war to stage a protest against the current administration goes far beyond the pale: <<< Baghdad -- Sen. John Kerry, whose seemingly shifting positions on the U.S. war in Iraq plagued him throughout his presidential campaign, came to this war- torn capital Wednesday to see for himself whether the country was moving toward stability or deeper into chaos. ... The senator said he was more interested in asking questions of soldiers, U.S. officials, Iraqis and even the journalists themselves instead of rehashing the political battles of the past campaign season. But in several instances, Kerry attacked what he called the "horrendous judgments" and "unbelievable blunders" of the Bush administration. The mistakes, he said, included former U.S. occupation leader Paul Bremer's decisions to disband the Iraqi army and purge the government of former members of Hussein's Baath Party. Both moves are widely believed to have fueled the largely Sunni insurgency. "What is sad about what's happening here now is that so much of it is a process of catching up from the enormous miscalculations and wrong judgments made in the beginning," he said. "And the job has been made enormously harder." >>> I have no problem with Kerry criticizing US policy in the Senate or on the campaign trail, even if I think he does little more than engage in Monday-morning quarterbacking. He had months to convince American voters that he had a better plan -- and could never produce a coherent alternative to what Bush already was doing. Now, in an attempt to make himself politically relevant, he travels to a hot zone and uses troops on the front lines to undermine the chain of command. I first read this on Newsmax earlier in the day, and I hoped that this item was a mistake or an exaggeration. I waited to post about this until I read a separate confirmation. Apparently and appallingly, Newsmax got it right. This is yet another example of Kerry's selling out the troops for his own political gain. He did it in 1971 by smearing his "band of brothers" as war criminals, and now he's doing it by using them as props for the media to boost his chances at running again in 2008. When he returns to the Senate, Bill Frist should call for an investigation into his conduct with troops serving under fire. He deserves the contempt of the Senate and the American people. The voters of Massachusetts should be ashamed to have selected that man to represent them. UPDATE: Kevin McCullough has his own thoughts on this disgrace. crosswalk.com UPDATE II: CQ reader Sharon notes this picture from DU (released by the Army). Does it look to anyone like these guys are "cheering" Kerry as the headline stated? Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/13/2005 8:28:14 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I am now feeling an immense sense of relief that John Kerry is not President of the United States. Kerry Kowtows to Despots and Islamists LGF Fresh from his whirlwind tour of Arab dictatorships in Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Egypt, John Kerry wants us to know that they are very frustrated with US policies. <<< CAIRO (Reuters) - Middle East countries are frustrated by U.S. policy in Iraq and feel too little is being done to end violence there, U.S. Senator John Kerry said on Wednesday on a visit to the region. Kerry repeatedly criticized the Bush administration’s Iraq policy during his failed bid to win the U.S. presidency from George W. Bush, who led the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. “All of the countries of the region have a significant stake in the outcome and yet they are frustrated,” Kerry said in Cairo, where he met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. “They are frustrated because they don’t feel that the steps necessary to be able to advance the stability of Iraq are really being taken,” he said. >>> ArabicNews.com says Kerry “admitted the US committed terrible mistakes,” in a meeting with the Grand Imam of Al Azhar University: Kerry to Al Azhar Grand Imam: Washington commited terrible mistakes in Iraq. <<< Meantime, Kerry admitted that the US committed terrible mistakes in Iraq. During a meeting on Wednesday with grand Imam of Al Azhar Mohamad Sayed Tantawi, Kerry regretted the difficult conditions in Iraq. The Grand Imam urged all Iraqis to take part in the coming elections to be held on January 30. On his part, Kerry appreciated Al Azhar’s prestigious position all over the world, pointing out that there was a common ground between Islam and Christianity. >>> The Grand Imam of Al Azhar is on record supporting suicide bombing as a legitimate form of “resistance” against “occupiers.” He has also said that suicide attacks against coalition forces in Iraq are permitted under Islamic law. I am now feeling an immense sense of relief that John Kerry is not President of the United States. by Charles littlegreenfootballs.