September 30, 2004
— Ace George Soros really gets his money's worth with this find.
Willis discovers that either George Bush is a criminal polygamist married to two different women, or else that there's another George Bush in the large state of Texas.
The George W. Bush and Sue Bush couple seem to have a phone number listed on Google, and seem to live in El Paso, rather than Washington DC or Crawford, but Oliver still finds it "curious."
He will get to the bottom of this nefariousness. I can guarantee you that.
— Ace I'll actually be out for much of the evening, so everyone will just have to wait for me to make my insightful pronouncements like "Bush did what he needed to do" or "Kerry was... what's the right word? douchebaggish."
If anyone wants to comment here as the thing happens, be my guest.
— Ace Thanks to the contributors here for getting the ball rolling. I can't credit everyone by name -- it would interupt the flow -- but suggestions are derived from the comments in this thread.
I don't suggest that anyone actually play this drinking game. It's dreadful.
* If John Kerry says "I've been very clear" on his unclear position on Iraq, sip.
* If John Kerry says "I've always maintained" this or that, chug.
* If John Kerry says "My one core principle is that I think I'd look pretty damn spiffy walking up the steps to Air Force One," ingest an entire bottle of shoe polish, "just to say you did it."
* If John Kerry says "W is for Wrong," drink.
* If John Kerry says "Q is for Quagmire," do an upside-down beer bong.
* If John Kerry says "C is for Cookie and that's good enough for me" and then begins devouring his lectern like a muppet with the munchies, get in touch with Liza Manelli's "back doctor" and claim you've got lower-lumbars in desperate need of realignment as well as a "kind mellowing."
* If John Kerry says he was a prosecutor in the eighties, take a sip.
* If John Kerry says he has served on the Senate Intelligence Committe since the eighties, do a shot.
* If John Kerry says he banged Morgan Fairchild in the eighties, quit your job and become a full-time binge-drinker -- the craze that's sweeping the nation -- because that just might get him elected President.
* If Bush appears too damn cocky by smirking, take a sip.
* If Bush appears too damn cocky by winking, chug.
* If Bush appears too damn cocky by inviting John Kerry to "pull his finger," get sloppy-drunk and begin calling up ex-girlfriends to ask them "Do you ever miss the good times, and/or my wiener?"
* If Kerry claims that Bush lacks the credibility to lead the world, drink.
* If Kerry claims that "foreign leaders support" him, chug.
* If Kerry recounts a three-way he once had with Charo and Yahoo Serious, go down to the NYU Drama School dormitory and see if you can't pick up a contact high.
* If John Kerry calls our allies a "phony colation," take a drink.
* If John Kerry calls our allies a "coalition of the bribed and the coerced," chug.
* If John Kerry calls Tony Blair "a mincing little sweetboy with a prep-school man-crush on George Bush," load up a syringe with a mixture of sodium pentathol and clarified Komodo Dragon poison and inject it directly into your frontal lobe.
* If Bush says "They hate our freedom," take a drink.
* If Bush says, "The Middle East will become safer once they get that 'whiff of freedom' in their lungs," chug.
* If Bush says, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" and then breaks out into the na-na-nah-nah-nah chorus from Me and Bobby McGee, coat a live parakeet in Everclear and kerosene and then swallow it whole.
* If John Kerry's skin coloration resembles that of Brian Dennehy, drink.
* If John Kerry's skin coloration resembles that of George Hamilton, chug.
* If John Kerry's skin coloration resembles that of Benjaman J. "The Thing" Grimm, use a rubber-headed mallet to pound the your genitals into a pulpy oblivion until you see the "Star-Child" from 2001: A Space Odyssey and begin whispering "It's full of stars."
* If Bush pronounces "nuclear" correctly when referring to nuclear weapons, sip.
* If Bush says "nook-lar" when referring to nuclear weapons, chug.
* If Bush avoids the word "nuclear" entirely by calling nuclear weapons "sub-atomic clusterfucking whats-its," dip a fountain pen into a cup of liquified heroin and stab it straight into your pudendum.
