Happy Anniversary

Eleven years ago today, the First Mate and I got married in our Catholic church in Huntington Beach. We had known each other for over four years and dated on and off for two before tying the knot. The night before had been a blustery, rainy night, and the day afterwards turned into a stormy mess as we made our way to Lake Tahoe for our honeymoon, but our wedding day turned out to be a delightful, sunny day.

We had an afternoon wedding and a beautiful reception, which I often call The Most Expensive Dinner I Never Ate. I'm told the food was outstanding, and it certainly looked terrific, but with all the time we spent chatting with the 200 or so guests, we ran out of time to eat more than a couple of bites of it. We had a terrific time dancing and being the center of attention for a few hours, before we finally slipped away, famished, to get changed. In fact, we stopped for food on the way home; I'm sorry to say that our wedding dinner actually wasn't the delicious buffet of fine dining we left behind, but the drive-through Jack in the Box on Pacific Coast Highway.

Our marriage has had its ups and downs since that beautiful day, but every day I love her more, and every day I find out more about the abundant blessings of God by the privilege of being married to her. With the new pancreas transplant, we have the promise of many more years to come.

I love you, sweetheart, and happy anniversary from the luckiest guy on the planet.

Law Of The Sea Treaty -- LOST In The Senate?

The Bush Administration has broken with past conservative precedent and offered support for the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a United Nations convention that has hung around for almost a quarter-century after Ronald Reagan scotched it. The American Conservative Union yesterday threatened to make LOST a "litmus test" for conservatives in the 2006 elections if the Senate GOP leadership insisted on ratifying it:

Leaders of the conservative movement yesterday openly broke with the Bush administration over the Law of the Sea Treaty, which they say sacrifices U.S. sovereignty.

They warned Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, and other members of his party in Congress that their continued backing of the treaty could cost them the support of conservative voters.

"The conservative movement is opposed to the Law of the Sea Treaty and to the administration's support of the treaty," American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene said at a press conference, held during a break in sessions on the second day of the 32nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has held hearings on the treaty, said that if ratified, the treaty could force the United States to concede too much power to the United Nations.

He also said it could undermine America's ability to protect itself from terrorist attack by restricting shipboard inspections.

Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy has long been an opponent of LOST. He argues, as does much of the conservative movement, that giving the UN taxation powers will not only reduce American sovereignty but also give more money to an organization that already struggles with corruption and ineptitude with the money it gets now:

...it is unimaginable that the United States would choose to expand the power and influence of the United Nations at a time when evidence of the latter's corruption, malfeasance and inherent anti-Americanism is growing by the day. Yet, that would be the effect of our joining one of the UN's offshoots--the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a supranational organization created by Part XI of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Reagan specifically cited Part XI when he refused to sign LOST, and for good reasons.

In a move without precedent and with ominous implications, the International Seabed Authority would have the power to impose what amounts to taxes on American citizens. The UN has long sought means to generate revenues without having to rely on donations from member states. If the United States were to become a party to LOST, the Treasury would be charged by the ISA for permits and other fees associated with American commercial exploitation of the seabeds.

Right now, the UN has to either get money from direct member contributions to its general fund, of which the US pays almost 25%, or in management fees of the various aid programs which Turtle Bay runs. That amounts to the only accountability the United Nations has to its member nations, and as we've seen in the Oil-For-Food debacle, that hardly works as it is. Like the royal monopolies of ages past, the UN now wants an independent source of income to protect itself from even that paltry measure of responsiveness to its membership, which would leave the Secretariat in a position to conduct all sorts of mischief.

LOST also established an independent tribunal of the type the Bush Administration rejected with the International Criminal Court. Naval disputes could be self-referred to the tribunal and member nations held to their verdicts, just like the ICC. The LOST Tribunal, which sounds like a perfect name, would set its own rules and act as its own government:

The Jamaica-based international organization that we would be supporting in this fashion would have not only the equivalent of an executive and legislature, but also a judiciary, known as the Law of the Sea Tribunal. While there are, theoretically, some limits on the authority of the other two branches of this supranational institution, discretion about the extent of the tribunal's jurisdiction is exclusively in its hands. ...

Particularly worrisome is the fact that the Law of the Sea Tribunal has already indicated its intention to define its jurisdiction broadly. It is predictable that, were the United States to become subject to its edicts, the tribunal would become a preferred venue for non-governmental organizations and unfriendly regimes seeking to use the court's authority to compel changes in U.S. military and civilian policies.

Treaty proponents argue that problems like this can be mitigated if the United States "has a seat at the table," by virtue of being a party to LOST. Actually, membership would not assure that there would be a U.S. representative on the tribunal, since not all states' parties can have nationals serving as judges at any given time.

Worst of all, the treaty serously restricts our ability to protect ourselves against sea-based terrorism. LOST places new restrictions on searches at sea of suspected terrorist traffic, and it also eliminates the Proliferation Security Initiative on which such searches are based. PSI as administered by the US would have to give way to the LOST Tribunal, which may or may not be terribly interested in protecting Americans from terrorism. With the UN granting membership on key human-rights and counterterrorism committees to nations like Syria, Libya, and Cuba, the prospect of security from such an organization should give little comfort to US citizens at home or abroad.

Gaffney and the rest of the conservative activists are right. LOST should get tossed, and at the first possible moment.

More Cheney Rumormongering

World Net Daily reports on rumors supposedly floating around DC -- again -- that Dick Cheney will step down from his position in order to allow Condoleezza Rice to replace him as Vice President. The rumor has Cheney resigning due to his health sometime next year and Rice replacing him in time to build credibility as a presidential candidate for 2008:

Vice President Dick Cheney likely will step down next year due to health reasons and be replaced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to a report by geopolitical expert Jack Wheeler.

On his website, To the Point, Wheeler reports there's a "red-breasted rumor bird" flying around Capitol Hill that has whispered the same thing to most congressional committee chairmen.

"We all know that Dick Cheney has been the best vice president of modern times, perhaps in American history," one such chairman told Wheeler. "And we know that he absolutely will not run for president in 2008. Further, he has an unfortunate history of heart trouble. So let's just say none of us will be surprised if, sometime next year, he will step down from the vice presidency due to his health."

Continued the source: "Should this happen, President Bush would need to appoint his replacement, just as Richard Nixon chose Gerald Ford to replace Spiro Agnew. It is quite clear to us whom the president would choose should he need to: Condoleezza Rice."

This rumor probably gained some ground last week when another rumor floated out of the Potomac swamps that George Bush had taken to calling Rice "44", a nickname that appeared more to tease her about outside pressure for her to run than any desire of her own. However, Rice has never given any indication that she wants to get into electoral politics, as much as Republicans would like her to do so. Her positions at NSA and the State Department haven't exactly been springboards for political careers in American history, either.

No one doubts the star quality of Condi Rice, and as an eloquent African-American woman, her brand of conservatism would provide a powerful punch against Hillary Clinton, who most pundits consider the Democratic front-runner in 2008. But that was equally true in 2004, and Bush could have used that star power more against Kerry than in 2006. Rice easily laps Cheney in popularity and could have attracted more interest from women and black voters, transforming a close election into a landslide. Surely if the political machinations of the GOP consider that Rice is their next superstar, they would have asked Cheney to step down last year from the ticket and allowed Bush to reap the political benefits of having the first African-American VP candidate on the ticket.

I have no doubt that Wheeler has picked up on cocktail-hour dish here, but that's all it is. Either that, or some elements of the GOP have decided to try a whispering campaign to convince Cheney that they want him out and Rice in for the final campaign cycles of the Bush administration. If that's the case, they should prepare themselves for disappointment. It didn't happen in 2004 when it actually could have had some material benefit for Bush, and it's not going to happen later, when it takes his best diplomatic representative out of play during a second term in which he needs to pressure Europe to start doing the right thing.

Hezbollah Sticks Up For Syrian Occupiers

The terrorist group Hezbollah, or "political party" according to the French, warned their Lebanese countrymen to stop criticizing their Syrian partners or face another outbreak of civil war:

Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned Saturday that popular agitation against Syria's grip on Lebanon after the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri could plunge the country back into civil war. ...

"Today we are responsible for a nation that came out of the civil war ... but we face acute problems, especially this year and in the past few months," the black-turbaned cleric declared. "As Lebanese, we have no choice for remedying our crises and problems except to discuss and meet, even if we are angry and tense," he said. "We must not repeat the mistakes of the past."

Hezbollah has reason to worry that any civil war sparked by anti-Syrian sentiment will necessarily wind up as Hezbollah vs. The Rest Of Lebanon. The terrorist group may have become a "formidable" political party, as this Reuters report by Alistair Lyon writes, but they clearly have Syrian and Iranian interests in mind. That may have played to a few before -- especially since Syria held the whip hand in Lebanon -- but after the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the widespread collateral damage, Lebanon has united against the Syrians like never before.

That bodes ill for the long-term prospects for Hezbollah. The terrorist group was the only militia that Syria allowed to remain armed after the end of the civil war, which demonstrates their close connection to the occupation. In the present climate of universal fury against Syria, that connections will not pass unnoticed by the Lebanese. Syria may yet pull out of Lebanon, but clearly they hoped to leave behind a reasonably strong Hezbollah as military cover for their continued political dominance. Now it's more likely that Hezbollah might wind up against the wall if the Lebanese chase the Syrians back to Damascus.

If that happens, will the Europeans -- especially the French -- act to help free the Lebanese from the Syrian/Iranian interference of Hezbollah? Or will they continue the farce of considering Hezbollah a native Lebanese political party while the terrorists attempt to take up the Syrian military mission?

North Korea Backing Down Again?

North Korea has a history of making provocative and disruptive statements and then retreating when their opponents refuse to back down. After declaring itself a nuclear power earlier, despite never having conducted an N-weapon test, North Korea outright rejected any notion of returning to the six-nation talks that the US demands. However, faced with US adamance on multination diplomacy and a diplomatic shrug on its nuclear declaration, North Korea tonight suddenly retreated on diplomacy:

North Korea will return to six-party talks on its nuclear program if the United States pledges to stay out of Pyongyang's "domestic affairs" -- a prospect that could lead to the two nations becoming "friends," North Korea's envoy to the United Nations told a South Korean newspaper for Saturday's editions.

Last week, North Korea said it had no intention of returning to the negotiating table and declared that the nation already has nuclear weapons and is prepared to build more.

That earlier statement was met by strong comments in Washington, which has refused to offer concessions to North Korea and has rejected Pyongyang's calls for direct talks with the United States.

The Kim regime has pulled this play out of its notebook on several occasions during the Bush administration. Kim plays a none-too-subtle game of cat and mouse, trying to embarass the Bush administration into backing down and caving in to its demands for bilateral talks and concessions. Such tactics worked with the Clinton administration, and gauging from the reaction of Democrats last week to Kim's pronouncement of N-weapons development, it would have worked with a Kerry administration as well.

China, meanwhile, had already picked up signals from the Bush administration that the stalled talks would not allow the Chinese off the hook. Bush continues to press Beijing diplomatically to impose economic sanctions on the Kim regime, which they have not yet done. However, the Chinese have decided to go to Pyongyang to tell Kim that his gambit hasn't worked:

Wang Jiarui, head of the international department of the Chinese Communist Party, was flying to Pyongyang. He was expected to try and persuade North Korea to return to the negotiating table. ...

China will likely use "patient diplomacy, plus some persuasion, plus some economic incentives, plus some political concessions from the United States and South Korea" to lure the North back to the six-country talks, Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Beijing's Renmin University, said earlier.

Where the NoKos stated last week that six-party talks were dead, now they just have two preconditions to their restart. They want a guarantee of peaceful coexistence from the US and some sort of assurance of "concrete results" from nuclear disarmament. The concreete results they want -- that they desperately need -- is financial support for the tottering Kim tyranny. Their people starve by the millions, and the demonization of America will hold their loyalty for only so long before someone gets a sense of how tenuous his grip on power really is.

That probably has been the game all along, and the nuclear weapons (if they truly exist) are only the fodder for his extortion racket. They also provided extra benefit as a scare tactic to undermine American resolve and get the best deal he could get, without having to answer to his Chinese allies/masters. Now Kim has been forced back to the table on Bush's terms. It looks like the grown-ups in the White House have learned from Kim's history.

Hospiblogging, Day 5: It Spreads!

Hospiblogging, unfortunately, appears to be contagious. Glenn Reynolds is hospiblogging today, as his wife has to undergo some testing and treatment for a possible heart condition. No doubt you've already read this at Instapundit, but please join me in prayers and best wishes to Glenn's wife.

I spoke with the First Mate by phone this morning, and she seems to be doing well. She had a restless night, but she's got the pain under control and she'll sleep through some of the medications she takes today. I'm about to head out the door to have breakfast with her before I go to work for a while for some critical meetings. I should have an update later today.

UPDATE, 10:45 PM: My mom came in for a weekend visit, something planned two months ago or more, and we visited the First Mate at the hospital. Marcia had less energy today, thanks to that restless night before, but other than that continues to improve. She's getting frustrated with being in the hospital -- always a good sign -- and she's walking around quite a bit now. Mom was surprised at how good she looks after only four days past the surgery.

I'll have more tomorrow, including why tomorrow is a special day for us...

CPAC Bloggers Under Sail

I wish I could have attended the CPAC conference this weekend; I was asked if I wanted to apply for a credential, and after the great time I had at the Republican National Convention, I normally would have jumped at the chance. Unfortunately, we have a major project going on this winter at the office -- I have a *real* job, after all -- and even if that didn't come up, the First Mate's surgery would have scuttled the trip.

However, you can read all of the excellent bloggers who gave up their weekends to cover the event at the CPAC aggregate blog, set up by the ever-resourceful Kevin Aylward of Wizbang! Today, Michelle Malkin is scheduled to appear, and I'm sure that will have the bloggers posting like crazy. La Shawn Barber is photoblogging, too!

Our Friends, The Russians

Russian president Vladimir Putin has declared that the Iranian mullahs don't want nuclear weapons and plans to help them build the nuclear reactor at Buhsher, according to a Reuters report this morning:

Putin's defense of Iran, where Russia is building a nuclear power plant, comes in the face of U.S. concerns that Tehran could be using Russian know-how to covertly build a nuclear weapon.

"The latest steps by Iran convince Russia that Iran indeed does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all sectors, including peaceful atomic energy," Putin told Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani.

"We hope Iran will strictly stick to all agreements with Russia or the international community," Putin said at the start of talks with Rohani at the Kremlin.

Bush may need to re-evalute his relationship with Putin after these developments. Putin has increasingly become more autocratic, dismantling key democratic processes in Russia and moving to nationalize industries by crushing private-sector companies like Yukos. The Bush administration appeared to tolerate this to some degree in a nod to realpolitik in exchange for Russian cooperation against Islamist terror and a free hand in Iraq.

However, with Russia acting to enable a nuclear Iran, that equation no longer holds. Putin appears to want a resumption of Russian dominance in the area; he certainly seems to want Russia on equal footing with the EU-3 in Iranian negotiations. Perhaps he believes that reaching accommodation with the Iranian mullahs will ease the Islamist pressures that Putin himself feels in Chechnya and elsewhere. If it's not quite the Great Game all over again, it's only because the stakes are higher and the danger much more lethal.

Bush needs to either reel Putin back in, or he needs to start looking at alternatives in Russia to check Putin's reach.

Jack Kelly: Bloggers Aren't The McCarthyites In Eason's Fables

Jack Kelly wrote an impressive column three days ago for the Jewish World Review that I missed. He addressed the mass-media spin on Eason's Fables as a McCarthyite witch hunt perpetrated by a bunch of overzealous wannabes. Kelly points out that the real McCarthyite lost his job as a result of the journalism he once represented:

Web loggers who criticized Jordan are "sons of Sen. McCarthy," said Bertrand Pecquerie, director of the World Editors Forum. "It is very worrying to see this marriage between self-proclaimed citizens' media and mainstream journalists' scalp hunters," he said. ...

Pecquerie and Lovelady have their allegations of "McCarthyism" backward. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis) became famous in the 1950s for making hysterical and (mostly) unfounded accusations that individuals in the State department and the Army were secret communists. It was Jordan who made hysterical and unfounded accusations against the U.S. military, and it is "mainstream" journalists who are now making hysterical and unfounded accusations against web loggers. ...

But the key fact is not that Eason Jordan is now looking for work, but that bloggers were trying to uncover the truth about what he said, while "professional journalists" were trying to suppress it. For us, the "people's right to know"— which we invoke in self-righteous tones when we're prying into the private lives of people who are not journalists — takes a back seat to protecting the reputations of members of our club.

I've read some good columns on our efforts to just get the truth out about Eason Jordan, but Jack Kelly may have the best retort against the McCarthyism charges I've yet read. In fact, we have been somewhat remiss in not specifically pointing out what Kelly reminds us -- that Eason Jordan, with his vague but grandiose allegations about military atrocities and utter lack of substantiation, represents real McCarthyism.

That particular charge, coming with mind-numbing frequency from the Left, has lost most of its meaning, and so hardly registers any more when heard. But in thinking about it seriously, what enraged the blogging community most about Jordan was that McCarthyite quality of his repeated charges. Both had no evidence, although both were in uniquely powerful positions to make that evidence known had it truly existed. Both used their allegations for political gain; in Jordan's case, promoting anti-American views allowed him the political capital to extend CNN's commercial interests. Both men used the US military as their target. Both men tried to vaguely dissemble when challenged on the merits of their case, and in the end both men crumbled when the spotlight of public exposure trained fully on the facts. In fact, video undid both men, although in McCarthy's case it was the video that was seen by Americans, while in Jordan's case it was the video that remains hidden from their view, at least in part with the silent consent of a news organization supposedly dedicated to ensuring access to information.