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/18/2005 4:24:18 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Seymour Hersh Must Be Arrested, Immediately By Bob Kohn Justice Brennan, probably the most liberal justice ever to sit on the Supreme Court, wrote in his concurring opinion in New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971), better known as "The Pentagon Papers Case": <<< Our cases, it is true, have indicated that there is a single, extremely narrow class of cases in which the First Amendment's ban on prior judicial retraint may be overridden. Our cases have thus far indicated that such cases may arise only when the Nation "is at war" [citing Schenk v. U.S.], during which times "no one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops." [citing Near v. Minnesota] >>> Justice Blackmun--yes, the guy who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade which upheld a woman's right to an abortion--wrote a dissenting opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, arguing for even a broader right of the government to prevent the publication of information by the press: <<< Even newspapers concede that there are situations where restraint is in order and is constitutional. . . . [I]f, with the Court's action today, these newspapers proceed to publish the critical documents and there results therefrom [quoting from another case] "the death of soldiers, the destruction of alliances, the greatly increased difficulty of negotiations with our enemies, the inability of diplomats to negotiate," to which list I might add the factors of prolongation of war and of further delay in the freeing of United States prisoners, then the Nation's people will know where the responsibility for these sad consequences rests." >>> These justices were echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes who, in Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) wrote, <<< When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. >>> Seymour Hersh reported in this week's issue of the New Yorker magazine that the U.S. has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets. The secret missions, according to Hersh, have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. For the sake of my children, one of whom goes to school in Manhattan, would someone please arrest Seymour Hersh and find a legal basis for holding him in jail so that he will be unable to report troop movements until such time as the national security threat is substantially over or when he agrees to stop committing treason. Enough is enough. UPDATE: I'm not sure what to make of the Pentagon's response to Hersh's article. It appears Hersh got the thrust of it right, but many of the details wrong. The first warrants his arrest; the second, his termination by the New Yorker. In either case, Hersh has to be stopped (legally). Will the new attorney general have the guts to take him on? Pentagon Faults Iran Raid Report 1 hour, 7 minutes ago WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) on Monday criticized a published report that said it was mounting reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify potential nuclear and other targets. AP Photo Photo AP Photo Slideshow Slideshow: Iran Nuclear Issues "The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled "The Coming Wars," the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said in a statement. Hersh's article, published on Sunday, was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," DiRita said. Hersh reported that President Bush (news - web sites) had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia. DiRita did not comment on that assertion. Instead, he said, Hersh's sources fed him "rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made." Asked whether U.S. military forces had been conducting reconnaissance missions in Iran, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, "We don't discuss missions, capabilities or activities of Special Operations forces."

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/19/2005 11:17:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Espionage By Any Other Name LGF Tony Blankley is appalled at the lack of reaction to the Seymour Hersh piece on US intelligence operations in Iran: <<< Espionage by any other name. Almost as appalling as the potentially lethal effect (if not, necessarily, the intent) of the Hersh article, is the quietude that greeted the damaging implications of the article’s publication. Whether or not the article meets the technical legal requirements for violation of the Espionage Act, I have seen no articles or public comments expressing concern at the revelation of such vital military secrets of an ongoing secret military operation. Keep in mind, the Pentagon has not denied the story; it has merely said that some of the facts are inaccurate. That is a classic Washington non-denial denial. And this is not just any military operation. The purpose of this operation is to protect the world from a possible nuclear attack once the fanatical Iranian Islamist regime gets its hands on a nuclear bomb. They already have missiles capable of reaching London, Paris, Berlin and Tel Aviv. They are already the world’s leading terrorist-supporting state. And our military’s effort to prepare to deal with this extraordinary danger is exposed to the world — while the operation is ongoing. But not a peep of concern can be heard. Apparently this is considered just journalistic business as usual. The Washington political class is suffering from a bad case of creeping normalcy. We are getting ever more used to ever more egregious government leaks of military secrets. What’s the big deal? Maybe I am an alarmist. Or maybe we are sleepwalking toward the abyss. >>> by Charles littlegreenfootballs.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/22/2005 5:33:21 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

