On a recent broadcast of Democracy Now
Angela Davis and attorney Lennox Hinds spoke quite eloquently about
Shakeur’s plight yet neither of them managed to mention the words Barack
or Obama. The omission made the rest of their words meaningless. The
justice department is Obama’s justice department. The FBI is his FBI and
any and all of its decisions must get the green light straight from the
president. If Assata Shakur or anyone else is labeled a terrorist by
the United States government it is with Barack Obama’s express
permission.
-- Margaret Kimberely, "Support Assata Shakur, At Your Own Risk" (Black Agenda Report).
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Truest statement of the week II
To nominate Penny Pritzker for secretary of Commerce is
to throw in the towel for any pretense of integrity that could pass a
laugh test.
--- Norman Solomon, "Obama in Plunderland" (CounterPunch).
--- Norman Solomon, "Obama in Plunderland" (CounterPunch).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday. And look how early we got done. Can you believe it? Everything up by 7:00 am PST (10:00 EST).
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Marcia and C.I. nominated this one by Margaret Kimberley and we all agreed it was truest worthy.
Mike and Stan nominated this one which also received universal backing.
Our Iraq editorial. Last piece we wrote. It was much longer. Edited down because, as Dona pointed out, we didn't have short pieces.
This is one of Ava and C.I.'s two media articles this week. Again, Dona made an editorial suggestion. She made it before they wrote. (Yes, they trust Dona enough to mention topics ahead of time.) There was Benghazi that Jonathan S. Landay got wrong, there was Iraq as well. Dona suggested two pieces, noting that in the same piece, one was going to fall into second place. This is the piece that focuses on how Landay falsely claimed to be an expert on hearing he attended. Ava and C.I. were there too, tough for Landay.
Landay outright lied about Iraq. In doing so, he made himself an idiot and reflected poorly on his outlet. Were I (Jim) in charge of McClatchy, Landay would be learning that he was grounded from media appearances.
A science feature. NASA did a space walk.Saturday.
Dona talks to Ruth, Wally, Kat, Ava and C.I. about the Benghazi hearing the group attended and how so much was discussed that didn't get covered by the media.
I thought I was getting the chance to talk about a variety of topics with Ava and C.I. Wrong. They played me to prove a point. In other words, gas bags like Landay need to learn how to say that they don't know everything instead of b.s.-ing and lying on the airwaves.
Senators Patty Murray and Kelly Ayotte have worked together on a new bill to combat military sexual assault.
A repost from Workers World.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday. And look how early we got done. Can you believe it? Everything up by 7:00 am PST (10:00 EST).
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Marcia and C.I. nominated this one by Margaret Kimberley and we all agreed it was truest worthy.
Mike and Stan nominated this one which also received universal backing.
Our Iraq editorial. Last piece we wrote. It was much longer. Edited down because, as Dona pointed out, we didn't have short pieces.
This is one of Ava and C.I.'s two media articles this week. Again, Dona made an editorial suggestion. She made it before they wrote. (Yes, they trust Dona enough to mention topics ahead of time.) There was Benghazi that Jonathan S. Landay got wrong, there was Iraq as well. Dona suggested two pieces, noting that in the same piece, one was going to fall into second place. This is the piece that focuses on how Landay falsely claimed to be an expert on hearing he attended. Ava and C.I. were there too, tough for Landay.
Landay outright lied about Iraq. In doing so, he made himself an idiot and reflected poorly on his outlet. Were I (Jim) in charge of McClatchy, Landay would be learning that he was grounded from media appearances.
A science feature. NASA did a space walk.Saturday.
Dona talks to Ruth, Wally, Kat, Ava and C.I. about the Benghazi hearing the group attended and how so much was discussed that didn't get covered by the media.
I thought I was getting the chance to talk about a variety of topics with Ava and C.I. Wrong. They played me to prove a point. In other words, gas bags like Landay need to learn how to say that they don't know everything instead of b.s.-ing and lying on the airwaves.
Senators Patty Murray and Kelly Ayotte have worked together on a new bill to combat military sexual assault.
A repost from Workers World.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Nouri can't tamp down on the crazy
Last week, Nouri al-Maliki, chief thug and prime minister of Iraq, tried really hard to keep the crazy down. His massacre from last month was still leaving an impression. That's April 23rd, Nouri al-Maliki's federal forces stormed a sit-in in Hawija, Kirkuk. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. UNICEF informed the world that 8 of the dead were children and twelve more children were left injured. Surveying the country on Friday, Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reporteds: on how the massacre still had the country reeling and quoted Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi stating, "The conditions for a civil war are present now. The first person responsible is the prime minister."
Friday found news that Nouri's forces were yet again blocking reporters from covering the protests and that a reporter had been arrested by Nouri's forces. Then Saturday, citing Sheikh Abdul Razzaq al-Shammari, National Iraqi News Agency reported that Nouri's forces "stormed the home of one member of the organizing committee for Anbar sit-ins" and quotes al-Shammari stating, "The force that raided the home arrested his eldest son as he was out of his home, after broke doors and tampering the furniture" and took the man's passport. There was no arrest warrant, no search warrant, no legal authorization for the raid.
The violence, of course, never ended. Nouri's bullied and tortured and conducted false and secret arrests for over six years now and no peace. It might occur to people at some point that there is no peace because of the fact that Nouri's bullied and tortured and conducted false and secret arrests for over six years now.
Iraq Body Count counts 174 violent deaths in Iraq through yesterday.
At what point does the US State Dept, which is still spending billions of US taxpayer dollars in Iraq, roll up their sleeves and really get to work.
Because Iraq is in crises mode. Even if the US media largely ignores that fact.
------------
Illustration is Isaiah's "Here's Nouri."
Media: The Destruction of McClatchy will be broadcast (it all hits the fan)
Back at the height of Media Whores Online, it was obvious the problems the left had were the problems the world had. MWO was a great site and we loved it. But that doesn't mean it always played fair. For example, Bully Boy Bush nominee Miguel Estrada was frightening to us but does that mean it was right for MWO to run a false item about him having a same-sex pickup in a park? Ha, ha, the closet gay! If it had been true, it might have been funny. But it was known to be false when it ran. (We know the person who fed it to MWO, we've seen the e-mails -- from back in the days of AOL -- it was fed false and MWO received it knowing it was admittedly false. They still ran with it.) So it really struck us as homophobia. Smear him as gay to defeat him. If the rumor had been true or if there were rumors that Estrada were gay (there were none), it might have not struck us as homophobia. But that is how we saw it and how we see it. We were also aware of the non-stop sexism. Every penis parked before a laptop could get and did get a shout out, voices of the 'left' so weak you kept waiting for MWO to praise Alan Colmes. They never took it that far but they did manage to ignore women.
Well, they called out women. They were always trashing women . But what we're talking about is that they had a little list of good journalists, it was called "Media In Exile." At one point, it had 58 names of journalists you could trust. How many were women?
Six. So roughly ten percent of the list was women. Now this was a list of praise from the left, remember? The list had Mark Shields and Jim Lehrer on it, for goodness sake. But women couldn't qualify?
