Posted on 02/10/2005 3:42:54 AM PST by jocon307
I highly recommend Captain Ed's take on Stephens motivations.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003793.php#comments
The analysis continues in the comments from Max:
"The WSJ first tried to bury this story, and now that it can't, to throw water on the flames.
It is clear that this is the case given that James Taranto of the WSJ's Best of the Web has yet to mention what is in fact the biggest story on the web. His failure to do so can imo only be attributed to a conscious decision by the WSJ to protect Eason Jordan and CNN. Both he and the WSJ have lost a lot of credibility with me, and I'm sure others, over their handling of this."
"I tried to post a reply to Stephens' article and got a message along the lines of 'this article is over a week old and replys will not be posted'."
Here's the most important thing he writes, immediately after stating he was in the audience and directly, personally heard Jordan say it:
"Mr. Jordan observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his American captors."
Then he goes on to write that this as mere inuendo and not a direct accusation--what?????
When Jordan said "target" he had to mean murder. Thre's not much left after one or two .50 caliber rounds his somebody or after a tank round explodes right next to her.
"...the reporterette who Ann Coulter describes as the 'war slut'."
and who also is married to former Clintonite Jamie Rubin.
"I tried to post a reply to Stephens' article and got a message along the lines of 'this article is over a week old and replys will not be posted'."
UNHEARD OF!
I responded to that article before I posted it here. And as I mentioned in my original post, it's the featured article of the day, something they don't do every day, I think it's sort of a usage audit. The response must have been crashing their servers!
LOL, first the Noonan aposty and now this. Even the Wall Street Journal does not know the true power of the internet.
It took them FOREVER to get the reponses up to the noonan article. It is 1:25 pm Eastern time, there's nothing up for any of today's pieces yet, and there's usual some repsonses up by now.
I'll have to go back to the site and try and respond again.
I just tried again, you DO have to be registered to read it now, since it is the featured article. I thought you had to just give an email addy, I was wrong about what I said before.
But I was still able to send in a response to it.
More interesting developments. Follow the earlier link to CQ blog. It seems Mr. Stephens failed to disclose his rather close relationship with the WEF. In fact, he just went through the nomination process (run by Queen Rania of Jordan) to become one of the WEF's 'young leaders of tomorrow' one of whose board members is none other than Eason Jordan.
Don't you mean Jamie Amanpour? Clearly, he's the one wearing the panties in that family. God, what a despicable little Clintonite pecksniff.
The real question the media should be addressing is "Why is it that Jordan's claims would have any credibility?"
In other words, Why would the military want to kill journalists?
Might take a little soul searching to come up with the answer there.
Wil, you make a good point.
Blank, that is indeed quite interesting. That would certianly be something to question the WSJ on, for sure.
The responses, though few in number, are finally up. I'll be boastful and note mine is included, second to last one. Which is nice, because usually if I respond to something that is controversial I usually 'send a copy to myself' but I wasn't awake enough to do that today.
Another funny note "defamatory (or slanderous, or libelous) innuendo" was actually tonight's Tournament of Champions Final Jeopardy. So I think that I, along with many, if not most, readers of Stephens' piece may have mis-interpretted him a wee bit on that.
But, as I say, it was very confusing, and I'm still not sure.
Featured articles can be accessed without registration starting the day after they appear. Read it tomorrow! I sure will!
"Featured articles can be accessed without registration starting the day after they appear."
Very cool tip!
Also if you get to them early (guessing before 9 am eastern time) you can read them.
I think that "featured article" is some kind of hit counter, or something.
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.