* If John Kerry mentions Vietnam, use an envelope to inflict a paper-cut on your tongue.
* If John Kerry says that he won't allow anyone to "question his patriotism," cut off the pinkie on your off-hand, Yakuza-style.
* If John Kerry says "As a Vietnam veteran, I won't stand here as someone who served in Vietnam having my patriotism questioned by someone who did not serve in Vietnam, and that is the lesson of Vietnam, as I learned while serving in Vietnam as a Vietnam veteran in the Vietnam War patrolling the rivers of Vietnam," take out a two-man lumberjack's band-saw and inflict upon yourself an abdominal wound the approximate severity of that suffered by Quint at the end of Jaws.
And note: Apparently the Dems are mass-emailing to rig the stupid, unscientific on-line internet polls that don't mean a thing (although the responsible media will cite them anyway, just to fill time).
American Daughter has a list of the polls that they're planning on spambombing. It's so juvenile and childish, but I guess we have to spam-bomb back.
Honestly, this is so dumb.
— Ace Apparently this story's been around for a little while; it just never got a lot of play.
The Chicago Sun Times reported on September 12th:
WASHINGTON -- A federal prosecutor is investigating whether two reporters for the New York Times were leaked information about a terror financing investigation that may have tipped off the targets of the probe, one of which was Bridgeview-based Global Relief Foundation.
'Plan went awry'
Fitzgerald, who also is investigating the leak of a CIA undercover officer's name to the media, is attempting to determine if anyone in the government tipped off the Times reporters about a plan in December 2001 to seize the assets of the Global Relief Foundation on suspicion that it was financing terrorism. Existence of the probe was first reported Friday by the Washington Post.
So, it does seem the government's main interest is in finding who leaked to Shenon, rather than if Shenon leaked to GRF. I argued with a left-wing poster about this; I was wrong.
According to a staff report from the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI had intended to obtain secret surveillance warrants to monitor the reaction of the charity in the United States after its overseas offices and those of another Islamic charity, the Palos Hills-based Benevolence International Foundation, were searched Dec. 13, 2001.
''This plan went awry,'' the report said, after word about government action was leaked to Global Relief, apparently when a Times reporter called a charity spokesman to ask whether he knew about a plan by the U.S. government to freeze its assets.
''FBI personnel learned that some of the targets of the investigations may be destroying documents,'' the Sept. 11 Commission report said, adding that the FBI then did a ''hastily assembled'' search of both charities' offices in Illinois.
Global Relief attorney Roger Simmons said he and Global Relief officials have been interviewed in detail about the matter by the FBI. Simmons said there was no destruction of evidence....
The Sept. 11 report says that ''press leaks plagued'' most actions to freeze assets in the United States taken by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
No criminal charges have been brought in the Global Relief case, although its founder has been deported. Through a spokesman, Fitzgerald declined comment on the leak investigation.
What annoys me is that many reporters, like Mike Wallace, say that their responsibilities as a journalist trump any responsibilities they might have as Americans-- and as human beings, for that matter.
But while Jennings and his crew were traveling with a North Kosanese unit [seems to be a made-up enemy country for the hypothetical-- Ace], to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by U.S. and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly crossed the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst the Northern soldiers set up an ambush that would let them gun down the Americans and Southerners.
What would Jennings do? Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to fire?
Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."
Even if it meant losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction."
Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as another story they were there to cover." A moment later Wallace said, "I am astonished, really." He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American" (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship). "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."
Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?
"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"
Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said: "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had "played the hypothetical very hard."He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
After a brief discussion between Wallace and Scowcroft, Ogletree reminded Wallace of Scowcroft's basic question. What was it worth for the reporter to stand by, looking? Shouldn't the reporter have said something ?
[Wallace continued to say "No."]
A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform. Jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell said, "I feel utter contempt."
No kidding, huh?