UNRELIABLE SOURCES New York Post By RAEL JEAN ISAAC SEYMOUR Hersh, the New Yorker's star investigative reporter, has made headlines with a new expose — this time claiming the United States is conducting super-secret reconnaissance missions in Iran as groundwork for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and/or invading the country. If true, Hersh endangers the lives of the American commandos on these missions, especially since he pinpoints the areas in which they are operating. This is not likely to worry Hersh, who remains firmly rooted in the counter-cultural "Movement" of the 1960s which imbued him with the simplistic notions that pervade his work: America is the villain and Israel the only country yet more villainous. But can what Hersh says be believed? Judging by Hersh's history, what he writes is likely to be a mishmash of impossible-to-separate truth and falsehood. Typical of Hersh, the article relies on a series of anonymous sources: a "former high intelligence official," a "government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon," a "retired senior CIA official" etc. Are they whom they claim to be? Is what they say reliable? The reader has no way of knowing and neither do the vaunted fact-checkers upon whom the New Yorker wastes its money. Based on the record, Hersh himself cannot tell and may not care. Hersh based his 1991 book "The Samson Option" on Israel's nuclear weapons program on a series of far-out allegations by Ari Ben Menashe, a notorious con man whom Hersh falsely describes as an intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Among many sensational revelations, Ben Menashe tells Hersh that Shamir personally authorized purloined U.S. intelligence to be "sanitized, retyped and turned over to Soviet intelligence officials." In fact Ben Menashe (who would also claim, among fantasies too numerous to count, that he was Israel's top spy, a commander of the Entebbe operation and planted a homing device in the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq) had been a low level translator for Israel's Mossad, judged delusional, denied a security clearance and resigned. Calling into question his own credibility, Hersh says "Ben-Menashe's account might seem almost too startling to be believed, had it not been subsequently amplified by a second Israeli who cannot be named." This is not the only time Hersh has claimed to have independently corroborated material that defies corroboration. Working on a book on John F. Kennedy several years later, Hersh fell for a stash of phony documents peddled by one Lawrence S. Cusack including a contract in which Marilyn Monroe promised to keep silent about her affair with Kennedy for $600,000. In Cusack's trial for defrauding "investors" in the documents, Hersh wound up on the stand. He was asked to explain a letter he had sent to Cusack claiming he had "independently confirmed some of the most interesting materials in the papers." An embarrassed Hersh testified "Here is where I absolutely misstated things." Though Hersh's key informants in his current article are protected from similar exposure by their anonymity, there are nonetheless clues to their unreliability. The Defense Department has issued a statement claiming the article is "riddled with errors of fundamental fact," citing as one that a "post-election meeting [Hersh] describes between the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not happen." The report of this meeting comes early in the article and Hersh uses the same source, "a former high-level intelligence official" for much of what immediately follows, including charges that the Pentagon had seized control over covert operations from the CIA and the administration was subverting Congressional authority over such operations. But if Hersh's informant feeds him fiction on something as straightforward as the occurrence of a meeting, what credit can be given to the rest of his "disclosures"? Of one thing we can be sure: while Hersh may be able to get people to talk, he does not know how to evaluate what they say. His method is to hurl all the mud he can pick up, hoping at least some of it will stick. Seymour Hersh has never paid any price for his decades of shoddy reporting. In this new season of media accountability, when even CBS cleans house, is it too much to hope that the New Yorker will follow suit? Rael Jean Isaac, a political sociologist, wrote the "The Cult of Seymour Hersh" for the July/August 2004 American Spectator.