One key difference: for Joe McCarthy, the mainstream media finally had the nerve to say, "Enough!" In Eason's Fables, the mainstream media remained an enabler and provided cover for Jordan, literally to the very end. The bloggers, myself included but hardly alone or even first, stepped up and exposed Jordan for what both he and McCarthy were: fools who tried to aggrandize themselves by using slanderous accusations against the US military. That the Left cannot tell the difference between that and the people who ultimately exposed the lies shows exactly how far they have slid into irrelevance and unreality.

UPDATE: Based on the comments I'm getting, let me clarify my point. First of all, I'm talking about McCarthyism more than McCarthy himself. If you define McCarthyism as an attempt to smear people with unsubstantiated allegations of felonious and even treasonous conduct, then Eason Jordan and Joe McCarthy fits that bill.

One of the commenters who argued that McCarthy was proved correct did hit the point: McCarthy refused to substantiate his claims publicly. He also provided inconsistent numbers of people he supposedly could prove, and he bullied people in hearings by asking blustering, "have you stopped beating your wife" kinds of questions. The parallel isn't that Jordan and McCarthy were equally wrong; the parallel is that both refused to provide substantiated allegations, and in both cases their motives were not to clean house but to advance themselves politically by smearing others.

Joe McCarthy may have been right, but when you look at the entire episode dispassionately, that turned out to be coincidental, or at least inconsequential. He was a dangerous fool who set back anti-communist efforts for 30 years thanks to his antics.

Outsmarting Themselves

Defense attorneys for accused terrorist funder Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, a Yemeni sheikh thought to be one of Osama bin Laden's spiritual advisors, may have outsmarted themselves yesterday. Prosecutors in the case attempting to convict al-Moayad of conspiring to funnel money to al-Qaeda dropped one of their key witnesses to the case when he set himself on fire in front of the White House three months ago, protesting his handling by the government, and had to drop some charges from the indictment as a result. Instead of counting their blessings, however, the defense called Mohammed Alanssi in a bid to show that investigators used an unstable crook to set up al-Moayad.

Big mistake:

Defiant, still obviously bitter about his treatment by government agents and expressing entitlement to millions he has not been paid, the Yemeni-born Mr. Alanssi said he deserved money for the risks he took in helping America fight terrorism.

He took some verbal shots at the federal agents who were once his allies, but he also tried to demolish the defense, unloading accusations that the jury had not heard yet concerning what he said were the sheik's ties to Osama bin Laden and commitment to jihad.

These were the components that the prosecution were forced to drop after Alanssi's departure from the case, and they are powerful testimony against the sheikh. One wonders why the defense gambled with Alanssi, except perhaps hoping to cause a complete meltdown on the stand and cause a spectacular backlash against the DA. However, it appears that they broke the first rule of litigation -- don't ever put a witness on the stand without knowing what will come out in the testimony. Alanssi, whose distaste for the prosecution came through clearly, still stuck to his story and performed quite well:

He was ready to spar with the defense lawyers. One of them, Howard L. Jacobs, led him through a list of accusations he had made against the sheik and an aide, who are charged with conspiracy and providing material support to Al Qaeda and Hamas, the Palestinian militant organization.

The sheik's charity, which the defense has claimed was his life's work, was "a front," Mr. Alanssi testified. When the sheik had spoken of needing medical care, it was a code for collecting money for jihad, he said. ...

Yesterday, he was working to damage the defense that had called him after the prosecution discarded him. The prosecutors were taking their chances with the secretly recorded Frankfurt videotapes in which he has been seen leading the sheik toward what has become one of the Justice Department's most visible terrorism-financing cases.

Mr. Jacobs, shouting, challenged Mr. Alanssi, claiming that much of what he said was uncorroborated. "We have to take your word for it, is that right?"

Mr. Alanssi half-turned toward the translator as he answered the questions in Arabic. "The proof is there," he said calmly, without missing a beat. "Just run the video and see the tape and everything is obvious."

The jurors have seen the Frankfurt tapes and have been given prosecution transcripts quoting the sheik as saying that jihad was his field and that he would give money to "Hamas, Al Qaeda, prisoners, mujahedeen and such."

Prosecutors can recall him for later testimony, but the New York Times notes that much of it would be redundant. Alanssi also testified that al-Moayad told him that the sheikh had given over $20 million to Osama bin Laden over the years prior to 9/11, years that included a number of al-Qaeda attacks on American assets abroad. Those conversations were not recorded, and would not have come out in testimony had the defense not used Alanssi as a witness.

It would behoove al-Moayad to start working on his appeal now. Incompetent defense appears to have promise as grounds.

Scandal! Captain Ed's Past Comes Back To Haunt Him

I just KNEW that my higher profile would result in embarassing revelations about my past. Now I have heard that my (former) blog associate Peter Cook at Slublog has unearthed photographic evidence of a shameful period in my life.

The worst part of this, of course, is that Hugh Hewitt is the studliest-looking guy in the entire group ...

UPDATE: Okay, it's established that I have the "coolest hat", and that I gave lousy directions to the baseball bat-bearing thugs. Keep checking the windows, Peter ...

Beinart Can't Buy A Clue At TNR

Peter Beinart takes a break from the book he's writing to pen a column for The New Republic on Bush's emphasis on democracy as his second-term theme, and how liberals need to counter it with rhetoric of their own. Peter is a very nice and earnest young man, but he frequently gets his assumptions incorrect, and this column provides a clear example. As the blog Nationals Review points out, Beinart uses an assumption about John Kerry that is demonstrably false as a support for the rest of his argument about liberal enthusiasm for democratization as foreign policy:

Bush's second inaugural doesn't challenge liberals at the level of policy; it challenges them at the level of rhetoric. And, unless they respond in kind, they'll experience the same fate that befell John Kerry. In policy terms, Kerry probably had a more serious democratization agenda than Bush. But, rhetorically, he never matched Bush's grandeur. And, in the United States, where it is great causes and missionary impulses that rouse citizens to engage with the world, Bush's language captured the public imagination, and Kerry's did not.

Unfortunately for Peter, that analysis of Kerry's position on democracy just doesn't hold up. Kerry has a long history of indifference to democracy, and Nationals Review picks up one prominent example of this, from the May 29, 2004 Washington Post:

Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security.

That prompted the Washington Post to issue a scathing editorial about Kerry's lack of commitment to the primary pillar of the American government Kerry hoped to lead:

"WE NEED A reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government" in Iraq, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said in December. "That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in the country -- not cutting and running in order to claim a false success." On another occasion, he said: "It would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops."

Contrast that with what Mr. Kerry told reporters last week: "With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy."

Starting an argument by basing it on any John Kerry commitment almost certainly renders it flawed, but Peter really should have checked Kerry's campaign record. He never did fully support democratization as an end goal for Iraq or anywhere else, and more than once indicated that he didn't even think that democratization was necessary. And yet Peter argues that Kerry would have had a "more serious democratization agenda"?

Even better, Kerry couldn't even support democratization in Iraq after it happened. In that same article, Kerry had this to say about elections:

"The last time I looked, except for Florida, an election is an election," Kerry said.

And yet, the day after Iraqis braved bombs and bullets to cast their votes, Kerry downplayed the significance of the election, even though it didn't take place in Florida:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world community as legitimate?

SEN. KERRY: A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote.

That's the man Peter argues has a stronger streak of democratization support than the President who insisted on sticking with the elections that the Iraqis risked their lives to hold.

Needless to say, after using Kerry as a foundation for his Democrats-are-better-democratizers hypothesis, Peter's argument quickly descends into farce:

The assumption that the United States can do no wrong leads naturally to unilateralism: Why sully our democracy-promotion efforts by partnering with other countries, which lack purity of heart? That implication was particularly widespread in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's overthrow, when conservatives argued against giving Turkey, France, or the United Nations a genuine role in the occupation on the grounds that Iraqis might distrust their motives.

Peter seems to forget that Turkey, France, and the United Nations flat-out refused to accept any role in the post-invasion occupation. In fact, the UN bugged out after their former Ba'athist spy-service guards allowed a bomber to kill a couple of dozen UN staffers, all because they refused American security. France refused to cooperate before and after the invasion, saying that the US had to turn over all authority to the same UN that refused to come back to Iraq after the bombing. Jacques Chirac wanted US troops under UN control, as he refused even with a UN-led occupation to commit any troops to the Irq effort. Turkey didn't want democracy at all in Iraq; it wanted a strongman to keep the Kurds oppressed and under control, the better to control their own Kurds from rising up against them.

As I said, Peter is a nice and earnest young man, but he seems to live in a parallel universe, or perhaps he just takes poor notes and performs lousy research. If he thinks that building on the strength of purpose of John Kerry is the path for Democrats to take back power on a national basis, I vote for the parallel universe.

Eason's Fable At The Weekly Standard

The Weekly Standard has published my column on the mass-media response to the Eason Jordan controversy, titled "Eason's Fable", on their Daily Standard website. Jonathan Last asked me to write a brief look at the media (non)reaction to the blogswarm that resulted in Jordan's resignation, and I wound up writing something on the order of War and Peace -- you've seen my posts, you know what I mean. Jonathan expertly trimmed it to readable length, and I'm quite grateful for his confidence in me and his editorial expertise.

I've used my own notes to reconstruct the timeline of events showing the almost-total abdication of news organizations from the story and how Jordan's abrupt exit left them panicking for an explanation:

FOR TWO WEEKS Eason Jordan has been engulfed in a blogswarm. During remarks at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the now-former CNN executive accused the U.S. military of deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq for murder. The unleashed fury of the blogosphere eventually overcame a media blackout to force Jordan from his job, discredit the American media, and start a debate on the nature of blogging that derived directly from the mainstream media's attempt to cast the entire effort as a partisan witch hunt.

But the media has no one but itself to blame--as it stubbornly refused to acknowledge the existence of the controversy, with major national outlets making Eason Jordan's resignation their very first report of the story. Even worse, the media had the story first, and buried it.

Well, RTWT, and all that, of course.

Obviously, the mainstream media have a vested interest in attacking the same blogosphere with which they compete for credibility, if not for income. However, this image of an unmitigated witch hunt and bloodfeast boggles the mind. Not only did the blogswarm find damning information which the national media could have used all along, but we repeatedly sent the information in e-mails to key people in the media. Instead of acknowledging that function and assimilating the information, the media has circled the wagons around the myth that Eason Jordan simply committed a slip of the tongue at Davos, rather than the documented string of slanders and ethical lapses stretching over more than a decade.

What choice do they have, however? If they don’t push that mythology, they face the daunting prospect of explaining their lack of coverage, continuing to this day, of all the details on Eason’s Fables. The broadcast networks must find a way to justify their silence to viewers who will be understandably puzzled to find out more than two weeks after the fact that Jordan has a long history of selling out for foreign access, including making accusations of atrocities without ever presenting any evidence to support them. The nationally prominent news outlets will be forced to admit that they were scooped by the blogs.

Unfortunately, by blaming the bloggers, the media will drive more and more of their viewers to these sites to determine what purportedly drove the blogswarm into a virtual Salem. Once their customers get a chance to review the evidence, their mythmaking will do more damage to their credibility than a thousand blogswarms could ever have done.

Hospiblogging, Day 4: Good Progress

Sorry for the lack of posts about the First Mate so far today. I've been at work most of the day, and as soon as I got to the hospital, I had a teleconference that I needed to complete (good stuff, too!).

The First Mate is doing very well. She's now walking without too much assistance, except for the normal sighted-guide routine. Her blood sugars are still in the low 100s, but they have kept the insulin drip going to make sure it stays that way, which is normal. A couple of tubes have been removed, but not the stomach tube yet. That can't come out until her digestive system reawakens from the anaesthesia, and walking around will help that out.

Today she seems much more herself than the past three days, smiling and conversing in her normal voice (as normal a voice one can have with a tube up the nose, that is). She's telling all the nurses that I'm bringing my "mistress" on my visits -- the laptop -- and that I'm blogging her recovery. One nurse wanted to know more about blogging, so I brought a copy of Hugh Hewitt's Blog and gave it to her to read. Who knows -- maybe we'll inspire a nurse blog in the Twin Cities that will blow the lid off of health care!

Marcia's going to try to get some sleep now, but she wanted me to thank everyone who's written and posted comments with their thoughts and prayers. She's very touched you're all thinking about her.

Democrat's Main Money Man Funded Lynne Stewart Defense

Yesterday, New York state GOP chairman Steven Minarik made a stupid remark about the Democrats being the party of "Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean,", as if the entire party could be characterized by the recently convicted terrorist abetter Stewart, who passed operational messages from Sheikh Abdel Rahman to his followers. DNC chair Howard Dean called on Minarik to apologize or resign, and Gov. George Pataki rightfully called Minarik's remarks outside the "realm of appropriate political discourse."

However, National Review's Byron York reveals today that the main money man for the Democrats in last year's election cycle, George Soros, partially funded Lynne Stewart's criminal defense, raising questions of propriety and political damage to the candidates Soros once backed:

Billionaire financier George Soros, whose opposition to President Bush's conduct of the war on terror caused him to pour millions of dollars into the effort to defeat the president, made a substantial donation to the defense fund for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who last week was found guilty of giving aid to Islamic terrorists.

According to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Soros's foundation, the Open Society Institute, or OSI, gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.

In filings with the IRS, foundation officials wrote that the purpose of the contribution was "to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart's indictment."

Answering questions by e-mail, Amy Weil, a spokeswoman for the Open Society Institute, said the foundation contributed to Stewart's fund because "it appeared to us at that time that there was a right-to-counsel issue worthy of our support."

That money was needed to conduct the political campaign Stewart waged to pressure the Department of Justice to drop the case, which the Left turned into yet another of its causes. Some of the money also underwrote the defense itself, Weil admitted, although after a while OSI quit donating cash to the effort.

At the start of the election campaign in 2003, Soros pledged millions of dollars to do whatever it took to get George Bush out of the White House. His foundations and his direct donations benefitted Howard Dean to start, through funding of MoveOn, Americans Coming Together, and direct funding. He then backed John Kerry as well as other 527s to manuever around campaign-financing limits, and wound up reportedly spending over $25 million by the end of the election. It's fair to characterize Soros as the single most important contributor to the Democratic effort in 2004, and all signs point towards his continued kingmaking for future campaigns.

His support of a convicted terrorist enabler, however, may well wind up making his largesse more of a liability than an asset for a political party already seen as fatally soft on terror. How will Howard Dean make the case to the American people that the Democrats can keep the country safe when his majority stockholder fights to keep terrorists and their messengers out of prison and on television, giving orders out to the lunatics via talk-show interviews? Will Hillary be able to keep Soros out of her pocketbook for the Senate run in 2006, let alone 2008? George Soros just handed the GOP a big stick with which to beat the Democrats, and inadvertently gave Steven Minarik some undeserved political cover.

A Love Note Or An Olive Branch?

Peggy Noonan issues a love note to the blogosphere in today's WSJ/OpinionJournal, one that appears to intend either a counterpoint to the two successive dismissals issued by WSJ editors this past week or as an olive branch:

When you hear name-calling like what we've been hearing from the elite media this week, you know someone must be doing something right. The hysterical edge makes you wonder if writers for newspapers and magazines and professors in J-schools don't have a serious case of freedom envy.

The bloggers have that freedom. They have the still pent-up energy of a liberated citizenry, too. The MSM doesn't. It has lost its old monopoly on information. It is angry.

But MSM criticism of the blogosphere misses the point, or rather points.

Blogging changes how business is done in American journalism. The MSM isn't over. It just can no longer pose as if it is The Guardian of Established Truth. The MSM is just another player now. A big one, but a player.

All of this is true, and if Peggy Noonan isn't the prose laureate of the conservative class, she certainly should be. But the juxtaposition of this entry jars somewhat against the earlier rhetoric issued by the WSJ's editors. Take for example the language used by one of the WSJ's editors in dismissing the blogosphere's interest in Eason Jordan:

There is an Easongate.com Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan release a transcript of his remarks--made recently in Davos--by Feb. 15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.

That piece received a chorus of boos from the blogosphere, some of it fair, some much less so, including on this site. Characterizing us as "the usual suspects" and Michelle Malkin in demeaning quasi-sexual innuendo without ever addressing the additional information uncovered in our investigations did not create an especially professional atmosphere -- not that that excuses unfairness from myself or anyone else. Nor did they stop there. On Monday, far from issuing love notes like Noonan's, they wrote this:

That may be old-fashioned damage control. But it does not speak well of CNN that it apparently allowed itself to be stampeded by this Internet and talk-show crew. Of course the network must be responsive to its audience and ratings. But it has other obligations, too, chief among them to show the good judgment and sense of proportion that distinguishes professional journalism from the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs.

No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't.

That was no mere entry by a visiting columnist emeritus of any stature, not even the high stature of Noonan; that was the considered, official position of the WSJ editorial board. Far from considering us a "public service," they castigated us as an immature, revenge-minded stampede.

Unfortunately for the WSJ editorial board, what they fail to recognize is that bloggers aren't some third-party creation from ether. Bloggers are media consumers, and in fact should be their target demographic. We're involved, we read voraciously, and we want to interact with the world. Especially for a publication like the Wall Street Journal, which doesn't deliver to the doorstep as a monopoly in a one-paper town, that should be a group to encourage, not one at which to toss dismissive insults. I cannot think of another corporation who thought that implying their customers were too immature to decide for themselves what they need constituted a successful marketing strategy -- except for the federal government and their entitlement programs. Adopting that marketing plan for the bastion of American capitalism seems more than just passingly strange to me.

Hopefully, Noonan's piece intends on smoothing over relations with the bloggers who not only read WSJ/OJ's offerings on a regular basis but normally (speaking for myself) enthusiastically recommend them to their readers. I'd like to feel good about my daily visits to OJ again.