And yet Shenon apparently thought very little at all about divulging secret information to a group widely known to be a terrorist-funding front -- which, to be fair, he shouldn't have had in the first place, and that's the fault of the loose-lipped government official.
The "Reporter's Code" won't let them tell American soldiers about an impending attack, but they don't hesitate to call up a terrorist-funding "charity" and tip them off about an ongoing secret government investigation, just to get some ridiculous comment about it.
"Hey, this is Philip Shenon of the New York Times. Did you know that the government plans to freeze your assets and is scrutinizing the hell out of your right now?"
"Umm, no, actually, I didn't."
"Care to comment?"
"Errr... got to go. I just remembered, I have some papers I need to shred."
Seems to me that, in this hypothetical, Mike Wallace could have, err, similarly "called the American platoon for comment" upon the impending ambush -- as Shenon did -- but gee willickers, seems he decided against doing so. Probably because that would be making news, rather than just reporting it.
This code of neutrality seems only to apply strictly to prevent any aid to fellow loyal law-abiding Americans. When it comes to enemies, foreign and domestic-- the rules suddenly get a little more relaxed.
— Ace James at notes that MoveOn.org is pressuring CBS News to run with proven dissembler James Wilson's long-discredited uranium-from-Niger bullshit.
If CBS News has no bias, why is it only sharing its story with the hard left?
Are they trying to avoid any criticism or challenge of their story by un-like-minded partisans?
Is this how a news organization is supposed to behave? At this point, how is CBS News any different than the DNC?
— Ace Sal sends this:
Finally, I have to remind you that the new terrorism does not put an end to the old forms of terror. Unfortunately we know that in Spain, having suffered ETA attacks for more that 30 years now. But there is something we must understand and be clear about: Violence and terror must be condemned in all circumstances. There are no, and can be no, good and bad forms of terrorism.
Many times I have read and heard in the American media how ETA terrorists have been described as young rebels and pro-independence militants. I would like you to know that these individuals murder, kidnap, torture and bully free citizens in a democratic country. They are terrorists, and nothing more. It is easy to look with some sympathy upon those who commit their crimes thousands of miles away. It is seriously immoral and extremely detrimental, because every phrase and every gesture of tolerance signifies new encouragement for them to commit further crimes. In other words, calling ETA a separatist group, or the FARC in Colombia a liberation organization, would be like calling Al Qaeda a religious or spiritual organization. Simply unacceptable.
If we want to win, the terrorists must be made to feel our hostility everywhere.
I am telling you all this in order to give you an example of the endurance that is required in certain situations. Endurance is not only important, it is vital. Otherwise, when your strength is seen to be flagging, it is the terrorists who win. When President Bush warned us that this would be a long war, one that would last many years, he was not resorting to rhetoric. This is something you should all know.
Endurance and moral clarity.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear American friends, let me conclude by saying again that despite all, I am an optimist. I have managed to apply some successful policies to fight against terrorism in my country. And I know terrorism can be defeated. I am not saying that it will be easy. I have already mentioned several extremely painful incidents in my own life. However, we must stick to the conviction that they cannot beat us. It is true that the yardstick for victory is different in the case of ETA when compared to that of Al Qaeda. However, a yardstick for victory does exist.
Bin Laden was forced to flee Afghanistan, and although he remains alive and has not yet been captured, his movements and capacity for directing operations have been severely diminished. This is not only in our eyes, but even more importantly, in the eyes of his own followers. The terrorists achieved a clear victory after the 11th March atrocities in Madrid and the subsequent withdrawal of the Spanish contingent from Iraq. However, this was only a partial victory, in spite of the boost in morale it gave them. I do not know what they will attempt to do now. However, the pressure to demonstrate that they are not losing the war is very intense. It is so intense that they may be tempted to carry out an attack here in order to influence the electoral process, as they did in Spain.
I do not wish to sound alarmist. It is not my place to warn you of the degree of threat that hangs over the United States. I would simply state that I believe the terrorists would wish to be present at the November elections, either through direct action here if they can, or indirectly by making Iraq an inferno for our political leaders.
But whatever happens, let us be sure not to let the terrorists believe that they are getting away with it.
It's a long speech, and that's just the last of his seven theses on terrorism. But it's worth reading.
— Ace Angry words exchanged as he insists -- nay, demands! -- that the time-expired lights be removed from the debate lecterns.
GABLES, Fla. (AP) - Democratic candidate John Kerry's campaign demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker's time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting, but the commission hosting the debates refused.
An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, The Associated Press learned. Kerry's team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with Kerry later in the day.
"We'll bring a screwdriver," said a Kerry aide familiar with what several people called an angry exchange.
Is it so hard for this moron to just limit his scary-important dissertations to two minutes?
Or is his camp just trying to reduce expectations? Is this story real or contrived in order to make people think that John Kerry might Hulk Out if the time-expired light goes on?
Eh. Either way, he's a shaved Bigfoot.
Thanks to AS. No, a different AS.
— Ace It looks genuine, at least upon first examination.
I'm really not sure about some of those typefaces, though.
Ironically enough, it now turns out that Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source" is a partisan blogger, too.
There's absolutely nothing of any interest on the blog thusfar. A lot of whining about CBS News to no particular purpose, and Burkett's six billionth flogging of the AWOL charges.
The link is here, and I suppose it wouldn't hurt to click on it, except that he'll be using his traffic stats to sell blogads soon, I imagine.
Thanks to Cedarford.
Update-- The Logic of a Disordered Mind:
Burkett had admitted his deception concerning his source(s) to CBS prior to the interview and that only five individuals within CBS had prior knowledge of this before the interview. Why Was this the entire focus of the interview and the clip placed on the CBS Evening News?
What the heck is his complaint here? Why is it relevant that "only five individuals" knew he lied before the interview? What has that got to do with anything?
And why wouldn't his admitted lie be featured prominently?
I don't even get this one.
September 29, 2004
— Ace I'm really concerned about this, and I just got an email about it getting me "all riled up."
Tell your friends about this outrage so that CBS News will then "cover the worry that's out there" without disclosing that these worries are in fact without any substantiation whatsoever, and that, indeed, it seems to be hard-core Republicans entirely behind these rumors.
I know CBS News will cover these worries o' mine, because they just assured Bill from INDC that partisanship had nothing at all to do with pushing the Democrats' attack-of-the-week about the draft.
— Ace Interviews reporter & producers responsible for fake-email/fake-Republican draft story.
Great job, Bill. I'd be so happy for you if I weren't boiling over with seething jealousy.
I'd still like to know the following:
Do all the people involved in this matter believe that reporting about chain emails without mentioning they're false is responsible?
Would they similarly put up sham emails while implicitly vouching for their accuracy -- using the emails as the news peg -- if the emails in question stated erroneous facts that damaged John Kerry?
What is their rationale is for refusing to re-report on the story and stating, explicitly, that the text in the emails is inaccurate? These reporters always claim they just want to "get the truth out there," but when the "truth" might undermine their credibility or previous reporting, suddenly "the truth" is irrelevant.
I think the reporters and producers are fundamentally dishonest, by the way. Confronted with Bill's common-sense question about putting up false emails as a news peg, they all attempt to pretend that Gee, that never even occurred to me.
If it didn't occur to them, they should be fired for incompetence.
They also all claim that the emails weren't important to the story, which is sort of odd-- since when do reporters carefully scripting and cutting a three-minute piece include irrelevant information?
If the emails weren't important, why did they feature them?
And finally, note their eagerness to get a "Republican woman" (right) as their subject. They say that they didn't include a left-winger because that would be taken as suspect. And yet they also seem to be implying that the story wasn't particularly harmful to Bush; that the story was about both parties equally.
If it's about both parties equally-- why the driving need to get a "Republican voter" who just happens to associate with International ANSWER as a subject?
Turns out it really doesn't matter if there's any chance of a draft, or if the emails were fake.
— Ace It's about time:
Much has been written about CBS' concession that it can no longer vouch for the authenticity of the documents that served as the foundation of its Bush National Guard story. But another story is developing, one that could possibly lead someone not just to public humiliation, but to a jail cell.
In Texas, the state in which Burkett concedes the false National Guard memos originated, it is a felony to make or present two or more documents with knowledge of their falsity and with intent that they be taken as a genuine governmental record. Under the U.S. Code, use of an interstate telephone wire, such as the one used to transmit an image of the forged documents from Texas to CBS headquarters, triggers federal jurisdiction.
Burkett now insists that he presented the documents to CBS with the proviso that CBS verify them, but there is plenty of evidence that this conversation never took place, and that Burkett in fact presented them as genuine National Guard (search) documents. Indeed, CBS has insisted that prior to broadcast, it was satisfied after speaking with Burkett whom they dubbed an "unimpeachable source" that the two memos were real.
It defies logic that Burkett would first lie to CBS about the documents' source in an effort to foil verification (as he now suddenly says he did), and then tell CBS that the documents required verification. But if this is in fact the case, Burkett not only frustrated CBS' verification efforts, but necessarily closed his eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious to him: that the documents were fakes. That alone would probably be enough to satisfy a jury that Burkett knew the documents were fake when he presented them to CBS, which would result in a criminal conviction in a Texas court.
CBS has cause for concern, too. The documents were not just forged; they were obviously forged to the generation over age 40, which has used both a typewriter and a computer to write; CBS did not have to be misled about the source of the documents to be tipped that the documents were not real. While Burkett might have been willfully blind to things that would indicate that the memos were fake, there is mounting evidence that even CBS' experts told producers of 60 Minutes II that they could not verify that the documents were real. The story was aired or in the terms of the Texas forgery statute, "presented" in spite of this.
Brit Hume reported tonight that a gaggle of Congressional Republicans wrote a letter to the Texas Attorney General, suggesting that he open and investigation to determine if state or federal laws were violated. The AG says he's referred the matter to, ahem, the Texas Rangers.
Sounds like there's justice a-comin'.
Ace of Spades Justice.
— Ace Don't get too hopeful. I remember linking to similar stories when I started this blog, and the "unrest" and "fighting" just turned out to be fireworks set off during some sort of Zoroastrian fire-festival.
But Ogre Gunner tips me to this unconfirmed report, probably by student activists who have a vested interest in inspiring unrest (not that that's a bad thing), saying that fighting is breaking out in Iran.
I don't believe it myself, and I won't until less-interested parties post similar reports.
But the guy who sent this to me is named is Ogre Gunner, and when Ogre Gunner sends you a tip, you link it. That's my rule, and it's kept me out of trouble so far.
Update: JohnD. points to this VOA article indicating that there is in fact some protesting in Iran right now.
But it's not violent unrest:
According to press reports, about two thousand people milled around streets in downtown Tehran, many of them driving cars up and down major avenues, honking their horns and flashing victory signs. Hundreds of volunteer militiamen arrived on the scene, but there were no violent clashes.
And remember that last time it was all soem Zoroasterian fire-festival? Well, there seems to be a Zoroasterian connection again:
The demonstration on Sunday appears to have been catalyzed by the statements of a Zoroastrian mystic, Ahura Pirouz Khalegi Yazdi. Dr. Ahura, as he's known, has been appearing regularly for the last three months on a Los Angeles-based Iranian expatriate TV channel, saying he has the spiritual power to heal Iran's problems. He promised to return to Iran on October 1, along with thousands of other expatriates, if Iranians in the country showed their support for him.
I don't know much about Zoroasterism, except what I've picked up from an album I own, with lyrics and music by the Zoroasterian Farouk Pluto Bulsara.
— Ace Only Succeeds in Confusing Poor Diane Sawyer, Which, To Be Fair to the Squishy Senator, Doesn't Sound Like That Difficult a Trick
Son of Nixon, still on sabbatical at an undisclosed location, tipped me to this. The transcript isn't up at ABCNews just yet, but I found this version at Rush Limbaugh's site:
SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
SAWYER: So it was not worth it?
KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. But I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat -- weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection of Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. The president misled the American people, plain and simple, bottom line.
SAWYER: So, if it turns out okay it was worth it, but right now it wasn't worth it?
KERRY: No. It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done.
Okay. Let's put aside the distortions that there was "no connection" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that Bush claimed there was an "imminent threat" posed by Iraq.
I guess we also have to put aside the fact that just a month ago he said he'd have voted for the war, even knowing what he does now.
But, like I said, let's just sort of ignore all that for the moment.
What have we learned?
According to John Forbes Kerry of Beacon Hill, it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, depending on the "outcome," in which case it might have been the right thing to do.
Depends on the outcome.
That's what I call a tall drink of nuance.
But in any event you have to elect John Forbes Kerry president, because he has, it seems, a "clear plan" for either getting us out of Iraq or winning the war in Iraq, depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day.
Linked by "Shadowy Connections" Update: William offers the many faces of John Kerry.
— Ace Without noting previous error, CBS News slips in mention of Beverly Cocco's partisan connections to Parents Against the Draft
This is sort of what I expected, but I'm still surprised. But Rathergate has a clip of the story as it actually aired-- no mention of an ideological affiliation, and they don't seem eager to correct the record.
No mention about the sham emails CBS endorsed, but I expect we'll be seeing a rowback on that score shortly. Another rowback seen by at most thousands, when the actual dishonest broadcast was viewed by millions.
This is a corrupt organization. I said it, I meant it-- corrupt.
There are affiliate phone numbers and emails at the sidebar. It would probably be a good time to use them.
— Ace FDU's poll puts it at 45 K 44 B, same as the StrategicVision poll yesterday.
This article in the IHT, probably originally from the NYT, calls the results a "shocker," and I don't think they mean one of those "good shockers," either. Other swing state gains for Bush are discussed.
On the other hand, a FreeRepublic poster says that CNN just reported a Gallup poll showing Bush losing his nine point lead in Ohio, falling to 50-48.
— Ace From TimesWatch, and we're just scratching the surface:
Sunday's Arts section brings an interview of leftist documentary filmmaker Michael Moore and a sort of fact-check/review of "Fahrenheit 9-11" from intelligence reporter Philip Shenon, titled "Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up."
A subhead asks: "Will the Facts Check Out?" The Times' answer: Basically, yes. Though Shenon questions some of Moore's points, he also goes out of his way to defend Moore (in an oddly defensive manner) on others.
Shenon finds Moore's fact-checking basically credible: "So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?....After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career) .
Update! The fair-and-balanced, objective-and-neutral Global Relief Fund fan allows "Bush knew" conspiracy theories to go by unchallenged: Again from TimesWatch:
During the call-in portion of [the C-SPAN program Washington Journal], Shenon didn't refute allegations from a New Jersey caller claiming Bush knew about 9-11 "before it happened," addressing only the factual parts of the caller's rant.
Yet he interrupted a Pennsylvania caller who claimed Bill Clinton wasn't held accountable for besmirching the office of the presidency:
Shenon: "May I interrupt? May I ask you, did, weren't there lots of investigations of President Clinton, including an impeachment investigation while he was in office? I think he was well investigated during his presidency."
Caller: "But what came out of it? Nothing."
Shenon (laughing): "I believe he was impeached by the House of Representatives."
Later a Florida viewer called Shenon on his interruption: " whenever we get these wild allegations and misstatements by critics of the administration, like, 'Jerry Ford pardoned the Iran-Contra people,' [a reference to a false allegation from a previous caller] you never correct it. But any slight variance--and you just interrupted the caller, two calls ago--any slight variance in your mantra, you're quick to defend the previous administration [Clinton] and quick to defend such reports."
