January 29, 2006
Revolting
Do you want to fully understand why many people no longer trust the infotainment industry? Examine just this small sample from the Feb. 6, 2006 issue of
Newsweek, in an article called
Palace Revolt (emphasis mine):
Counsel to the vice president is, in most administrations, worth less than the proverbial bucket of warm spit, but under Prime Minister Cheney, it became a vital power center, especially after 9/11.
This is what passes for reporting today for Newsweek, and is not the only example of Democratic Underground-quality commentary in this group effort from Daniel Klaidman, Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas.
There is one bright side, however. Unlike another shoddily-sourced, politically-driven Newsweek article, it does not appear anyone will immediately die as a result.
This time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:54 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This stupid story was highlighted in the MSM browser window also. I ignored it as soon as I recognized the Newsweek byline.
Posted by: docdave at January 30, 2006 02:21 PM (UiwG/)
2
They act like it is some big scandal when someone working for the President actively obstructs him and is fired. I guess they forget travelgate and all the other Clintoon firings done just because of cronyism and personnel conflict or the all the firings FDR, JFK and many more administrations did. At least Bush fired these clowns because they were putting the country in danger.
Posted by: Oldcrow at January 30, 2006 05:42 PM (x65Sm)
3
iranian nuclear energy;a very discussable topic for the media around the world especially those who are against iran and do prefer to satter sorts of news that make iranians worry about thier situation.dishonest europeans did not try to fulfil their promises after iran eu3 negotiations in tehran 2 years ago.despite the effective and sensible confidence building that iranian officials have taken ,europeans conversely have tried to grow more dishonest and turn this very simple dossier into a controversial issue.they only pretend that iranian program is threateninf and jeopardizing ,while they ignore this fact that the most destructive nuclear arenas are located in israel soil and zionists are enjoying to see the world view has turned on them.Possession of peaceful nuclear energy is the definite right of IRANIANs.gary
Posted by: gary at February 02, 2006 01:22 AM (pbd4i)
4
Gary -- or as you are known at home, Hamid Reza Mehrabi, of Hamid, Khorasan, in the Islamic Republic of Iran -- we just aren't buying your sincerity, Bubba.
And it isn't just the fact that you lie about
who you are, its about the fact that you've been caught regarding your
revealed plans for nuclear weapons.
I simply must
get a better class of troll.
Bring in James Carville!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2006 01:38 AM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ABC's Woodruff, Vogt Injured By IED
ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman were both seriously injured today in Iraq as the result of an IED detonated in an ambush. AP, via
ABC News:
Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were hit by an improvised explosive device near Taji, Iraq, and were in serious condition at a U.S. military hospital, ABC News President David Westin said.
The two were embedded with the 4th Infantry Division and traveling with an Iraqi Army unit.
The U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad confirmed that the ABC News team was involved in an attack but declined to provide further details to The Associated Press. An official military statement was expected to be issued later Sunday.
Reuters has more details about both men.
Woodruff, 44, is from Michigan and joined ABC in 1996. He has reported from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, from Italy for the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI and from Yugoslavia during the conflict in Kosovo. He had also covered the Justice Department in Washington.
Vogt, 46, is Canadian and lives in Aix-en-Provence in France. He is an Emmy award-winning cameraman and filmed the aftermath of the Asian tsunami from Sri Lanka.
Neither AP nor Reuters mentions any possible casualties among the Iraqi or American soldiers traveling with Woodruff and Vogt. Whether this is typical media myopia or the result of the military not releasing casualty data remains to be seen.
I sincerely hope both Woodruff and Vogt have a full recovery, but I find that I care more about the Iraqi and American soldiers fighting for the future this fledgling democracy.
American soldiers experience war in Iraq months at a time. Iraqi soldiers and police are there facing danger on a daily basis, with no respite but victory or death. A reporter looking to get "street cred" in a quick in-and-out 24-72 hour junket without really bothering to learn what is really going on the way, say, Ernie Pyle or Kevin Sites, or Michael Yon has, just doesn't touch me the same way.
I wish them both a speedy and full recovery all the same.
1-31 Update: My point proven:
"The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.
Not to me, gentlemen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
1
It is impossible to offer prayers or best wishes (depending on your own beliefs) for Woodruff and Vogt without including the same for American and Iraqi service people and civilians. I too wish both men a full recovery. I hear that they both suffered severe head injuries, which does not bode well - but hope springs eternal.
Posted by: Specter at January 29, 2006 12:18 PM (ybfXM)
2
I wish Woodruff and Vogt well, but it is very difficult for me to muster any more sympathy for people that are paid in one month what it takes those soldiers a year of more to make, expecially considering the soldiers are in harms way 12 or more months at a time.
I pray for them all.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 29, 2006 01:38 PM (owAN1)
3
You will probably ban me from this site for saying so, but your complaint that Woodruff might have just been attempting to get some "street cred" is so indecent as to place you among those commenters who deserve no respect whatsoever. Shame on you. This man has four children and a wife. He is compassionate, decent, honest, and he did not have to go to Iraq. No one would have thought the worse of him if he didn't. But he went. And from various reports, he was in a Iraqi vehicle, not an American vehicle, when the convoy was hit. (I am still awaiting confirmation on that issue.) In any event, he went to Iraq to spend time with the troops. To report from there. He's an anchor for God sakes, and therefore to expect him to be Ernie Pyle is simply unrealistic and beside the point. The man went to Iraq and put himself in harm's way to report life from the soldier's perspective, if only for a day or too. He did what right wingers want - he went into the field to report the truth. And he got hit by the enemy. And you are not "touch[ed]."
You are the embodiment of the right wing today. Shame on you. After all, have you no decency?
Posted by: mkultra at January 30, 2006 12:05 AM (6P4ql)
4
I hope for a speedy recovery for both Bob Woodruff & Doug Vogt . I also believe that this embedding w/the troops in Iraq is a lousy idea. It's not only life threatening, it's an extremely dangerous way to get news to network viewers. I say, in order to stay out of harm's way, we should bring the journalists & the troops home now.
Posted by: Rick at January 30, 2006 12:39 AM (SXdAj)
5
I want to thank all the unsung heroes of this unholy war; every special-ops sniper that takes out a terrorist saves the lives of 50 or more people; Iraqis and American alike.
Posted by: Tom TB at January 30, 2006 05:47 AM (Ffvoi)
6
mkultra,
I'm sorry to inform you of reality, but this kind of reporting is often done for "street cred" - instant credibility for career advancement - whether you like that inconvenient fact, or not. That he cannot gather the "soldier's perspective" in a quick junket seems to be beyond your grasp.
As for reporting the truth... well he would have certainly put an interesting spin on what he was unable to actually grasp in his short trip. I'm sorry if I've simply seen too much of this kind of reporting to feel that he could have brought how anything other than some filler footage to go with the preconceptions that he brought with him.
He wasn't interested in truth anymore than you are.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 30, 2006 06:50 AM (0fZB6)
7
Rick,
You just don't quite grasp the "kill them thre so we don't have them killing us here" concept.
Color me unsurprised. And please,
please try to tell me their were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 30, 2006 07:17 AM (0fZB6)
8
According to Michelle Malkin, there were 4 American soldiers injured in the IED attack. No information on whether Woodruff & Vogt were in an American vehicle, but it appears so.
Posted by: old_dawg at January 30, 2006 11:20 AM (mvlLy)
9
I had a friend killed by an IED last week. He and another soldier in his vehicle were killed. The driver and interpreter are still in the hospital in serious condition.
http://bluestarchronicles.blogspot.com/2006/01/american-strength.html
They were soldiers trying to train Iraqi soldiers. Doing it day in and day out.
I wish the reporters a complete recovery as well. But I hope we don't forget the ones who are making long-term sacrifice with little or no recognition.
Posted by: beth at January 30, 2006 11:42 AM (X6tm3)
10
Redneck-Yankee or whatever you call yourself.
You sir, are a #@&* FOOL!!