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/26/2005 12:13:53 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Turner Compares Fox's Popularity to Hitler By Jim Finkle -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/25/2005 2:14:00 PM Ted Turner called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's popular election to run Germany before World War II. Turner made those fiery comments in his first address at the National Association for Television Programming Executives' conference since he was ousted from Time Warner Inc. five years ago. The 66-year-old billionaire, who leveraged a television station in Atlanta into a media empire, made the comment before a standing-room-only crowd at NATPE's opening session Tuesday. His no-nonsense, sometimes humorous, approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter. Fox wasn't laughing, however. "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind," said a Fox News spokesperson. "We wish him well." Turner's comment came just days after another Nazi reference to Fox. Gilmore Girls Executive Producer Amy Sherman-Palladino had some choice words for Fox's American Idol at a WB panel at the critics tour in L.A. Saturday. (Both shows air Tuesday at 8 p.m.) American Idol is like the Nazis marching through Poland," she said. "You just got to let them go. Get out of the way. We're kind of France going, 'You know, just don't burn down Paris, that's all we're asking.'" Asked by one of her shows' co-stars, Lauren Graham, if that was really the analogy she wanted to go with, Sherman-Palladino said that's how she saw it. Among the other Turner highlights from Tuesday: On Fox News: While Fox may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said. He followed up by pointing out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration. "There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said. On TV news in general: "We need to be very well informed. We need to know what's going on in the world. "a little less Hollywood news and a little more hard news would probably be good for our society." On media consolidation: "The consolidation has made it almost impossible for an independent. It's virtually impossible to start a cable network." Broadcasters and programmers "don't want more independent voices out there. They own everything. That's why I went into the restaurant business. Either that or I'd work for a salary for one of the big jerks. The war in Iraq: "We've spent 200 billion destroying Iraq. Now we've got to spend 200 billion to rebuild it, if they'll let us -- and all to find a nut in a fox hole -- one guy," Turner said. "He posed no threat to any of his neighbors, particularly with us there with overwhelming military superiority." --"it is obscene and stupid" Why selling his company to Time Warner turned out to be a huge mistake: At the time he agreed to sell his company, "it was from a business standpoint the right thing to do." He owned 9 percent of the merged company, which "which got me some real serious respect." But after the company acquired AOL, Turner's stake in the new company was diluted to 3 percent. "Then I got the pink slip" Why it wasn't that huge a mistake: "I have a responsibility not to be too critical of my old company. It is a good company and I had a lot of experiences there. A lot of time things that are painful at the time they occurred turn out to be for the best." Ted Turner for President? "I'm too old and too burned out to take on that responsibility. I thought about it when I was younger. I don't know if I could have gotten elected or not. It would have been a lot of fun to do when I had higher energy levels." What he'll put on his tombstone: "I have nothing more to say." broadcastingcable.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/26/2005 1:58:26 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Senate Dems Commit Another Outrage Powerline blog Today the Democrats got what they wanted--an opportunity to insult Condoleezza Rice. For several hours they went at it, with former Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd leading the charge, and Ted Kennedy weighing in in his usual bombastic, ill-informed style. The worse of all, however, was Minnesota's own Mark Dayton: <<< Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton said he is voting against Rice to protest what he labeled the administration's "lying" about Iraq. "My vote against this nomination is my statement that this administration's lying must stop now," Dayton said on the Senate floor. "I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," he said. "It's wrong. It's undemocratic, it's un-American, and it's dangerous. "And it is occurring far too frequently in this administration. And this Congress, this Senate must demand that it stop now." >>> I haven't seen a transcript of the "debate," nor have I seen any news account where Dayton explains what the "lies" were. I assume he means something other than Rice's reliance on the same flawed intelligence that led John Kerry to warn of the dangers posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and 78 Senators to vote in favor of the Iraq war. What these "lies" might