Note: See also Hugh Hewitt's new column in the Weekly Standard on the WSJ/blogosphere debate.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin responds to the Bret Stephens interview with Hugh Hewitt here, including tremendously kind words for me. Michelle notes that she's been waiting by the phone:

I found the following remarks, in which the cheesed-off Stephens contrasts what he considers irresponsible bloggers with their grown-up MSM counterparts, particularly amusing:

If someone is going to get attacked, and attacked really viciously, I think there is an obligation to give the other guy a chance to give his side of the story.

"This is what we here at the Wall Street Journal try to do," Stephens told Hewitt, as opposed to the meanie, non-professional bloggers who raised questions about Stephens' possible conflict of interest in the matter.

Oh, really? Because I didn't get any phone call or e-mail from Stephens before he singled me out by name for a noxious personal attack in his Feb. 10 op-ed, which pooh-poohed the reporting on the Eason Jordan story done by us immature, amateur blogger-types.

She also has a new tagline for her blog, but do not drink a gulp of your beverage before checking it out ...

An Anachronism That Only Government Could Save

Two major dailies today note the resignation of PBS president Pat Mitchell and the precarious state of the government-run television service. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times both note the question of relevance for PBS and how difficulties in getting outside resources force it to play politics to stay alive:

It was no accident that PBS found itself turning to Elmo, the popular "Sesame Street" character, to lobby on Capitol Hill this week. There were not many options.

Public television is suffering from an identity crisis, executives inside the Public Broadcasting Service and outsiders say, and it goes far deeper than the announcement by Pat Mitchell that she would step down next year as the beleaguered network's president. ...

"The biggest problem we've got is the structure we've got," Alberto Ibarguen, the chairman of PBS and the publisher of The Miami Herald, said in an interview yesterday. "It assumes a lot of government funding, continuing heavy levels of corporate image advertising and no competition. But in the world we're in - the world of increased cable competition, less and less government funding and cutbacks in corporate image advertising - it's a significant problem if that's your business model."

It's about to get even more significant, as the LAT reports. The Bush administration wants to cut public-broadcasting budgets by 25% as part of its overall belt-tightening, as well as its philosophy of private enterprise as a better model than public subsidies. The explosion of television over the past twenty-five years of cable and satellite delivery systems appear to justify that philosophy:

Cable networks such as A&E, Bravo, the History Channel and Nickelodeon, which reach most American TV homes, offer many of the documentaries and children's fare that PBS once had nearly to itself. PBS' average viewer is 58 years old. And the increasingly polarized political climate puts pressure on programming decisions.

One of the main forces for keeping the doors open at PBS is its children's programming, primarily Sesame Street, which can air without commercials on PBS. But does that apply any longer when the main demographic for the service relates more to the AARP than Head Start? I think not.

At one time in American television, there may have been room for public subsidies for specific types of programming with limited commercial value. Broadcasters ate up most of the viewers and competed almost entirely with each other, forcing them to go after mass-market entertainment. However, with literally hundreds of channels and numerous delivery systems available to producers -- not even counting the Internet and broadband -- those excuses have expired. Not only can producers of such fare find an audience, specific distribution channels exist specifically for those purposes. Want to watch history? Flip on the History Channel. Interested in law enforcement? Watch Court TV. Got a hankering for science? The Discovery Channel now comes in several different flavors, each one representing a specialty in the sciences.

Pat Mitchell had the unfortunate timing to be a dinosaur directly after the meteor impact, able to see doom coming and utterly unable to do anything about it. TV has evolved on its own, and the American government should quit playing around with it and stop distorting the market by subsidizing programming that clearly could find audiences without it.

EU Won't Recognize Hezbollah As Terrorist Group

The New York Times reports today that the European Union has resisted the Bush administration's efforts to get long-time terror group Hezbollah recognized as such in order to cut off its overseas funding. In a further indication of EU weakness on confronting terror, so-called "Old Europe" nations, especially France, want to open dialogue with the masters of Iranian terror efforts in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East:

As rising instability in Lebanon increases tensions in the Middle East, the Bush administration is arguing with European governments over whether they should designate the Lebanon-based Shiite group Hezbollah a terrorist organization, American and European officials say.

The United States is already stepping up pressure on Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's main sponsors. The American rift with Syria deepened this week, with suspicions that Syria might have been behind the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister in Beirut on Monday. ...

In the past two weeks, the officials said, France has rebuffed appeals by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which would prevent it from raising money in Europe through charity groups. The United States has long called Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but the French, American and European officials said, have opposed doing so, and argue that making such a designation now would be unwise, given the new turbulence in Lebanon.

Israeli and American officials say that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has told them that he, too, regards Hezbollah as a destructive force in the Middle East, one determined to undermine peace talks by supporting militant groups that attack Israelis.

Now that should truly embarass EU officials, although the French appear impervious to shame after blatantly undermining the Iraqi sanctions regime while being the primary arguer for their continuation. When Mahmoud Abbas recognizes an Islamic terror group for what it is ahead of the French while Europe stands on the sidelines. we know that the leaders of the EU have truly lost their moral compass.

Look, this is really rather simple. Does Hezbollah spend its money on terror attacks targeting civilians? Everyone agrees they do. That should be the end of the debate, but instead, the French insist that since they also conduct charitable works and participate in local politics, they should be given a pass:

The Europeans are not solidly opposed to listing Hezbollah as a terrorist group, the officials said. The Netherlands, Italy and Poland support the Bush administration's view, several officials said, while Germany and Britain believe the issue is moot unless the French change their minds. One European diplomat said other countries were "hiding behind" France on the issue.

Hezbollah, which is based in the Bekaa region in Lebanon, gets much of its financial support from Syria and Iran, American officials say. But besides carrying out attacks on civilians and opposing Israel, Hezbollah also provides social services to thousands of Lebanese Shiites and has political representatives in Lebanon's Parliament.

I suspect the true reason for the reluctance comes not from the "delicate" nature of Lebanese politics, but from the relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranians. The EU has tried for the past two years to appease the Iranian mullahs into giving up their nuclear-weapons ambitions to little avail. They don't want to rock the boat now by attempting to starve out the mullahs' terror agent that conducts the proxy attacks against Israel that Iran cannot afford to do itself openly.

The Times article makes plain that several European nations would love to follow the Bush Administration's lead, but that France won't budge and without France, neither will Germany or Britain. With the EU-3 -- the same nations taking the lead on Iranian nukes -- firmly set in their appeasement strategy, Hezbollah can continue its terror attacks unimpeded by any coherent international opposition.

Remind me again how Europe is supposed to be such a vital partner in the war on terror ...

Timeswarm On Guckert?

In an effort reminiscent of Howell Raines' vendetta against the Augusta Masters Tournament, the New York Times editorial board appears to be on the verge of initiating a "Timeswarm", having its columnists focus on one target as a cause celebre. In this case, however, the target hardly justifies the puffery it receives and the Times' disproportional coverage calls into question its media blackout on the Eason Jordan affair.

Both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, in an odd coincidence, write columns on the national danger that Jeff Gannon/James Guckert represents. Guckert, you'll recall, worked for Talon News (under the nom de plume "Jeff Gannon"), a small-time and lightly regarded news service owned by a Republican donor and party activist. Whether or not Talon can be described as a "real" news service gets debated rather lukewarmly by people on either side of the issue, which lets one know exactly how seriously it ever was taken. After throwing a few ludicrous softball questions at President Bush, a couple of hard-left blogs turned up a lot of embarassing sexual innuendo about Guckert that forced him to resign from Talon News.

Rich links this to the Armstrong Williams case of payola, but never provides a shred of evidence that Guckert ever got paid by the Bush administration. However, before he gets there, Rich manages to repeat all of the gay-lifestyle info dug up by Americablog and others to out Guckert:

How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like "Kerry Could Become First Gay President," is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day.

Oh, okay, I get it. Rich mentions all of Guckert's lifestyle issues first simply because we shouldn't get distracted by it. That's an interesting rhetorical and editorial style, putting trashy innuendo in the first part of a lengthy article so that it doesn't become the primary part of the story. He then goes into a lengthy description of, and an implication of equation to, Armstrong Williams and others:

By my count, "Jeff Gannon" is now at least the sixth "journalist" (four of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's "marriage" initiatives. The other four have played real newsmen on TV. Before Mr. Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers - the Woodward and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports ("In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting," went the script) pretending to "sort through the details" of the administration's Medicare prescription-drug plan in 2004. Such "reports," some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal "covert propaganda" by the Government Accountability Office.

The difference between these five and James Guckert is that all five received government funds, unlike Guckert. Guckert received his paycheck from Talon News, and no one has shown yet that Talon News gets money from anyone other than Talon's ownership and whatever advertisers it can find. If that primarily means GOP donations, it's simply not the same issue.

Dowd, on the other hand, rants without much purpose or information at all. Her strategy appears to rely on hammering Guckert for his sexual orientation and his ability to score a day pass while she had to wait for the more traditional press pass:

I am very impressed with James Guckert, a k a Jeff Gannon.

How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?

Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?

One wonders if the Times has a new policy that favors haranguing people on the basis of their sexuality. If so, Rich and Dowd have done a marvelous job of implementing it. If the issue was Guckert's access, then say so and stick to that issue. But when two featured NYT columnists weigh in on the same subject in the same way on the same day (although Rich's piece is dated for Sunday, it's on the website now), it stops looking like coincidence and a lot more like a strategy.

But a strategy for what? Rich tips the hand at the end of his column:

The "Jeff Gannon" story got less attention than another media frenzy - that set off by the veteran news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned from CNN after speaking recklessly at a panel discussion at Davos, where he apparently implied, at least in passing, that American troops deliberately targeted reporters. Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances?

This is part of the Gray Lady's response to their complete media blackout on Eason's Fables. Once again, we have the dishonest characterization of Jordan's remarks, which according to eight eyewitnesses, were not "in passing" nor "implied" at all. Jordan deliberately and pointedly accused American soldiers of murdering and torturing journalists, and not only at Davos but also three months earlier in November. Just like Rich does here with Guckert's supposed ties to the Bush administration, Jordan made those accusations without ever substantiating them, and unlike Rich, never had the nerve to report them on his own worldwide news network.

Jordan's sudden resignation embarassed the New York Times, as it had to report the result of a two-week scandal it had barely mentioned the night before for the first time. It now needs to rationalize its editorial blunder for its readers, and apparently has sent its featured columnists to go after someone else as a distraction. They want sell the notion that some small-time guy with an unsavory background had more influence on the news than the head of a major global broadcast-news conglomerate in order to rescue their own credibility. Only Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and the New York Times would buy that one.

The Party Of Media Silence

Howard Dean started his reign as Democratic National Committee chair in style today -- silent-movie style, that is. Dean demanded a media blackout of a debate he held with Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, much to Perle's surprise:

"DNC Chair Howard Dean has declared a news blackout of his appearance and requested the media not quote, record, and/or paraphrase his remarks," event coordinator Gabrielle Williams wrote in an e-mail sent to news agencies Wednesday morning. "We apologize for the late notice, but we were just informed of this request."

Less than two hours later, Williams called to say: "We were told just a few minutes ago that it is now open" for media coverage. The decision to open Thursday's debate came roughly 30 minutes after an inquiry by The Associated Press.

What gives, Chairman Dean? Perhaps a bit of reluctance to face the press from the new head of the Democratic Party, or just flashbacks to his disastrous performance at the Iowa Caucus debates, where Al Sharpton effectively killed his presidential campaign. For those who may have forgotten, Sharpton skewered Dean on his record of hiring African-Americans as advisors in Vermont, where African-Americans account for less than half a percent of the population.

Whatever the reason, the former governor must have had his reasons for keeping the press away from a public debate with one of the leading so-called "neocons" at the Pentagon. Perle, however, had no idea that the Democrats had such fear of the Fourth Estate. Apparently, it's not just Perle that Dean fears, but all of his public events:

Perle said that he was surprised to learn that the press had been barred from covering the debate.

"It seems quite extraordinary that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee would not want the public coverage of this debate," said Perle, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Don Walker, president of the Harry Walker Agency, which represents Dean on the lecture circuit, said that many of the talks it is associated with are closed to the press — and it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he or she wants them to be open. "We default to a closed press policy," he said.

Do Democrats support the idea of the free press and transparency in government? The standardbearer of their party -- the man they just elected to stand up to the GOP and rebuild their momentum after three straight election-cycle losses -- can't even speak publicly on the record. It appears that their concern over transparency and free speech only applies to the lesser lights, while the Democratic leadership needs to keep their new main man out of the papers.

Do you think Democrats wonder why? Yeaaargh!

Hariri Funeral Unites Lebanese Factions -- Against Syria

Whether or not Syria plotted the carbombing that killed Rafik Hariri, the popular former prime minister who became a uniting force for Lebanon, his murder has generated a fierce anger that has created nationalistic outrage directed at Lebanon's longtime occupier:

Sunni marched with Shia, and Druze with Christian, as the factions that slaughtered each other in the 1975-1990 civil war paid their respects as one.

West Beirut's alleyways echoed to the wailing of mourners as Mr Hariri's funeral cortege snaked through crowds, showered with rice thrown in tribute from balconies.

Sheikhs and smart business executives, trendy teenagers and frail pensioners all massed together. Christian church bells rang out and muezzins called from mosques as the cortege approached Mr Hariri's last resting place - a grave outside the vast, new Mohammed al-Amin mosque which towers over Martyrs' Square. ...

While anti-Syria slogans were chanted by thousands who blamed Damascus for the bomb that killed Mr Hariri and 14 others on Monday, his eldest son, Bahaa, begged for the funeral not to become a political rally but to remain a solemn display of mourning.

For one day, at least, the Lebanese have found their sense of national pride, and the target of their righteous anger has to wonder how much longer their troops can maintain their strategic foothold in Lebanon. The Syrians face military pressure unprecedented in the past three decades, now that Saddam Hussein no longer protects its eastern flank. With a united and hostile Lebanon to the west, a democratic Turkey to the north, 150,000 American troops massed on their east, and their favorite enemy Israel to the south, Bashir Assad has to either find a way to extricate himself quickly from his terror and military entanglements or face annihilation. Earlier today, Syria and Iran announced a military and diplomatic alliance, but Iran doesn't help Syria. The Iranians would have to get through the US military that tore apart the most professional army in Southwest Asia, save for the Israelis themselves, in less than three weeks. Even Iran isn't that stupid.

Even worse, the newfound nationalism and demands for a freely elected government independent from Damascus may well resonate with the Syrian populace, who just experienced the unusual sight of ex-patriate Iraqis voting in Damascus, while Syrians have yet to have a free vote in their lifetimes. The only way to ensure at least a short-term sense of security is to make peace with Israel quickly and get the hell out of Lebanon, and hope that he can keep his subjects cowed long enough to slow democratic reform enough so that he can keep ahead of it, hopefully to be seen as leading it. Failing that, Assad needs to slow it down to the point where he can bail out to one of the decreasing list of Arab nations that would offer him refuge after the revolution.

Also check out Double Toothpicks for more coverage on this issue.

Media Notes, Bret Stephens Update And Correction

Hugh Hewitt will have the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens as a guest during the show's first hour to discuss the Eason Jordan scandal and the WSJ's response to it. I've been critical of both the response and of Bret Stephens, so I definitely want to hear what he has to say -- and as a long-time fan of the WSJ/OpinionJournal, I'm bringing an open mind. So should we all ...

Power Line and CQ reader Vayapaso point out that Tony Snow, one of the nicest gentlemen I had the good fortune of meeting at the Republican National Convention, has been diagnosed with colon cancer. Please send him your best wishes and prayers at tonysnow@aol.com. We'll add him to our prayer list as well.

UPDATE: Hugh posts his thoughts on his initial talk with Bret Stephens, and reading down through his site, I also see that Hugh's retracting his reporting that Stephens wrote the unsigned editorial that ran Monday. I missed that, and I retract my commentary regarding that in this post (in the update).

Hugh writes about the rest of my posts regarding the WSJ:

If Stephens has been wrongly attacked, the bloggers that did so should issue prominent retractions. I expect my friend Ed Morrissey will re-examine his posts about Stephens to see if they meet his normal, very high standards of fairness and accuracy.

In reviewing my original issue with Bret Stephens, I linked back to an undisclosed direct relationship between Stephens and the WEF, and an indirect one between his club and Eason Jordan. I think bringing that up was fair, and I still think that Stephens should have disclosed it before writing such a dismissive opinion piece, especially in the objectionable and incendiary language he used in reference to Michelle Malkin ("suspended somewhere between meltdown and release"), simply for having committed journalism by interviewing Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and David Gergen. That kind of personal attack begs the question of what burr got under whose saddle, and his connections to the WEF and the Young Global Leaders program would have allowed WSJ readers to calculate better why Stephens attacked Malkin in such personal language.

That being said, I probably committed the same sin by republishing the attack piece by Joel Leyden of the Israel News Agency. A reader sent it to me, and at the time, I thought it germane to Stephens' editorial decisions. Since Stephens did not write the unsigned editorial, it doesn't apply anyway, and in any case goes farther towards a personal attack on Stephens than a professional criticism. I apologize to Mr. Stephens for the post. I've deleted most of the post, except for the introduction and an interesting paragraph that doesn't directly relate to Mr. Stephens. I've left it on the blog so that people can go back and see I've retracted it, rather than do a Soviet-style "disappearance".

Regarding my opinion on the alleged conflict of interest, that's all it is -- my opinion. If the WSJ and Stephens don't consider it a problem, that's their opinion, and our readers can decide which decision is correct.

UPDATE II: Radioblogger will have the transcript of the Bret Stephens segment up shortly. I have no real objection to what Stephens said, except that he never really addressed the fact that the WSJ failed to report on the story after the first blush, didn't acknowledge the facts revealed by independent sources, and attacked them in general in two pieces and Michelle Malkin specifically in one.

However, I felt that Stephens' criticisms of me were fair. I don't agree with most of it, but it was fair, and I'm certainly not above criticism. Check out the comments in this post and others about Stephens, and you'll find out that some of the criticism came immediately.

