Please see the Easongate category for the complete background on the developing Eason Jordan story.
See all the latest information below.
——————————————————————————————–
If anybody’s looking for Eason’s Fables (coined by Captain’s Quarters), here it is.
——————————————————————————————–
It took a few days, but major newspapers are finally covering the Eason Jordan story. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who wouldn’t take an Eason Jordan question at his webchat yesterday, writes the story. He quotes Rep. Barney Frank and journalist David Gergen, who both heard Jordan say that American troops were targeting journalists. What Frank says is particularly damning and damaging to Jordan and CNN:
At first, said Frank, “it sounded like he was saying it was official military policy to take out journalists.” But Jordan later “modified” his remarks to say some U.S. soldiers did this “maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger….He did say he was talking about cases of deliberate killing,” Frank said.
There you have it. Just as we thought, but now it’s right there on paper. When I first heard about Jordan’s statements, I could almost picture him saying it, and I knew that he meant to convey this meaning: It was some sort of unofficial policy to “accidentally” kill journalists because the warmongers hate journalists, especially those exposing their warmongering deeds (including taking photos of terrorists with panties on their heads) to the world.
Barney Frank is a liberal and no friend of George Bush or supporter of the war in Iraq, but I believe him. And it’s not because I want to believe him. I already suspected that Jordan indeed said what he was accused of saying, and that he meant every word it. As an anti-war liberal who hates Bush, he probably wanted to say the most shocking thing he could think of, that Bush’s warmongering military was trying to squelch freedom of the press by doing away with the press.
Of course I couldn’t say that because I would’ve been not better than Jordan. He should be ashamed of himself especially for uttering such slander in front of an international audience of other influential people, and with no proof.
Back to Kurtz. He quotes Jordan’s canned response, the one where he tries to parse words and change his original statements. Some man Jordan is. He still won’t admit that what he said was stupid and slanderous. BBC World Services Director Richard Sambrook tries to back Jordan up:
BBC World Services Director Richard Sambrook, in a note to New York University journalism professor and blogger Jay Rosen, said Jordan was objecting to the phrase “collateral damage.”“He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don’t),” Sambrook wrote. “They had been deliberately killed as individuals — perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don’t know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.”
Then why did Jordan say journalists were TARGETS? Sorry, Sambrook. Your response is as weak as Jordan’s non-response.
Notice something very important here. Journalists with access to sources we don’t have are turning to bloggers for information. Hugh Hewitt predicted that more blog swarms and blog citations like this are on the horizon for Big Media, as well as corporations, sports teams — whatever bloggers are blogging about should interest anyone trying to sell a product. He warns businesses, schools, the media, etc., about swarms and advises them to start blogging themselves to protect their brand. These entities must start reading blogs if they don’t already, and for the same reasons, they should set up blogs.
Kurtz quotes Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot:
Why would Arab members of the audience come up and congratulate him for having the courage to speak the truth?” asked Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. “One of the most senior news execs in the world tells a crowd of dignitaries from around the globe that the U.S. military targeted a dozen journalists for death, and there is no [mainstream media] coverage of that?” wrote radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Edward Morrissey of the Captain’s Quarters blog [The Post didn’t link to these bloggers, which is another issue I’ll address later, so I linked to them.] urged his senators in Minnesota to hold public hearings “to establish once and for all whether the U.S. military has a policy of assassinating and torturing journalists, in Iraq or anywhere else, and correct the terrible damage Mr. Jordan may have inflicted on our image abroad.”
A reader brings up an interesting point. The bigger issue is CNN’s anti-military, anti-America coverage to begin with. Eason Jordan is just a cog in the machine:
Ma’am,I can’t help but note that during the current Easongate scandal, most attention has been focused on Mr. Jordan’s bias and how it might effect the way CNN presents the news. While this is important, I think too little attention has been focused on the pre-existing, anti-military bias that existed at CNN prior to Mr. Jordan’s arrival. CNN ran with the very anti-military, very false “Tailwind” nerve gas expose, Peter Arnett reporting, which they eventually had to retract. CNN was more than eager to run a story which damned the military even though a thorough journalistic vetting eventually showed it was an egregious lie.
