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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (99455)	2/9/2005 2:43:10 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793801

NY Times Provides Mafia-like Protection for Hillary Clinton By Bob Kohn This is absolutely amazing. Hold the presses! Recall my post last month on how the New York Times completlely failed to report that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director was indicted on charges of filing false financial reports about a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator. (At the time the story broke, I had notified Times public editor Dan Okrent of this omission. I've heard nothing since). Here is what I said at the time: Here's what's happening: The Times must be pow-wowing with the Clintonistas on just how the mainstream press should spin the story. It is taking time because it's critical that the paper does not provide a scandalous headline that can be used by the Republican 2008 presidential candidate. Well, the pow-pow is complete. Tomorrow, over a month after the story broke elsewhere, the Times will publish an article touching upon the affair. But in its article headlined, "Lesson of Clinton Fund-Raiser: Double-Check That Donor List," the Times portrays Senator Clinton as a victim of the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. In other words, they are blaming it on the vast right-wing conspiracy! Judicial Watch happens to represent Peter Paul, a Democrat who spent $2 million on an August 12, 2000 fundraiser in Hollywood for Senator Clinton's campaign as a way to curry favor with Mr. Clinton. In 1979, Mr. Paul had pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and trying to defraud Fidel Castro's government out of millions of dollars, among other things. The Clintons claim not to have known about Mr. Paul's past. Though Mr. Paul is now represented by lawyers at Judicial Watch, that organization was not involved with Mr. Paul or anyone else connected with the actions leading up to the indictment of Senator Clinton's campaign finance chief. But the message to readers of the Times is clear: don't blame the Clintons for the campaign finance violations; blame their failure to check the donor lists and that conservative legal group who has been making "legal trouble for the couple." And here is how the Times finally reported the indictment that was handed down over a month ago: nytimes.com A spokesman for the Justice Department, Bryan Sierra, said in a recent interview that Mrs. Clinton was not a subject of the investigation that led to the indictment, which named not Mr. Paul, but another person connected to the event, David Rosen, the finance director of Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign, who is accused of underreporting the cost of the fund-raiser. No one else has been accused of any wrongdoing arising from the accusations. Well, with that paragraph, they certainly put a lock-box around Senator Clinton, even though at the end of the article, a person closely associated with the Hollywood fundraiser in question was quoted as saying, "Paul knew that he had to give up Mrs. Clinton to save himself." It seems clear that Mr. Paul provided the government with evidence against Senator Clinton's campaign in an attempt to cut a deal with federal prosecutors. The Times repeats that point several times in the article. But there's nothing new about this tried and true prosecutorial practice and its use here doesn't make the Clinton campaign any less culpable. I won't see the printed version of the story until tomorrow morning, but the Times chose a photo to accompany the story on the web tonight. You think they might have found a photo of Senator Clinton standing with her indicted finance director? Try a photo of President Clinton at the Hollywood fund-raiser interrupting the first lady's introduction of him to give her a kiss. It's the clear the Times will do anything and say anything to protect Hillary Clinton.

To: LindyBill who wrote (99455)	2/9/2005 2:45:27 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