You could argue that there were really only five women on the list. We're not disputing any of the women's 'journalistic' qualities -- when you've put Jon Stewart on the list, clearly you know nothing about journalism -- but we are noting that one of the women? She had no outlet. She didn't work for a network, for a newspaper, for a radio station or a website. She had no personal website. Her only 'outlet'? Sometimes Bartcop printed her e-mails. Based on those e-mails that went up occasionally at Bartcop, she was a journalist.
Now the 'whores' listed? Most of them had been applauded at one point or another. And that's important. Because what happens for the media is they get liked and then they want to stay liked. That's among their peers. They want to stay on TV. That doesn't lead to a lot of groundbreaking work. If you're telling the hard truths, you're making someone uncomfortable and there's no seat for you around the table as a result.
So the people MWO applauded? Many were going to let them down.
Which is how we arrive today at McClatchy's Jonathan S. Landy.
It was so strange Friday, to listen to a supposedly professional journalist discuss Benghazi on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR). Diane Rehm started the discussion by noting Wednesdays House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and declared, apparently amazed, "you sat through all five hours."
Jonathan S. Landay: That and the previous one and everything else that happened. And there was some really emotional uh-uh testimony uh from uh Gregory Hicks who was the number two uh US diplomat on the ground in uh Tripoli when this was all going down and he described in-in blow-by-blow, very emotional details how he responded and the last phone calls he's had with Ambassador Chris Smith before -- I'm sorry, uh, Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was -- he-he and,uh, --
Diane Rehm: The line went dead.
Jonathan S. Landay: Right. The line went dead. But the bottom line is that the American people were told by Republican leaders that this hearing was going to disclose this great conspiracy equivalent to Watergate and, in fact, we heard nothing really new. There were no major new revelations at all to sustain what we've been told is this cover up of malfeasance and mishandling of what went on and uh-uh-uh a cover up that was intended to to-to-to-to cover up the culpability of the President and his top people in the midst of the president's re-election campaign. Again, nothing really new came out of those hearings at all.
Well Goodness Golly Molly, we were at those hearings and we heard a lot more than Jonathan S. Landay. In fact, we heard so much that we were surprised on Friday when Bill Plante declared at the end of his report for the CBS Evening News that, in response to the Republicans releasing the e-mails, Democrats were saying this was all an effort to discredit Hillary Clinton should she run for president in 2016. We were surprised because we'd heard that over and over on Wednesday. In the press and at the hearing. Wasn't that, after all, what Carolyn Maloney embarrassed herself over? And Elijah Cummings? And Eleanor Holmes Norton? And . . .
See we were at the hearing and we paid attention. We covered the hearing with the May 8th "Iraq snapshot" and "Crazies on the Committee (Ava)," while elsewhere in the community, Kat covered it with "If today were a movie . . .," Wally with "Biggest Coward at today's Committee hearing" and Ruth with "An order to stand down." And we'll be roundtabling on that hearing and another hearing with Dona this edition during which we'll be addressing some of the information from the hearing that didn't get reported.
But for now, did you see Ruth's title? Gregory Hicks stated that US military personnel in Tripoli were ready to head to Benghazi. We're not even talking the issue of the US military outside of Libya here. We're talking about the issue of US troops in Tripoli, Libya gearing up to go to the mission in Benghazi under attack. But Hicks testified they were told to stand down. They were ordered not go to Benghazi.
No major new revelations?
Did we mention he was on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show? That's the international hour. On the first hour, the domestic hour, Benghazi was also discussed. The panelists were Politico's Rachel Smolkin, Michael Scherer of Time magazine and NPR's David Welna.
Diane Rehm: Now, something else going on up on the Hill this week. Charges and counter charges during the weeks, House hearings on Benghazi. Rachel.
Rachel Smolkin: This is an issue Republicans have been pushing for months. It got new scrutiny during the week. There was a very emotional hearing about this where we heard from a veteran diplomat that he had effectively been silenced, that he tried to voice his concerns. And his view was retaliated against and demoted. We now have a new report out this morning from ABC News' Jonathan Karl that raises additional questions about the editing process on the talking points as. This are, of course, the talking points that Susan Rice discussed that have gotten so much attention. These new documents indicate, from ABC News, that the State Department made some extensive editing. Victoria Nuland, State Department spokeswoman, asked the CIA to delete a paragraph citing warnings of prior attacks, so that sure to give this additional attention as well. It's very fraught with politics, this issue. I mean, you have a, you know, sort of extreme statements coming from some Republicans like Lindsey Graham, saying, this is Watergate all over again. You have the obvious Hillary Clinton angle. She is no longer the secretary of state, so that makes her much easier to attack in some ways because now the clear next question with Hillary Clinton is, will she be the Democratic nominee in 2016? Democrats see this as entirely fraught with politics, and Republicans say, no. This just hasn't received the scrutiny that it needs to.
Diane Rehm: And former Vice President Dick Cheney has said, let's subpoena Hillary Clinton.
David Welna: Well, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee headed by Darrell Issa, which held this hearing on Wednesday, plans to bring in more people, more of the principles to question them. And I don't know if there would be any executive privilege that Hillary Clinton could invoke as a former secretary of state.
Diane Rehm: So is it more politics, or is it really getting at something new regarding Benghazi? Michael.
Michael Scherer: The problem with following the story is there's so many different strands moving at once, and there's so many different questions. For instance, you know, one whole part of that hearing had to do with whether there was something that could've been done to prevent the loss of life if the military and the intelligence services had acted quicker. You had testimony being given in which people who are basically in the region at the time had the impression that the answer is, yes, the Pentagon has been consistent from the beginning, saying, that's just not true. And so you just have a disagreement over the facts of the case there. And then you have this political question of, during an election year, did the White House try and downplay the issue of terrorism to protect themselves? And it's clear -- and I think this is where we have the most movement this morning -- that there was a lot of politics at play. And the most obvious politics at play was interdepartmental politics. I mean, the State Department was trying to make sure it wasn't blamed for this. The CIA was trying to make sure it wasn't blamed for this. And so -- and this is very typical in Washington that something goes wrong and everybody tries to protect their own.
Wow. A serious conversation from three journalists. Landay couldn't offer that, could he? Not even when he was speaking live one hour after the above journalists had taken part in the domestic roundtable.
He was highly uninformed but vastly full of himself.
We haven't sat through all of the Benghazi hearings. For example, the issue was raised in a recent confirmation hearing and we were not at that hearing. We have been at the bulk of the Benghazi hearings, however.
We were, for example, at the April 17th House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing when Secretary of State John Kerry testified. We covered it with the April 17th "Iraq snapshot" and "Secretary Kerry doesn't really support women's rights" and, community wide, Wally covered it with "The budget hearing that avoided the budget," Ruth with "Kerry pressed on Benghazi" and Kat with "I'm sick of Democrats in Congress." We were there.
Thing is we take extensive notes. And we checked our notes. There was a McClatchy reporter present. She wasn't Jonathan Landay. So, no, despite his boast, he hasn't been at "everything else" in terms of Congressional hearings on Benghazi. He could claim, for example, that the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing was on the State Department's proposed budget. It was scheduled on that. That's why we were there, to hear about Iraq which is the State Department's biggest item in the budget, more than any other country. But notice Ruth covered the hearing? We asked Ruth to come. Because she covers Benghazi and we knew Benghazi would come up. There was no way it wouldn't with the majority of the committee feeling they were being stalled on the issue by the State Department.