One question that should be asked in this investigation is whether Mr. Jordan was hired at CNN specifically because he fit into a pre-existent, anti-military agenda there. As it stands now, bias is posited regards Mr. Jordan but not necessarily CNN. If Mr. Jordan takes the fall, it’s back to business as usual at CNN. One bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole
bunch and all.The fact is that it’s quite possible that Mr. Jordan was brought aboard at CNN just because they knew his beliefs were consonant with their own and that he would steer the ship in the direction they wanted to go. I suspect that institutional, instead of individual, bias is the real story here.
Sincerely,
rcl
I agree. And to get to the bottom of it, to push for congressional hearings, letter-writing isn’t enough. It will take more blog swarms to finally crack Big Media’s wall of silence and show people what the founders really meant when they wrote these words: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press…”
——————————————————————————————————————————
Responses to Kurtz’s article: Captain’s Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Easongate, Hugh Hewitt, Roger Simon, The Sundries Shack, Myopic Zeal, Daddypundit, JunkYardBlog, Villainous Company, QandO Blog, Power Line…
Did you respond to Kurtz’s article? Trackback and I’ll link to your post.
By the way easonsfables.com, is for sale. Somebody bid!
For the record, I posted a link to Mick Stockinger’s post about a French translation of commentary on February 6, but Rodger does have scoop on this: a response from Justin Vaisse, who wrote about Eason Jordan.
Additionally, if you have an exclusive news tip, I’ll gladly post it. I’m tracking all the big players, so there’s no need to Cc me on the e-mails.
Addendum: Check out this cool shout-out from Scrappleface.
I know we’ve raked Jordan over the coals, but he deserves it. A reader points out something I hadn’t thought of before:
I have two questions that are bugging me….1. If US troops were targeting journalists why are there any journalists alive?….2. If US troops are targeting journalists, isn’t Eason Jordan sending them to their certain deaths by sending them to Iraq?….Only conclusion I can come up with is that US troops aren’ttargeting journalists….That couldn’t be true, could it?John D.
If troops are killing journalists, Jordan bears some responsibility if he knows they’re being targeted, does he not? He should keep his mouth shut about such things unless he can prove it. Speaking of which, guess who Ankle Biting Pundits picked as Buffoon of the Week?
The Boston Globe, the anti-Bush newspaper that was the first to jump all over CBS’s phony memos, has condescended to write about the Eason Jordan scandal. It must have been painful. No time to break it down now. Later.
A Straight Shot of Politics shoots from the hip: conservative witch hunters.
Be sure to check Hewitt’s updates, too.
More news coverage: Illinois Leader
Update (10:17 a.m.): Press critic Jay Rosen e-mailed this:
From the After section of my Sambrook post:The New York Sun also chimes in [Feb. 8]. Its article has a new fact– this:
The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged “bravery and candor” in discussing the matter.
Mr. Stephens broke the news of Mr. Jordan’s statements for his paper’s “political diary” blog.The Wall Street Journal broke the story? I was able to check “political diary” for Jan. 27, 28, and 29 and there is nothing from Stephens. But if Stephens did break the story then he may also have broken the ground rules set by the World Economic Forum.
Update II (12:28 p.m.): Bloggers blogging about Kurtz, etc., are The Glittering Eye, Scribe Journal, Slublog…
Captain Ed reports: “No Video Will Be Forthcoming.” He also comments on the New York Sun’s article.
Blogger Sisyphus wants that videotape, and he asks for your help. He continues.
This just in. The Tennessean ran a letter from a reader, and Bill Hobbs blogs it.
SCSIwuzzy: “First, go over to La Shawn’s. She has the biggest Jordan round up out there.” I like this guy.
Rony Abovitz, the man who “broke” the Eason Jordan story, is indignant. He asks: “[W]ill Easongate end here, or will it ultimately target the source? Will anyone join me in saying ‘Enough!’?” (Hat tip: Kerry Spot)
Update III (4:10 p.m.): Blogger sighting — Hugh Hewitt will appear on CNBCs Kudlow & Cramer today at 5:35 PM, EST. Gee…I wonder what they’ll talk about?
Michelle has another round-up.