George, for instance, commented on my first post about Stephens that I should lay off of him, and considers my post today "guarded", "limited", and a "painful burden" -- a fair characterization, although it's not as painful to admit a mistake as some might think. (I'm married, dude -- it's what I do.) Others have also weighed in earlier, and I expect I'll see more in the comments to this post. In fact, the corrective nature of comments is one of the reasons I have them enabled in the first place; CQ should be a community of voices, not an echo chamber of one or two, and that's what comments are for.

I urge those who missed the Stephens interview to check out the transcript at Radioblogger and decide for yourselves where lines were crossed and by whom. I think the interview was one of the most interesting and most relevant to blogging that I've heard in a while.

UPDATE III: [deleted]

UPDATE for Daniel Simon: I'm not unretracting anything. I still think that posting the Leyden piece was a mistake, and I stand by that. I also still believe that Stephens' connections to WEF should have been disclosed, but I will also say this (which I did in my other posts): it doesn't mean that Stephens wrote anything other than what he firmly believes. It just creates doubts that could have been avoided with disclosure. He wasn't just a reporter covering the event, and that information should, in my opinion, have been included in his report.

UPDATE 7:41 PM: After private correspondence which I will not quote or characterize other than to say it was friendly and professional, I want to note that Bret Stephens' bio on the OpinionJournal site does mention his membership in both the YGL and WEF. I didn't catch that at the time I wrote the post or after that as well. Bill Roggio has retracted his claim of a conflict of interest at Easongate, and I will join in him that statement and extend my earlier apology to Bret Stephens on this issue as well.

UN Inspectors Drinking On The Job: Telegraph

In a further demonstration of the folly of a UN sanctions regime that key nations undermined and UN management corrupted, the London Telegraph reports on allegations from a former Cotecna inspector that his fellow front-line co-workers often drank on the job and rarely did any work to stop the smuggling:

UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka while ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate yesterday.

In a move that provoked fury from officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna, an Australian former inspector detailed a picture of incompetence, indifference and drunkeness among the men acting as the frontline for UN sanctions.

Yeah, that box containing Saddam certainly kept him honest, didn't it? Speaking of honesty, Arthur Ventham gave it out in spades to the Senate panel investigating the OFF corruption. He talked about smuggling operations taking place right in front of the inspectors, who shrugged and did nothing about it. In a twist that sounds more like the Mafia than the United Nations (insert joke here), Ventham also testified that Cotecna hired a lot of people to stand around doing nothing as a matter of course:

He said that at Iskendurun in eastern Turkey, some officials had refused to work.

When he asked one of his bosses why, he was told: "They were friends or relatives of potential clients, and are only in the mission so the company could secure future contracts in Nigeria, Comoros and another African country.

"When I said that this was unfair on everyone else, I was told that it was general practice in Cotecna."

CQ readers will recall, surely, that Cotecna's most famous ex-employee is Kojo Annan, another employee paid for services that Cotecna now cannot identify. It would appear that his presence was only required to open doors -- and one wonders exactly how Kojo did that.

Cotecna angrily responded afterwards that Ventham was a disgruntled former employee who had been fired earlier. That begs the question of exactly how one goes about getting fired from such a company ... actually doing inspections?

Democracy In Action Clueless About CNN's Operations?

I just received a hilarious e-mail from Danny Schechter at Democracy in Action, which wants to alert me to the vast conspiracy by Fox News to discredit CNN by attacking Eason Jordan. This mass e-mail has so many holes and fallacies in its arguments that it's hard to know where to begin -- but I'll just start at the top:

Dear Media for Democracy Member,

Er, no. Not that I mind seeing what they produce, but I'm not a member, nor have I subscribed to any of their services.

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit late last week amid a furor over remarks he allegedly made about American soldiers intentionally killing journalists in Iraq.

Allegedly? Even Jordan admitted making the remarks; he just claimed that people in attendance misinterpreted them. Eight different witnesses verified Rony Arbovitz, including Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, hardly members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Jordan delivered the remarks while sitting on an off-the-record panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

It was so off the record, in fact, that the WEF quoted its participants in its own summary posted on the WEF website.

While no actual tape of his comments has yet to be released, an attendee disseminated news of the event into the blogosphere and ignited a firestorm, which included charges that CNN itself -- not just Jordan in his personal capacity -- had "slimed our troops."

Not exactly. What we demanded was that the tape be released and that if Jordan had indeed made unsubstantiated allegations of atrocities against the US military, then CNN either needed to produce evidence of such or dismiss Jordan. If CNN failed to act, we argued, that was tantamount to supporting an act of slander, and CNN's credibility would suffer greatly as a result. Everyone I've read on the subject who accused Jordan specifically of "sliming the troops" leveled that accusation only at Jordan himself.

Leading the charge was CNN competitor Fox News Channel and its sister publication, The New York Post.

Hey, I like the Post and Fox, but they hardly led any kind of media "charge", as a review of the history will show. Fox reported briefly on a Wall Street Journal subscription-only blurb and dropped it for a week. The Post didn't do a lot more with it until a couple of days before Jordan's resignation. Hugh Hewitt could have been said to have led the charge, perhaps. The ignorance of Schechter shines through with this silly lie.

Members of Congress piled on with angry demands for evidence although the tone of their remarks suggested a total denial of the possibility that Jordan may know something that they didn't.

Here's where we get to the true stupidity of Schechter's e-mail. First, members of Congress objected from the moment the words flew out of Jordan's mouth, because he had no evidence for his allegations. Barney Frank asked him for evidence during the forum, and as David Gergen repeats ad nauseam these days, Jordan "walked it back" to mistaken identity after being challenged.

But more directly, Eason Jordan runs one of the world's largest news agencies, whose business is informing people of what they do not already know. If Eason Jordan had specific evidence of these atrocities, it should have led their news program at prime time in America and around the world. Does Schechter think that CNN is some sort of commercial CIA? In Schechter's world, do journalists and news execs run around telling people about the stories they have and then spike them just to pique their interest?

Does Schechter have any clue how obtuse that statement reads?

Instead, Jordan's patriotism and CNN's integrity was attacked.

Yes. Selling anti-Americanism in order to gain access to foreign markets that salivate for it, and lying about our own troops to do so, does strike some of us as rather unpatriotic. Stoking hatred of American service members merely to bolster one's bottom line does not reflect well on one's integrity, and since Jordan represents CNN in these forums, that reflects poorly on CNN's integrity as well.

Schechter then flags three "urgent issues" for me to consider:

1. Do media executives have a right to express opinions that deviate from the official line? Media companies should defend the rights of their employees to take part in democratic debate without fears of recriminations. The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and the World Editors Forum have rushed in to defend Jordan's right to express controversial opinions without intimidation.

Media companies should defend the rights of all people to take part in debate without fear of recrimination. Free speech, however, does not protect libel and slander. Nor does claiming "intimidation" every time someone criticizes one's speech create a debate; that argues for an echo chamber, where only one side gets to talk. That model has expired, and Schechter doesn't much like it.

As for the WSJ and the World Editors Forum, if they truly have done what Schechter says, they've missed the point. Jordan didn't just express an opinion, he made specific allegations of criminal conduct, and he did so on more than one occasion. Even if it was just his opinion, we have a right to criticize tha opinion by expressing our own opinions, and when he fails to produce evidence, then Jordan looks like an idiot, a sell-out, and/or a liar. The First Amendment doesn't protect one from the consequences of their speech.

2. Do media companies have an obligation to investigate and not just denigrate?

Yes! That was our entire point! If Eason Jordan thinks that the American military assassinates and tortures journalists, then he has a responsibility to investigate and produce evidence before issuing denigrating and slanderous accusations. After all, Jordan ran one of the largest media companies in the world.

CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, AFP and other media outlets should take a fresh look at these charges to determine their validity.

Perhaps they can do that after they report on what Jordan actually said in the first place. None of the agencies named by Schechter have called for the release of the Davos videotape or have reported on Jordan's similar charges in November 2004 or October 2002.

3. Are we who care about integrity in the media willing to stand up to protect free speech during a time of war? While this issue is often spun as a left-right story, it's about much more than that. We are all paying dearly for this war. Shouldn't we Americans have a right to know what's being done in our name?

That's two separate issues -- free speech and transparency in government. I have to say that someone who sends out as badly researched and antagonistic a message as this, and then has the nerve to imply that free speech is an endangered species, has got a serious screw loose. Anyone who experienced the vitriol and personal attacks on the streets during this past election aimed at our current president and his staff should have recognized that the First Amendment remains alive and well. In fact, I think campaign-finance reform constitutes a much greater threat to political speech than anything Schechter argues in this missive.

In terms of transparency, Schechter wants news agencies to pull soldiers out of units to be available for journalists' investigations at whim. However, Schechter fails to recognize that journalists accompanied US troops into Baghdad and given their own testimony to the notion that American troops targeted journalists during the battle. Jules Crittendon of the Baltimore Sun was embedded with the unit that fired on the Palestine Hotel, the premier incident which people like Schechter point out as evidence of an assassination strategy, and thoroughly debunks it. Why doesn't Schechter simply pick up the phone and ask Crittendon?

Schechter can send all the e-mail missives he likes, but his arguments are losers. He gets his facts wrong, he mixes his arguments, and he can't determine the difference between oppression and opposition. Having people like Schechter on their side may well be the primary reason CNN pushed Eason Jordan out the door.

UN Oil Inspector Took Bribe, Came Cheap

CNN reports that the Senate investigation into the Oil-For-Food scandal has unearthed evidence that at least one UN oil inspector was on the take. Armando Carlos Oliveira worked for Saybolt, one of OFF's main contractors, and put over $100,000 of illicit payoffs in his pocket while allowing Saddam's regime to smuggle oil out the door:

The Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released documents alleging that the inspector for Saybolt, a Dutch company hired to monitor approved Iraqi oil shipments from 1996 to 2003, enabled Saddam's regime to sell $9 million worth of oil outside the program.

"We have found disturbing evidence that one of the U.N. oil monitors -- the individuals hired by the U.N. to inspect the oil exports from Iraq under the OFF Program -- took a bribe," said subcommittee chairman Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican.

Coleman named Armando Carlos Oliveira, 46, a Portuguese national, as the rogue inspector who received a $105,819 payment, about 2 percent of the value of the oil smuggled in two illicit shipments in 2001.

Saybolt attorney John Denson told the subcommittee that this is the first time Saybolt learned the specifics of the alleged bribe of Oliveira, who is still a Saybolt employee.

First, one has to wonder about the small change that this represents. In a program where $10 billion or more may have disappeared from the Iraqis who starved instead, finding a single payoff of $100K seems like a small detail. It's 2% of the value that Oliveira allowed onto the black market, hardly a worthy agency fee. Actually, I find that quite encouraging. For one thing, criminal cases are built on such transactions, and lower-echelong witnesses come forward as a result with more information about larger payoffs up the line. Second, the detail shows that the Senate panel headed by our own Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman gets results and is making good progress. Many of these panels wind up holding public hearings and wind up accomplishing nothing.

Oliveira refused to comment, telling CNN that his company had ordered him to remain silent. Likely, that order would hold if the Volcker Commission came around asking questions. As so many have pointed out already, having a panel with subpoena power makes a lot of difference in an investigation, and having a probe that doesn't answer to the man in charge of the corrupt organization also has its benefits.

In other news, Coleman demanded yesterday that the UN strip Benon Sevan of his diplomatic immunity so that he can be subpoenaed for testimony:

Citing Iraq Oil Ministry documents, Senate subcommittee investigators say that Sevan, not AMEP, received allocations for 9.3 million barrels worth $1.2 million.

"Did Benon Sevan personally receive oil allocations from the Hussein regime? A review of the evidence will suggest that the answer to that question is 'yes,'" Coleman said.

"I call upon Secretary-General Kofi Annan to strip Mr. Sevan of his diplomatic immunity so that he will be available for judicial process," Coleman said.

Nine days ago, Annan said he would comply with any such request, after the initial release of Volcker's interim report. Now Annan has his chance. If he refuses, we need to demand his resignation, and now rather than later. Shielding Sevan from the US Senate investigation would confirm that the rot at Turtle Bay went past Sevan -- and the only place that means is the Secretary-General himself.

Hospiblogging, Day 3: Up And About

I'm at the hospital today and plan to stick around here most of the day, as the First Mate is much more alert -- and more uncomfortable as a result. She's sitting up in a chair right now, reminding me to keep all of you updated on her progress, in fact. (Now you know the real reason I blog -- she makes me do it.) Marcia wants to get the digestive system working again so they can take out the stomach tube they have in for her medications. The best way to do that is to get up and move around, and she's about to walk about a bit for the first time.

More later!

Michael Jackson Gets Close To Children Again

Normally I wouldn't comment on singer Michael Jackson, but this post at La Shawn Barber's has me mystified. Apparently Jackson took ill this morning on his way to court and had to be hospitalized -- and Marian Medical Center had just the spot for him:

I just got off the telephone with WMAL anchor Michelle Basch, who confirms that Jackson is staying on the same floor as the Pediatrics Unit. He’s staying their supposedly because it’s the most isolated area at Marian Medical Center. Oh, the irony is disgusting!

Whose bright idea is storing Jackson in isolation with children? Why not just lock up Courtney Love at the Pfizer Laboratories while we're at it?

Brent Bozell Slams The "Lynch-Mob" Meme

L. Brent Bozell writes about the blogswarm surrounding Eason's Fables in today's National Ledger, and he slams Eason Jordan for his unprofessionalism and compares CNN to Richard Nixon's White House. Bozell also castigates the media that ignores the central facts up to the present day, and cites CQ and myself as an authority:

If these charges were true, they would make Abu Ghraib's naked pyramids pale by comparison. But they were wild and reckless accusations, which explains Jordan's subsequent, furious backpedaling and denials. Still, it begs the question: Why would a man whose profession and expertise was "newsgathering" make such wild charges without evidence? ...

But then Jordan and CNN added to the outrage by refusing any attempts to release a transcript or videotape of the off-the-record panel discussion. What a spectacle: a news outlet always championing the public's "right to know" and crusading for "full disclosure" clamping down like the stereotypical arrogant multinational corporation they like to expose. Richard Nixon, meet Eason Jordan. Does anyone believe that if President Bush (or Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rumsfeld or fill in the blank) claimed in an off-the-record forum overseas that Ted Kennedy was a murderer, that CNN wouldn't be in the front of the line demanding that the administration release the videotape?

That may be the most apt analogy I've yet heard about Eason's Fables. If CNN didn't demand the videotape of such an event, no doubt all other media outlets would, especially if it turned out that Bush or one of his staff regularly made such accusations at political events. Just look at the recent contretemps over the GOP calling Harry Reid an obstructionist. That detailed, 13-page memo with voting records and public statements from the new Senate Minority Leader resulted in a petition signed by all Senate Democrats calling on Bush to publicly disavow the statement -- and got coverage from every single national news outlet, as well as plenty of pundit analysis.

Bozell then remarks on how little the media has actually done to inform its viewers and readers about the nature of Jordan's transgressions by referencing the work published here at CQ, gathered from a number of blogosphere sources:

Controversy was also deepened when bloggers like Ed Morrissey (at his blog "Captain's Quarters") reported that this was not a one-time gaffe for Jordan. Morrissey said Jordan had also "accused the U.S. military of torturing journalists (November 2004) and the Israeli military of deliberate assassinations (October 2002) at journalistic forums, all overseas and outside the reach of most American media."

These accusations are stop-the-presses huge. So why didn't CNN ever produce some evidence for these charges and put them on the air? And if they weren't true, why wasn't this man fired long ago?

CNN never aired them because CNN had no evidence to support the charges. No one doubts for a second that CNN or any of the other media outlets would love to break a story like that. If true, I'd want them to do it. But what Jordan did, on several occasions, was to pass along rumor as fact in order to bolster his anti-American credentials so that he could gain or retain access for CNN in some of the world's worst dictatorships and kleptocracies, those countries which have a vested interest in selling anti-American rhetoric to their subjects.

Bozell also presents the best analysis so far of the media blackout's result:

Amazingly, most of the major "news" media avoided this news -- especially CNN. So when Jordan resigned, it made the blogs seem so powerful that liberals started attacking them for recklessly destroying Jordan's career, even using goofy terms like "cyber-McCarthyism" to denounce it. But what the bloggers did here was deliver information and accountability, the same things the major media purport to be providing -- unless it's one of their own in the hot seat.

That reaction will wind up driving readers to the blogs to research this supposed witch hunt, where they will find much more to Eason's Fables than the pathetic treatment given in the mainstream press. That will be a body blow to the MSM's credibility and create much more demand for the blogosphere. The media, much more so than in Memogate, has done far more damage to itself than the bloggers could ever have done.

Who Killed Rafik Hariri?

Rami Khouri attempts to make sense of the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in a massive carbombing on Monday. Unfortunately, as Khouri notes, the Byzantine nature of Lebanese politics after a generation of domination by the Syrians creates a number of possible suspects, most of whom will work overtime to frame one or more of the others:

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a massive bombing in central Beirut on Monday sends a loud and deadly message - but the nature, origin, destination and intent of the message all remain painfully unclear to many observers. What is crystal clear, though, is that this crime will send out important political ripples in at least three dimensions.

The two most immediate dimensions are internal Lebanese politics and the Syrian-Lebanese relationship. The third dimension is the relationship between Syria and external powers - the U.S. and France most notably, the UN and the Europeans more broadly. The speed, clarity and intensity with which Lebanese opposition groups Monday blamed Syria and its allied Lebanese government for the killing spoke volumes about the troubled Syrian-Lebanese axis being the central political context in which this whole matter must be analyzed. That became obvious immediately after the bombing, as affirmed by the behavior of the three principal protagonists - the Syrian government, the Lebanese opposition and the United States government. ...