Update: And Michael Moore Appreciated Shenon's Boosterism, Too! Here, on MichaelMoore.com, the Husky Huckster quotes Shenon as giving the Times stamp-of-approval to his propaganda piece:
Are the Facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 True?
Yes, absolutely. Phil Shenon, the New York Times senior correspondent who covers the 9/11 Commission, wrote in a major June 20, 2004, article published about Fahrenheit 9/11, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career). Shenon noted that Michael Moore hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. Philip Shenon, "Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up," New York Times, June 20, 2004.
So, Michael Moore and Philip Shenon seem to be real big fans of each other's work.
Isn't. That. Special.
The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.
The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.
The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters Philip Shenon and Judith Miller as part of a probe to track down the leak.
Hold off-- it's not Judith Miller, as the article makes clear, shortly.
The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
"I would posit that the circumstances here the decision by the reporter to provide a tip to the subject of a terrorist fund-raising inquiry which seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel warrant such cooperation in full," Fitzgerald said.
The Times, and Shenon's lawyer, deny the charge.
And yet they're none to willing to disclose the evidence that might exculpate him.
Can I ask a question?
What the hell does the press think it's doing?
Update: Mark from Rational Explications points out that TimesWatch has a nice digest of Philip Shenon's oevure. ("Oevure" is French for "partisan hatchet-jobs.")
Sweet Irony Update: I don't understand how this is all connected, but the prosecutor here seems to be the same man working on the Valerie Plame case.
Of course, the New York Times, which wants Fitzgerald to dig like there's no tomorrow on the Plame matter, seeks special special protections for itself in court.
That last link thanks to Michelle Malkin.
— Ace It's getting hard for some bloggers to keep up with their bandwidth demands. Not me, of course. Damnit.
But RatherBiased.com, which is being hammered for another huge scoop on CBS' use of fake documents to support a story, will for the time being be blogging on Rathergate.com.
It's about time they joined forces anyway.
If Rathergate.com goes down, I'm told they'll be blogging on SnazzyCat.com, where people publish photographs of their cats dressed in tuxes & top-hats & the occasional monocle.
Rathergate.com is holding a fundraising drive for the RatherBiased.com boys, and he says he'll donate the cost of PayPal fees up to $1,000, all to get RatherBiased.com the bandwidth they actually need. (Hopefully they won't use Andrew Sullivan's very expensive bandwidth provider.)
If you want to help out, click here.
And Check This Out: Frequent Ace of Spades correspondent & haiku enthusiast RDBrewer has a piece up about Dan Rather, Republican Secret Weapon, over at ChicagoBoyz.
— Ace Here's the Parents Against the Draft contact page listing CBS News' apolitical, Republican mom as the chapter contact for the Philadelphia area.
Gee, I'm so suprised that Dan Rather forgot to mention that.
Presumably another apolitical Republican, this one featured on Beverly Cocco's "nonpartisan" site.
Update: Powerlineblog, which can really push a story, is on the case.
Update-- Even One of the "Peace" Groups Beverly Cocco's site links to says the Emails are riddled with inaccuracies; how come Dan Rather didn't mention it?
"That e-mail doesn't die. It's got a lot of inaccuracies in it," said Bill Galvin, a counseling coordinator with the Center on Conscience and War, a conscientious objectors organization in Washington. "We're getting so tired of answering questions about the stupid thing."
Yeahp, if you look at the very Republican, very apolitical links section for Bev Cocco's nonpartisan activist group, you'll see the Center on Conscience and War.
Even her own compatriots admit the emails are fake.
The emails that CBS represented, through its silent endorsement, as accurate.
I Question the Timing! Update: It just so happens that, once again, CBS News chooses to air an unsubstantiated and dishonest story at the same time the Democrats are pushing the issue.
Dan Rather just happened to run his forged-documents story at the same time the DNC was preparing its Fortunate Son ad campaign.
45 queries taking 0.0181 seconds, 232 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.