Guess what?
Iraq? Never got mentioned.
What do we always stress about Benghazi? We stress that the dead are rendered "Chris Stevens and three other Americans." Because The Gilligan's Island theme is the new way to report? ("And the rest, here on Gilligan Isle.) Three more names are too much to type? Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty are the four Americans killed.
We stress that all the time. In our writing, in our talks on war. And thing is, we've never needed prompting for any name. But Mr. I've Been At Everything Landay, the self-proclaimed expert couldn't even get Chris Stevens name right on the first try -- the only name the bulk of the media bothers to mention and 'expert' Landay stumbles.
Jonathan S. Landay: That and the previous one and everything else that happened. And there was some really emotional uh-uh testimony uh from uh Gregory Hicks who was the number two uh US diplomat on the ground in uh Tripoli when this was all going down and he described in-in blow-by-blow, very emotional details how he responded and the last phone calls he's had with Ambassador Chris Smith before -- I'm sorry, uh, Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was -- he-he and,uh, --
Diane Rehm: The line went dead.
We're not here to spoon feed. We'll note "Mark" and leave it for Landay to supply the rest of the name on his name. He was attempting to say that Chris Stevens and the person assigned to protect him because Hicks testified that after the line went dead he was calling both the ambassador's number and the man who was protecting him. Strange that we know that but the 'expert' stumbles.
Jonathan S. Landay: But the bottom line is that the American people were told by Republican leaders that this hearing was going to disclose this great conspiracy equivalent to Watergate and, in fact, we heard nothing really new.
Nothing really new?
We've already disputed that and we reported it on last week. But the more disturbing section is the "Republican leaders" one. First, we doubt he could name four if you put him on a live mike right now and gave him 10 seconds. Second, and more importantly, the news isn't what someone says.
Landay wants to insist that there's nothing to report on Benghazi because what he alleges Republican leaders said going into the hearing wasn't what happened in the hearing.
Do you get how strange that is?
Drop back to Iraq with us. The mainstream press stated repeatedly that one of the reasons they didn't cover opposition to the war or do more investigations was that the Democrats in Congress weren't leading charges against the war.
Landay is a reporter for McClatchy Newspapers which, if you've missed it, has yet to win any major awards for news reporting. Even the IF Stone Medal for Jounalistic Independence that the Neiman Foundation for Journalism awarded John Walcott (DC bureau chief of McClatchy) was for Walcott's work from before McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder. The award was for the pre-Iraq War reporting that he and others at McClatchy (including Jonathan S. Landay) had done for Knight-Ridder.
McClatchy has no glories of its own. In fact, it's rather sad and telling just how the mighty fell. In 2002, Knight-Ridder did some amazing journalism. Knight-Ridder did. In 2006, McClatchy purchases Knight-Ridder. Since then, there's been no great moments. (No wonder circulation's down and there's talk of selling at least one paper.)
How did Knight-Ridder accomplish amazing journalism in 2002?
Did they wait for what Democrats said or for what Republicans said?
No, they did investigative journalism. They didn't treat the public claims as the story. They dug and found stories. That's why their reporting was not "Case Closed: Declare War On Iraq!"
When we attend hearings, we know the scheduled topic. We're not reading press on the hearing the day before. Granted, there's not a great deal of press on most Congressional hearings to begin with but we have better things to do with our time then read about what might happen at a hearing we're about to attend. We're not aware of any psychics in Congress -- of either party -- so we're not really interested in ahead of the hearing 'reporting' about the hearing.
But Landay is. In fact, it's only news to him today if a hearing matches pre-hearing claims made by 'leaders.' That's a funny way to define news.
If Knight-Ridder had defined news that way, they never would have made the impression they did in 2002.
Does Landay grasp that? Does McClatchy?
Does the country get just how far Jonathan S. Landay has fallen?
You can argue McClatchy hasn't fallen at all. It's always been inconsequential as a new source, feeding off of the image it purchased when it swallowed Knight-Ridder.
But as Landay embarrasses himself more and more in public, stammering away so wrong on the facts, he's not just harming his own image, he's also harming McClatchy Newspaper's image.
We're not really fond of the chat and chews to begin with. But if you're going to go on them, you really shouldn't be a reporter. A columnist? Okay. Flaunt your opinions. But a reporter? A reporter should only be on a program to report events or to plug a book. When a reporter thinks, as Landay clearly does, that he's an expert on Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Benghazi and everything else under the sun, he's overestimating himself.
What Landay's done, though, is no different than what many others did before him. The same panelists that Media Whores Online was ridiculing in 2002 and 2003 who were guests on ABC, CBS and NBC's Sunday morning jaw fests? They started out with some promise. They got applauded for some work they did. They were told they were brave and smart. And it fed their egos. They weren't always, for example, the Cokie Roberts of today.
See, that's the real lesson of Jonathan S. Landay: Gasbags are not born, they're self-created.
Well, they called out women. They were always trashing women . But what we're talking about is that they had a little list of good journalists, it was called "Media In Exile." At one point, it had 58 names of journalists you could trust. How many were women?
Six. So roughly ten percent of the list was women. Now this was a list of praise from the left, remember? The list had Mark Shields and Jim Lehrer on it, for goodness sake. But women couldn't qualify?
You could argue that there were really only five women on the list. We're not disputing any of the women's 'journalistic' qualities -- when you've put Jon Stewart on the list, clearly you know nothing about journalism -- but we are noting that one of the women? She had no outlet. She didn't work for a network, for a newspaper, for a radio station or a website. She had no personal website. Her only 'outlet'? Sometimes Bartcop printed her e-mails. Based on those e-mails that went up occasionally at Bartcop, she was a journalist.
Now the 'whores' listed? Most of them had been applauded at one point or another. And that's important. Because what happens for the media is they get liked and then they want to stay liked. That's among their peers. They want to stay on TV. That doesn't lead to a lot of groundbreaking work. If you're telling the hard truths, you're making someone uncomfortable and there's no seat for you around the table as a result.
So the people MWO applauded? Many were going to let them down.
Which is how we arrive today at McClatchy's Jonathan S. Landy.
It was so strange Friday, to listen to a supposedly professional journalist discuss Benghazi on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR). Diane Rehm started the discussion by noting Wednesdays House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and declared, apparently amazed, "you sat through all five hours."
Jonathan S. Landay: That and the previous one and everything else that happened. And there was some really emotional uh-uh testimony uh from uh Gregory Hicks who was the number two uh US diplomat on the ground in uh Tripoli when this was all going down and he described in-in blow-by-blow, very emotional details how he responded and the last phone calls he's had with Ambassador Chris Smith before -- I'm sorry, uh, Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was -- he-he and,uh, --
Diane Rehm: The line went dead.
Jonathan S. Landay: Right. The line went dead. But the bottom line is that the American people were told by Republican leaders that this hearing was going to disclose this great conspiracy equivalent to Watergate and, in fact, we heard nothing really new. There were no major new revelations at all to sustain what we've been told is this cover up of malfeasance and mishandling of what went on and uh-uh-uh a cover up that was intended to to-to-to-to cover up the culpability of the President and his top people in the midst of the president's re-election campaign. Again, nothing really new came out of those hearings at all.
Well Goodness Golly Molly, we were at those hearings and we heard a lot more than Jonathan S. Landay. In fact, we heard so much that we were surprised on Friday when Bill Plante declared at the end of his report for the CBS Evening News that, in response to the Republicans releasing the e-mails, Democrats were saying this was all an effort to discredit Hillary Clinton should she run for president in 2016. We were surprised because we'd heard that over and over on Wednesday. In the press and at the hearing. Wasn't that, after all, what Carolyn Maloney embarrassed herself over? And Elijah Cummings? And Eleanor Holmes Norton? And . . .
See we were at the hearing and we paid attention. We covered the hearing with the May 8th "Iraq snapshot" and "Crazies on the Committee (Ava)," while elsewhere in the community, Kat covered it with "If today were a movie . . .," Wally with "Biggest Coward at today's Committee hearing" and Ruth with "An order to stand down." And we'll be roundtabling on that hearing and another hearing with Dona this edition during which we'll be addressing some of the information from the hearing that didn't get reported.
But for now, did you see Ruth's title? Gregory Hicks stated that US military personnel in Tripoli were ready to head to Benghazi. We're not even talking the issue of the US military outside of Libya here. We're talking about the issue of US troops in Tripoli, Libya gearing up to go to the mission in Benghazi under attack. But Hicks testified they were told to stand down. They were ordered not go to Benghazi.
No major new revelations?
Did we mention he was on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show? That's the international hour. On the first hour, the domestic hour, Benghazi was also discussed. The panelists were Politico's Rachel Smolkin, Michael Scherer of Time magazine and NPR's David Welna.
Diane Rehm: Now, something else going on up on the Hill this week. Charges and counter charges during the weeks, House hearings on Benghazi. Rachel.
Rachel Smolkin: This is an issue Republicans have been pushing for months. It got new scrutiny during the week. There was a very emotional hearing about this where we heard from a veteran diplomat that he had effectively been silenced, that he tried to voice his concerns. And his view was retaliated against and demoted. We now have a new report out this morning from ABC News' Jonathan Karl that raises additional questions about the editing process on the talking points as. This are, of course, the talking points that Susan Rice discussed that have gotten so much attention. These new documents indicate, from ABC News, that the State Department made some extensive editing. Victoria Nuland, State Department spokeswoman, asked the CIA to delete a paragraph citing warnings of prior attacks, so that sure to give this additional attention as well. It's very fraught with politics, this issue. I mean, you have a, you know, sort of extreme statements coming from some Republicans like Lindsey Graham, saying, this is Watergate all over again. You have the obvious Hillary Clinton angle. She is no longer the secretary of state, so that makes her much easier to attack in some ways because now the clear next question with Hillary Clinton is, will she be the Democratic nominee in 2016? Democrats see this as entirely fraught with politics, and Republicans say, no. This just hasn't received the scrutiny that it needs to.
Diane Rehm: And former Vice President Dick Cheney has said, let's subpoena Hillary Clinton.
David Welna: Well, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee headed by Darrell Issa, which held this hearing on Wednesday, plans to bring in more people, more of the principles to question them. And I don't know if there would be any executive privilege that Hillary Clinton could invoke as a former secretary of state.
Diane Rehm: So is it more politics, or is it really getting at something new regarding Benghazi? Michael.
Michael Scherer: The problem with following the story is there's so many different strands moving at once, and there's so many different questions. For instance, you know, one whole part of that hearing had to do with whether there was something that could've been done to prevent the loss of life if the military and the intelligence services had acted quicker. You had testimony being given in which people who are basically in the region at the time had the impression that the answer is, yes, the Pentagon has been consistent from the beginning, saying, that's just not true. And so you just have a disagreement over the facts of the case there. And then you have this political question of, during an election year, did the White House try and downplay the issue of terrorism to protect themselves? And it's clear -- and I think this is where we have the most movement this morning -- that there was a lot of politics at play. And the most obvious politics at play was interdepartmental politics. I mean, the State Department was trying to make sure it wasn't blamed for this. The CIA was trying to make sure it wasn't blamed for this. And so -- and this is very typical in Washington that something goes wrong and everybody tries to protect their own.
Wow. A serious conversation from three journalists. Landay couldn't offer that, could he? Not even when he was speaking live one hour after the above journalists had taken part in the domestic roundtable.
He was highly uninformed but vastly full of himself.
We haven't sat through all of the Benghazi hearings. For example, the issue was raised in a recent confirmation hearing and we were not at that hearing. We have been at the bulk of the Benghazi hearings, however.
We were, for example, at the April 17th House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing when Secretary of State John Kerry testified. We covered it with the April 17th "Iraq snapshot" and "Secretary Kerry doesn't really support women's rights" and, community wide, Wally covered it with "The budget hearing that avoided the budget," Ruth with "Kerry pressed on Benghazi" and Kat with "I'm sick of Democrats in Congress." We were there.
Thing is we take extensive notes. And we checked our notes. There was a McClatchy reporter present. She wasn't Jonathan Landay. So, no, despite his boast, he hasn't been at "everything else" in terms of Congressional hearings on Benghazi. He could claim, for example, that the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing was on the State Department's proposed budget. It was scheduled on that. That's why we were there, to hear about Iraq which is the State Department's biggest item in the budget, more than any other country. But notice Ruth covered the hearing? We asked Ruth to come. Because she covers Benghazi and we knew Benghazi would come up. There was no way it wouldn't with the majority of the committee feeling they were being stalled on the issue by the State Department.
Guess what?
Iraq? Never got mentioned.
What do we always stress about Benghazi? We stress that the dead are rendered "Chris Stevens and three other Americans." Because The Gilligan's Island theme is the new way to report? ("And the rest, here on Gilligan Isle.) Three more names are too much to type? Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty are the four Americans killed.
We stress that all the time. In our writing, in our talks on war. And thing is, we've never needed prompting for any name. But Mr. I've Been At Everything Landay, the self-proclaimed expert couldn't even get Chris Stevens name right on the first try -- the only name the bulk of the media bothers to mention and 'expert' Landay stumbles.
Jonathan S. Landay: That and the previous one and everything else that happened. And there was some really emotional uh-uh testimony uh from uh Gregory Hicks who was the number two uh US diplomat on the ground in uh Tripoli when this was all going down and he described in-in blow-by-blow, very emotional details how he responded and the last phone calls he's had with Ambassador Chris Smith before -- I'm sorry, uh, Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was -- he-he and,uh, --
Diane Rehm: The line went dead.
We're not here to spoon feed. We'll note "Mark" and leave it for Landay to supply the rest of the name on his name. He was attempting to say that Chris Stevens and the person assigned to protect him because Hicks testified that after the line went dead he was calling both the ambassador's number and the man who was protecting him. Strange that we know that but the 'expert' stumbles.
Jonathan S. Landay: But the bottom line is that the American people were told by Republican leaders that this hearing was going to disclose this great conspiracy equivalent to Watergate and, in fact, we heard nothing really new.
Nothing really new?
We've already disputed that and we reported it on last week. But the more disturbing section is the "Republican leaders" one. First, we doubt he could name four if you put him on a live mike right now and gave him 10 seconds. Second, and more importantly, the news isn't what someone says.