be, however, I have no idea. It's hard to tell much about the Republican response from the news stories I've seen, but it appears to have been tepid. Why is it, exactly, that Republican Senators refrain from commenting on the irony of an old KKK stalwart hurling false charges at the first black woman ever nominated as Secretary of State? The Democrats have destroyed every notion of comity and protocol, not to mention truthfulness and common sense. So why do the Republicans adhere doggedly to a code of comity that the Democrats abandoned long ago? If I were in the Senate, I would not do so. It's hard to say what the Democrats' strategy is. They appear bent on self-destruction, but they evidently hope to take the Republicans down with them. The positions they take are so indefensible, so charged with racism, and above all, so downright silly, that they can only reflect an astonishingly low assessment of the American electorate. Time will tell whether their strategy of mutual assured destruction will work, but for now, count me as a skeptic. DEACON adds: I'm a skeptic too. In one sense, our politics is a zero sum game, so it's hard for one party to take the opposition down with it. Maybe at some level, the Democrats realize how far outside the mainstream they have drifted, and think that their only hope is to demonize the Bush administration even when it means attacking attractive members like Rice. But, at best, this strategy might prevent the Republicans from routing the Democrats -- it's certainly not a path back to power. My view is that most Democrats just aren't capable of clear, rational thought at the moment. Posted by Hindrocket powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/26/2005 2:14:08 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Temper Tantrum Continues In Full Senate Captain Ed As hard as I tried, I just couldn't get worked up about the day-long temper tantrum staged by the Senate Democrats in today's debate for the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice. Yes, the debate wasted time and money that could have been put to better use -- but probably wouldn't have been. The Democrats called Rice a liar and a Bush stooge, but that's been their level of rhetoric for two years now, and continually pointing it out grows wearisome. After a while, I have to start finding humor in the fact that the Democratic leadership has become so clueless as to completely miss the fact that they just staged a day-long parody of their last presidential campaign. It confirms for the American public that the Democrats have learned nothing from three successive electoral-cycle defeats and are likely to learn nothing after the next one, either. So, let's move on to the Democratic Follies, where the ever-shrinking Democratic caucus does their sob-and-dance for C-SPAN and your amusement. First, we have Robert Byrd, whose status as the only Senator to have run on his Klan membership didn't keep him from jumping at the opportunity to block the confirmation of a black woman for Secretary of State: <<< "Accountability is not a negotiable commodity," Mr. Byrd said, arguing that to confirm Ms. Rice would be to approve policies that had isolated the United States, made it more vulnerable to terrorism and cost American lives under false pretexts. >>> Would that be anything like making isolationist statements like saying he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"? Could it be that Byrd himself committed a few terrorist acts as Kleagle, burning crosses as part of his civic activities? Or how about his rambling lecture on "white n**rs" from March 2001: <<< I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us. ... There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much. >>> While you're pondering that, we move on to our next moments of comedy, this time courtesy of Brave Sir Dayton of Minnesota, our hometown boy. Brave Sir Dayton says Condi lied to him!** <<< Mr. Dayton said Ms. Rice had helped to construct a foreign policy based on a false foundation "by hiding the truth, hiding the truth in matters of life and death, war and peace." "I really don't like being lied to, repeatedly, flagrantly," Mr. Dayton said. >>> Minnesota voters will roar with laughter at that assertion, not just because Dayton is lying now, but because we all remember Brave Sir Dayton scurrying home from Washington DC due to a supposedly grave threat of terrorist attack in the nation's capitol. That occurred shortly before the election, but as it turns out, no other Congressman followed Dayton as he beat his very brave retreat. Some of his own caucus called him "paranoid" and "ridiculous". Oddly enough, Dayton returned to DC the day after the election, pronouncing the city secure enough for his exalted presence. You don't suppose that the same Mark Dayton obsessed with the truth today lied to his Minnesota constituents when he bugged out of DC, and did it to show up George Bush for the election? Once you catch your breath, let's check out the comic stylings of a true heavyweight, Ted Kennedy. Kennedy pontificated on how Rice "misled" America on WMD. Of course, even Kennedy told Johns Hopkins in 2002 that Saddam had WMD, even if Kennedy didn't consider that notion particularly troubling: <<< We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war. >>> By Kennedy's own words, Rice hardly misled anyone, unless Kennedy did the same. They both had the same information from Western intelligence agencies, but drew different political viewpoints from it. Now, this may not be as hilarious as Kennedy lecturing Alberto Gonzalez on the effects of drowning and the effrontery that waterboarding inflicts on the Massachussetts Senator as a human being: <<< KENNEDY: Well, just as an attorney, as a human being, I would have thought that if there were recommendations that were so blatantly and flagrantly over the line in terms of torture, that you might have recognized them. I mean, it certainly appears to me that water boarding, with all its descriptions about drowning someone to that kind of a point, would come awfully close to getting over the border, and that you'd be able to at least say today, There were some that were recommended or suggested on that, but I certainly wouldn't have had a part of that, as a human being. But as I understand you are saying now that no matter what they recommended or what they discussed, there was not going to be anything in there that was going to be too bad or too outrageous for you to at least to raise some objection. >>> Most of you may be laughing, but I can assure you that Mary Jo Kopechne's family isn't. Now, of course I'm being satirical when I describe what happened in today's Senate session as comedy. I'm not kidding around when I describe the idiocy of using these three to call Condoleezza Rice a liar and a stooge as laughable, nor when I deduce that Democratic leadership is a joke. No one's laughing, except possibly Karl Rove. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/27/2005 11:24:30 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 35834

Max Boot Buries Seymour Hersh Bob Kohn Max Boot, writing for the L.A. Times, really sticks it to Seymour Hersh in "Digging Into Seymour Hersh." I love the subhead: "You don't have to scratch too deeply to find an enormous reservoir of left-wing bias." Money quote: Hersh is "the journalistic equivalent of Oliver Stone: a hard-left zealot who subscribes to the old counterculture conceit that a deep, dark conspiracy is running the U.S. government." And more: <<< But how good is Hersh's word? His record doesn't inspire confidence. In 1986 he published a book suggesting that the Soviets shot down a South Korean airliner because they mistook it for a U.S. spy plane — a claim debunked by the opening of Soviet archives. In 1997 he published a book full of nasty allegations about John F. Kennedy that was widely panned. As part of that project he tried to peddle a documentary based on forged documents. Few facts in Hersh's stories are checkable by an outsider, but, of those that are, a number turn out to be false. In November 2001, he claimed that 16 AC-130 gunships participated in a raid (a "near disaster") on Mullah Mohammed Omar's compound in Afghanistan. There were only nine AC-130s in the entire region, and they are never used more than one or two at a time. In a story in October 2001, he claimed that Predator drones cost $40 million; the actual price tag is $2.5 million. In the latest article, he says two Pentagon policy officials would be in the "chain of command" for covert operations; the actual chain of command runs from the secretary of Defense to military commanders in the field. OK, anyone can make a mistake, but all of Hersh's errors run in one direction: toward making the U.S. government look bad. His November 2001 article included a quote, hilarious in retrospect, from "one officer" who claimed, "This is no war for Special Operations." That ran a month before special operators toppled the Taliban. The April 7, 2001, issue of the New Yorker contained his article quoting a "former intelligence official" who said of the invasion of Iraq, "It's a stalemate now." Two days later, Baghdad fell. Even his celebrated Abu Ghraib stories were marred by unsubstantiated claims that Rumsfeld had "encouraged" the "sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners." How does this square with the fact that the Abu Ghraib scandal — like the My Lai massacre — was uncovered first not by Hersh but by Army investigators? It's hard to know why anyone would take seriously a "reporter" whose writings are so full of, in Ted Kennedy's words, "maliciousness and innuendo." That Hersh remains a revered figure in American journalism suggests that the media have yet to recover from the paranoid style of the 1960s. I still want to know: When is the government going to subpoena Hersh to discover his source of leaks about U.S. troop movements? posted by Bob Kohn bobkohn.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	1/28/2005 4:04:48 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"THANKS, SENATOR KENNEDY" The Corner [K. J. Lopez] Just relaying that on behalf of our troops serving and sacrificing in Iraq. A line from a speech Ted Kennedy delivered at Johns Hopkins today will no doubt be heard around the world. He said, "The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution."

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	2/1/2005 1:27:21 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

This man is seriously being considered to lead the DNC Dean: 'I Hate Republicans' Sunday, Jan. 30, 2005 The front-runner in the race to head up the so-called party of compassion and understanding said unabashedly on Saturday that he "hates" the opposition. "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News. He and six other candidates came to address the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman. Dean said that despite his hatred for the GOP, he "admires" their discipline and their organization. But he cautioned his Democratic audience that their party shouldn't become "Republican lite." "We can talk about our faith, but we cannot change our faith," he said. "We need to be people of conviction." newsmax.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	2/2/2005 10:01:34 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (50) \| Respond to of 35834

Eason Jordan: An Echo In 2002? By Captain Ed on Media Watch CQ reader and commenter Fluff 'n Stuff did a little research on the Eason Jordan accusations of deliberate assassinations of journalists by the American military, and he found this interview of Jordan by Transnational Broadcast Studies in the spring of 2002. TBS is a publication of the American University in Cairo, where Jordan talked about the difficulties of covering the news around the world and being a global broadcaster instead of an American news service. The last question that TBS Managing Editor Sarah Sullivan asks Jordan about the technical difficulties of covering the war in Southwest Asia, but Jordan drifts off into strangely familiar territory (emphasis mine): <<< Sullivan: Your coverage in Afghanistan, it's been reported, has been one of the most expensive and resource-intensive operations CNN has ever undertaken. Can you describe who you have there now, what kind of technologies are being used, and how you're even getting equipment in? Jordan: We have a large team in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan, and we've bolstered the size of our Islamabad bureau in recent weeks. We probably have 30 to 40 people in those countries combined, and we'll be there for a long time to come. It's been enormously expensive, but again as with the Middle East, the biggest concern we have is just keeping our people alive. We've seen eight journalists killed in Afghanistan and then obviously the Danny Pearl situation was so tragic. Money is inconsequential in relative terms when we're talking about people's lives. We'll be there for the long term with all the people we need to provide the very best coverage possible. The communications are very expensive, the satellite phones and satellite links. The transportation is very expensive, and the security is very expensive-we have more bodyguards on the ground in Afghanistan than we do journalists. We're working two very, very big stories right now that have a couple of things in common. One is they're enormously costly, but more importantly or more worrying is that they're both exceptionally dangerous, because we've seen something in both places that I thank God happens very rarely, and that is that in both places journalists are not only being killed but they're being targeted. There are combatants in both of these conflicts who are trying to kill journalists, and that is unusual and a very nightmarish situation. >>> At the time, I would have taken that quote to mean that Islamists had targeted journalists, like Danny Pearl. Now, in the new context, it sounds like Jordan meant something else entirely. Did he think he had a story about Americans targeting journalists back then? Did he try passing off that rumor to the Egyptian university? Or are both incidents of Geraldo-style "My life is actually in danger" romanticism about the life of the journalist? The theme seems to run in almost every interview and column with which Eason participates. Eason Jordan sounds a bit paranoid, but I doubt he's prepared for the attacks he'll receive over the next few days over his Davos remarks. UPDATE: In this interview from April 2004, ironically including the estimable John Burns, Jordan gets more specific about the terrorists doing the targeting: <<< TERENCE SMITH: Eason Jordan, of course it's more difficult for television. You've got to get a camera to these sites. You're more conspicuous by your presence. How are you working it out? EASON JORDAN: Well, we do what we can to minimize our exposure, but we do think it's important to get out there, and so we just send the smallest number of people possible out on stories, on assignments. We try to do it in a very intelligent way, taking advice from security experts who carry guns to protect us into the field. But I do have to take issue with John's point in the beginning. He believes that journalists are not targeted. I do believe that journalists are targeted. There are very specific examples of that. And then beyond what's actually happened on the ground, you have Osama bin Laden in his most recent statement saying that he intends to target big media institutions because he views them as evil propagandists for the U.S. government. And so we take all these threats -- and there are real examples we can cite very specifically -- we take them very specifically and we do consider ourselves targeted. >>> John