Hugh Hewitt has an interview with someone who was present at Eason Jordan’s accidental unveiling of his anti-military, anti-US views.

The Arab journalists and WEF members who were in the audience
and congratulated Mr. Jordan for his bravery and courage for standing up to the U.S. heard what we all heard, and it was pretty damning.

Someone should search the Arab language press (web and print) for their reaction to what was said. If the WEF 2005 videotape of this meeting is ever released for public view, it will not help Mr. Jordan at all. He is much better off if the tape (in classic “1984” style) just disappears. I can only imagine the reaction of a U.S. audience to a broadcast of what he said prior to being challenged, prior to his backtracking, and prior to having time to realize the implications of what he said.

To be fair, we are all only humans and in the heat of the moment many people say all sorts of things that they later regret. The contrast of what he was saying before and after he realized what he was saying was pretty incredible. His media savvy, professional executive brain did kick in, but not soon enough. The content and context of what he said would allow groups with an anti-American bias to take what he said and believe that the American military forces had
targeted for assasination journalists. For someone with a pro-U.S. posture, you were left confused and in disbelief.

There’s an old joke about a faux pas being the accidental blurting out of the truth. There’s an alternate version, which is the accidental disclosure of what one believes to be the truth, even if it’s a fantasy. No doubt Mr. Jordan actually believes this, or at least doesn’t disbelieve it enough to be uncomfortable with saying it in front of what he perceives to be friendly audiences.

How much longer will most of the media continue to ignore it? I’m particularly surprised that Fox, or even more so–the more-desperate MSNBC aren’t playing up the head of their rival network’s slanderous comments to the hilt, exposing CNN for the anti-Bush shills that they are. And yes, I do think that that’s the true animus behind this. It’s about Bush hatred. The reputation of the American military that has liberated and democratized fifty million people in the past two years is just (perhaps, perhaps not) regrettable collateral damage in the noble crusade against Chimpy McFlightsuit.

…to investigate the “results” of the “Independent Commission” that investigated Ra^thergate. It looks like Thornburgh and Boccardi may have set themselves up for a libel suit.

This won’t go away until CBS and its defenders decide to let it all hang out, and display a little honesty. At a minimum, they have to stop making a laughing stock of themselves and admit that that the documents are fake beyond a reasonable doubt. That, plus a very public apology to Matley, might at least make this legal problem go away.

When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq? Until he picked up the phone, he was just a ghost on the Internet.

Well, isn’t that precious?

Can anyone play this game?

Let’s see…

When I considered telephoning a woman named Sarah Boxer in New York, I wondered who might answer. An Al Qaeda operative? A Saudi in a burkha posing as an American? Someone paid by the Iranian or Syrian defense agency to oppose the war? Or simply an American with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq, and determined to see it, and America, fail? Until she picked up the phone, she was just a ghost on the NYT internet website…

I’m just sayin’…

[Update on Wednesday morning]

N. Z. Bear has picked up the ball and run it all the way into the end zone.

[Another update at 10:30 AM, eastern]

My, oh my. A commenter has tracked down the perp, and found out that she’s a book author.

Sarah Boxer

The species Pompositasaurus Rex, anyway. Les Moonves may be admitting that Roger Simon was right.

Moonves, who will ultimately select Rather’s replacement, said he believes many young viewers are turned off by a single “voice of God” anchor in the Internet age.

He spoke publicly about his search for the first time since Rather announced in late November that he was stepping down from the “CBS Evening News.” Moonves stressed that he’s still considering all possibilities. It’s unclear whether a new format would be ready for when Rather leaves in early March, or whether an interim successor would be named.

“Those days are over when you have that guy sitting behind the desk who everyone believes to the `nth’ degree,” Moonves told reporters. “It’s sort of an antiquated way of news telling and maybe there’s a new way of doing it.”

And if he is, to stretch the analogy, they were wiped out by an asteroid called the Internet and the blogosphere, that they never saw coming.

They had “myopic zeal,” all right. Myopic zeal to see John Kerry elected.

If it was only myopic zeal for a story, there were plenty of other much better documented and valid stories about which to be myopically zealous, including Christmas in Cambodia, earning a medal for cutting and running, less-than-honorable discharges…the list goes on. They could have had a scoop on those, since no other MSM organization wanted to pursue them either.

But for some reason their “myopic zeal” was confined to only one candidate, just weeks before the election. To think that there was no political bias here would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

They had “myopic zeal,” all right. Myopic zeal to see John Kerry elected.

If it was only myopic zeal for a story, there were plenty of other much better documented and valid stories about which to be myopically zealous, including Christmas in Cambodia, earning a medal for cutting and running, less-than-honorable discharges…the list goes on. They could have had a scoop on those, since no other MSM organization wanted to pursue them either.

But for some reason their “myopic zeal” was confined to only one candidate, just weeks before the election. To think that there was no political bias here would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

They had “myopic zeal,” all right. Myopic zeal to see John Kerry elected.

If it was only myopic zeal for a story, there were plenty of other much better documented and valid stories about which to be myopically zealous, including Christmas in Cambodia, earning a medal for cutting and running, less-than-honorable discharges…the list goes on. They could have had a scoop on those, since no other MSM organization wanted to pursue them either.

But for some reason their “myopic zeal” was confined to only one candidate, just weeks before the election. To think that there was no political bias here would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

On what some think may be the eve of the release of the long-awaited report on Rathergate (though Jim Geraghty is skeptical), Professor Hailey is still trying (laughably) to show that the memos could be real. As one commenter asks, “How debunked does something have to be in order to have nothing debunkable left?”

That’s what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather

That’s what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather