Georges Sada’s book, Saddam’s Secrets, is out.

Michelle Malkin links to a New York Sun article.

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

“There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Mr. Sada said. “I am confident they were taken over.”

Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”

Rick Moran has lots of analysis, and concludes with this:

While the information is certainly intriguing, it hardly qualifies as “smoking gun” evidence that Syria has the missing WMD.

That said, if the government were aware of Syrian collusion with Iraq to hide their stockpiles of WMD, why wouldn’t they announce it?

First of all, it would be very difficult to prove without revealing “sources and methods” that the CIA would rather remain a secret.

The second reason would be diplomatic. If we accused the Syrians and offered proof, then we would have to do something about it. This would complicate our efforts to effect regime change in Syria that right now are at a very delicate point. The UN is beginning to put more and more pressure on Baby Assad as the investigation into the assassination of Lebanese nationalist Rafiq Hariri continues to implicate high level Syrian intelligence and political figures. Eventually it is thought that the elites in the military and the government will see Assad as the dead weight that he is and get rid of him. After that, all bets are off and the US government may in fact start inquiring about what was transferred from Iraq to Syria prior to the war.

Next week, General Sada will meet with members of the Senate Armed Services committee. It should be interesting to see what might come out of that meeting although, don’t hold your breath for any bombshells. The last thing the White House wants at this point – even though it would permanently blunt some criticism about the war – is to make Syrian complicity in hiding Iraq WMD an issue.

Mac’s Mind thinks Senator Rockefeller is in trouble, going back to a November, 2005 interview he gave on FNS.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

John over at Powerline thinks a bit more evidence is needed.

Lorie Byrd, though, thinks it’s a whole lot more likely than the alternative: “For those leftie trolls who “LOL” at reports that point to Syria as the recipient of Saddam’s WMD, how is that scenario any less believable than the idea that Bush lied about WMD and invaded a country knowing that none would be found? Or, for that matter, how is it any more believable than the crazy conspiracy theories that Diebold elected Bush or that Karl Rove is coordinating with Osama? ”

Sister Toldjah reminds us that this lines up with what UNSCOM inspector Bill Tierney speculated.

Jay Rockefeller, on yesterday’s Fox News Sunday, publicly admitted to acts that are tantamount to treason: conspiring with the enemy during a state of war.

During an interview with Chris Wallace, on Fox News Sunday, this exchange took place (h/t Powerline).

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn’t it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

He went to Syria?

Captain Ed, discusses here and here.

If this is true, Rockefeller should get ejected from the Senate and possibly stand trial for treason. In 2002, we were at war against Islamofascist terrorists, and Syria has long been listed by the US State Department as a terrorist-supporting state. What Rockefeller admitted was conspiring with the enemy during a state of war — and he should be held accountable, especially considering his admission of the act on national television.

[Note: edited to corrected mistake listing wrong news show appearance as Face the Nation]

UPDATE: Michelle says Bush’s speech is paying dividends, and “It’s about … time!”

UPDATE 2: More on what Rockefeller said in 2002 here. Turns out he was even more “alarmist” than Bush.

UPDATE 3: Insty doesn’t think is that big of a deal, and points to Jim McDermott’s comments from 2002, in Baghdad as an example of a real problematic activity. Though he does conclude with: “It was just irresponsible behavior, which sadly is nothing unusual where the Senate is concerned. Nor do I think it did much harm — if I recall correctly, Saddam nonetheless didn’t think we’d invade until we did, and I don’t think this tipped him off to anything. Indeed, had Saddam taken Rockefeller’s advice to heart, it might have helped.”

The new media is buzzing with reactions to Linda Foley’s comments. Like Eason Jordan, she accuses our miltary of targeting journalists. But unlike Eason Jordan, her remarks were caught on tape. Ms. Foley is noteworthy because she is the president of both the Newspaper Guild and Communication Workers of America (the nation’s largest broadcast and journalism workers union).

[Ed: If you’re not familiar with the Eason Jordan controversy, there’s a great overview here.]

WorldNetDaily has the quote from the 2005 National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis:

Foley said, “Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.”

Foley continued, “They target and kill journalists … uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. …”

The video of her comments can be found here (mirrored here and streamed here).

Here some reactions from around the blogosphere on the comments of Linda Foley. The big theme is “Eason Jordan Deja Vu.”