The fact that within just hours of the murder five distinct parties were singled out as possible culprits - Israel, Syria, Lebanese regime partisans, mafia-style gangs, and anti-Saudi, anti-U.S. Islamist terrorists - also points to the wider dilemma that disfigures Lebanese and Arab political culture in general: the resort to murderous and destabilizing violence as a chronic option for those who vie for power, whether as respectable government officials, established local warlords, or freelance political thugs.

Of course, that dynamic directly springs from the natural environment of a state at war, either with outsiders or with itself -- and Lebanon, unfortunately, is both. Syria has militarily occupied Lebanon for decades and props up a sympathetic government. That has bred contempt and frustration from the Lebanese, who have tired of Syria and Israel using Lebanon as a proxy for their ongoing hostilities. Even the Lebanese government that serves at the pleasure of Damascus has grown increasingly restless, and with the Americans on the other border of Syria, the Syrians themselves have begun to rethink their Lebanese adventure.

So why would the Syrians want to assassinate Hariri? Well, they claim they didn't, and instead blame the Israelis. However, the Israelis have even less reason than Damascus to pull such a stunt. They want the Syrians out of Lebanon, not to give them a reason to dawdle. Besides, car bombs aren't Israel's style. The Syrians need to ensure that they have a firm political grip on Lebanon if they ever intend to leave it to the Lebanese, and with the recent push for the end of the occupation, the Syrians may have decided -- rather unwisely -- that a message had to be delivered in preparation for their evacuation.

Now this murder will renew pressure on Syria to leave, and may tilt the US to look westward from Iraq towards Damascus rather than eastward towards Teheran, a strategy I predicted after the State of the Union speech. Both countries sponsor terrorism, and both have intelligence reports of WMD. Syria's proximity to Israel and the West Bank as well as its occuptation of Lebanon makes it an extremely inviting next step in stamping out the supports for terror in Southwest Asia.

If Syria killed Hariri, it's as bad a miscalculation as any Bashir Assad has yet made.

What's The Point?

The port side of the blogosphere has crowed over their outing of a conservative hack reporter that managed to get day passes to White House briefings. Jeff Gannon, the nom de plume of Jeff Guckert, worked until recently for Talon News, a tiny conservative outfit that hired Gannon without doing much checking into his background -- much to their recent chagrin. Leftists such as those at Americablog have focused on Guckert's sexuality to shame him out of the briefing room, a strange McCarthyite tactic for those who claim that all sexual matters should remain private.

Now Men's Wear Daily reports on Russell Mokhiber, an associate of Ralph Nader and a political activist, who also manages to get White House daily passes and styles himself a journalist, despite representing no news agency whatsoever:

The media watch-group Accuracy in Media charged today that a liberal activist and associate of Ralph Nader has been obtaining access to White House press briefings while claiming to be a legitimate news reporter.

Russell Mokhiber, who sells a $795 a year newsletter that bashes corporations, attends the briefings to make obscure anti-Bush political points. Recently, for example, he asked spokesman Scott McClellan whether President Bush violated one of the Ten Commandments by invading Iraq. Mokhiber, who told AIM that he has never taken a journalism class in his life and was denied a permanent White House press pass, posts his ludicrous questions and answers on a far-left web site under the title "Scottie & Me."

Other Mokhiber topics have included industrial hemp, Israel's 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, possible war crimes charges against Bush, and Halliburton.

AIM editor Cliff Kincaid said Mokhiber's attendance at the briefings makes it clear that the controversy over Jeff Gannon attending the same briefings was manufactured by left-wing bloggers and liberals in the media because they don't want conservatives in the White House press corps.

Quite frankly, I don't think the White House should make decisions about who represents true journalism in the briefing room. Most days, there are plenty of open seats. If someone presents themselves honestly (Guckert got the passes under his real name), presents no security risk, and acts with decorum, why shouldn't they be allowed to ask questions? I think that's true for Guckert of Talon News just as much as it is for Mokhiber of his own newsletter. If the questions get exceedingly stupid, as apparently offered by both men, then either exclude them, quit calling on them, or use them for comedic relief -- but do that based on their professionalism instead of their backgrounds.

One would think that bloggers would take a more libertarian view of journalistic qualifications than the leftists, who seem more engaged by sexual innuendo than issues these days. Let Mokhiber and Gannon alone, and quit manufacturing silly scandals regarding the quality of the White House press corps. Even those that represent major news outlets provide enough embarassment to go around.

CBS News Faces Legal Nightmare

The New York Observer reports this morning that CBS may be facing the nightmare it hoped most to avoid. Three of the four people pushed out the door as a result of the fraudulent TexANG documents used by CBS in an attempt to smear George Bush and tilt the presidential election have not only not resigned from the news division, but at least one of them has threatened a lawsuit, complete with subpoenas and full discovery. The prospect clearly has CBS rattled and stuck in limbo while they try desperately to negotiate the trio's exits:

Five weeks later, the crisis is not yet behind Mr. Moonves. And far from resolving the problem of the network’s credibility, the independent report commissioned by CBS appears instead to be leading to a confrontation, with defenders of both the ousted CBS staffers involved in the debacle and top CBS management asserting two different truths from the same document.

Mr. Howard and two other ousted CBS staffers—his top deputy, Mary Murphy, and CBS News senior vice president Betsy West—haven’t resigned. And sources close to Mr. Howard said that before any resignation comes, the 23-year CBS News veteran is demanding that the network retract Mr. Moonves’ remarks, correct its official story line and ultimately clear his name.

Mr. Howard, those sources said, has hired a lawyer to develop a breach-of-contract suit against the network. Ms. Murphy and Ms. West have likewise hired litigators, according to associates of theirs, and all three remain CBS employees and collect weekly salaries from the company that asked them to tender their resignations.

Normally, disputes like these reach resolution with the liberal application of cash, and undoubtedly CBS and its parent, Viacom, has plenty of it to toss at Howard, Murphy, and West. Unfortunately for CBS, Howard has more concern with his reputation than with cash for his long-term prospects, and CBS has done its best to knee-cap him for future jobs in the news business. Howard wants to make clear that he tried stopping the runaway train of Rather's mouth and Mapes' insistence of authenticity in the hours following the criticism of the memos -- something the CBS report also confirms -- and he hints that the responsibility for its continued momentum lies much higher up the food chain:

But Mr. Howard’s complaint about Mr. Moonves’ remarks could pose a serious problem for CBS. Sources close to Mr. Howard said he believes that the report—which was assembled by an outside team of former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press head Louis Boccardi Jr.—contradicts Mr. Moonves’ statement about Mr. Howard’s share of the blame.

Mr. Howard also believes, those sources said, that the report itself excludes evidence that would implicate top management at CBS and restore Mr. Howard’s reputation in the television news business. ...

According to Mr. Goldberg, if a chief executive made public statements about employees that cannot be supported by facts—i.e., by the narrative of the Thornburgh report or, worse, other unreported material—it could open the company up to trouble.

"They were very foolish to go public with an attack on these people, because they lose their immunity to be sued for defamation," Mr. Goldberg said. "Whereas if they had put these very same things in court paper, they could not be sued."

Martin Garbus, a First Amendment lawyer, said that Mr. Moonves’ statement may well give Mr. Howard grounds for a defamation suit. "He has a claim," said Mr. Garbus.

And of course, this is the nightmare CBS wanted to avoid. The article talks about defamation of character and libel, but only in the context of Howard, Murphy, and West. That isn't the legal problem that keeps Moonves up at night. If a lawsuit brings out any knowledge that CBS executives above the operational level knew that the documents were unauthenticated and ran them anyway, CBS opens itself to all kinds of libel suits, from General Buck Stoudt to the family of Col. Jerry Killian and several others. Even George W. Bush might be able to clear the public-figure threshold, and his father almost certainly could, given the public animosity shown him by Dan Rather and CBS.

More than the follow-on lawsuits, however, would be the embarassment of exposure for top CBS brass of their so-called "independent" report. Most of us thought that the Thornburgh-Boccardi report mostly whitewashed the entire affair, through a lack of reaching conclusions on the core issue: the forgeries of the memos, and the reasons why obviously fraudulent memos got air time on the network. The probe used odd methodology for a supposedly independent investigation, such as holding court just a few doors away from Moonves' office, not recording testimony, and taking a criminal-law threshold for reaching conclusions.

All of that seems designed for a specific purpose -- not to find the truth, but to cover the wide expanse of CBS News' ass.

Time may soon run out for CBS News to reach its resolution with the tarnished trio. As Joe Hagan notes, Dan Rather steps down from his anchor desk on March 9th, with plenty of fanfare planned for his retirement. If CBS wants Rather to promote the televised hoopla of his departure, they will want all loose ends tied up so that Rather doesn't face an inquisition by his fellow reporters instead of softball questions about his battles with Nixon. Right now, it appears that Rather may need to hide out instead.

Oddly, I find myself pulling for Howard. I think he intended on inflicting a smear on Bush and hoped to tilt the election, for both professional and political glory. However, I also think that people higher up the food chain at CBS participated in that decision, and the only way we will ever find that out is if a court subpoenas all of the records regarding the 60 Minutes Wednesday TexANG segment. Only then will we get a truly independent look at the decisions that led to the use of forgeries by one of the most elite news organizations in the world.

Hospiblogging, Day 2, Part 2: All Quiet

I arrived here about an hour ago from work, after checking in with the nurses from my office. They told me that the First Mate spent some time sitting up and stretching out and that her blood sugars have been terrific. However, by the time I got out here -- after having walked a roommate through a minor housekeeping emergency back at the house -- Marcia mostly wants to sleep. So I'm sitting in the room, taking a few minutes to work on a column offered to me by a national publication and just keeping an eye on her.

She's looking better every time I see her, and she's been conversing with me today. She's not strong enough to take phone calls and she doesn't want visitors at all besides me, but she responds well to my jokes (she's the only one who laughs at them anyway) and she wants me here even if she's asleep.

More later!

UPDATE, 9:30 pm CT: I just got home from the hospital, where the First Mate is still resting comfortably. The pancreas function is still excellent, and the prognosis still looks very good. She mostly slept while I worked on my article. I'm still working on it now, so I will sign off and wish you all good night.

Iraqi Sunnis Finally Get The Hint

The British newspaper The Guardian reported earlier today that the Sunni hardliners who called for a boycott of the January elections have now admitted the move was a mistake. Rory Carroll confirms that Sunni leaders now want to support the new democratic processes and hope that the new government will reach out to them as a result:

Iraq's Arab Sunnis will do a U-turn and join the political process despite their lack of representation in the newly elected national assembly, Sunni leaders said yesterday. ...

All three blocs have promised to reach out to the Sunnis, who comprise a fifth of the population but won just a handful of seats because of low turnouts in their areas. This will soon be tested as parties forge alliances and tussle for government posts, including that of prime minister and president.

Secular Sunni leaders yesterday accepted the victors' invitation to participate, potentially draining support from the insurgency.

"We can't say it was wise or logical to not participate; it was an emotional decision," said Mr Samaray. "Now the Sunni community faces the fact that it made a big mistake and that it would have been far better to participate."

His party, the main Sunni group since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, was in talks with Kurds and Shias. He added: "The Sunni community will accept to share this country with others. They do not need to dominate."

Guardian readers might find themselves astounded by this turn of events, as the newspaper had often railed against American/UK policy of holding the elections, even under the threat of violence. The Guardian followed the lead of many American media outlets, chiefly the New York Times, in predicting disaster and civil war as a result fof supposedly forcing elections down the throats of people who did not want or need democracy. At first the leftists sneered at the notion that democracy solves anything, and then declared that the concept was too alien to Arab sensitivities to catch on.

As the new reaction from the Sunni groups show, however, democracy transforms societies in ways that nothing else can. The sight of so many Iraqis celebrating their chance to select their own leadership moved the entire world, and those who listened to bitter leaders of sectarian oppression have now realized that they missed their chance to do the same. These leaders -- even without their participation in the elections -- now are being held accountable for their idiotic decision to boycott. Their followers likely have demanded better leadership, and that means either they improve Sunni standing by getting behind the new democracy or face replacement with others who will.

Fortunately for everyone, the other factions in Iraq want Sunni participation just as much as the Sunnis now do, and will grant reasonable concessions in order to get it. As the Guardian explicitly observes, such developments will take the steam out of an insurgency which so far hasn't gotten the message that they lost on January 30th -- not just a battle, but the whole war. They can still kill people, but they have lost any legitimacy they may have had with the Iraqi people.

And that's how democracy transforms, and why it stamps out terror.

Hospiblogging, Day 2: Still On Track

I had a chance to spend a little time with the First Mate this morning before running to the office to catch up on some project work and make sure the building still stands. She was weak but alert this morning, and the staff at the hospital tell me they're very pleased with her progress. Because of the post-op steroids she received, her blood sugar levels went up a bit after I left, so she's on an insulin drip. However, this is a normal procedure after any pancreas transplant, and her blood sugars never exceeded 150. Normally, steroids would have sent her BGL into the stratosphere, into the 400s or even 500s. Her kidney functions look normal and her blood pressure has been very good, despite the excess fluid from the surgery.

She's not feeling especially chipper, but I plan on reading to her a selection of the many messages of support and prayer that have come her way through you when I go back at mid-afternoon. I'll spend the rest of the evening with her there, probably mostly blogging while she dozes.

Washington Times: Salivating Morons Trump Media Elites -- Again

The Washington Times runs two opinion pieces in today's edition on the media reaction to Eason's Fables and the bloggers who pushed the story to the surface. First, in its unsigned editorial, the Times scolds the Wall Street Journal for its reaction to bloggers and their role:

Add "salivating morons" to the mainstream media's growing canon of stupid things to say about the ever-vigilant bloggers. Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, the self-styled flagship of journalism, said this in the fallout of CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan's resignation on Friday: "The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail." Add also, as loath as we are to do so, the Wall Street Journal's editorial comment from yesterday that professional journalism, of which it proclaims membership, is much better than "the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs." ...

Throughout the "kerfuffle," we have attempted to keep our readers informed about what Mr. Jordan said and why it mattered. To do so, we relied heavily on the fine reporting done by the blogosphere: Jim Geraghty of National Review Online, Edward Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson of Power Line, Michelle Malkin and numerous others. A few mainstream folks jumped on board as well, including the New York Post, the New York Sun, Investor's Business Daily, Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Lawrence Kudlow. Even the Examiner, Washington's newest daily, ran an editorial yesterday.

The meme among those outlets that didn't provide coverage is that the bloggers were on a headhunting spree, when in fact very few called for Mr. Jordan's immediate resignation. If any underlying theme could be found, it is called truth-hunting — and CNN had an obligation to get it. When influential members of the media defame our troops, they should answer for it. If that's moronic, sign us up.

The Times was among the first mainstream media organs to publish anything about Eason's Fables, if not the first. Not only does the Times rely on bloggers to signal a breaking story, as the editorial states, they have no reluctance to name us as their sources. This is not the first time I've seen my name and blogsite on the pages of the Washington Times, and that demonstrates an integrity that others in their circle have a difficult time matching. The Times appears to be far ahead of its rivals in creating a new synthesis of old and new media, and as they move in that direction, bloggers and their readers will follow.

Douglas MacKinnon also notes the role that the rest of the media played in Eason's Fables, that of the silent chorus:

I have a number of friends at CNN whom I know to be honest, ethical and hard working. I have to believe that they are horrified and ashamed that their own network ignored a major story about their own news president. It is for that reason that the death knell for the liberal mainstream press has been sounded. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and the major left-leaning newspapers — such as The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, USA TODAY and many others — made a conscious decision to keep a major news story away from the American people.

Fortunately, the bloggers have once again pulled the curtain back to reveal that the feeble old man controlling the make-believe world of "unbiased" media is a fraud, and a dangerous one at that.

The rap on the bloggers so far after Jordan's resignation is that we conducted a witch hunt, and Jordan was nothing more than a victim. The dreaded term "McCarthyism" has been thrown at us as well. However, a witch hunt demands innocence of its victim, and Jordan was anything but. He had made repeated, slanderous allegations against the US military in foreign venues, ensuring access for CNN in places where anti-Americanism sells best. We demanded to see the videotape that the World Economic Forum made and from which they quoted the participants, only to be told the forum was "off the record". CNN and Jordan never stood up for the truth and demanded the release of the videotape, despite their later protestations of misinterpretation and the WSJ's accusations of "vendettas".

So remind me again -- who was working for the truth, and now who wants to argue for stonewalling? The Times knows, and gets it right. This "lynch mob" meme will suffer the same fate as the media blackout which preceded it, and the mainstream media will lose that final fig leaf, standing exposed for all to see. (hat tip: CQ reader John M.)

A Closer Look At Bret Stephens

After the revelation that Bret Stephens used the Wall Street Journal's unsigned-editorial slot to issue an institutional (and anonymous) defense of his own work yesterday -- one that raised a firestorm of opposition among OpinionJournal.com readers -- CQ reader Dianne sent me some background on Stephens that may explain some of the issues at the WSJ. Joel Leyden wrote a valediction for Stephens for the Israel News Agency on the announcement of his departure from the Jerusalem Post (emphases mine):

I have also heard the adage: "don't kiss and tell" and my father once told me "don't ever bad mouth anyone you ever worked with." And we all know that cops don't rat on cops and journalists don't bash journalists. It's a standing rule for which I am now breaking. As a "disgruntled former employee" I can talk, my colleagues at the Post cannot - due to fear. Fear of being fired and a clause in their Israeli contracts which states that they are not allowed to speak to the media.

Before I address any more of Leyden's criticism of Stephens, I find that bolded statement rather telling in the wake of Eason's Fables and the media blackout that followed. It's the first time I've seen that analogy expressed in print by a media source, although the comparison occurred to me more than once over the past two weeks. I heard John Podhoretz talking about this a bit more obliquely last night with Hugh Hewitt, in his analysis that media sources don't compete much at all, but instead act as more of a large co-op or monopoly. They compete locally; John's Post and the Daily News have no problem criticizing each other, but they're going after the same readership in a crowded and narrow marketplace.

NOTE: I am retracting the rest of this post. On further review, I've decided that this entry probably treated Stephens unfairly. This mostly had to do with an editorial decision originally reported to have been made by Stephens, which later turned out not to be the case. I apologize to Mr. Stephens for the post.

Kojo And Benan About To Star In Senate Investigation

The Washington Times reports this morning that the Senate investigation into the Oil-For-Food program led by Norm Coleman will highlight much more active roles for Kojo Annan and Benon Sevan in the corruption than Paul Volcker's interim report suggested. Annan played a more significant role with Cotecna than Volcker reported:

Kojo Annan, the son of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, played a far more extensive role than previously revealed in a company that won a key contract under the scandal-plagued Iraq oil-for-food program, Senate investigators have learned. ...

Cotecna, the Switzerland-based firm that employed Kojo Annan as a consultant, won a major contract to inspect oil-for-food shipments in late 1998. The company never disclosed the younger Mr. Annan's relationship in the bidding for the contract, and has insisted that his work was restricted to two African countries and never dealt with Iraq.

But Mr. Annan, in a letter to Cotecna executives just months before the contract was awarded, wrote of putting in place for the company "a 'machinery' which will be centered in New York that will facilitate the continuation of contacts established and assist in developing new contacts in the future."

"This machinery, due to its global nature and its longevity, is as important overall as any other contacts [we have] made," he continued. ... Kojo Annan, interviewed by committee investigators at an undisclosed location on Friday, told them that he could not recall the nature of the "machinery" he had mentioned in his memo, why it was to be based in New York and why it would be global in nature.

This comes after the revelations earlier on from the Senate panel that Cotecna kept paying UN chief Kofi Annan's son long after he supposedly left the company, a stipend of $2500 every month until it was exposed. Both Annans supposedly have cooperated with investigators, or so earlier reports have indicated, but Annan's responses don't sound as if that cooperation runs to any depth. In fact, the Times' source on the panel expressed significant disappointment with Kojo while briefing reporters yesterday.

Needless to say, Benon Sevan hasn't cooperated at all, and understandably so. While Paul Volcker could only find a suspicious $160,000 windfall purportedly from Sevan's aunt, who lived on very modest means, the Senate investigators have found much more:

But Senate investigators yesterday displayed letters written by Iraqi oil officials both under Saddam and after his regime fell in 2003 that listed Mr. Sevan himself as the recipient of the oil allocations, which were then passed along to the Panamanian company. One Iraqi document put Mr. Sevan's proceeds from an allocation of 9.3 million barrels of crude oil at $1.2 million.

"What we have uncovered suggests that Benon Sevan himself got the commissions that came from passing along the oil allocations," said a Senate staffer.

Wow -- I wonder how Volcker managed to miss those? Could it be that the UN's internal investigation, which reports directly to Kofi Annan himself, might have some strings attached? Sevan, one of Kofi's closest associates, and Kojo appear to have skated past Paul Volcker in his work. Since Sevan ran the Oil-For-Food program directly under Kofi and Kojo obviously has an even stronger connection, it appears that Paul Volcker's work has a lot less independence -- or a much lower ability, at any rate -- to find the truth about the largest corruption case in history.

Kofi Annan should resign. He won't, of course, and the member states will once again issue paeans to his leadership. That demonstrates that this corruption is no anomaly at Turtle Bay, but it exemplifies the way people expect to do business at the UN.

Eason Jordan vs Jeff Gannon: Partisan Grudge Match?

Mark Follman takes me to task for going hard after the Eason Jordan story while ignoring the Jeff Gannon controversy in today's War Room at Salon (annoying ad watch or subscription required). Follman calls me "high-riding" while noting my lack of commentary on Gannon/Guckert's outing by the port side of the blogosphere. It's a charge I'm starting to hear over and over again in my e-mail -- if you're dedicated to truth and justice, why don't you cover X, Y, Z?

First off, I'm not a newspaper, and unlike Follman and others at Salon, I don't get to do this as a full-time job. In fact, apart from the blogads and the tip jar, I don't get much money from my enterprise. I have to work for a living, and so the time I spend on reading and researching articles is necessarily limited. I choose to spend that time on stories and issues that interest me. Most of the time, that fits with my real and perceived political interests, but as my commentary on the Wall Street Journal might demonstrate, I get irritated when my own "team" doesn't play straight. Follman could also check out my commentary on Armstrong Williams, where I hardly can be accused of looking the other way.

In the case of Eason's Fables, I dropped nearly every other topic that I was following to do research on this story, let alone take on other new topics. I do recall the Gannon/Guckert story breaking out, and rather than issue some cheap shot in either direction, I stuck to the story I knew. It did occur to me that I had a choice of the two stories at some point, and I did a quick balance-sheet analysis:

On one hand, we have a case where a reporter from a small-time news outlet with an overt political agenda hired a reporter with a shady past to cover the White House. He asked some cheesy questions with shoddy research and got caught, which should surprise no one.

On the other hand, we have the chief executive of the most influential American news agency making unsubstantiated allegations of deliberate assassination and torture by the American military, exclusively in overseas venues, none of which his news agency had ever reported back home. The same executive had earlier admitted selling out his coverage of Iraq to maintain his presence in Baghdad, enabling the worst media coverage to be broadcast here in the US as unchallenged fact -- or does anyone else remember Peter Arnett's "baby-milk factory" story? Or this instance, where in 1993 Jordan had a CNN reporter read Baghdad Bob's talking points on air as an independently-written news story?

I would ask Follman this, as a journalist: which story has the most impact? Which news agency has the most influence on American and global affairs? Which person did the most damage?

I'll grant that the port side of the blogosphere has unmasked a rather unsavory character in Gannon, but between the two, there is no comparison which was the more important story. Gannon tossed ridiculous softballs to the President during his press conferences, but no one has revealed any evidence that the White House did anything more than call on someone they knew would be sympathetic. Talon News may not be much of a news service, but it does qualify as such and has a few hundred thousand subscribed readers, even if they need a better Human Resources department. I think it's fascinating that the liberals hoisted Gannon on a gibbet for his alleged sexual activity, which makes little sense if one makes the mistake of believing in their live-and-let-live rhetoric.

If Follman really thinks Gannon was the larger and more important story rather than simply using him as a bat to beat the Eason's Fables bloggers, then he's deluding himself. If Salon's editorial policy is truly that news executives slandering American soldiers are less egregious than biased reporters tossing softballs at press conferences, then small wonder Salon makes their readers either pay subscriptions or force them to watch ads to keep afloat. When Salon pays my salary, I'll accept their editorial judgment and carry out their assignments, but until then, I'll rely on my own.

Hospiblogging, Part 6: Remote Hospiblog

One last update for tonight, before I crash out for the evening.

I just got off the phone with the nurse's station at the hospital, and the First Mate is still doing well. Her blood pressure is up a bit, which is rather normal for her. Her blood sugar is still normal at 108, with still no post-operative insulin. The pancreas looks like it's working well, and everyone is delighted with the results.

Hugh Hewitt had me on his show earlier tonight, after I called Duane to see if he wanted me for the Eason's Fables coverage. Hugh knew that I had been at the hospital since yesterday evening and wanted to give me a break from the story tonight, but I always have such a blast on his show, and quite frankly I needed the distraction. After making sure that I initiated the request, Hugh brought me on, and we talked a little bit about Marcia and the importance of organ donation before any discussion of Easongate.

Many of you know Hugh the pundit, but not so much Hugh and Duane the gracious and generous friends to a large number of bloggers. Many thanks, you two, and again many thanks to all of you who have prayed and crossed fingers for the First Mate and I.

Philly Salutes Cop-Killer's French Defenders

I missed this story over the weekend, but the Environmental Republican and Michelle Malkin have called attention to it today. Philadelphia deputy director of commerce Mjenzi Traylor used the mayor's office to welcome a delegation of French politicians and activists seeking the release of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and gave them ... liberty bells?

French politicians and activists seeking a new trial and freedom for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal were welcomed in a Friday rally at City Hall and given replicas of the Liberty Bell.

Mjenzi Traylor, the city's first deputy director of commerce, told the crowd of about 150 that he was there to "make certain that we are receiving the message that you would like for us to deliver to Mayor Street."

Maureen Faulkner, the widow of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, later called that greeting an "absolute outrage."

In what had to be a lesson in politics that Traylor failed to understand, Mayor Street suddenly became unavailable after scheduling the meeting with the delegation, passing the buck to Traylor. Traylor initially intended on meeting the French in his own office privately, but when they arrived with demonstrators, Traylor grandstanded by holding court publicly and handing out the Liberty bells.

Perhaps Traylor can make the excuse that he was doing his job by extending a courtesy to visiting dignitaries, but Philadelphia residents may not buy that -- especially since the visiting dignitaries replied with outrageous discourtesy:

"We welcome you to Philadelphia," said Traylor, who serves as the city's international liaison for visiting dignitaries. "Thank you very much for coming."

Jacques Daguenet, a city councilman from Paris, then decried what he called Abu-Jamal's "racist trial." Paris made Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen in 2003.

"He is the voice of people who have nothing," Daguenet said. "We have to struggle to have him free."

Majid Wannass, a deputy for the mayor of Saint Denis, just outside of Paris, drew cheers when he told the crowd his town would rename a street for Abu-Jamal.

That will cross the Rue Charles Manson, bordered by the Avenue Richard Speck and Boulevard Kathleen Soliah, er, Sarah Jane Olson. It's quite an appropriate theme for a city whose government once allowed the 20th century's worst criminals to cart off the Jews of Paris (and most of the rest of France) for extermination. Does Paris have a Rue Klaus Barbie as well?

Geraghty Points Out Portugal On PBS

Thanks to a phone tip I received from a family member, I found out that Jim Geraghty of the National Review's TKS blog appeared on Jim Lehrer's NewsHour on PBS. While an official transcript has not been made available, the new Google video service has this from the closed-captioning of NewsHour (emphasis mine):

at 52 minutes

Are there bloggers whose motivation is really to attract attention to themselvess? >> [Jim Geraghty:] Like I said there are a lot of bloggers out there. I wouldn't doubt that there are some who thought this is a great way to attention to get traffic to my blog. I can't buy into this argument that this is one slip of the Tongue. At a conference in Portugal last fall he said that several journalists were taken to the Abu ghraib prison complex and tortured there. If he's got this kind of evidence for these stories he should come out and show it.

at 52 minutes 30 seconds

I'll admit a lot of people took into this story was his comments about not reporting everything he knew about Saddam Hussein in a run-up before the Iraq war. I Admire him for coming out and saying this. He came into this controversy with a black Mark on his record that a lot of people caused them not to cut him Slack they might have otherwise done. >> Smith: thank you all three very much. Certainly leaves one with the feeling that this whole debate is not over yet.

Kudos to Jim for getting PBS viewers the story that the network seems to want kept quiet.

Hospiblogging, Part 5: The Eagle Has Landed

Don't you just love these dramatic headlines?

The First Mate has just arrived at her room, and needless to say, she's way out of it. However, in speaking with the nurse, I found out that she's stable, her kidney function is excellent, and her blood sugar remains at a normal 114 -- without any post-surgical insulin whatsoever. It looks like a great indication of transplant success.

I'll be leaving shortly, as she won't be waking up any time soon from either the anaesthesia or just normal sleep from exhaustion. I'll check in with her nurses tonight from home and stop by on my way to work tomorrow.

Today ... was a great day, folks. Thank you for all your prayers and kind thoughts.

NOTE: I had to post this when I got home, as my wireless connection disappeared around 4:30 PM or so.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Glenn, as well as the many, many others who have commented and/or e-mailed, for the kind thoughts.

The WSJ Disappoints (Update: More Conflicts?)

Normally, I read the OpinionJournal every day, although I rarely link to it; I agree with most of what they write and don't have much to add. Imagine my surprise, then, this morning when they not only clearly demonstrate that they learned nothing from the Eason Jordan debacle, but also attack the bloggers who participated in holding him accountable for his actions. In their unsigned editorial, the WSJ lashes out at CQ and the rest of the blogosphere for driving Jordan out of his job:

By now, everyone on the Good Ship Earth knows that this particular story ended Friday with Mr. Jordan's abrupt resignation from CNN. This has certain pundits chirping delightedly. It has been a particular satisfaction to the right wing of the so-called "blogosphere," the community of writers on the Web that has pushed the Eason story relentlessly and sees it as the natural sequel to the Dan Rather fiasco of last year.

As for Mr. Jordan, he initially claimed that U.S. forces in Iraq had targeted and killed 12 journalists. Perhaps he intended to offer no further specifics in order to leave an impression of American malfeasance in the minds of his audience, but there is no way of knowing for sure. What we do know is that when fellow panelist Representative Barney Frank pressed Mr. Jordan to be specific, the CNN executive said he did not believe it was deliberate U.S. government policy to target journalists. Pressed further, Mr. Jordan could only offer that "there are people who believe there are people in the military who have it out" for journalists, and cite two examples of non-lethal abuse of journalists by ordinary GIs.

None of this does Mr. Jordan credit. Yet the worst that can reasonably be said about his performance is that he made an indefensible remark from which he ineptly tried to climb down at first prompting. This may have been dumb but it wasn't a journalistic felony.

The editors at the WSJ, once again following Bret Stephens' lead, only tell the part of the story that advances their opinion. Nowhere yet in the OpinionJournal forum has the writers or editors addressed the fact that Davos was not an isolated incident. I find this distressingly odd, since the WSJ obviously knows of the earlier incidents. In fact, they reported on them today, in an article by Jack Flint on page B1 of the WSJ:

Mr. Jordan's new appointment as chief news executive came only months after he penned an opinion piece for The New York Times in which he said CNN had held back on reporting some of the brutalities of Saddam Hussein to protect the network's Iraqi staffers. Some commentators accused the network of considering access to Iraqi officials to be more important than accurate coverage.

In his new post, described by some as CNN's "secretary of state," Mr. Jordan still traveled the globe but in a more diplomatic role. It was also around then that the exuberant Mr. Jordan, who had been good at putting out fires, began setting them, much to chagrin of CNN brass. Prior to his remarks at the World Economic Forum, Mr. Jordan had made similar comments about journalists killed in Iraq at a conference in Portugal late last year.

Opinionjournal's editors cannot claim ignorance of the Portugal comments, which demolishes the notion of the entire hubbub resulting from one "indefensible remark". Why don't they mention that earlier comment, or even the one made by Jordan in October 2002 about the Israeli military that turned out to be just as false? Perhaps they got too steamed over my assertion that Stephens failed to disclose a connection to Eason Jordan to think rationally:

It is for this reason that we were not inclined to write further about the episode after our first report. For this we have since been accused of conspiring on Mr. Jordan's behalf. One Web accusation is that Mr. Stephens is--with 2,000 others--a fellow of the World Economic Forum, thereby implying a collusive relationship with Mr. Jordan, who sits on one of the WEF's boards. If this is a "conflict of interest," the phrase has ceased to mean anything at all.

I assume that the OJ editors read my objection or that of the Dinocrat, and they have mischaracterized the conflict in any case. Stephens belongs to the Forum of Young Global Leaders, which has exactly 1,111 members and is closely affiliated with the World Economic Forum, which means Stephens has an interest to protect with the WEF that he did not disclose. The YGL forum appears to fall under the purview of none other than Eason Jordan, whose bio describes him as a member of the WEF's Global Leaders of Tomorrow programme. Whether or not that influenced Stephens' reporting is only known by Stephens, but that connection should have been disclosed to WSJ/OJ readers, and the OJ's defense of his silence speaks volumes about their editorial standards. (They also made my mistake of calling Jordan a "board member" of WEF, which I retracted here, so I'm fairly sure that the OJ has my blog in mind.)

The poor response of the OJ to repeated, unsubstantiated allegations of American military atrocities by the chief news executive of a global media outlet was bad enough. This attempt at shifting blame to the people who did the work they should have been doing all along shows that the WSJ/OJ operate under the same blinders as their counterparts in the more mainstream media outlets, and as a result, risk the same irrelevancy.

UPDATE and BUMP, 4:12 PM: Hugh Hewitt reports that Bret Stephens wrote the editorial. Now, look at this section of the passage:

It is for this reason that we were not inclined to write further about the episode after our first report. For this we have since been accused of conspiring on Mr. Jordan's behalf. One Web accusation is that Mr. Stephens is--with 2,000 others--a fellow of the World Economic Forum, thereby implying a collusive relationship with Mr. Jordan, who sits on one of the WEF's boards. If this is a "conflict of interest," the phrase has ceased to mean anything at all.

So now Bret Stephens has fallen to defending his own work and dismissing his own conflict of interest under the imprimatur of an unsigned editorial -- and the WSJ wants us to understand that they see no conflict on this? No wonder the OpinionJournal.com response page has yet to be updated.

More from the Dinocrat, which first noted this conflict.

More Payola?

Howard Kurtz reveals that not all pundit-payola comes from inside the Beltway. In his lead entry for today's Media Notes, Kurtz reports that the Democrats have paid advocacy journalists who failed to reveal their funding:

Eric Wesson, a columnist for the Call, an African American newspaper in Kansas City, offered plenty of praise last year for the successful House bid of Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. "Rev. Cleaver," he wrote, "has the experience to get things done and getting people to work together, he unites people. . . . Rev. Cleaver is a master at getting others to see his vision and surrounding himself with role players to make the vision become a reality. . . . I admire his honesty."

Cleaver's campaign last summer paid $1,500 to a firm called One Goal Consultants. And the sole owner of One Goal Consultants, according to state records, is Wesson.

