« George Bush The Elder Not Likely "Deep Throat" | Main | Eason Jordan Cover-Up In The Making »

February 07, 2005

Barney Frank: Eason Jordan Did Claim U.S. Military Deliberately Targeted Journalists

Michelle Malkin spoke with Rep. Barney Frank this morning, who was present at the session in Davos when CNN chief Eason Jordan made his remarks:

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan

Frank has, of course, not heard back from Jordan because Jordan's claim is a fraud. If Jordan had ANY evidence to back up his claim he not only would have had it when he made the claim, but he would jumping out of his skin to get back in touch with Barney Frank.

Richard Sambrook of the BBC has a different recollection of Jordan's remarks:

Eason's comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to "collateral damage". His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims--as suggested by the terms "collateral damage"--but had been "targeted", for example by snipers.

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). 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.

Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so.

Captain Ed reminds us that Richard Sambrook's interpretation is doubtful because of Jordan's history of making claims that the U.S. military has targeted journalists in Iraq for killng and torture.

Jim Geraghty is also doubtful, asking "why would Arab members of the audience come up and congratulate him for having the courage to speak the truth? Why were, according to these accounts, Franks, Dodd and Gergen so disturbed? Or are these details from other accounts inaccurate? Are Abovitz, MacKinnon, and Frank remembering things that didn't happen?"

Jim Geraghty also writes:

But this shouldn't be a liberal v. conservative issue. If, Heaven forbid, Jordan's accusation was accurate, conservatives ought to be leading the charge to get to the bottom of this and hold those responsible accountable. If you're a soldier and you kill a journalist because you don't like the coverage, you're a murderer, no better that the thugs of Saddam that the coalition set out to remove from power.

However... that accusation seems, to many ears, to be more than a little farfetched. And if one is going to level that charge in public, one better bring some evidence. Otherwise, to quote the greatest Naval recruitment film of all time, "your ego is writing checks your body can't cash."

Is this an issue that only conservatives are paying attention to? Mickey Kaus isn't conservative. Glenn Reynolds strikes me as more of a libertarian.

But let's ask that question. Where are the liberals on this? Again, nobody's obligated to blog about anything they don't want to, but doesn't anybody on the left have anything to say about this? Don't folks on the left get irritated by somebody making charges against the U.S. military without evidence?

Is it that they see Eason Jordan as some sort of ideological brethren that they should stick with out of anti-conservative solidarity?

I'm sure my left-of-center readers will disagree, but I think the right is less inclined to defend its members who make stupid or unfounded statements. It's apples and oranges, but take Armstrong Williams. NRO writers certainly ripped him. (My take here and here.)

Maybe there are left-of-center writers and bloggers who are writing about Eason Jordan and I just haven't encountered them. Send me links if you see them.

But if Jordan smeared the troops by repeated an unsubstantiated rumor in front of the Davos crowd, this shouldn't just outrage conservatives.

Roger L. Simon:

Although they will not readily admit it, much of mainstream media is terrified of the blogosphere. They have cause. Two of their crown jewels, the New York Times and CBS News, have been badly wounded by blogs, the latter with a seriousness that may have inflicted permanent damage. Their most prominent house organs like the Columbia Journalism Review have been shown to be almost absurdly unprofessional in their defense.

Now we have the Jordan Affair which on the face of it has the potential to be even more damaging. The news director of CNN is accused of making false statements which border on the seditious in an international public forum. If it can proven that he actually made these statements and that he is unable to prove their veracity, the results could be catastrophic for CNN, at least domestically. (I am not going to speculate here on the workings of Jordan's unconscious, but he is indeed a strange man.)

The blogosphere is effectively being stonewalled, because, so far, the blogosphere has won its duels with mainstream media. They have accused us of being fast and loose with the facts, but it is they who have had to back down. What is at stake here is great - money, jobs, power - and they know it.

(Malkin and Simon articles via Instapundit)

UPDATE: Mainstream media is beginning to dig into the story. David Gergen's office is getting many calls.

Does CNN really think it will help its, and Jordan's cause, if they are trying to put a damper on the videotape release? (via Hugh Hewitt)

Some are calling this the "nuance day" in the story.

Hindrocket: "This story is playing out in excruciatingly slow motion, but the ending has already been written: Eason Jordan is finished."

Posted at 10:18 AM Pacific