Daily Inklings:

Remember Eason Jordan? He made unsubstantiated accusations that US troops targeted journalists for murder, then backpedalled and wouldn’t allow the tapes of his outrageous comments be released? Well right at the heels of Newsweek’s attempt at damage control over a now-retracted story regarding Gitmo personnel and the koran which had caused widespread rioting and the deaths of 16 people, another journalist makes inflammatory Eason Jordan-type statements without proof. Her name is Linda Foley. This time, however, there is a tape of her statements:

Mr. Preston at Junkyard Blog observes the lack of evidence to back up her claim, and says if she can’t back it up, she needs to step down.

Linda Foley had better offer proof of what she said or step down from her jobs. Tossing up unsubstantiated smears of the US military, especially in light of what Newsweek’s smear led to in Afghanistan last week, is unconscionable and unacceptable.

John Cole also wants evidence.

If journalists are being targeted, reasonable people want to know about it. Unfortunately, just like Eason Jordan learned, we want some flipping evidence.

The Word Unheard address Ms. Foley:

Your assault on the honor of the American Military will not stand. We will not allow you to wildly accuse us of murder. Your words may ring pleasant among friends and colleagues, but for us they ring stirringly like the deep toll of a bell.

I. Rony (hah!) thinks the Union members ought to step up to the plate.

If you are a member of TNG or CWA and you are outraged by this, then let your union and your fellow union members know. You are the unions source of money, so you’re voice will be heard above others.

Tran Sient:

How hilarious that she made this comment at a conference on media reform. And then she tries to wiggle out of it, ironically with the same fake but true argument that has become the norm.

Elephant in My Coffee (like I originally was) is speechless.

Just read the article. The extent of her irresponsible behavior has rendered me speechless. The sheer stupidity of this woman is astounding.

The Dusty Attic has transcribed most of the speech, so the reader can judge for themselves the context, and Trey Jackson has put up the extended video.

Andi is on fire:

Twelve years ago, I married a soldier. While there are few subjects that I’m fully qualified to to write about, I do know a little something about soldiers and their character. I also know a little something about why words matter in our current environment.

Ms. Foley, allow me to educate you.

The Political Teen has the O’Reilly video.

Captain Ed is surprised, despite himself.

Perhaps in an era where mainstream journalists appear to be embracing the “fake but accurate” standard for publication stories like this should not surprise us, but one would think that key figures in the communication industry would be more careful in how they express themselves.

USS Neverdock almost calls it treason.

She needs to be made to produce the evidence or be fired. This is just more fodder for the terrorists to use against our troops.

LaShawn is doing more digging with a phone call or two.

I called the Newspaper Guild (202.434.7177) a few minutes ago to speak to Linda Foley and/or someone willing to go on the record, and I got a message saying something like, “Due to the number of calls that we believe are a coordinated effort to tie up the line, we regret that we cannot answer your call. Please leave a message and someone will…”

Euphoric Reality is taking up a collection:

I volunteer to begin a collection to send Ms. Foley to Iraq, where she will be free to wander around without the protection of the “brutal and cavalier” U.S. military.

And there’s already a site called FoleyGate.com.

Scared Monkeys observes some irony.

How come the first reaction when a liberal is caught saying what they really believe is that their words were taken out of context. In this instance, SHE WAS TALKING TO REPORTERS!!! Is she saying that her union members, people who pay her salary, can not report the news accurately.

UPDATE: Powerline has a letter from a soldier to the Newspaper Guild. Check it out.

Who needs match.com?

Sgrena:

“The fact that the Americans don’t want negotiations to free the hostages is known,” Sgrena told Sky TG24 television.

“The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don’t see why I should rule out that I could have been the target.”

Eason:

The Israelis say they’re actually trying to restrict our access to these areas and they say it’s too dangerous for you to be there and my response to that is that it wouldn’t be nearly as dangerous if you didn’t shoot at us when we’re clearly labelled as CNN crews and journalists. And so this must stop, this targeting of the news media both literally and figuratively must come to an end immediately.

UPDATE: Instapundit has lots of links on this.

At first I thought this had to be a joke.

Reporterette, Black Five and Michelle Malkin all have posts about this. Here’s the Fox News story by David Asman and a link to Scott Ritter’s new Al Jazeera column.