Landay wants to insist that there's nothing to report on Benghazi because what he alleges Republican leaders said going into the hearing wasn't what happened in the hearing.
Do you get how strange that is?
Drop back to Iraq with us. The mainstream press stated repeatedly that one of the reasons they didn't cover opposition to the war or do more investigations was that the Democrats in Congress weren't leading charges against the war.
Landay is a reporter for McClatchy Newspapers which, if you've missed it, has yet to win any major awards for news reporting. Even the IF Stone Medal for Jounalistic Independence that the Neiman Foundation for Journalism awarded John Walcott (DC bureau chief of McClatchy) was for Walcott's work from before McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder. The award was for the pre-Iraq War reporting that he and others at McClatchy (including Jonathan S. Landay) had done for Knight-Ridder.
McClatchy has no glories of its own. In fact, it's rather sad and telling just how the mighty fell. In 2002, Knight-Ridder did some amazing journalism. Knight-Ridder did. In 2006, McClatchy purchases Knight-Ridder. Since then, there's been no great moments. (No wonder circulation's down and there's talk of selling at least one paper.)
How did Knight-Ridder accomplish amazing journalism in 2002?
Did they wait for what Democrats said or for what Republicans said?
No, they did investigative journalism. They didn't treat the public claims as the story. They dug and found stories. That's why their reporting was not "Case Closed: Declare War On Iraq!"
When we attend hearings, we know the scheduled topic. We're not reading press on the hearing the day before. Granted, there's not a great deal of press on most Congressional hearings to begin with but we have better things to do with our time then read about what might happen at a hearing we're about to attend. We're not aware of any psychics in Congress -- of either party -- so we're not really interested in ahead of the hearing 'reporting' about the hearing.
But Landay is. In fact, it's only news to him today if a hearing matches pre-hearing claims made by 'leaders.' That's a funny way to define news.
If Knight-Ridder had defined news that way, they never would have made the impression they did in 2002.
Does Landay grasp that? Does McClatchy?
Does the country get just how far Jonathan S. Landay has fallen?
You can argue McClatchy hasn't fallen at all. It's always been inconsequential as a new source, feeding off of the image it purchased when it swallowed Knight-Ridder.
But as Landay embarrasses himself more and more in public, stammering away so wrong on the facts, he's not just harming his own image, he's also harming McClatchy Newspaper's image.
We're not really fond of the chat and chews to begin with. But if you're going to go on them, you really shouldn't be a reporter. A columnist? Okay. Flaunt your opinions. But a reporter? A reporter should only be on a program to report events or to plug a book. When a reporter thinks, as Landay clearly does, that he's an expert on Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Benghazi and everything else under the sun, he's overestimating himself.
What Landay's done, though, is no different than what many others did before him. The same panelists that Media Whores Online was ridiculing in 2002 and 2003 who were guests on ABC, CBS and NBC's Sunday morning jaw fests? They started out with some promise. They got applauded for some work they did. They were told they were brave and smart. And it fed their egos. They weren't always, for example, the Cokie Roberts of today.
See, that's the real lesson of Jonathan S. Landay: Gasbags are not born, they're self-created.
Media: The destruction of McClatchy will be broadcast, not printed (Iraq)
Jonathan S. Landay (above) made his image as part of a duo with Warren P. Strobel. Like most media myths, their image was questionable. The two really don't like writing together and the two really weren't responsible for all of the pre-Iraq War reporting by Knight-Ridder. There were four reporters doing serious work and they were Landay, Strobel, Margaret Talev and John Walcott. The last two got forgotten and ignored. That's especially surprising with regards to Walcott who was Bureau Chief so often had his hands on pieces even when his byline wasn't present.
But Landay and Strobel were presented as the Donny and Marie of the investigative journalism circuit. Strobel had more experience (both as media and in front of media) and managed to keep his head straight. Landay quickly became Gloria Swanson, forever making a desperate bid for one more close up.
He thought he was close up ready on the second hour of Friday's Diane Rehm Show (NPR).
Jonathan S. Landay: It's pretty sure that there's going to be some kind of a troop presence [in Afghanistan] but it's going to depend on the outcome of these negoations. Uh, the negotiations over this Status of Forces Agreement, one of the major parts of which will determine where the American troops go as well as whether or not the American troops stay there are subject to Afghan or United States military law -- uhm, that is a issue that
Diane Rehm: Big sticking point.
Jonathan S. Landay: Well it's -- it's -- We don't know yet in Afghanistan. We know in Iraq it resulted in the fact that all of the American troops came out. I'm not sure it's going to work in Afghanistan because the situation there is so much more critical. You've got an ongoing insurgency, no political progress at all on an agreement and the Americans would like to keep some kind of a presence there -- not just training presence but a counter-terrorism presence to be able to deal with the remnants of al Qaeda.
Can we get something to cover the lens? Cause what we're seeing is ghastly.
"We know in Iraq it resulted in the fact that all of the American troops came out."
We know that?
This is the guy who's credited with getting Iraq right. So when he gets it wrong, it's especially harmful.
And you can't get more wrong than Landay.
Apparently, having achieved fame, Landay now eschews reading or even following TV news.
All American troops did not leave Iraq at the end of 2011. It was a "drawdown" (Pentagon's term), not "withdrawal." December 12, 2011, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC) about what was really taking place in Iraq. Excerpt.
MR.
KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume
that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may
still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've
got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a
menu of, of who all falls under your control?
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
JSOC is "Joint Special Operations Command." That's the one to zoom in on but it's also true that US military 'trainers' for equipment purchased remain as do military guards for the US Embassy.
Not only does Landay not watch NBC News, he also doesn't read The New York Times. From the April 30th "Iraq snapshot:"
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Yes, September 25, 2012, Tim Arango reported in The New York Times that he had spoken with US General Robert Calsen about the agreement being negotiated (that the Memo of Understanding signed December 6, 2012) to send more US troops into Iraq ("the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training mission") and that "a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Is that confusing for Jonathan S. Landay?
Is he so in love with his own media image that he can't see anything else?
If he can put down the hand mirror long enough, he might try reading the most recent US Congressional Research Service report on Iraq entitled "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." In the report written by Kenneth Katzman, Landay will find the following:
General [Martin] Dempsey's August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports. Regarding U.S.-Iraq security relations, Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems, and border security equipment. [. . .]
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to reengage intensively with the United States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations forces had deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence, presumably against AQ-I. (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or related understanding crafted for this purpose.) Other reports suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary forces have, as of late 2012, largely taken over some of the DOD mission of helping Iraqi counter-terrorismforces (Counter-Terrorism Service, CTS) against AQ-I in western Iraq. Part of the reported CIA mission is to also work against the AQ-I affiliate in Syria, the Al Nusrah Front, discussed above.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during December 5-6 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five year MOU provides for:
* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises
The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put forward, such as joint exercises.
See, we haven't been lying the last year and a half. We've been telling you that all US troops didn't leave. But we're not rushing to pontificate on every subject under the sun (or getting them all wrong) on The Diane Rehm Show.
Landay declared on National Public Radio that all US troops were out of Iraq when not only had all US troops not left Iraq but more had been sent in.
And we are not talking obscure publications. This was NBC News, this was The New York Times.