Posted by: wayne's world at January 30, 2006 04:41 PM (TzDq4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 27, 2006
Prances with Wolves
As a
fake scholar,
fake artist, and fake Indian, I always though the story of Ward Churchill would be hard to beat.
Timothy P. "Nasdijj" Barrus, an Opie-looking wannabe Navajo who killed off two imaginary children on his way to a national magazine award that he parlayed into three nonfiction books about people who never existed, before he got into writing gay porn while living as the father of a suburban white kid while at some point faking involvement as a soldier in the Vietnam war, takes the cake:
After the Esquire piece, Nasdijj published "The Blood Runs Like a River Through My Dreams" in 2000, followed by "The Boy and His Dog Are Sleeping" -- which won a PEN award -- and "Geronimo's Bones." He wrote that he was the son of an alcoholic Navajo mother and a white cowboy father who raped and beat him. He said he grew up in migrant labor camps.
His former brother-in-law, Stephen Cheetham of Lansing, said Barrus had no such life. Cheetham said he hadn't seen Barrus since the 1970s, but over the years his two children told him what they heard of Barrus from their mother.
"I had heard that he was writing stories under different names," Cheetham said Thursday. "Something about how he claimed to be a Vietnam veteran at one point, claimed to be a Native American Indian at another point.
"His parents were a very middle-class, working, typical American family. He was never involved in Vietnam, he was never a Native American Indian, his parents weren't Native Americans -- there wasn't anything like that in his past."
It gets weirder:
In the 1980s, Barrus gained attention in some gay circles as a writer of pornography; other gay writers didn't think his work sounded authentic.
"I had some serious doubts about how gay he ever was," said Lars Eighner, a writer of gay literature who had mainstream success with his books. "It's a house of mirrors when you deal with him."
Barrus' third novel was about gay soldiers in Vietnam, but taken as a fictionalized memoir. Eighner said his gay literary friends didn't believe Barrus was ever in Vietnam.
I think he called that book Victor Charlie In My Chocolate Factory.
In a shocking related story, militant gay liberal activist John Aravosis of Americablog was discovered to be none other than David Hasselhoff.
Rusty is having fun with this story as well.
Update: Read Navahoax in the LA Weekly which broke this story and also has a link to "Nasdijj's" blog.
And Phin's got a song...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:26 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I was thrilled when Rush mention the Raleigh News and Observer on his show today, and how they broke this story. Nice to see the N&O do a good job on this.
Posted by: William Teach at January 27, 2006 07:12 PM (V5vwb)
2
I think he called that book Victor Charlie In My Chocolate Factory.That's priceless!
Posted by: lawhawk at January 27, 2006 08:57 PM (57H55)
3
The story was broken by the L.A. Weekly several days ago, in an 8,000-word investigation. The N&O story is a follow. you can see the original story, "Navahoax," as well as Nasdijj's blog postings, at www.laweekly.com
Posted by: tom at January 27, 2006 11:33 PM (cZFDo)
4
I was born on the island Mannahatta, and my tribe moved to Quinnecticut, which in Mohegan means "Tidal river in the land of Casinos". I will part my long hair in the middle, dye it black, go to Hollyweird and sell my script about love between gay cowboys and indians!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 28, 2006 07:28 AM (Ffvoi)
5
"Prances with Wolves." Heh. You've got a brilliant future ahead of you, CY.
Posted by: greg at January 28, 2006 11:36 AM (20/vO)
6
Next he'll be writing a book about his story of being a Gay Confederate Yankee or did he do that already?
Posted by: Sweets at February 10, 2006 04:10 PM (wF+hb)
7
Sweets,
It's
been done.
But I'm sure he was just "prison gay..."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 10, 2006 04:17 PM (g5Nba)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 12, 2006
The Domestic Lying Scandal
ABC News still can't basic facts about the NSA surveillance story correct, as ABC reporter Jessica Yellin proves in her story,
Ex-CIA Lawyer, No Legal Basic for NSA Spying.