"that came in response to a now-retracted CNN broadcast, (1970)* which claimed that U.S. troops used sarin during 1970's Operation Tailwind in Laos. ....."* Re: >>>Long History Of Hostility Towards Military By CNNi Executive<<< ~~~~~~~Remember Tailhook and CNN???? Cohen: No nerve gas used in Operation Tailwind Cohen 'They have been hurt by this report' July 21, 1998 cnn.com Web posted at: 12:44 p.m. EDT (1244 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Pentagon review has found no evidence to support allegations by CNN and Time magazine that a 1970 military operation in Laos was designed to hunt down American defectors and kill them using sarin nerve gas, Defense Secretary William Cohen said Tuesday. Cohen presented the findings of the Pentagon report at a news conference that came in response to a now-retracted CNN broadcast, which claimed that U.S. troops used sarin during 1970's Operation Tailwind in Laos. Cohen ordered an immediate investigation after the story was broadcast on June 7, when CNN, and later Time magazine, claimed that the mission was designed to track down and kill American defectors. ALSO: Full report of Department of Defense review of allegations concerning "Operation Tailwind" "We studied scores of documents about Operation Tailwind and conducted interviews with soldiers and officials at all levels of command," Cohen said. "We found no evidence to support the CNN/Time assertions on defectors or the use of sarin nerve gas." The Pentagon study said the operation was launched as a reconnaissance mission "to engage the enemy and to divert enemy attention" from Operation Gauntlet, an offensive mission designed to gain control of terrain in Laos. "No records or personal recollections were discovered to suggest that targeting U.S. defectors played any part in the operation," the report said. Key findings of Pentagon report in short: No evidence was found that sarin was ever transported to Southeast Asia or was used in Operation Tailwind. Operation Tailwind was launched to divert enemy attention from Operation Gauntlet, an offensive operation to regain control of terrain in Laos. Tear gas designated CS, a more potent version than tear gas previously used in the war, was used in Operation Tailwind. Its use as a tool to suppress enemy fire was viewed as successful. Only two U.S. military personnel were known to be defectors during the Vietnam War. No records suggest that defectors were thought to be in the area of Operation Tailwind. No records or personal recollections were found to suggest that U.S. defectors were targeted in Operation Tailwind. There is also no evidence that there were noncombatant casualties (women or children). The men who participated in Operation Tailwind Heroes 'hurt' "All Americans should know the 16 men who conducted this mission were heroes, but they have been hurt by this (CNN/TIME) report," Cohen said. CNN retracted its story at the beginning of July. CNN News Group Chairman, President and CEO Tom Johnson said that an independent investigation had concluded that the report "cannot support" the claims made in the "NewsStand: CNN and Time" program. The CNN report prompted an outcry among military veterans and raised probing questions from other journalists. Two key CNN producers in the report, April Oliver and Jack Smith, were fired while senior producer Pam Hill resigned. Prominent correspondent Peter Arnett was reprimanded. Smith and Oliver, however, stand by their story and have accused CNN management of caving in to pressure by the military. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

To: LindyBill who wrote (99455)	2/9/2005 3:08:53 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793801

Re Chris Cramer-CNN....interview with him where he says he won't allow military to guard CNN journalists..... indiainfoline.com Quote: >>>" Risking injury or even death. CNN, like other organizations, has to cover the news in parts of the world that are frightful. While in and around Iraq, CNN journalists will not be in military uniforms. They will be seen wearing flak jackets and possibly helmets-but these will be issued by CNN. This differential is essential to maintain our objectivity and independence. But we have to realize that it could actually increase the exposure of our journalists to the dangers or war, rather than protect them. They could become easy targets from the increasing number of rogue factions who see journalists as legitimate targets. If we are sending our journalists on assignment to the frontline, organizations must dig very deep into their pockets to ensure the safety of their staff in the field. As I see it, all serious news organizations have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that their staff are trained and protected. So I have a real concern for the safety of our staff. And concern also for editorial integrity."<<<<<<<<< and yet (below)Aljazeera quote who says >>>>> Media accused of Iraq bias By Roshan Muhammed Salih Monday 28 June 2004, 3:41 Makka Time, 0:41 GMT The media is accused of swallowing the military line >>>>>But Chris Cramer, managing director of CNN International, says although some US networks may have felt the need to be patriotic, that certainly wasn't the case with his company. "I utterly reject accusations of bias," he told Aljazeera.net. "I think this is a lazy allegation. We do not have a viewpoint or an agenda and I think that is a perception held by people who either don't watch the channel or who jump to conclusions. I personally find the accusation offensive." Cramer said CNN has 50 media professionals working in Iraq because he believes "with a complicated situation like Iraq you have to have people on the ground".<<<<< AND .... >>>>The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists described the refusal by US and Iraqi authorities to protect targeted journalists as "unconscionable and shocking neglect".<<<<< english.aljazeera.net