Asman writes:

Not all Marines take pride in the work of their brothers.

Take Scott Ritter (search), a former Marine and United Nations weapons inspector, who has turned into a critic of just about anything the U.S. does in Iraq. Now he’s writing for Al-Jazeera’s Web site, which seems like a perfect home for his defeatist rhetoric.

It is always fascinating for me to see what searches bring users to this blog. Here’s a sampling of what has recently brought you here!

“Conservative Educators Caucus”
al sharpton peta
alan keyes +disowned
Algie Howell barber
allinurl: blogger stats
being liberal (I love the fact that I’m in the top few search results on Google for this one).
benon sevan
boomerang ants
Chris Cramer
chris cramer eason jordan
Cigars in the Sand
claudia michelle godaddy.com
contaminated money
Cotecna kojo
dawn leaf wisconsin quarter
Eason Jordan at Davos
fakhri abdelnour
fred fielding
gannon resigns
gannon underwear
GoDaddy “Super Bowl”
goliath acronym
gretchen wilson naked
Howard Dean hates Republicans
investigations of hospice woodside fl
iraqi voter turnout
Is Summers right?
James Dale Guckert
jeff gannon caitlin
jibjabs second term
joanna rytel abort
John Kerry AND Form 180
kerry will sign form 180
Kojo Annan
magic proposal game girlfriend
nancy rabinowitz
orlando magic valentine proposal
Paul Volker
Quarter-Wisconsin Extra-Leaf
ryan cenk
Safia Al Souhail hug
show underwear & Virginia
sleaze
valentine dinner idea
valentine proposal orlando magic
Virginia laws underwear
Virginia, law, below-waist underwear
volker conflict
ward churchill AND fraud
Ward Churchill,yahoo
wayne review
wedding proposal “Orlando magic”
wedding proposal at the orlando basketball game
what is wrong with the wisconsin quarter
wilfredo laboy
wisconsin quarter cornstalk variation
wisconsin quarter flaw detail
wisconsin quarter flaw tucson
wisconsin quarter variation
wisconsin quarter variation in cornstalk
“wisconsin quarter”variation
Wisconsin Quarters
wrong of wisconsin quarter

If you haven’t seen it yet, Captain’s Quarters has an extensive post on the NYT article for which he was interviewed, about the implications of the Eason Jordan blogswarm.

Check it out.

Wizbang has some opinions on KOS’s “we win!” and the comparison being made between the Eason Jordan resignation and the Jeff Gannon resignation.

A few lefties are trying to compare the Eason and Gannon flaps and say they are the same thing… Even Kurtz fell into this trap.

But there is a WORLD of difference.

Eason Jordan wrongly accused people of murder. Gannon asked a few puffball questions. Comparing the two is a fool’s game of moral equivalence.

The right hand of the blogosphere went after Eason Jordan because of his actions.

The left hand of the blogosphere went after Gannon because of who he was.

As usual, I’m glad to be on the right.

I have to admit to not having followed the Gannon thing hourly, but I have to take issue with Wizbang’s Paul on this one. While I do agree there is a world of difference, I think that there is a tendency among the conservative blogs to try to say that the liberal blogs are all over Gannon because he is allegedly involved in the gay lifestyle or tied to various other non-conservative activities. While it may be true that they used this to attempt to destroy him personally, there is a legitimate question here that I still have not seen the answer to. How does someone working under a pseudonym for a phony news agency whose main income is not reporting, get access to the White House press conferences? [UPDATE: I have since read a bit more about this, and so this deserves some clarification. Writing under a pseudonym does not mean he didn’t give the White House his real name. And the news org is not phony, just small and conservative]

My fellow conservative bloggers are not asking this question, and I’m not sure why. [UPDATE: Now I know… :-)]

UPDATE: In the comments for this post, Paul [very politely] takes me to task with a really good point.

The fact Talon news was selected is no great mystery. The Village Voice has (had) credentials and they are as lefty as they come. Being a bias news org is not an automatic disqualifier… Remember (unless I am mistaken) Talon news did not get the boot, they are still in there. Gannon resigned because of the attack on his personal life.

UPDATE 2: Secure Liberty has more.

Sorry folks, this is no big deal. David Gergen makes it clear that having a “ringer” is nothing new. So all this boils down to the fact that the ringer was a former gay escort. Is that it? Bill INDC has a nice roundup and I share his conclusion, and Jeff Goldstein’s.

There’s no comparison between wrecking Eason Jordan and outing Jeff Gannon.

And David Gergen on CNN, from INDC:

GERGEN: I am sorry, I really have a hard time getting excited about this story. I think it’s trivial compared to paying off journalists like Armstrong Williams or others and giving them money to go out and support you. In this case, the White House has had a lot of wild cards in there over the years, and you well know that. And various presidents — President Kennedy made no bones of the fact that there was a woman from Texas who was sort of — who was a liberal, and she was out there in the audience, and when he got in trouble on a question, he’d always find her. He knew where she sat. And he turned to her in press conferences because she’d get him off the took. This has been going on for a long, long time.

If you haven’t seen it, there’s “big news” today from various sources on Gannon, and it all does seem to focus on whether or not he is involved in the gay lifestyle. And this from the tolerant, inclusive left.

See more at Red State.

And Say Anything says:

Really, the sum total of the left’s problem with Jeff Gannon is that he’s a right-wing partisan, gay (apparently being gay is only “ok” if you lean to the left in your politics) and got White House press credentials.

UPDATE 3 (2/15): Captain Ed weighs in.

UPDATE 4: Just One Minute is on the case.

Director of the World Editors Forum, Bertrand Pecquerie posts in the Editors Web Log here (note, emphasis is his, not mine):

Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair … sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers than the defense of reporters’ work (and sometimes life)! Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen! Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them claimed to be the “sons of the First Amendment”, they just were the sons of Senator McCarthy. And this is very worrying to see this new wedding between self-proclaimed citizen’s media and maintstream journalists scalps’ hunters. Fifty years ago, it was enough to be communist to be fired, today, it is enough to raise questions about the Bush administration policy in Iraq to be denounced as “anti-American”. Maybe the only difference is that you are not fired, but that you must dismiss! What’s my conclusion? Real promoters of citizen media would have to take some distance with those who have fueled and organised the Eason Jordan hatred. If not, the “new era of journalism” opened by the blogosphere will appear as the old clothes of American populism.

HT: LGF

Meanwhile, the Blog Herald notes:

James D. Miller, Assistant Professor of Economics at Smith College and contributor to online tech-site Tech Central Station (TCS) has joined the recently spate of blog bashing, with a post at TCS that warns that blogs may soon make many Americans afraid to speak their minds.

Except that the “blogs” that he speaks of are mostly written by Americans. And the “Americans” that he speaks of are mostly public figures who heretofore had little or no accountability.

By the way, want to adjust your preconceptions of “McCarthyism”? Read this book.

UPDATE: Welcome, Outside the Beltway readers!

Reactions are rolling in from around the blogosphere. First, the obligatory excerpt from the big news:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amid a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being “unfairly tarnished” by the controversy.

Definitely wouldn’t want to tarnish the objective image of “the most trusted name in news.”

But Rogg over on Easongate.com says:

However we are still not fully satisfied with the outcome. The tape should be released for public review, and Mr. Jordan should apologize for his remarks.

To every reader, commentor, emailer and blogger that committed to this cause, thank you. This is a victory for every soldier who has honorably served this nation. To you we devote this victory.

Jeff Blogworth observes how fast the news travels.

Interesting observation from Kevin at Wizbang about the quote, and a concurrence with Easongate about the release of the tape:

“While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.”

I think the record reflects that the last quoted paragraph does not jibe with the notes of those who attended the World Economic Forum panel. Perhaps the WEF gave him notice that it intended to release the tape? Jordan ignored the Lott/Reins/Rather rule of dealing with blog swarms: It’s the stonewalling and coverups that do you in…

Regardless… Now is the time for the World Economic Forum to release the tape!!!

LaShawn says:

Readers speculate that there’s more to this story, too. CNN decided to cut its losses for a reason. Another reader notes that Jordan announced his resignation after the news cycle, but there’s no such thing in the blogosphere. Bloggers were the momentum behind this story, and don’t ever let anybody convince you they (we) weren’t.

Scott Ott, amidst his satire, makes the poignant observation:

the blogosphere took less than two weeks to turn rumors from Davos, Switzerland, into a pink slip for the 23-year veteran of CNN.

Captain Ed says the moral of Eason’s Fables is:

the media can’t just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it — and journalists can’t just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore.

Hindrocket at Powerline suggests:

The AP can’t resist getting this part of the story wrong:

But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up.

Actually, of course, the videotape “turned up,” but the Davos folks decided to keep it under wraps, apparently in an effort to help Jordan. Jordan’s problem wasn’t confusion about what he said; his problem was CNN’s inability to create confusion about what he said.

He also suggests that maybe it was Kudlow’s interview (which we noted yesterday here) with three influential senators, including Senator Coleman who is Chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that may have tipped the balance here.

Red State Rant cautions the bloggers:

I hope people, especially in the blogosphere understand and respect what they can accomplish. I also hope it doesnt inflate their egos and drive them into the the things we seem to cherish attacking. We did the right thing, its nothing to gloat about. We should be doing the right things every day of our lives. This is not victory, or vindication, our honor and integrity were not called into question. We only defended those that spend their days thousands of miles away fighting for freedom so that we can hammer away on our blogs.

Hugh Hewitt:

The MSM missed this story, and whether it is out of sympathy for one of their own, agreement with all or part of the implied charge, or simple laziness, the assessment of their incompetence should be thorough as well.

Thirty Second Thoughts waxes a bit philosophical here.

Freedom of the press wasn’t supposed to mean that a few large corporations could control public perception by their slant on the story. Until now, however, there was no way to effectively communicate without going through the distribution channels controlled by the major media organizations. The Internet has changed all that. The genie is out of the bottle. The revolution is happening. It may not be televised, but it will be on the Internet, told by thousands of people in thousands of different ways.

Michelle Malkin points out that CNN filed this story in the “Entertainment News” section. Funny. And she says that Ramesh Ponnuru is the one that originally got the scoop.

UPDATE (2/12 6:42 am): Michelle Malkin has a superb roundup of the Easongate timeline and players. Check it out.

Decision ‘08 says:

It probably began with Trent Lott; it picked up steam with Rathergate; now the Eason Jordan saga has moved it beyond the realm of the disputable. “It” is the power of blogs to influence events on a national and international scale. The idea that blogs can force a new level of accountability on those previously considered ‘untouchable’ is not new; many have commented eloquently and at length. I find Easongate unique in one revolutionary respect: this time, the MSM never even got off the sidelines.

UPDATE (2/12 2:52 pm): Deacon at Powerline wonders if he conceded too much in his radio interview from a few weeks ago.

Several weeks ago, I appeared on a radio show to discuss the influence that blogs like Power Line have. The liberal host suggested that blogs don’t have any real influence until they push a story into the MSM. I demurred, stating that by virtue of being read by 100,000 people or more, some of whom are themselves quite influential, a blog like Power Line has influence. But I agreed that, in the case of something like Rathergate, blogs cannot make a difference without MSM coverage.

After the Eason Jordan affair, I wonder whether I conceded too much. Most of the MSM never touched the story, yet Jordan is out. It can be argued that he’s out because CNN realized that the MSM was on the verge of covering the story. But one can also make the case that he’s out largely because some U.S. Senators learned about the story from blogs and expressed concern about it to Larry Kudlow. In that scenario, the fall of CNN’s news chief can be explained entirely without reference to the MSM.

Jane Galt concedes that FDR’s plan does in fact look a lot like Bush’s, contrary to what Al Franken says, but she says, who cares?

I also think that the current practice of trying to marshal historical figures in support of very modern policy arguments is idiotic. The fact that Mark Twain wrote a damn fine novel does not mean that we should listen to his opinion on the Spanish-American war, the fact that JFK cut taxes does not mean that we should do so now, and Ike’s budget policies are not necessarily a good guide to our current fiscal policy.

Kevin Drum thinks conservative bloggers should tear themselves away from Eason Jordan and be outraged at Brit Hume’s quoting of FDR in this way.

I assume the excuse — assuming the conservative blogosphere can tear itself away from Eason Jordan, Bill Moyers, and Ward Churchill long enough to notice — will be the usual one: everyone knows Fox anchors are conservative shills. So it’s OK for them to do this kind of stuff.

Morton Condrake discussed the Eason Jordan controversy with Brit Hume, info here. Not a lot of depth or substance in the discussion, but it’s a start.

Eason Jordan doesn’t have tenure, the way our friend from the University of Colorado does. Why this is–he’s the news director of CNN. If he knows of 12 journalists who have been specifically targeted by coalition forces, that is one whale of a story that ought to be on CNN. And the people, his higher ups on CNN, ought to be demanding to know why this, why he’s revealing this off the record in public.

(Hindrocket at Powerline agrees, “not much light was shed.”)

The issue is mentioned in IBD on 2/8/2005 per LaShawn Barber, though the link goes to the current article. Ah, found the text via Easongate.com. Here is a brief excerpt, full text here.

Speaking last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan made an arresting charge. He claimed the U.S. military, while pacifying Iraq, had targeted both American and foreign journalists.

Panel chairman David Gergen, according to insider accounts, gasped. The man who’d worked in administrations from Nixon’s to Clinton’s demanded evidence. Liberal Congressman Barney Frank, who was there, also demanded proof.

Jordan backed off — slightly. But afterward he accepted congratulations from Arab reporters who called him heroic.

Interesting discussion from the Jim Geraghty in National Review Online at TKS.

I was exchanging emails with another blogger, Paul, who asked the good question, “Aside from “forcing” the resignation of Jordan, what is there to accomplish? Can CNN be shamed into behaving better?”

The question deserves some thought. What has the goal of the blogs in this case been? In the case of the CBS memos, it was pretty clear – to confirm suspicions that the memos were fake, and then squeeze a retraction out of a stubborn network digging in its heels.

Kevin over at Wizbang thinks there is one thing in that article that missed the mark, and makes an interesting point.

I tend to to agree with his assessment, though I think he’s missed the mark on one line.

Let’s be honest about the power of the blogs - it is great and was unimaginable in an earlier era, but it is limited.

Clearly Geraghty has not been paying attention to the public dismemberment of Talon News “reporter” Jeff Gannon. The Markos “I’ve Got Howard’s Back” Moulitas Zuniga’s Daily Kos community has succeeded in ending the career of the journalist who worked for Talon News because he had the temerity to ask softball questions at White House news conferences and write under a pseudonym. Moulitas has proclaimed that Gannon (real name James D. “JD” Guckert) is gay based on three domain registrations (none of which lead to working sites).

Gannon/Guckert, who originally laughed off the swarming net detectives, isn’t laughing anymore.

The Wall Street Journal has Easongate on the editorial page today.

By chance, I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum’s panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. What happened was this: 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.
Here Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn’t done a story on this, specifically. And no, he didn’t believe the Bush administration had a policy of targeting journalists. Besides, he said, “the [American] generals and colonels have their heart in the right place.”

By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan’s mind spinning, slowly: “How am I going to get out of this one?” But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that “there are people who believe there are people in the military” who have it out for journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who’d been sent to the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad’s Green Zone, apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter’s dispatches.

And that was it–the discussion moved on

LaShawn Barber has started contributing to easongate.com.

I’m way late in posting this, but figured better late than never. The Easongate petition referenced in the above-mentioned story is online.

UPDATE: The list of news outlets covering this story or editorializing on it is growing. Michelle Malkin has a good roundup today.

Read his brief closing remarks.

UPDATE (2/10): Looks like it’s getting some press today.

WASHINGTON — A conservative reporter who asked President Bush a loaded question at a news conference last month resigned Wednesday after liberal bloggers uncovered his real name and raised questions about his background.

Jeff Gannon, who had been writing for the Web sites Talon News and GOPUSA, is actually James Dale Guckert, 47, and has been linked to online domain addresses with sexually provocative names. He has been under scrutiny since he asked Bush how he could work with Senate Democratic leaders “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.” The information about Gannon was posted on liberal sites including Daily Kos and Atrios.

Under the headline “A Voice of the New Media: The Voice Goes Silent,” Gannon wrote on his personal Web page that because of the attention, “I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News,” and that he is quitting “in consideration of the welfare of me and my family.” Gannon added in a brief interview that “my family has been victimized” and he wanted to “put some separation between Talon News and the White House.”

UPDATE 2 (2/10): CNN leads their article with:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A New York congresswoman asked the White House to explain Wednesday why a man who worked for a news Web site owned by a GOP activist was able to obtain White House press credentials under an assumed name.