She stumbles—or perhaps intentionally misleads—in the very first paragraph of her story:
Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith will testify in House hearings that there is no legal basis for President Bush's controversial National Security Agency domestic surveillance program, ABC News has learned.
The section I bolded highlights a key factual error in Yellin's article, which is this fact that the NSA intercept program was decidedly non-domestic in nature.
Yellin's incorrect assertion is one common to many in the media.
Deb Reichmann of the Associated Press, makes the claim as well, even though she contradicts herself by noting, that Bush "Â…gave the NSA permission to eavesdrop without a warrant on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States."
Josh Meyer and Daryl Strickland get it wrong in the LA Times, as does Scott Shane of the NY Times and literally dozens of other journalists.
Someone please alert the media that a call between people in two countries is, by definition, not domestic. This is sloppy reporting, betraying the fact that the journalists covering this story are ignorant of the subject matter they are covering. Or could another factor be in play?
Certainly, our crack corps of media professionals wouldn't dream of purposefully trying to muddy the waters to push a certain political agendaÂ… would they?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:17 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Me thinks this is not sloppy journalism - it is agenda-izing hard at work! The only way to keep the "issue" alive is if the people perceive the monitoring was done internal to the US borders. This is misdirection intended to herd people to a conclusion that the program was illegal. The truth is in the way of trying to hurt the president - so it has to go.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 12, 2006 05:27 PM (owAN1)
Posted by: Fred at January 12, 2006 05:42 PM (xX+1y)
3
Yes Fred, it is very sloppy... of
you.
The sources I cited were all talking about the NSA story, which has nothing to do with the generic link you provided, that might as well have blamed "America" in gneral. I know it is difficult, but
do try to stay on subject...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2006 06:06 PM (0fZB6)
4
I don't know how to break this to you,
Fred, but the NSA is a DoD organization. I don't see that anyone has confused the two - except you. Did you remember to take your meds today?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 12, 2006 07:45 PM (AaKND)
5
So get a warrant.
What's the big difficulty? Our intelligence folks have 72 hours AFTER they begin survellance to do just that.
From a secret court no less.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 10:04 AM (hGNke)
6
You're showing your ignorance again, Artie.
So get a warrant.
What's the big difficulty? Our intelligence folks have 72 hours AFTER they begin survellance to do just that.
From a secret court no less.
You don't understand the dynamics of the warrant process, nor do you have a clue as to how the NSA collection effort really works.
Getting a warrant through a FISA Court is a bureaucratic process. NSA doesn't just go to the FISA Court. There are many hoops to jump through in the process, and that requires an expenditure of a great deal of very valuable time.
Your new poster boy - soon to become a candidate for someone's butt boy in the slammer - Russell Tice, does not understand how the whole process really works. He was only at the NSA for 6 months before getting the pink slip. And you think
you can write with authority on how the process works? Not too likely, Pookie.
You may want to read
THIS if you really want to have a clearer insight. I know you won't, but I thought I would extend the invitation, nonetheless.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 01:30 PM (AaKND)
7
The warrant process is no where near so onerous as you would have us think. About like dropping off the dry cleaning.
And exceedingly rare to have a warrent denied.
Why are you so willing to suspend the rules?
Posted by: ArthurSTone at January 14, 2006 02:11 PM (UnGrU)
8
You didn't bother to check out the little reading assignment I left for you, did you, Artie?
The rules have not been suspended, Artie. There is no requirement under the provisions of FISA to get warrants for targeting foreign communications. Furthermore, FISA Section 1801 allows for warrantless surveillance with an OK from the Attorney General - and that includes targeting American ends of said foreign communications.
You have not read through FISA, either, have you, Artie. I am reasonably sure that you have not read through the Articles and Amendments of/to the U.S. Constitution, either. I am a certain that you have not reviewed the laws under USC 18, 798, as they pertain to the unauthorized release of classified information and the penalties exacted for such violations.
Come back when you have a bit more of a learned perspective to share - not just more spouting of stuff read at the Daily KOS.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 02:49 PM (AaKND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
41kb generated in CPU 0.0162, elapsed 0.0907 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0791 seconds, 180 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.