Burns downplayed the notion that journalists were specifically targeted as opposed to Westerners in general in the red zones of Iraq. However, Jordan insisted that reporters and their support staff had been specifically targeted for assassination by terrorists. He made no mention of the American military targeting journalists, and that was just eight months ago. So what has happened in eight months that convinced Jordan of US military assassinations? Jordan needs to give us some answers. UPDATE II: For a look into Eason Jordan's admitted sins involving coddling Saddam, the blog Solomonia has this excerpt from an April 2003 Washington Times piece by Peter Collins. Collins worked briefly at CNN in 1993, only briefly because he saw Eason Jordan in action. Here's what Collins saw when working from Baghdad: <<< CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton. I took part in meetings between the CNN executives and various officials purported to be close to Saddam. We met with his personal translator; with a foreign affairs adviser; with Information Minister Latif Jassim; and with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview. The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan. The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim. Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a TV monitor. "You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam Hussein's propaganda. After this experience, Collins decided that CNN didn't fit his idea of journalism and chose to work elsewhere. I'd say he made a good decision. captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	5/18/2005 7:15:56 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Here's another example of anti-American slander & treachery disguised as "art". Flag Hijinx at MIT Little Green Footballs Joseph Barillari draws our attention to this example of art abuse, at the Wiesner Art Gallery in the student center at MIT: littlegreenfootballs.com ... accompanied by this deliberately incomprehensible justification from the artist: <<< Protest Flags These were the confluence of two separate plans - one to dye flags black, in order to convey a very different and unfamiliar visual impression of these well-known icons, and the other to use ‘sacred cloth’ as a medium for other messages, in order to attract more attention. Fortunately, September 11 2001 provided an almost limitless supply of these banners on every street corner, and subsequent manipulation of these events to commit further mass murder for political gain provided a moral imperative to protest. Unfortunately, many variants of the flags did not receive the dye well; I therefore saved the well-dyed ones for their naked visual impact, and applied lettering to the fainter ones. I made several slogans, wearing and carrying them in protests in New York and Boston. My goal was to attract strong initial attention from the visual effect of the lettered flag, but then to act as a challenge by having the slogans be slightly ambiguous and more than slightly provocative, forcing viewers (protester and protested alike) to pause and query whether or not they truly understood and agreed or disagreed with what was being expressed. >>> Oh brother. littlegreenfootballs.com barillari.org

To: Sully- who wrote (3613)	5/19/2005 9:09:55 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (50) \| Respond to of 35834

More outrageous slander from the MSM. If our military was intentionally targeting journalists, why aren't they dropping like flies? Linda Foley Channeling Eason Jordan By Captain Ed on Media Watch Captain's Quarters Perhaps in an era where mainstream journalists appear to be embracing the "fake but accurate" standard for publication stories like this should not surprise us, but one would think that key figures in the communication industry would be more careful in how they express themselves. The latest outbreak of unsubstantiated allegations against the US military comes from Linda Foley, the president of the Newspaper Guild and the Communication Workers of America. According to WorldNet Daily and a video at Say Anything, Foley has dug up the hoary Eason Jordan urban legend of American assassinations of journalists in Iraq: <<< According to a tape of her remarks, Foley said: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." Foley continued, "They target and kill journalists … uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. ..." >>> If the journalists who make these claims have evidence to support them, they have unique mechanisms available to them to produce it to the world. They work for newspapers and broadcast networks, in case they've forgotten. Just as with Eason Jordan this winter and with Newsweek this month, however, it's easier to just pander to the anti-American sentiment around the world and toss around allegations with no substantiation whatsoever. Foley should either present her evidence or resign her position. She's not as important as Eason Jordan or Mark Whitaker, but she's a symptom of a larger disease in American journalism. The threshold of publication for allegations has been lowered past "single sourced" to "sounds like it could be true", especially when it comes to covering the American military. It's time that the public demanded that the media perform to higher standards than the Rona Barrett model. (h/t: USS Neverdock) captainsquartersblog.com worldnetdaily.com sayanythingblog.com