Despite the fact that this is the network run by Eason Jordan, it’s still a good question. If it’s true then the possible answers could include “we had no idea it was an assumed name” or “we intentionally overlooked the fact that it was an assumed name because of his relationship with big money” or “there is a good reason and we can’t tell you for security reasons.”

UPDATE (2/10): Kevin Aylward weighs in with some questions for the lefty bloggers.

One wonders whether fascist-obsessed lefty blogger David Neiwert is going be equally critical of the bloggers in this case as he was of Wizbang for exposing Professor Hailey last year. Consistency would demand that he come down hard on his lefty brethren for libel and encourage Guckert to sue the bloggers into oblivion, as he did to us. We’ll keep you posted.

If you haven’t seen it yet: Scholar Defiant Amid Furor Over 9/11 Remarks

Previous posts here and here.

Michelle Malkin’s column today is a basic primer on Easongate, and she calls for readers to push for the release of the video tape of the remarks in context.

Contact info here for the Mark Adams at the World Economic Forum and Eason Jordan.

Clever stuff from Iowa Hawk. A bit heavy on the vulgarities for me personally, but nonetheless, funny reading.

[Eason Jordan:] But, I don’t want to be blithe about our the challenges we face. For example, if we don’t get some control on the US Military deliberately targeting as shooting our field reporters, we are certainly going to face some steep increases in health care premiums for our employees. Second… umm, yes? Congressman Frank?

US Congressman Barney Frank: With all due respect, Mr. Jordan, what the ****? I mean… what the ****!?

Jordan: Excuse me?

Frank: You just stood there and accused American soldiers of deliberately targeting, hunting down and shooting journalists.

[extended silence]

Jordan: Yes… I guess I’m just confused on the point you’re trying to make.

Frank: My point is, do you actually have any evidence of that? I mean that the US military deliberately killing journalists?

Jordan: Oh. Umm, okay, I think I see where you’re going with that. Well, there are certainly accusations of that, and obviously we wouldn’t be doing our jobs as journalists if we didn’t recognize the existence of the accusations.

Frank: But you just stated it as fact.

Jordan: Well, duh. It’s a fact: there have been accusations.

Interesting dissenting viewpoint from “The Shape of Days.” Read it here.

He says this EJR story is being blown way out of proportion, and it’s a matter of free speech that should be countered with more speech, not pitchforks and torches.

Look, people say crazy things all the time. Walk down the street right now and ask people whether they think US soldiers deliberately try to kill journalists in war zones. I promise you that it won’t take you long to find somebody who’ll say yes. Do we put these cranks on the news? Of course we don’t. Because they are wrong.

So why is Eason Jordan different? Well, I can think of two reasons. First, he’s different because he’s Eason Jordan, head of CNN. There’s a public trust issue involved, and if the head of one of the country’s — no, the world’s — most influential news brokers is a little undermedicated, I think we deserve to know that. Second, Eason Jordan is different because of the context in which his statements were made. He didn’t just say it to somebody walking down the street; he said it on an open panel in Davos in front of rolling cameras.

…

Is the public trust harmed when Eason Jordan makes malicious allegations about our soldiers? Definitely. But no more than when Sy Hersh or Robert Fisk or any other member of the press corps does it. In fact, I dare say that Hersh and Fisk and Arnett and Rather and Mapes and their ilk have done much more harm to the public trust than Eason Jordan has.

But really, for me it all boils down to one nagging little detail: the freedom of speech. I don’t mean that in the clichéd sense that we’re all free to speak our minds even when we’re wrong. Everybody knows that. I mean it in the more abstract sense that the way to correct bad — factually incorrect, malicious, libelous (or in this case slanderous) — speech isn’t by leading a crusade to have the speaker stripped of his microphone. It’s by offering up speech of our own.

The difference though is that when you’re a public figure purporting to represent an unbiased fact reporting organization the public has the right to hold you to a higher standard. Sure, you can say what you want, but your words impact people and you have to use them responsibly when you are a spokesperson.

Via: LaShawn Barber.

For my full Eason Jordan coverage, click here.

Power Line has some thoughts on the Eason Jordan story and the MSM.

One has to wonder, where is Drudge on this? I’m sure he’s in the loop on what is going on in the blogosphere, but I’ve not seen him do any linking or headlining of Jordan’s quotes. I wonder why.

From ScrappleFace:

“We’re there to kill terrorists, not journalists,” said an unnamed Pentagon official. “The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they’re often found together and have similar objectives.”

LOL.

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 every opportunity to comment on those with extra-liberal trackback setups, like WizBang. I’m a “slithering reptile” in the Ecosystem. I am the “website of the day” at Brassknuckles.net today. My traffic has gone from zero to a few hundred unique visitors a day in the last month or so. That seems like a lot at first, but it’s not really.

And I’ve found that to keep traffic, you need to constantly - always - be on top of the hot topic of the day. This takes time and effort. So now I’m wondering, is it worth it? Why do it?

There are several possible reasons that I can think of to really spend time on this.

1. It’s fun
2. It’s profitable
3. It’s a soapbox that might impact the world
4. It might make you almost famous.

To deconstruct.

It’s fun.

Yes, it is somewhat fun. I read the stuff anyway, why not post it out there for others to see? Well, because they can get it elsewhere. It’s only fun, really, if one of the other options goes with it, like it’s profitable or it makes a difference in the world. There’s also a bit of a charge, which I’m sure is a novelty, of seeing how many readers check out your blog and where they come from.

It’s profitable.

Well, not yet. I’ve earned a few bucks on Google ads (click ‘em!!!!). I think the way this blogging thing really becomes profitable is if it lands you a real job as a writer, you come out with your own book, or whatever. I already am a famous writer (well, ok, I contributed a few chapters to this book), and I really don’t have much desire to do that for a living. So unless the Google ads or Amazon links or sponsor ads start making some money, this is not profitable yet. I wonder, does it become profitable at 1,000 users a day? 100,000? 1,000,000?

It’s a soapbox that might impact the world.

I think there may be something to this one. This is probably the motivation that might actually keep me going. Without the blog storm, Dan Rather would not have been exposed. Without blog storm, Eason Jordan would not have been (or will have been) exposed. Bloggers are a HUGE factor in the next generation of media, and I might be able to be a small part of that. But what if I stopped doing this? Some other blogger will take my place? But what if everyone had the same thought? It’s almost like saying “why should I bother voting, there are lots of others who vote.” And in addition to just a political platform, it may be a way to share my faith with others by integrating it into my work, as LaShawn tries do do regularly.

It might make you almost famous.

Well, yeah, maybe. But I don’t think I want that. I’m not really trying to hide who I am, but I’m not publicizing it. When I email other bloggers, I use my real name, but I don’t scream from the top of my blog what my name is, who I am, where I live, etc. I don’t want to do magazine or TV interviews. I don’t want to write columns for major papers. I have a “real job” and I work from home, so if I was almost famous I would have to buy some new clothes and worry if every hair is in place. Maybe some day I’ll be interested in this, but not today. I’m pretty content to be me, right where I am.

So why keep blogging?

I’m not sure, but I’m going to keep going for a while. Maybe once this Easongate thing dies down it will be easier to keep up with the Jones’ … right now it seems impossible to keep up with Captain Ed, LaShawn in terms of sheer volume, and people like Michelle who have the connections to call congressmen and media bigwigs and actually get through.

Maybe my little space will contribute to changing the world somehow. Maybe it will simply be fun for a while.

Why do YOU blog? Comments and trackbacks are welcome.

The Easongate swarm is interesting to observe, is it about Eason? Is it about the blogger doing it gaining noteriety? Is it about profiting from controversy? I think it may be all of those things mixed together. And if a blogger wants noteriety, why? It’s probably either #2 or #3 … making money or changing the world. I guess there are people out there who also enjoy the ego boost as well, even if it’s not profitable, but I can’t really relate to that one as much.

Someone like Michelle blogs, I presume, to further her name recognition, her respect by the average Joe, and ultimately to help her career as a writer / pundit / columnist. Nothing wrong with that. LaShawn blogs (see Update III: 5:27 pm) to eventually do what she loves full time, and - I think - to impact the lives of her readers. That girl somewhere out west who got fired from her real job blogged because she loved writing - and now is blogging because she is unemployed. Instapundit must make money somehow. INDC didn’t really make money last year. Captain Ed either wants to change the world or he makes money doing this. Maybe both. Dawn Eden picks a topic and sticks with it, sharing her passion for life. And there are lots of others out there… I wonder, why do you blog?

-MZ.