Joe Gandelman has a super round-up. Pajama Hadin is still on the case, and Slublog has done some investigating. (Via Captain’s Quarters)
Update IV (5:28 p.m.): Interesting perspective at American Digest. Gerard thinks MSM has won, but I see it different, as does Glenn Reynolds and Jim Geraghty, who writes:
If the Davos organizers refuse to release it, and CNN refuses to call for its release, and the BBC refuses to call for its release, and every other news agency refuses to call for its release……then remember this, the next time the media gets up on a high horse about the public’s right to know. Remember this the next time Dick Cheney has a meeting with energy executives. Remember this the next time reporters complain about Bush not holding enough press conferences, and not doing enough interviews. Remember this the next time they talk about the importance of a free press, and an informed citizenry.
It harkens back to my post this morning about the founders, the freedom of the press and all that jazz.
Also visit Double Toothpicks, and stop by The Question Fairy while you’re out.
‘week’ - proofread - weak
Comment by Jack Tanner — 02.08.05 @ 7:35 am
The Sun is Rising
Gerry Daly informs us that the Eason Jordan story has made the New York Sun. Gerry takes a look at the article. La Shawn Barber says it is going to take a greater effort to get media attention after Kurtz’s…
Trackback by Easongate — 02.08.05 @ 7:36 am
Eason Jordan: Is the Dam Breaking?
For additional background, see my previous posts here, here, here and here.
Today, it looks like Michelle Malkin has decided to jump headlong into this controversy. Check out her posts:
David Gergen speaks.
Chris Dodd speaks.
Howard Kurtz and …
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 02.08.05 @ 7:38 am
Thanks.
Comment by La Shawn — 02.08.05 @ 7:38 am
Stellar reporting job, La Shawn.
I agree with your final comment most. More to the point, CNN isn’t just anti-war or anti-military, they’re anti-US. They are on the other side.
Comment by Pogo — 02.08.05 @ 7:40 am
Charges that the U.S. military are deliberately murdering journalists is not new.
The left-wing hate^H^H^H^H^ progressive media watch dog group FAIR (http://fair.org/) made similar charges in 2003 and 2004. As of Feb. 08, 2005 08:00 EST, there is no mention of the current Jordan scandal on FAIR’s web site, which is pretty pathetic for a so-called media watchdog group.
—–
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Is Killing Part of Pentagon Press Policy?
April 10, 2003
The Pentagon has held up its practice of “embedding” journalists with military units as proof of a new media-friendly policy. On April 8, however, U.S. military forces launched what appeared to be deliberate attacks on independent journalists covering the war, killing three and injuring four others….
   —–
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/040311.html
Media Beat
March 11, 2004
They Shoot Journalists, Don’t They?
By Norman Solomon
To encourage restraint in war coverage, governments don’t need to shoot journalists — though sometimes that’s helpful….
   —–
And it was only a few years ago that the Left and the Main Stream Media had no problem with “linking” anybody who accused government agents of murder to terrorists:
http://www.fair.org/articles/gun-control.html
February 2000
Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment
by Jeff Cohen
…Given the inflammatory utterances from NRA leaders, toned down after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed by ardent member Timothy McVeigh, the NRA has not fared all that badly in the media. One board member wrote that masked federal agents are “scarier than the Nazis” and should be “targets.” Another declared: “The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to threaten the government.”
Only after Oklahoma City did national media notice official NRA rhetoric about the “storm-trooper tactics” of firearms agents, a.k.a. “jack-booted government thugs,” who have the green light to “murder law-abiding citizens.”…
Comment by Nobody Important — 02.08.05 @ 7:52 am
Eason Jordan Updates
So many links … Malkin is tearing this story up. She snagged eyewitness accounts from David Gergen and Barney Frank, and points to another one in this post. She’s not quite pleased with Howard Kurtz’s belated coverage of Jordan’s comments:…
Trackback by INDC Journal — 02.08.05 @ 8:13 am
Why Should I Blog?
I started this blogging thing a month or so ago for real. In that time, I’ve had a couple of semi-high profile links from places like Captain’s Quarters, Michelle Malkin, and LaShawn Barber. I’ve learned how to play the trackback game, taking ever…
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 02.08.05 @ 8:32 am
According to Kurtz (per kausfiles under date of 2/7/05) two Wapo reporters were “pursuing the story”, then spoke to Jordan, then dropped the story because…”what was said is in dispute”.
Is that all that’s necessary to kill a story for the Wapo? A dispute as to what was said?
If that’s true you’d wonder why the Wapo prints anything except recipes in the Lifstyle section of their paper.
Comment by Mark Z. — 02.08.05 @ 8:51 am
Democracy Begins At Home
There has been a lot of pointless blather about the “value of democracy” on conservative blogs lately. That is, when they haven’t been busy witch hunting a stupid, offhand remark by a reporter of a major news organization in their relentless pursuit…
Trackback by A Straight Shot Of Politics — 02.08.05 @ 8:52 am
I find it interesting that it is argued as a mitigating factor that Jordan was “caught up in the tension of what was happening there. It’s a raw, emotional wound for him.” (Gergen in Malkin interview). Though his concern as I read it was for the “journalistsâ€, not our troops.
Comment by ed — 02.08.05 @ 8:52 am
One other thing … if the military was targeting journalists, then why would they have embedded journalists when US rolled into Iraq last year?
Comment by Lola — 02.08.05 @ 8:53 am
Big Media Responds to Eason Jordan
LaShawn Barber has been closely following the story and has lots of links to other great critiques of the article. She also correctly suggests that the bigger issue is CNN’s pattern of anti-American, anti-military coverage of which Mr. Jordan’s state…
Trackback by Daddypundit — 02.08.05 @ 8:56 am
If that’s true you’d wonder why the Wapo prints anything except recipes in the Lifstyle section of their paper.
Don’t worry. Carnivale of the Recipes is taking over that sector as well…
Muahahahahahaha.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.08.05 @ 9:06 am
HOWIE KURTZ RESPONDS TO EASON’S FABLES…REALLY…I MEAN IT THIS TIME…NO TRICKS…
Here’s Kurtz. I find it unsatisfying. It’s almost as bad as my parody. Kaus beats Kurtz up and steals his lunch money. He’s got Kurtz dead to rights playing PR flack for CNN in his WaPo column. Talk about conflict…
Trackback by JunkYardBlog — 02.08.05 @ 9:20 am
Easongate and the Davos Men
Well, the WEF isn’t going to release the videotape from last Thursday’s panel discussion. They’re going to use the “off the record” defense to not release it.
You already know where I stand on that.
Also interesting in Sisyphean Musings’ …
Trackback by The Sundries Shack — 02.08.05 @ 9:24 am
While what seems like the entire right side of the blogosphere is jumping on Howard Kurtz for the Eason Jordan issue, and for not answering questions about it in his web-chat yesterday, there has been a complete silence from Kurtz on the matter of Kurt…
Trackback by QandO — 02.08.05 @ 9:55 am
A very important point that you touch on is the way CNN is seen around the world.
Most Americans only see the domestic version of CNN. Outside the US, there is CNN International. On a recent trip to the Netherlands, I had my first encounter with CNN International. It is nothing like the domestic version, except perhaps the set. If Americans don’t like CNN, they will find nothing to like in CNN International.
The morning show I saw had a man an woman with guest, Christiana Amanpour. The male co-moderator was loud and abnoxious, the woman chimed in periodically. And they laughed and laughed at the news of the day. It made made Nickelodeon in Dutch bearable.
Comment by Neo — 02.08.05 @ 9:56 am
In defence of Kurtz not speaking about this matter in his webchat yesterday, I suspect that he avoided those questions because of today’s article. As in, he didn’t want to show his hand yet. He might also have seeked the ’scoop’, at least in the MSM world.
Comment by daniel clark — 02.08.05 @ 10:20 am
The man who wouldn’t speak the truth about Saddam - and explained away his silence by claiming it was about “access” (for what?) - now speaks out with an obvious lie about Bush. Why does anybody still watch that network?
Comment by Brian Jones — 02.08.05 @ 10:22 am
Fair play in the blogosphere
Some friends of mine have pointed out a seeming disparity between the zeal of the blogosphere to go after media improprieties on the left and the lack of zeal to go after media improprieties from the right.
Trackback by Dignan's 75 Year Plan — 02.08.05 @ 10:22 am
Just for reference, here was CNN’s response to my email raising Cain about this:
“Eason was attempting to speak out on an issue that is important to news
organizations all over the world. Unfortunately, he was not clear enough
in explaining his assertion. He was responding to an assertion that all
63 journalists killed in Iraq were “collateral damage.” While the
majority of the 63 journalists killed in Iraq have been killed by
insurgents, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the U.S. military on
occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. Mr. Jordan
emphatically does not believe that the U.S. Military intended to kill
journalists and believes these accidents to be cases of “mistaken
identity.” ”
This was sent 2/4/05. It is a little difficult to square totally with what is now being said.
I also agree with Neo above. You have to see CNN in Europe to believe it. It serves as a perfect backdrop for the kind of statement that was alleged to have been made here.
Comment by Allan Yackey — 02.08.05 @ 10:48 am
Thanks for your hard work on your ’second’ job La Shawn.
Notice it appears the dam didn’t even show a leak until Senator Frank and Dodd spoke out on the issue, thanks to Michelle Malkins persistence.
Since when are politicians the ones to lead the MSM? When it is a member of the MSM club that’s stepped in the do-do.
Comment by Jim R — 02.08.05 @ 10:48 am
in which I decide to pass the buck, so that I can run to Best Buy and pick up the new Malcolm X DVD
Everything you wanted to know about the Eason Jordan affair but couldn't possibly expect me to write about, this being a rather one-dimensional little Jew humor blog and all…
Oh. And as long as we're on the subject of one-dime…
Trackback by protein wisdom — 02.08.05 @ 10:50 am
They why did Jordan say journalists were TARGETS?
–proofread –
Then why…
Thanks Lashawn for your always thorough reporting
Comment by Chuck LeBlanc — 02.08.05 @ 11:06 am
I can’t trackback (darn blogger) but I did reply to Kurtz’s story.
http://slublog.blogspot.com/2005/02/finally-kurtz-media-reporter-howard.html
I’ll link to your roundup. Nice work.
Comment by Peter — 02.08.05 @ 11:37 am
Howard Kurtz Spins the Eason Jordan Scandal
Howard Kurtz made two predictions come true with one story on the Eason Jordan scandal sometime this week. One, the old media dinosaur would finally notice and mention the scandal. And two–it would be a cover up. Kurtz writes in…
Trackback by Scribe — 02.08.05 @ 11:41 am
Howard Kurtz on Eason Jordan
There’s an article by Howard Kurtz in today’s Washington Post on Eason Jordan’s claim that the American military had targeted journalists in Iraq: What CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan said, or didn’t say, in Davos, Switzerland, last month has…
Trackback by The Glittering Eye — 02.08.05 @ 12:24 pm
La Shawn, I strongly agree with those who want to nail CNN as well as “Err” Jordan on this. They enabled and encourage him where an responsible news organization (yes, an apparent oxymoron) would have fired him two years ago.
Eason Jordan should have been fired for turning a blind eye torture under Saddam in exchange for media access, and he should have been fired the last time he claimed American troops were targeting and torturing journalists.
Eason Jordan is the symptom, but CNN is the disease.
Comment by Confederate Yankee — 02.08.05 @ 12:29 pm
Jordan and CNN
First, go over to LaShawn’s.
Trackback by A planet where apes evolved from MAN?!? — 02.08.05 @ 1:15 pm
‘He did say he was talking about cases of deliberate killing’
Isn’t it clear by now that he said that journalists were targeted ‘as targets’ but not once they were identified as journalists? Ie, this was a result of poor or misidentification, or even at worse a failure to identify?
All of this is consistent with deliberately killing the people that you’re aiming at — in contrast to not meaning to kill the people that are ‘collateral damage’.
Comment by actus — 02.08.05 @ 1:20 pm
“First, go over to La Shawn’s. She has the biggest Jordan round up out there.†I like this guy.
And yet, not on the blog roll…
Sigh… I’ll get over it. Someday. For now, I’ll just enjoy the boost of a trackback. LOLM
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.08.05 @ 1:32 pm
Catching my eye: morning A through Z
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: Could someone please explain to me how the federal government investing FICA receipts in mutual funds is politicizing “investments on the part of the president and congress” but the president and Co…
Trackback by The Glittering Eye — 02.08.05 @ 1:46 pm
Just because Eason Jordon has an autographed poster of Osama Bin Laden in the newsroom doesn’t make him biased, does it?
Comment by ratso ferrari — 02.08.05 @ 2:31 pm
Are we talking about “fragging” here? With the walkback insisting that the U.S. Military isn’t targeting journalists, but that individual soldiers are harrassing them, fragging is what Jordan is talking about to my way of thinking.
Comment by ChristyK — 02.08.05 @ 2:41 pm
Thank you LaShawn for your extensive consolidated coverage. I too have a day job but love to stay informed…
Comment by Baklava — 02.08.05 @ 2:48 pm
Eason-quiddick Update
…CNN’s scandal makes it clear that NO name in news can be trusted implicitly, but that we all must do as the Apostle Paul enjoined Christians to do: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
Trackback by Double Toothpicks — 02.08.05 @ 3:09 pm
CNN’s scandal makes it clear that NO name in news can be trusted implicitly, but that we all must do as the Apostle Paul enjoined Christians to do: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
Comment by Double Toothpicks — 02.08.05 @ 3:13 pm
La Shawn, I am not sure how to do a trackback, but I have suggested your blog to my readers if they want to know more about Easongate.
Comment by RepJ — 02.08.05 @ 3:36 pm
Note To Eason Jordan: Chill, Dude, You’re Freakin
You know what it’s like - you’ve had one: that friend, the life of the party, that every-so-charming bud that one day just goes nucking *FUTZ* in front of everybody important.
And everybody important turns to you with accusing eyes and says, “Hey…
Trackback by The Question Fairy — 02.08.05 @ 5:59 pm
No, actus, it is not “clear” at all. For several reasons, first of all, Jordan knows that isn’t the common meaning of the terms he is using. Secondly, he has made other comments consistent with the interpretation we are making here.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 02.08.05 @ 7:20 pm
‘For several reasons, first of all, Jordan knows that isn’t the common meaning of the terms he is using. ‘
Targetting means to aim at. I know its ambiguous. I think its ‘clear’ from the clarifications. He wanted to distinguish from collateral damage, to a situation where they are being shot at as targets, not bystanders that happen to get hit.
Comment by actus — 02.08.05 @ 9:05 pm
Eason Jordan Update . . . More
Radio Blogger has a transcript of Larry Kudlow’s interview today with Hugh Hewitt on CNBC’s Kudlow and Cramer program.
Michelle Malkin gives close to a dozen links to new and continuing information in her post “EASONGATE: MISSING IN ACTION & MISC…
Trackback by OKIE on the LAM - In LA — 02.08.05 @ 9:05 pm
Pentagon Sets Rules Of Engagement for Journalists By Scott Ott
Spurred by CNN executive Eason Jordan’s accusations that U.S. troops have ” TARGET=”_blank”>targetted journalists in Iraq, the Pentagon today…
Trackback by Right Wing News — 02.08.05 @ 11:56 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 02.09.05 @ 2:55 am
Again, actus, that simply doesn’t match Jordan’s initial statements, his knowledge of the meaning of the term and his past statements. But you just keep on trying to spin his way out of this.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 02.09.05 @ 10:12 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Bush Jong-Il by The Sundries Shack…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 02.11.05 @ 3:51 am
‘Again, actus, that simply doesn’t match Jordan’s initial statements, his knowledge of the meaning of the term and his past statements. But you just keep on trying to spin his way out of this.’
I know. I think his original statemenst were wrong and then clarified.
Comment by actus — 02.12.05 @ 2:19 pm
Which time? He’s made this assertion before. THis time, US Senators were there, and along with braver reporter or three, he was taken to task.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.12.05 @ 2:35 pm
As best we can figure out, Jordan didn’t “clarify” his remarks. He realized he couldn’t defend them. There is a large difference.
But what’s truly side-splitting hilarious about actus’ attempts to spin things Eason Jordan’s way is that all of actus’ wishful thinking isn’t matched by the actions of Eason Jordan and CNN. They figured out that the tape wasn’t going to help them, its funny that actus can’t figure this out.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 02.13.05 @ 5:50 pm