"I wrote out some phone scripts for his phone banks," Wesson says. "I think I did about 50 of them and some other miscellaneous things. It had nothing to do with the job I do for the Call. The Call has always written articles favorable to African American candidates. We're an advocacy newspaper."

Readers of the Call, however, were unaware that Wesson was getting cash from the campaign. "Should I have disclosed it in my articles? I don't know," says Wesson. "Would it have made any difference?"

It depends on what Wesson's readers thought. Would they have thought less of Wesson's written defense of Cleaver when the candidate faced accusations of impropriety regarding a state loan? Perhaps, and that's the point. Failure to disclose significant connections between the journalist/pundit and the subject of their articles implies that the former has something to hide. That's true for Armstrong Williams, and it's true for Wesson as well.

This case differs in one regard: Wesson didn't get money from the government, but from the candidate. That doesn't make Wesson any less liable for failing to disclose a conflict of interest, but it makes the payment somewhat less of an issue. The money came from people contributing funds voluntarily, and presumably spent in a manner that supports their overall purpose in donating them. Williams took taxpayer money specifically to use his column to push a government program, which to me is much more egregious.

That doesn't let Wesson off the hook. He acted dishonestly and broke trust with his readers, who had a reasonable expectation that his work was independent of the campaign. Wesson should apologize and quit acting as if he did nothing wrong, but that should be the end of it.

Hospiblogging, Part 4: All Systems Go

Just wanted to update everyone -- the First Mate is out of surgery and in recovery now, and the transplant looks like a big success. The surgery lasted a little over four hours and the doctors are quite pleased with the results. It will take until tomorrow to be sure that the pancreas is working, but they expect full function.

I'll post more after I see her, and again, I appreciate all of your messages of support and hope. My friends David and Margaret spent the tough couple of hours keeping my spirits up and buying me lunch, and all of that really gets me through a long, long day.

More later!

Mom, Dad -- It's All Your Fault (Updated!)

I get plenty of e-mail every day, and while I can't respond to each and every piece -- it would take me all day -- I do read it all. Often, people send me tips or suggestions, offer constructive criticism, and occasionally correct my grammar. I also seem to be fairly famous among the families of ex-Nigerian potentates, for some reason.

However, every once in a while, I get e-mail that falls into the ridiculous category, messages that spew bile instead of rational thought. What these mouthbreathers think they accomplish in sending this is beyond me, but for your amusement, I present to you Jerry M. Landay:

Dear "Captain:"

Your "title," a monument to monumental self-infatuation, is the tip-off to the nature of the loudmouth mentality that issues from the politico-narcissists who are now mis-identified as "conservatives." There is n o t h i n g "conservative" about you brown-shirts. You are poorly-parented, spoiled, ill-educated right-wing radicals who are despoiling everything American you touch -- including our standing in the world.

Your fascistic, anti-Constitutional mentality would make our Founders turn over in their graves.

I would urge you to attempt to master rational thought, but I think that is no longer possible. You are what happens when too much money and a computer find their way into the hands of Squirrelheads.

Wearily Worried

Note that Mr. Landay didn't bother to sign his real name, but it came through on his e-mail address. (You have to check your account settings in your mail client, Mr. Landay. It's all part of that rational-thought issue you referenced.) Now, this isn't nearly as bad as Michelle Malkin's hate mail, of course, but then I'm not anywhere as talented (and good looking) as Michelle, so it all balances out. At least he blamed it all on my mom and dad and the California educational system, which is a relief, since I don't have to take any responsibility for my "fascistic, anti-Constitutional mentality".

I'm a bit too busy to respond to this personally, and besides, I'd rather save the time to work on more pressing stories. Perhaps a few of you would like to drop Jerry M. Landay a response of your own? Please keep it civil if you do.

UPDATE: Mom, known as Vayapaso here, responded to Mr. Landay in an e-mail to me:

Ed, [not 'Eddie'? Thank you!]

I have one questions pertaining to Mr. Landay's diatribe, where's the "too much" money (are you holding out on us)?

I have one comment for Mr. Landay, I wonder if his parents are proud of him. I think not. I can assure him, your parents are very proud of you, your work, your writings and your optimism. It is because you are optimistic that you can see the good in people and the good they can do for this country. Mr. Landay talks of our standing in the world; perhaps if people like the Eason Jordans and Chris Cramers of this country stops lying about us and our good works throughout the world; our standing with the people of the world would take on very different perception. Keep up the good work; there are many more people who do appreciate your writings and it seems to me that people like Landay are worried and for me "that a good thing."

Love,

Mom

Gee, thanks, Mom! I haven't heard from the Admiral Emeritus yet -- perhaps he's too guilt-wracked to respond.

For those of you who might think that "Captain Ed" is some sort of grandiosity, please read here for the real explanation of my nickname. I didn't know that being a Star Trek fan in my younger days was such a badge of distinction and social superiority!

UPDATE II and BUMP 11:41 CT: Check out the comments on this post -- Jerry Landay is a former reporter for CBS and ABC. That's the best they can do?

UPDATE III: I'm removing Landay's address and phone number, and I'd ask people not to get that aggressive about it. Just drop him a friendly e-mail if you wish, representative of the classy CQ community that we are.

UPDATE IV: The Admiral Emeritus has recovered from the shame of having a blogger for a son just enough to send this response:

I have always been proud of the accomplishments of both my children.

However I get tired of whiners who like to blame their shortcommings on their parents. But like all the left wing orators, it seems they cannot stand being responsible for their own misdeeds. So they write under phoney names that they think cannot be traced back to them.
Or as in a recent case they identify themselves and quote fraudulent
documents. It's funny that they seem to be connected to the same source.

Ed Morrissey Sr.
Otherwise known as Dad and Admiral Emeritus

Well. That should put this meme to rest as well.

The moral of this story -- don't tick off my parents. I thought this was funny, but parents always have a different take on these things.

Michelle Malkin Takes On The Lynch-Mob Meme

Michelle Malkin, who is a CQ favorite as most of you know for many reasons, takes on the weekend's "lynch-mob" meme that the mainstream media is using for its Eason Jordan coverage. In today's New York Post, Michelle pulls no punches in telling the media elite that they have lost their monopoly on information, and that they fail to recognize real journalism when they see it:

The resignation of CNN executive Eason Jordan last Friday night caused near-fainting spells in the journalism world. And now the backlash against the blogosphere — the legions of Internet citizen journalists who pressured Jordan to come clean about controversial remarks he made at a World Economic Forum panel in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 27 — has begun.

Take Bertrand Pecquerie, director of the World Editors Forum, the organization for editors within the World Association of Newspapers, please. Mourning Jordan's decision to step down, Pecquerie likened bloggers to the "sons of Senator McCarthy" and "scalps' hunters."

Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily Web site, blasted Jordan's Internet critics in an e-mail to New York University professor Jay Rosen's blog PressThink (available at journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink): "The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail."

Also on Rosen's site, reader William Boykin fumed: "Jordan has just been tire-necklaced by a bloodthirsty group of utopian, bible-thumping knuckledraggers that believe themselves to be bloggers but are really just a street gang." And these unhinged heavy-breathers accuse bloggers of being a lynch mob?

Hard-nosed, aggressive journalism requires that sacred cows suffer examination, and sometimes that examination reveals ugly truths. Journalists used to know this. Unfortunately, they now apply it only to those who fit their political beliefs as acceptable targets -- the US military, the Israeli military, the Bush administration and Republicans in general. When the sacred cows of the Left come under the exact same kind of aggressive journalism but unfettered by editors with political agendas, then we have balanced coverage and the promise of the full truth getting out to the public.

That, supposedly, had been the mission of the mainstream media. Based on their hysterical reaction to our demands for accountability from media executives, just as the media rightly demanded accountability from corporate executives cooking their books, that mission has been eclipsed. And if it has been eclipsed, as this "lynch-mob" excuse and the media blackout on Eason's Fables that preceded it demonstrates, one has to wonder what exactly eclipsed it. From our point of view, their mission appears to track quite closely with the American Left's mission of isolationism, growth of the federal government, and stepped-up attempts at redistribution of wealth.

We didn't want Eason Jordan's head because Eason Jordan works for CNN. We wanted accountability for a corporate executive that went overseas on multiple occasions to issue slanderous allegations against the US military simply to drum up business and gain a competitive advantage for access in countries already hostile to the United States. Jordan's big mistake was assuming that Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd had the same agenda that Jordan does. Fortunately for America, these liberal politicians won't stand for the slander of our men in uniform, and I for one will never forget that.

Perhaps the media will learn the lesson of accountability to its readers and viewers after Eason's Fables, even though they failed to do so after Memogate. Based on the clueless responses seen so far, they can look forward to a couple of more blogswarms before they figure it out.

Hospiblogging, Part 3: The Adventure Begins

Okay, so it officially began about a half-hour ago. I spent the night here at the hospital, and believe me, that's quite a trick. I managed a little sleep while the First Mate got next to nothing. At 6 am, the nurses came in and quickly prepped her for a 7 am surgical schedule, and God bless 'em, they did it courteously and with great care. We wheeled Marcia down to pre-op, where we played the usual game of Hurry Up And Wait. 7:00 turned to 7:30, which turned to 8:00, and so on. They finally got her rolling towards the OR at 8:40 or so. She felt pretty nauseous thanks to the pre-op medications they gave her, but overall her spirits were good.

After that, I dragged myself up for a quick breakfast -- the food at the cafeteria is actually not too bad here -- and a much-needed cup of java, then got myself a month-long parking pass. (Since I stayed overnight, even with the validation I'd have to pay about $20 to get out this afternoon, and the month-long pass was only $49. I can do math, Mom!) I've settled into the lobby for the 4-6 hour wait, so we probably won't know much until mid-afternoon CT. I will get a visit for lunch from David and Margaret from Our House, our good friends from life in general and the Taxpayers League.

Of course, once they see me, they may not have much of an appetite. I look simply charming: unshaven, in the same clothes I slept in, and on about 3 hours of solid sleep. Good thing this isn't a black-tie affair.

I will be posting on the news of the day to keep myself occupied as soon as I take care of yet another spam attack by the on-line gaming industry. I'm normally fairly libertarian about these things, but this industry has absolutely no sense of ethics or courtesy, and I believe I will spend as much time opposing them as I do cleaning up their comment and trackback spam. MT-Blacklist works great, but they keep changing their URLs, thanks to domain brokers like GoDaddy, who also operate with the ethics of snakes.

Keep checking back. Once I finally drink that cup of coffee, I won't be nearly as grouchy.

Hospiblogging, Part 2

Short update: First Mate is feeling fine, and all indications are that she's healthy enough for the surgery. They will most likely do the transplant tomorrow, not tonight, as it's getting kind of late now (11:28 PM CT). Look for an update early tomorrow morning. I will spend the night here at the hospital, if I can get a bed or recliner in which to sleep.

NYT: What Drove The Eason's Fables Blogswarm?

Yesterday afternoon, I spoke with New York Times reporter David Gallagher about the blogswarm surrounding the remarks made by Eason Jordan at the World Economic Forum in Davos. We spent the better part of an hour discussing the controversy itself and the blogosphere's reaction, and Gallagher asked some tough but fair questions about my response. The interview forms part of the NYT's look at the implications of the blogswarm coming out in tomorrow's edition:

With the resignation Friday of a top news executive from CNN, bloggers have laid claim to a prominent media career for the second time in five months.

In September, conservative bloggers exposed flaws in a report by Dan Rather; he subsequently announced that on March 9 he would step down as anchor of the "CBS Evening News." On Friday, after nearly two weeks of intensifying pressure on the Internet, Eason Jordan, the chief news executive at CNN, abruptly resigned after being besieged by the online community. Morever, last week liberal bloggers forced a sketchily credentialed White House reporter to quit his post.

For some bloggers - people who publish the sites known as Web logs - it was a declaration that this was just the beginning. Edward Morrissey, a call center manager who lives near Minneapolis and has written extensively about the Jordan controversy, wrote on his blog, Captain's Quarters (captainsquartersblog.com): "The moral of the story: the media can't just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it - and journalists can't just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore."

Gallagher et al give a balanced look at the blogosphere's reaction to the blogswarm, on which the article focuses rather than the controversy itself. If any criticism of the article is warranted, it is that the Times again fails to mention the earlier instances of Jordan's pattern of slandering the military. However, in its focus on blogs and their newfound strength, the article stands on its own as an excellent background piece and a welcome addition to the growing library on Eason's Fables.

For instance, Gallagher gets a good variety of reactions about the unexpected power of the bloggers that moved CNN to protect itself with Jordan's resignation. The article contains reactions from significant members of our community, and those responses demand answers:

But while the bloggers are feeling empowered, some in their ranks are openly questioning where they are headed. One was Jeff Jarvis, the head of the Internet arm of Advance Publications, who publishes a blog at buzzmachine.com. Mr. Jarvis said bloggers should keep their real target in mind. "I wish our goal were not taking off heads but digging up truth," he cautioned. ...

Steve Lovelady, a former editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Wall Street Journal and now managing editor of CJR Daily, the Web site of The Columbia Journalism Review, has been among the most outspoken.

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail," he lamented online after Mr. Jordan's resignation. He said that Mr. Jordan cared deeply about the reporters he had sent into battle and was "haunted by the fact that not all of them came back."

Some on line were simply trying to make sense of what happened. "Have we entered an era where our lives can be destroyed by a pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors, and no accountability?" asked a blogger named Mark Coffey, 36, who says he works as an analyst in Austin, Tex. "Or does it mean that we've entered a brave new world where the MSM has become irrelevant," he asked, using blogger shorthand for mainstream media.

His own conclusion is that the mainstream media "is being held to account as never before by the strong force of individual citizens who won't settle for sloppy research and inflammatory comments without foundation, particularly from those with a wide national reach, such as Rather and Eason."

I had an opportunity to exchange e-mails with Steve Lovelady earlier today, and while the Times could not possibly have known this, his remarks suffer from the context. Our discussion wasn't quite under Chatham House Rules, but I don't want to quote him directly, either. I think I feel safe in saying that his intent did not include all bloggers who wrote critically about Eason Jordan, and he respects the efforts of some even while disagreeing about our take on the controversy. He should have a more complete reaction at CJR sometime soon.

Jeff Jarvis and Steve Lovelady echo what Jim Geraghty asked the blogosphere on February 9th:

I was exchanging emails with another blogger, Paul, who asked the good question, “Aside from "forcing" the resignation of Jordan, what is there to accomplish? Can CNN be shamed into behaving better?”

The question deserves some thought. What has the goal of the blogs in this case been? In the case of the CBS memos, it was pretty clear – to confirm suspicions that the memos were fake, and then squeeze a retraction out of a stubborn network digging in its heels.

A few flaws find their way into the piece. It misses entirely the crucial role played by Hugh Hewitt in generating the momentum in the blogosphere. It tends towards an implication that the blogswarm flew out of control, which I don't think is accurate. The article argues the same allegations that Eason Jordan now denies ever making, and it only presents one side, especially in regards to the death of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel. Jules Crittendon of the Baltimore Sun just rebutted the charges of deliberate murder or even of negligent disregard for safety, as he was embedded with the unit that fired on the hotel. It also mentions Nik Gowing, whom I referenced briefly in my interview with Gallagher, but doesn't mention the connection Gowing has with Jordan through CNNi president Chris Cramer, who has his own record of unsubstantiated allegations.

Of course, the Times has limited space in its print edition, and stories have to fit and sometimes suffer for the editing process. However, if these issues were to be brought up, I would have preferred to see their entire context.

Read the entire New York Times piece. It tends towards a warning to the blogosphere to take care not to go off half-cocked, and that may not be a bad message. At least as it pertains to my interview, I feel very well treated in the article and represented fairly, which gives me confidence that everyone else received equally fair treatment. The background will interest bloggers and non-bloggers alike and reminds us that we need to think about the terms of our mission.

NOTE: The Times also provides links back to the blogs it mentions. Nice touch; not all newspapers remember to do that.

UPDATE: Okay, here's one they missed. I updated this because I can't afford the price of silence any longer.

WEF: The Tapes Will Never Be Released

A CQ reader, Bekarach, contacted the World Economic Forum's Mark Adams about releasing the Davos forum videotape of Eason Jordan. Adams, head of media at the WEF, responded that Jordan's resignation effectively closes the issue of releasing the video:

Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Query - Will WEF release videotape/transcript Eason Jordan?

Firstly, apologies for not getting back to you earlier - I rather unwisely took a holiday after Davos, so havent been in the office 100 percent.

As you can appreciate we have to operate too under very strict rules regarding the Annual Meeting, and such a situation has never before arisen in 35 years of successful meetings at Davos.

More than half of the sessions that take place at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos are 'workshops' and interactive sessions, as was the case for the session attended by Mr Jordan. All participants take part in those sessions on the understanding that their comments are 'non-attributable' - that's to say that the general tenor of the session can be reported but not specific quotes. The more than 500 members of the media who attend the Annual Meeting are given these 'ground rules' before the start of the meeting, and more importantly everyone who takes part in a session as a speaker does so on these grounds.

Such rules, agreed by all who participate, allow for openness and even controversial debate, and I hope you can appreciate that it would be a breach of trust, not just to all the participants of this session - but of all such similar sessions at Davos - if we start releasing transcripts of what was said by each of the participants.

Since Mr Jordan has now resigned and is to all intents and purposes a private individual he has made it very clear what his position is. The availability or otherwise of a tape of the session in no way hinders discussion of this very serious topic, and i'm sure that will continue.

With Mr Jordan's resignation the debate will perhaps now shift from what he acutally said to the actual substance of the debate.

Mark Adams
Head of Media

"The actual substance of the debate" was what Jordan said, since he disputed the accounts of at least seven other witnesses to the forum. If Adams means that the debate should shift to the question of US policies of assassinating journalists, that would also confirm that Jordan lied in his valediction from CNN and his previous denials.

Further, the notion that transparency would breach the trust of a public forum is ludicrous. For one thing, there is serious question as to whether this particular forum even operated under those rules. If it did, why did the WEF videotape the entire forum? Rony Arbovitz and Rebecca MacKinnon have both stated that they did not understand that the forum was off the record. That rule applied by the room and not by the forum, and both have said that the room in which Eason Jordan spouted off was clearly understood not to be an off-the-record room.

Mark Adams does draw a conclusion from Jordan's resignation that the rest of the American media appears reluctant to reach, however. In making his position "very clear," the presumption Adams communicates is that Jordan knows what he said would seriously damage both himself and CNN, and his resignation is designed to avoid that. Too bad the WEF and Mark Adams will not allow the videotape to be publicly viewed so that we can skip the conjecture and make our own judgment about Eason Jordan's allegations.

UPDATE: For a forum which supposedly was off the record and where the rules supposedly prevented direct quotations, the WEF itself seems rather flexible about following its own regulations (hat tip: commenter Dishman):

Moderator David R. Gergen, Director, Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA, opened the session by suggesting that the trivialization of the press means that the public is becoming increasingly disengaged and is less inclined to vote. And because too much of the media is owned by corporations, much of the world isn’t being covered because of the costs.

Barney Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts (Democrat), USA, agreed. "Essentially there’s less news," he said. "Reporters used to come to the city hall and that is a thing of the past. The biggest change is in the corporate ownership. People used to put out newspapers because they wanted to be journalists. Nobody is doing that these days; they do it because they want to make money. Papers are in a circulation race."

The commercialization of the press is having its effect on the TV channels, too. Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive, CNN News Group, USA, said that his organization is under pressure to compete against entertainment-led cable outlets. For his part Richard Sambrook, Director, World Service and Global News, BBC World, United Kingdom, said that the suicide of David Kelly and the subsequent Hutton Report which criticized the BBC had resulted in a new commitment to the journalistic values of objectivity, transparency and accountability. "I think it’s going to become more important to divide the serious media from the others who are driving the bottom line," he said.

But Heaven forbid that the videotape taken of this "off-the-record" conference get released ....

Hospiblogging, Part 1

We're here at the hospital, where the First Mate has checked in and rests comfortably in a private room -- a rare treat at the Fairview University Medical Center. We're waiting for some pre-op tests to begin, like EKGs and perhaps an X-ray prior to surgery. The doctor told us that a 10 PM surgical time is a possibility, but that it may more likely be tomorrow morning before the transplant. If that's the case, I may elect to get a cot and stay overnight; we have freezing rain up here and I don't think I'd like to chance the drive home and then back again early in the morning.

I tried connecting to the U's wireless network, but the reception was too dicey in the room. Fortunately, a NetSurf signal comes in strong, so I signed up for a month's access to their network. It goes for $29.95 per month, and I'll be interested in seeing how many other places it goes. At any rate, I'm getting almost 90% signal strength up here, so hospiblogging will definitely work.

Just in case I get bored, I have some material I've promised to review and promote, and of course my copy of Hugh Hewitt's Blog to re-read.

Prayers Needed! Pancreas Found!

We got great news -- the transplant team has found a good pancreas for the First Mate. This pancreas has a five-antigen match for Marcia (six would be an identical-twin match, and two is usually good enough for transplant). The procurement team in South Carolina says the pancreas looks "absolutely normal", according to the transplant team here, and we were first on the list.

Please add Marcia to your prayers, and include the family of the donor and his/her generous soul as well. I will be hospiblogging for the next several days if this all works out well, and I promise regular updates.

Patterico Goes To The Kennel

Patterico, noted blogosphere critic of the Los Angeles Times, goes into enemy territory to deliver a measured and sensible criticism of the trade's method of handling corrections:

Has anyone ever said something about you that wasn't true? Something that, if people believed it, would significantly damage your reputation? How would you feel if you saw that falsehood printed on the front page of the Los Angeles Times? Would it make things right if the paper later retracted the false statement — with a brief correction buried inside the paper?

For some, this is not a hypothetical question. Just ask L. Paul Bremer III, Antonin Scalia or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. ... Each of these false assertions damaged someone's reputation, and each ran on the front page of the L.A. Times. In each case, The Times later ran a small correction inside the paper — alongside corrections of trivial errors, such as misspelled names. In each case, only a fraction of the people who read the original article ever saw the correction.

Read all of Patrick "Patterico" Frey's excellent column, part of the LA Times innovative "Outside the Tent" series, in which they invite their critics inside to allow the criticism full publication to the Times' readers. So far, it hasn't improved their coverage, but it's a step in the right direction.

I note, however, that Patterico never mentions the words Dog Trainer in his column. Has he gone soft on the LAT?

Live-Blogging Reliable Sources

Howard Kurtz has a round-table on Eason's Fables on right now, and he has David Gergen, Bill Press, and Jeff Jarvis on to discuss the issue. I wasn't going to comment until it was over, but it's so ridiculous I have to live-blog it.

10:37 - Bill Press says that if General Mattis made similar remarks, no one would have cared. Is he out of his mind?

10:39 - Jeff Jarvis hotly disputes the notion that the blogosphere is a lynch mob. All we are, he said, are citizen journalists demanding the truth.

10:41 - Now they're talking about the Gannon/Guckert non-story. I note that Jeff tried to bring up Jordan's "history", but he got cut off by Howard Kurtz. I don't know if Jeff meant the other statements in 2004 and 2002 or his admission of selling out to Saddam in 2003.

10:45 - Kurtz cuts this short so they can fit in another discussion of "Deep Throat"? Now, that's breaking news!

(Note: Now that the main discussion is over, I will back the TiVo up and try to get exact quotes.)

3 minutes, DG: "He made a mistake, I did not think he deserved to lose his job over it. Look, a little context is important. He'd just come back from Baghdad, 16th trip. We were on the eve of elections there, he was extremely tense, because he thought a CNN journalist as well as other journalists were in grave danger there, and he was -- he praised US troops for protecting CNN journalists and others, but he said this was a place where we lost 63 journalists on all sides, and journalists on all sides are being -- are getting killed, often carelessly, and he used the word 'targeting'. He certainly left the impression that US troops were targeting journalists on the other side, al-Jazeera for example, just as insurgents were clearly targeting American journalists..."

Okay, this differs again from what Gergen told Michelle Malkin and Kurtz himself earlier, at least in the details. Now Gergen has Jordan praising the US for protecting CNN's reporters while only assassinating al-Jazeera reporters. It still amounts to the same charge -- that American soldiers deliberately killed civilians in combat knowing they were journalists, regardless of where they worked.

4 minutes, HK: "... Most news organizations didn't touch it. In fact, as far as I know, this is the first time it's being discussed CNN, which I think is a mistake, given Jordan's importance and all the airtime devoted to Dan Rather's problems --"

JJ: "Amen."

Exactly what we meant when we complained about the media blackout, although our ire focused more on Kurtz' role at the Washington Post. No one really expected CNN to cover the controversy, although it would have been nice to see that kind of independence by the network. Our main issue dealt with the same silence from ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and so on.

HK: "How did this reach critical mass?"

JJ: "Witness the news judgment of the people versus the news judgment of the big guys [a tad dramatic, Jeff? ;-)]. Really, the bloggers didn't want his head -- most of us didn't -- we wanted the truth. We want to see that transcript from Davos."

This whole notion of wanting Jordan's head or not wanting Jordan's head is ridiculous. Jarvis is correct that we wanted the truth about Davos, but we also already knew the truth about Portugal in November 2004 and the accusations against the Israeli military in October 2002, all made at journalistic conventions overseas, and none of them ever substantiated. We demanded transparency from CNN instead of obfuscation, and we demanded that their executives exercise objective news judgement instead of selling out America and its ally in order to curry favor with CNN's target markets of the same kleptocracies and tyrannies that support our enemies.

If Jordan had any evidence of these accusations being true, he should have had CNN raising the issues here, so that we could investigate them properly. His lack of effort to do so strongly indicates that Jordan told his fables to boost circulation and not out of any altruistic notions of protecting reporters or serving the truth. If he wanted to serve truth, all he needed to do was to call for the release of the videotape.

10 minutes, DG: "In this case, I have to say, Jeff, while there were bloggers who were simply getting at the truth, I think there was also a quality of vigilante justice building up among some of the bloggers who wanted his head."

JJ: "There were two issues with those bloggers. One was CNN's history with covering this war and the military in general, and the second was Jordan's own history here. And yes, there were some who don't like him and nothing would make them like him. But I wrote about this on my blog as a media story -- because it is. [Kurtz tries interrupting.] And I think the New York Times is embarassed about it because they didn't write about it beforehand."

That bolded portion was as close as anyone ever came to discussing Jordan's history of making similar allegations, with no substantiation, prior to Davos, which I have documented on my blog. Instead of focusing on the supposed vigilantism of the blogosphere, it would have been nice to see these supposedly professional journalists actually review all of the facts of the Eason Jordan case and provide the complete context for the controversy.

In other words, Kurtz has Kurtzed yet again.

Iraq's Democracy Yields Shared Power

The elections held in Iraq last month have resulted in a parliament where no one faction gained a majority, meaning that a legislative coalition will have to form in order to select the executives of the new Iraqi government. The Iraqi turnout amounted to 8.5 million votes, close to the estimates of 60% that came after the polls closed:

The Shiites likely will have to form a coalition in the 275-member National Assembly with the other top vote-getters — the Kurds and Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's list — to push through their agenda and select a president and prime minister. The president and two vice presidents must be elected by a two-thirds majority. ...

The Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance ticket received 4,075,295 votes, or about 48 percent of the total cast, Iraqi election officials said. The Kurdistan Alliance, a coalition of two main Kurdish factions, was second with 2,175,551 votes, or 26 percent, and the Iraqi List headed by the U.S.-backed Allawi finished third with 1,168,943 votes, or about 14 percent.

Those three top finishers represent about 88 percent of the total, making them the main power brokers as the assembly chooses national leaders and writes a constitution.

Since the election of the executives will require two-thirds of the parliament, the Sistani slate's 48% won't be nearly enough to forma government. The Shi'ites will need to form a coalition with either the Kurds, or with the Sunnis and some small groups that together took 12% of the votes for the assembly.

The much-feared dominance of the Shi'ites -- which was always overblown -- has been avoided, and the political negotiations will have a salutary effect on interdenominational relations. Look for a Sunni to hold one of the top executive jobs, perhaps even Ayad Allawi again, as a way to encourage national unity and bring the Sunnis into the process.

UPDATE: Allawi isn't a Sunni, he is a secular Shi'ite. Iraqi president Ghazi al-Yawer is a Sunni, one that enthusiastically supported the election, but his slate got less than one percent of the vote, making him an unlikely choice for PM. Still, I'd look to Allawi, whose slate also finished out of the running, to make it back into the executive, although I think a secular Sunni will be PM.

Howard Kurtz Continues Kurtzing Eason's Fables

As the harbinger of the mainstream media treatment of the Eason Jordan scandal, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz continues to wear blinders to the overall context of Jordan's slanderous accusations. In his review of three blogosphere-related oustings over the past week, Kurtz again reports on Eason's Fables only in the narrowest sense, ignoring the other similar incidents that infuriated the blogosphere:

In the case of Jordan, a 23-year CNN veteran, it was a single online posting by technology executive Rony Abovitz, after Jordan's ill-fated comments at an off-the-record forum Jan. 27 in Davos, Switzerland, that led to his downfall. The lesson, say media analysts: In the digital age, anyone can be a journalist.

After Jordan told the forum that the U.S. military had targeted journalists -- and then backed away from the charge, though to what degree is very much in dispute -- he granted an interview only to The Washington Post, and CNN tried to minimize the matter with a terse statement. Jordan maintained that he was talking about accidental and possibly careless attacks on journalists in Iraq, where three CNN employees have been killed. But he compounded the problem, critics say, by not insisting that the World Economic Forum release a videotape of the session.

That's not inaccurate, but it's incomplete. As with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article below, it attempts to spin the problem as a single point of misunderstanding, followed by a mystifying cover-up. The consistent problem with Kurtz' reporting on this story is that he refuses to report on Jordan's earlier, similar statements, which provide a much different story about Eason Jordan.

One might excuse Kempner, who has no national reputation and may be rather new to the story -- although that hardly excuses shoddy research and reporting. However, media issues are Kurtz' beat, and he arguably is the most well-known and, until now at least, the most highly-regarded media critic in the US. Kurtz sets the tone, and his first three articles on Eason Jordan has certainly done that. Media outlets appear to have assumed the Kurtzian response of ignoring all but that which has been the most publicly known details.

We've seen mainstream media stars like Robert Fisk and Maureen Dowd inadvertently lend their names to disreputable journalism; in the former, just for biased and false reporting, and the latter for mangling quotes to significantly change their context for her own purposes. I propose the use of Kurtz as a verb meaning to provide cover for someone through the deliberately selective reporting of facts, just enough of which to protect the reporter against charges of falsification while accomplishing a purposeful misdirection. In this case, the Post has Kurtzed Eason's Fables into the appearance of a witch hunt, and look for more of the same at other outlets.

Eason's New Fable: Martyrdom

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution takes its first look at Eason's Fables, and instead of actually investigating what the bloggers found out about Eason Jordan's pattern of attacking US and Israeli military forces, the AJC instead paints Jordan as the victim of a witch hunt. Matt Kempner paints a love note to Jordan on the eve of Valentine's Day and does a disservice to the AJC's readers by covering up the worst of Jordan's allegations (via Michelle Malkin, registration required for AJC article):

A quiet man who helped turn the upstart network into a power that could outhustle big broadcast news, he was undone by his own words and the aggressiveness of another upstart news venue: Internet blogs.

Pummeled online — and more gradually on TV and in newspapers — Jordan resigned Friday after a growing storm over comments he made about U.S. troops during a Jan. 27 panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Jordan was reported to have said that a dozen journalists who died in Iraq were targeted by the U.S. military. When participants challenged his comments, he quickly backpedaled, but apparently not nearly far enough or fast enough.

Bloggers pushed CNN to ask the World Economic Forum for a transcript of the discussion. The network did not do so, spokeswoman Christa Robinson said, because there's no dispute over what Jordan said and because he tried to clarify his comments.

CNN executives were concerned about his statements, though he was not threatened with firing, one said.

I suppose one could claim that no dispute exists about what Jordan said, as almost every witness to them says the same thing -- that Jordan said the US military deliberately targeted journalists in combat zones for assassination. The witnesses include Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, two New England liberals who could hardly be accused of participating in a right-wing witch hunt, and six other people, including former CNN reporter Rebecca MacKinnon.

Kempner doesn't bother to interview them, nor did he appear to read the blogs that called for the complete disclosure of the Davos videotape. Had he done so, he would have found that Jordan had also accused the US military of torturing journalists (November 2004) and the Israeli military of deliberate assassinations (October 2002) at journalistic forums, all overseas and outside the reach of most American media. In the case of the latter, he claims that the Israelis shot a CNN reporter as a result of the policy. However, CNN has only reported on one such incident, the wounding of Ben Wedeman in October 2000, and CNN's own producer told CNN viewers that they wandered into a crossfire and no one could tell who shot Wedeman.

Most damning, at no time did CNN -- the network that Jordan ran -- ever produce any evidence of these allegations. If true, they should have been investigated and reported to the American public. If CNN wasn't prepared to do that, Jordan shouldn't have made these allegations, especially in foreign settings to curry favor with the most disgusting and blatant anti-American propaganda imaginable. It goes hand in hand with Jordan's earlier sell-out of CNN's coverage to mollify Saddam Hussein, something Jordan admitted on the pages of the New York Times immediately after the Americans liberated Baghdad from the brutal reign that CNN helped perpetuate. (Kempner does mention this in the article.)

If this is any indication, the mainstream media appears likely to hoist the dead reputation of Eason Jordan on its secular cross and march to war against the blogs as its answer to our calls for accountability. The more we see of the reaction from so-called journalists, the more they reveal themselves as partisans and provocateurs, and their attacks on bloggers as such -- the ones who actually researched and reported on the facts of Eason Jordan's career of slandering the military -- amount to nothing more than projection.

Note: I will e-mail this to Matt Kempner, and if he responds for the record, I'll let you know.

CQ Correction: Jordan Not WEF Board Member

I received two e-mails this morning in response to my characterization of Eason Jordan as a board member of the World Economic Forum, from CQ readers Alan Speakman and Gerry Ashley. Both questioned the post after double-checking my sources and expressing support for my work, so I took that quite seriously -- and found out that I had indeed mixed up the bio provided by the World Economic Forum for Eason Jordan.

Here's what the bio reads:

Personal Profile:

Studies in Journalism, Georgia State Univ. Formerly, Assignment Editor, WXIA-TV, Atlanta; Radio News Correspondent, WGIG and WSBI, Brunswick. 1982, joined CNN: Asst Assignment Editor, national desk and later international assignment desk helping oversee CNN's coverage of the Falklands War and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; 1989, appointed to direct CNN's international news coverage; 1995 took on the added responsibility of overseeing the CNNI television network; 1995-1997, Exec. VP, Newsgathering and International Networks; 1997-2000, President, Newsgathering and International Networks; currently, Chief News Executive. Member: Council on Foreign Relations; Emory Univ. Journalism Program Advisory Board; World Economic Forum's Global Leaders of Tomorrow Programme. Recipient of numerous honours, including Emmy, Peabody and CableACE awards.

Jordan is a member of the WEF and its Global Leaders Of Tomorrow Program, and as such, he still represents an undisclosed conflict of interest for Bret Stephens, which is the context of my first reference to Jordan's status with the WEF. However, at least as far as this bio goes, he doesn't appear to be a WEF board member, which I have stated twice in this blog. I apologize for the mistake.