Just giving props for the obligatory Michelle Malkin thread picture.
Posted on 02/08/2005 10:57:14 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper
One of the most common complaints I hear from our troops is that the media rarely report on the military's good deeds. A simple column I wrote last month lauding the humanitarian efforts of our men and women in the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, for example, resulted in an avalanche of mail from military members and their families expressing astonishment and relief over a bit of positive press.
"I cannot tell you how much that it meant to myself as well as several of my shipmates to be praised," wrote Mariano Gonzales, a member of Strike Fighter Squadron 151 aboard the Lincoln. "Sometimes it seems that in today's world, it is just not fashionable for someone in a position to influence public opinion to admit that the U.S. military's role in the world involves more than just war and bloodshed."
Well, with folks like powerful CNN executive Eason Jordan in charge -- a man who clearly has issues with the U.S. military -- it's no wonder our troops so often feel smeared and slimed.
For the past week, Internet weblogs ("blogs") around the world have been buzzing about outrageous comments regarding American soldiers reportedly made by Jordan, the head of CNN's news division, at a World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland. (My reporting on the controversy, with extensive links to other bloggers, is here.)
According to several eyewitnesses, Jordan asserted on Jan. 27 that American military personnel had deliberately targeted and killed journalists in Iraq. (Jordan has since disputed the characterization of his remarks.)
Why wasn't this headline news?
Forum organizers have stonewalled citizen attempts to gain access to a videotape or transcript of the Davos meeting. But American businessman Rony Abovitz, who attended the panel Jordan participated in, reported immediately after the forum that "Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-U.S. crowd) and cause great strain on others."
Another panel attendee, historian Justin Vaisse, wrote on his blog that Jordan "didn't mince words in declaring that the intentions of journalists in Iraq were never perceived as neutral and were made deliberate targets by 'both sides.'"
On Monday, journalist and presidential adviser David Gergen, who moderated the panel, told me that Jordan indeed asserted that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by military "on both sides." Gergen said Jordan tried to backtrack, but then went on to speculate about a few incidents involving journalists killed in the Middle East -- a discussion Gergen cut off because "the military and the government weren't there to defend themselves."
Panel member Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also told me that Jordan asserted that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military and that Jordan "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.
Finally, panel attendee Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., issued a statement in response to my inquiry that he "was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."
Jordan's defenders say he was "misunderstood" and deserves the "benefit of the doubt." But the man's record is one of incurable anti-American pandering.
Jordan's the man who admitted last spring that CNN withheld news out of Baghdad to maintain access to Saddam Hussein's regime. He was quoted last fall telling a Portuguese forum that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces (a charge he maintains today). In the fall of 2002, he reportedly accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions." He was in the middle of the infamous Tailwind scandal, in which CNN was forced to retract a Peter Arnett report that the American military used sarin gas against its own troops in Laos. And in 1999, Jordan declared: "We are a global network, and we take global interest[s] first, not U.S. interests first."
Now, who is more deserving of the benefit of the doubt? Eason Jordan or our men and women on the battlefield?
I support the troops.
Just giving props for the obligatory Michelle Malkin thread picture.
I don't see why people even still bother with CNN.
Me neither. Michelle should just quit complainin' and watch FOX. She's not even a contributor to CNN. CNN was in the business of sliming our troops during the first Gulf War.
Isn't that the job of the military, to kill the enemy?
CNN slimes our troops
Michelle Malkin (archive)
February 9, 2005 |
One of the most common complaints I hear from our troops is that the media rarely report on the military's good deeds.
A simple column I wrote last month lauding the humanitarian efforts of our men and women in the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, for example, resulted in an avalanche of mail from military members and their families expressing astonishment and relief over a bit of positive press.
"I cannot tell you how much that it meant to myself as well as several of my shipmates to be praised," wrote Mariano Gonzales, a member of Strike Fighter Squadron 151 aboard the Lincoln. "Sometimes it seems that in today's world, it is just not fashionable for someone in a position to influence public opinion to admit that the U.S. military's role in the world involves more than just war and bloodshed."
Well, with folks like powerful CNN executive Eason Jordan in charge -- a man who clearly has issues with the U.S. military -- it's no wonder our troops so often feel smeared and slimed.
For the past week, Internet weblogs ("blogs") around the world have been buzzing about outrageous comments regarding American soldiers reportedly made by Jordan, the head of CNN's news division, at a World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland. (My reporting on the controversy, with extensive links to other bloggers, is at www.michellemalkin.com.) According to several eyewitnesses, Jordan asserted on Jan. 27 that American military personnel had deliberately targeted and killed journalists in Iraq. (Jordan has since disputed the characterization of his remarks.)
Why wasn't this headline news?
Forum organizers have stonewalled citizen attempts to gain access to a videotape or transcript of the Davos meeting. But American businessman Rony Abovitz, who attended the panel Jordan participated in, reported immediately after the forum that "Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-U.S. crowd) and cause great strain on others."
Another panel attendee, historian Justin Vaisse, wrote on his blog that Jordan "didn't mince words in declaring that the intentions of journalists in Iraq were never perceived as neutral and were made deliberate targets by 'both sides.'"
On Monday, journalist and presidential adviser David Gergen, who moderated the panel, told me that Jordan indeed asserted that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by military "on both sides." Gergen said Jordan tried to backtrack, but then went on to speculate about a few incidents involving journalists killed in the Middle East -- a discussion Gergen cut off because "the military and the government weren't there to defend themselves."
Panel member Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also told me that Jordan asserted that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military and that Jordan "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.
Finally, panel attendee Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., issued a statement in response to my inquiry that he "was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."
Jordan's defenders say he was "misunderstood" and deserves the "benefit of the doubt." But the man's record is one of incurable anti-American pandering.
Jordan's the man who admitted last spring that CNN withheld news out of Baghdad to maintain access to Saddam Hussein's regime. He was quoted last fall telling a Portuguese forum that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces (a charge he maintains today). In the fall of 2002, he reportedly accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions." He was in the middle of the infamous Tailwind scandal, in which CNN was forced to retract a Peter Arnett report that the American military used sarin gas against its own troops in Laos. And in 1999, Jordan declared: "We are a global network, and we take global interest[s] first, not U.S. interests first."
Now, who is more deserving of the benefit of the doubt? Eason Jordan or our men and women on the battlefield?
I support the troops.
Malkin is a contributor to Fox News Channel, which competes with CNN.
Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Michelle Malkin has done a good job hammering home this Eason Jordan affair.
I said during the Rathergate fiasco that it was a sign the press had lost its ability to use baseless charges to attack politicians it didn't like, but that the MSM still had the power to largely censor information from the public domain (like Kerry's anti-war activities).
This affair could well be a challenge to that since the MSM has been working hard to keep this story under wraps.
If the troops were really targeting the MSM reporters howcome theres so many still walking around.HHHHMMMMMM I know the troops can shoot better than that.
I don't like watching the news on TV at all, I'd rather read them online.
I also get some of the military headlines in my email through www.defenselink.mil, there's a section where you can sign up for it. They have some very good articles sometimes. Right now they are running a "Why I serve" series that is good reading.
Throw Al Jazeera West out of the country. They are nothing more than a prpaganda machine for the European Socialists.
At my work location, the TV's are constantly on the CNN headline news channel (why they removed FOX -I'll never know). The TV's have tuners with workiong KNOBS...more channels are offered, but for some reason its always tuned to that cartoon network.
CNN's splash screens, constant bottom-line scrolling of stupid stories...weather, time, road and ski conditions and god knows what else they spoon feed people makes me sick..and one of several reasons I do not watch it at HOME.
Those model-looking anchors would be better off elsewhere, as well as the overdone entertainment and movie review features that mostly hawk AOL/Time Warner crap. Their RAP artists seem to get just as much exposure there as on MTV.
CNN's 'America Last' stance wore thin with me during their hand-wringing of Gulf War I. May they more quickly go the way of CBS News Division...
It may be all they can get in some areas. It is not as bad as it used to be but Fox, etc. is not available in some areas.
"I don't like watching the news on TV at all, I'd rather read them online."
Me too. I ditched CNN when they were covering up & whitwashing the antics down in FL 2000 recount. I check out Instapundit, Powerline, Belmont Club for specific issues, rounded out by FOX - although I'm ditching them too if they saturate with the Micheal Jackson trial like they did Chandra-Kobi-Lacy.
"I also get some of the military headlines in my email through www.defenselink.mil"
The mil blogs are esp good. Check out Blackfive & Iraq the Model
I wish columnists would delineate which and when the Uriah Heep-like David Gurgle "advised" any chiefs-of-state.
If this oily liberal is "advising" GW, then the nation is in deep doo-doo.
If he's not, and I'm sure he's not, then the writer should make it clear and put this creep's "advising" in the past tense.
Leni
Eason Jordan manages to make Dan Rather look like a gullible hick country boy from Texas, and a little naive as well. Dan Rather doesn't like George W. Bush, or ANY Republican, but Eason Jordan just flat doesn't like America.
For him, John F. Kerry spoke the truth, unsupported by any shred of fact, when the behavior of US soldiers was depicted as being "in the manner of Jenjhis Kahn".
This may not be entirely a falsehood, you know. History records there was a Genghis Khan, a truly tyrannical warrior who subjugated all peoples in the lands he invaded, so this fictional "Jenjhis Kahn" may really have behaved in a very humane and kindly manner.
CNN= CAIR Network News? PING!
That's one HOT little journalist!...
If I were 120 years younger........
LOL!
Michelle M IS a major cutie-pie, but she is a married mommy of three - hotness notwithstanding!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.