McClatchy Newspapers has done damn little to be proud of but coasts on the Knight-Ridder reputation. (In 2006, McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder.) Knight-Ridder's reputation is for having been right about Iraq.
So when Landay goes on The Diane Rehm Show and acts the fool in public, he doesn't just embarrass himself, he destroys the only cachet that McClatchy has.
Seriously, they live in fear that a report is done on Iraq.
Not by Landay who didn't go there. But by another outlet wanting to explain how the newspaper chain 'rewarded' their Iraq reporters.
For most of the period that they covered Iraq, their correspondents were stuck in Baghdad. So Sahar Issa, Laith Hammoudi, and many others were the reporters. They were the ones out in the streets. They didn't get bylines for most of that time. (Reuters by contrast tends to list all involved in an Iraq piece with credits, for example, "Reporting by Mustafa Mahmoud and Raheem Salman; Writing by Isabel Coles; Editing by Angus MacSwan.") McClacthy's by lined reporters in, for example, 2007 were largely just people who spoke to US military brass.
Not only did the Iraqis risk their lives to report stories -- and fail to get credit on the bulk of their writing -- but when McClatchy decided to shutter the Baghdad operations, they did so in a way that was cruel and callous to the Iraqis who had given so much. It's not a pretty story.
The Iraqis were paid pennies so the decision to close it down was very surprising to them.
But, again, McClatchy is not Knight-Ridder. Many fools online make the mistake of assuming it is. McClatchy is just another media outlet that tries to get in good with those in power. In fact, Landay's worst moment on The Diane Rehm Show isn't even above. If Landay had acted then as he does now, he'd have no name today. But that's for part one.
Part II is just about how one-half of "The Reporting Team That Got Iraq Right" (Huffington Post) has not just tarnished his own name but that of his employer.
Home Repair 240 miles above the earth
Do you ever wonder if NASA spends tax dollars well? The image above is from Saturday's attempt by two US astronauts to fix an ammonia leak on the International Space Station. Can you make them out?
How about in this screen snap? (All snaps were done Saturday morning as NASA live streamed the effort.)
Now look at this one.
What happened? NASA did a scheduled upgrade in the first hour of the effort. The upgrade makes all the difference in the world. Suddenly the image was crisp and clear.
It matters not just for reviewing the images right now but because of who the feed is intended for.
The NASA Control Room is reviewing these efforts in real time and what they can see makes a huge difference.
Grasp for a moment that there was a leak and astronauts Thomas Marshburn and Christopher Cassidy had to go outside of the station to attempt to locate and repair the leak. There's no Home Depot floating in space that they can stop off at for tools or instructions. They need the control room to know what is going on, exactly what's going on.
And it's not easy. We'll assume that sun spots and the great distance were responsible but the audio? Awful. You can hear what's being said but the delays often reminded us of the early days of I.M.-ing in a chat using a microphone. Remember those days? "I'm sorry, go ahead." That was probably the signature phrase of that period online because you'd be speaking and not know the other person was in the middle of a sentence at the same time due to the delay. It wasn't as bad as that but it certainly reminded us of that.
The NASA scientist handling communications would frequently have to stop such as during, "Hey, guys, also -- Go ahead, Chris."
Or elsewhere when the astronauts weren't sure NASA's Mike had heard them and he informed them, "Stand by. We copy the question. We've got to talk." "Okay," Mashburn replied, "I didn't hear that last part."
While it could be problematic, it also allowed what struck us as a smart remark during a frustrated period. (To be clear, we enjoyed the smart remark.)
Cassidy: Yeah, I trust your life with it, Mike.
Mike: What was that?
Cassidy: I said it's good.
Marshburn quickly added, " That was Chris saying he was feeling good. But I feel good too."
Those are images of the astronauts and they are crisp but can you tell the difference above and in the photo below?
That's much easier to see. What's going on?
You've got more light.
How? In the less clear photos above the sharp one, the station was over the equator. The NASA narrator (not Mike) explained at one points the station was now "over the south Pacific [Ocean] and they wait for it to cross over to California so that they will be in daylight and better able to see." The photo immediately above is from when they were over California.
To give you an example of how quickly the station passes over the earth, in less than 20 minutes, the station went from being over California to being over Minnesota.
NASA's narrator explained that the station was moving at five miles a second.
When they were over California, Chris Cassidy declared, "For what it's worth, Mike, I can definitely tell a difference in temperatures out here than in that night pass."
Being in space and moving so quickly was a danger all by itself. But Marshburn and Cassidy also had to worry about making it to the leak without hitting electronics or hardware as they traveled along the side of the space station.
Why does ammonia matter? The NASA narrator explained that it "is the coolant that provides the proper cooling" for inside the station which carries electronics that put off a great deal of heat.
The space walk did not result in finding it, "P6 trust work site, no smoking guns or signs of drips," they informed NASA. The astronauts replaced a pump hoping that was where the leak was.
There were other problems during the space walk as well.
For example, they tried to grab photos for NASA during the times when they were over the Pacific Coast because the flash was not working properly. Another camera problem they experienced was how quickly the camera burned through batteries.
Again, no Home Depot, no Lowe's up there. Any repairs have to be made with what's available. The space walk isn't your basic home repair in terms of equipment or safety.
---------------------
Note: We wish we knew the last name of "Mike" or the last name of "Jackie." She was the woman in the NASA Control Room the narrator said was over choreography the space walk.
Report on Congress
Dona: Normally, when we gather for hearings, we call this "Congress and Veterans." When we have non-veteran hearings, we still have enough of a focus on the veterans hearings that I'm fine with the title. We're calling this "Report on Congress" because I think we'll end up more on the Benghazi hearing last week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee than we do on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. That's fine. And VA Secretary Eric Shinseki should see that as a gift since the last times we gathered have repeatedly focused on the department he supervises. Last Thursday, there was a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing and C.I. reported on it in the May 9th "Iraq snapshot," Ava reported on it with "Complimentary medicine (Ava)" and Kat reported on it with "VA screws over Camp Lejeune victims." Wednesday the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on Benghazi. C.I. reported on it in the May 8th "Iraq snapshot," and the May 10th snapshot, Ava reported on it with the "Crazies on the Committee (Ava)," Kat with "If today were a movie . . .," Wally with "Biggest Coward at today's Committee hearing" and Ruth with "An order to stand down." Kat, can I get you to do a set-up for Wednesday's hearing? Just the basics of who was there and the topic, barebones.
Kat: Sure. September 11, 2001, the US was attacked. Eleven years later, September 11, 2012, a US mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. The attack left dozens of Americans injured and left four Americans dead: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Ambassador Chris Stevens and Tyrone Woods. Why they died is a question that remains out there. No one at the State Dept has suffered any punishment and the ones who carried out the attacks have not been brought to justice. The Committee Chair is Darrell Issa, Ranking Member is Elijah Cummings. The witnesses appearing before the Committee on Wednesday were the State Dept's Mark Thompson, title Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, Gregory Hicks, title Foreign Service Officer and Eric Nordstrom, title Diplomatic Security Officer. The focus of the hearing was the attack and the responses.
C.I.: Can I just add Ruth's "Bob Somerby floats in his own toilet"? I think that needs to be included in terms of reporting on the hearing.
Dona: I have no problem with that. Ruth, can you set it up for us and we'll move there first?
Ruth: In that post, I was writing about how Bob Somerby did not attend the hearings, did not know what was said and was again lecturing the world about how he interprets U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice's ridiculous remarks on the Sunday shows in September where she 'explained' Benghazi for the American people. I said he did not know what he was talking about and how typical that he whines that Rice is not being given enough space, months after, in the coverage today. I am not sure what C.I. is getting at but that hearing lasted over four and a half hours. I am not counting breaks, like there was a ten to fifteen minute break. But the hearing was very lengthy.
Dona: C.I.?
C.I.: That hearing was a monster. A number of us had pointed out that Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, was called "The Fact Checker" in the hearing. Democrats on the Committee repeatedly cited his work, never using his name, and cited him as an expert. They used him as an expert to clobber Chair Darrell Issa. And I want to toss to Wally.
Wally: Sure. Elijah Cummings, Carolyn Maloney and John Tierney were the ones we mainly focused on with that. Now not only did they cite Kessler's work without ever naming him, they distorted his work. Tierney did so the worst. He lied that Issa was called "The Whopper." No. Kessler wrote "the language qualifies as a whopper." I will argue right now that Tierney lied intentionally. And I've reviewed C.I.'s notes of the hearing. Tiereny starts out using "a whopper" and quickly begins saying "The Whopper" and using the term to refer to Issa. He deliberately misled. That was one outright lie. The other lie from the three was setting Kessler up as the expert on who lies and who doesn't and then rushing from Kessler's fact check of Issa immediately to Susan Rice and how they feels she was treated poorly. They never once noted that Kessler had fact checked Rice and found her Sunday presentations back in September to be dishonest -- 2 Pinocchios. If Glenn Kessler -- and, yes, he has a name -- is an expert to be praised the way the three did then they need to note what he said about Susan Rice.
Dona: Okay. That's fine and certainly Susan Rice going on five different networks one Sunday to mislead the American people is dishonest. And she did mislead -- did so knowingly we can make that assertion now because the timeline of the e-mails and her participation in them -- the ones that came out Friday -- demonstrate she was in the loop as changes were made, so she was aware of the earlier assertions that the State Department be dropped. She lied, she's a liar. I have no problem with that. Now let's move on --
C.I.: Sorry. We're not moving on. Susan Rice isn't my obsession. I mentioned her in my coverage only in terms of what Wally was speaking of, Glenn Kessler. I have other concerns and it was a big hearing. But now that Somerby's again wasting everyone's time, let's address Susan Rice because I don't believe the press coverage did. For example, those lies that there was a protest, a YouTube video sparked and all the rest of the garbage? It did, according to Gregory Hicks, "immeasurable damage." US House Rep Trey Gowdy raised this issue later in the hearing. He wanted Hicks to be clear. Hicks was saying that Rice's media appearances hurt and prevented the FBI from getting to Benghazi in a timely manner and Hicks responded, "That is my belief." Further, he declared:
The FBI team was delayed, the Libyan government could not secure the compound, it was visited by numerous people one of the items that was taken form the compound was Chris' diary which through the extraordinary efforts of David McFarland we were able to retrieve and return back to the Department There were other documents that were published that another journalist managed to acquire while visiting the compound so it made achieving the objective of getting the FBI to Benghazi very, very difficult. The ability of them to achieve their mission more difficult.
C.I. (Con't): I don't know how much more clear a person can be. What happened? The Prime Minister of Libya declared that it was a terrorist attack, no protests. Then Rice goes on TV five times and says otherwise. The prime minister felt disrespected. He made that clear. He continued to make that clear. Weeks and weeks later, when he visited the US, he was at the UN, he made it clear that he was still offended. This offense resulted in delays. This offense, according to Hicks, resulted in the prime minister being offended and that resulted in the FBI not being given permission for several days to visit the crime scene in Benghazi. So let's drop this idea that Susan Rice's remarks were inconsequential. They were an attempt to mislead the American people. As Dona notes, we now know Rice was being cc-ed in the e-mails during the discussion of the creation of the talking points, so she was aware what was being removed. She went on TV lying and there's no excuse for that. Following orders doesn't excuse that. You don't lie to the American people. I can't believe Bob Somerby bored the world yet again with another 'poor Susan Rice' post. I was fine with moving to other topics, there were many other topics in the hearing. But Somerby wasn't at the hearing and continues to make it all about Susan Rice. Well in the hearing we heard that the lies she told personally insulted the leader of another country, Prime Minister Ali Zeidan.
Dona: Okay, thank you. I read all the coverage I could on this after I read the reports that you all did because I knew we were going to have address Benghazi here. I never once read anything talking about Susan Rice's presentation impacting or pissing off the Libyan prime minister. And, honestly, that's why we do these pieces here. To review the hearings, for our readers to hear from people at the hearings about what happened. As Ruth pointed out, it was a long hearing, so with this one especially there is probably too much for any outlet to have covered all aspects of. We keep talking about the hearing and also bringing in the e-mails. Wally, you wanted to talk about the e-mails so let's grab that real quick. Friday morning, ABC News' Jonathan Karl reported on the e-mails, on how the State Department via Victoria Nuland requested changes in the talking points that the intelligence community created. Nuland wanted --and got -- deletions because she felt otherwise Congress -- and the American people -- were being provided with information that could be used against the State Dept. Wally, I'm not sure that sets you up for what you wanted to note about the e-mails but there you go.
Wally: No, that's fine. I want to make two brief observations. The media is being very scared here. I'm not talking about what they're noting from the e-mails. I'm talking about defensive about the e-mails. I'm referring to the crackdown on whistle-blowers that has taken place in this administration -- Bradley Manning being just the most famous example -- and the chilling effect that this attack and the attack by the US government on WikiLeaks is having on the media. Looking at the reports that emerged on Friday, I read -- and maybe it's just me -- a subtext of fear. No one wants the government coming after it the way it has gone after WikiLeaks. Second, I'm quoting, "Nothing would thrill me more than to release this e-mail and it's not classified, we all had access to it, all you had to do was go downstairs to the basement and look through it So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be as full throated in calling for the State Department to release this evidence as they are when they're unhappy with us." That was Gowdy in the hearing.
Dona: Jumping in. I see what Wally's saying. Let me note that on Saturday, the White House attempted a spin that quickly petered out but it was in the news cycle briefly where they were dismissing the hearing and the e-mails by saying Republicans had the e-mails since February. As if that means that May's questions are nullified.
Wally: Right. Thank you. They have had the e-mails. And they have repeatedly called for them to be released. There's a major e-mail that hasn't been leaked yet. But this was a topic of the hearing itself, how the e-mails needed to be released. When Jason Chaffetz declared that all the documents should be released and that it was wrong "to deny the public or the media these documents." When he said that, Elijah Cummings interrupted him to say, "I agree." The e-mails were leaked to the press, presumably by a Republican House member or staffer. But they never should have been kept from the press or the public to begin with. They are not classified. For the White House to spin on Saturday that it didn't matter because the e-mails had been in possession of the Congress since February and only now was it an issue, the White House has repeatedly refused to make them public. The Committee addressed that. Elijah Cummings is the ranking member so he spoke on behalf of the Democrats and he agreed on Wednesday that it needed to be released.
Dona: Alright. Good points. Kat, you all got together to see if you could make a list of Democrats on the Committee who didn't embarrass themselves Wednesday. You came up with a list -- a short one -- but a list. Tell me who they were.
Kat: First off US House Rep Robin Kelly. We all agreed on her but no one knew her name. We'd never seen her before. C.I. called a friend on the Committee to find out who she was. She is the woman who just won the special election last month to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat after he retired due to his criminal problems. Robin Kelly is new to the Committee but we wanted to point out that she did a great job using her time. She was respectful to all. We applaud her. We also applaud US House Rep Tammy Duckworth who was just amazing. And, lastly, US House Rep Stephen Lynch. They were the top three. There were other contenders but in the end, as we discussed them, they tended to flame out.
Dona: Ava and C.I. both noted in their day-of reporting that US House Rep Carolyn Maloney was strange at the hearing, so strange that a woman in front of them could be heard asking of Maloney, "Is she drunk?" Kat, what were the Democrats biggest crimes here, what were they doing wrong?
Kat: You had three whistle-blowers before you. So if you used your time, as US House Rep Steve Horsford did, not to ask a question but instead to read from a prepared speech in front of you, we think you wasted everyone's time. Let me be clear, my butt was aching. It was not comfortable sitting in a chair all those hours. I'm used to two and two and a half hour hearings. This was double that. So if you took up time in the hearing and you weren't asking questions, you were wasting everyone's time and you were the pain in my ass. Maloney was rude to the witnesses, never acknowledged the families of the four fallen -- and families members of the fallen were attending the hearing. She was awful, she was combative. She wasn't interested in the facts or in finding more facts. She used her time during the entire first round to launch a pre-emptive defense of Hillary Clinton -- which pissed off the families. I heard that afterwards. That's why I wrote what I wrote about the hearing, about it being like Chinatown. The ending of that film. You had these grieving family members wanting answers and you had people like Maloney not even acknowledging their presence, not even saying the names of the four who died, but wasting everyone's time as if she's Hillary Clinton's bruiser boyfriend and nobody better say a word about Maloney's steady.
Dona: Ava, you and C.I. have been at a lot of the Benghazi hearings. Not all, as you point out in your media pieces this week. ["Media: The Destruction of McClatchy will be broadcast (it all hits the fan)" and "Media: The destruction of McClatchy will be broadcast (Iraq)"] The idiotic Jonathan S. Landay claimed he'd been at all of them and he hadn't and you two point out a hearing you attended, for example, that he wasn't present at. Landay missed several points and we can talk about that but to pick up on the issue of naming the four.
Ava: Sure. It wasn't just Chris Stevens who died on September 11, 2012. And saying "Chris Stevens and three others" is insulting. I can remember on Comedy Central clips where stand ups are riffing on Gilligan's Island and how, in the early seasons, the Professor and Mary Ann are left out of the lyrics, reduced to "and the rest." If that's worth noting about fictional characters, you better believe it matters in terms of actual people who were killed in a terrorist attack. It does not put anyone out to mention all four. The day before these hearings, there was a nomination hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We weren't at this hearing --
Dona: In your media pieces for this edition, this is the hearing you point to as an example of how you two haven't attended every hearing?
Ava: Right. And we were asked after that hearing was over -- we weren't there, we were at another hearing -- if we could take the time to note that Senator Robert Menendez, Chair of the Committee, did note all four by name. Did make a point to be sure that all four were recognized. We said we'd work it in somehow but we didn't know where or when. So here it is now. Good for New Jersey's Junior Senator. I have other things to talk about but I am making a point to register that. I will make a point to say how sad that I have to note it. Good for Menendez but bad for the Democratic Party that they won't acknowledge the four by name. You mentioned Landay, McClatchy Newspapers' idiot gas bag. He was on NPR Friday talking about the hearing and swearing there was nothing new there and there was nothing to report. We've already talked about how Friday's e-mail stories came about as a result of the conversations about e-mails at the hearing. We've talked about how the Committee was informed that Susan Rice's media appearances harmed the investigation and did damage to US relations with Libya. Landay didn't mention those topics nor did he cover the points raised in Ruth's Wednesday night report and I'm tossing to Ruth.
Ruth: Thank you. The stand down order. There was a Lt. Col. Gibson -- whose first name was never mentioned in the hearings. Testimony was that this person over Special Operations Command Africa was in Tripoli, Libya with a team of special forces and that they were getting ready to fly to Benghazi when they were ordered to stand down. Mr. Hicks testified that they were not happy about that, the ones who were ordered to stand down. They were upset and in disbelief that Americans were being attacked elsewhere in the country and that they were US special forces and were not being allowed to travel to Benghazi to help Americans in the midst of an ongoing attack. You can refer to my report for the exchanges on this, I have several excerpts from the hearing. But this is shocking. I heard the NPR conversation or what ever you want to call it that Jonathan S. Landay participated in. He was an uninformed idiot. My only surprise was that Ava and C.I. did not pick him apart on how he lied about what the media was reporting in terms of the e-mails.
Ava: We wanted to, Ruth, but to be honest, we could not stand listening to his voice. C.I. wrote down the section you are talking about and did so from memory. But she said she might have left out "and" or "the" in it. We were not in the mood to listen to him and check it so we left it out. If the show had provided a transcript, which they still have not, we would have checked it against that. We do quote him at length in both pieces as it is and we did go back and check our transcript of those remarks against the audio. He said a great deal, as you know, and we cannot cover everything he said. A transcript should have gone up Friday but will, we are told, be up Monday. If that is the case, we will return to the topic next week but, again, we could not take his lies. That he lied about Iraq was the most outrageous. On outrageous, Dona, you were asking about embarrassments. I am not big on prissy when it comes to Congress. So US House Rep. Gerry Connolly's always a joke. But he was a bigger joke than usual. At one point, he tore into Hicks for saying that Patrick Kennedy wasn't invited to speak to the ARB -- the Accountability Review Board on Benghazi. I didn't remember that taking place. Hicks apologized if he'd stated that but said he didn't think he had. I checked my notes and I checked C.I.'s notes -- C.I.'s notes are basically a full transcript. No, Hicks didn't say it. So Gerry Connelley in his deranged prissy state attacked a witness for saying something that the witness hadn't stated. Gerry Connelly's a joke. He looks like a white rat, just to give a visual. And when he opens his mouth and starts talking his priss, you really wish he'd just see himself in the mirror for once and how ridiculous he looks.
Dona: Ava, you mentioned the ABR -- and I know this has gone on way longer than we'd planned -- but you mentioned the ABR and one of the authors of that was Thomas Pickering. Pickering got media traction last week with a claim and Media Matters is now pimping him as 'shut out' of the hearing. I wanted you to address that claim.
Ava: I certainly will but can I toss back to Ruth? Ruth, you were talking about the Lt. Col. Gibson and how he was told to stand down. Hicks was asked about that, could you please note what Hicks said.
Ruth: Sure. I believe you are talking about why and who ordered the stand down. Correct?
Ava: Yes.
Ruth: Mr. Hicks was asked that by US House Rep. Ron DeSantis from Florida. And Mr. Hicks responded, "I think the right person to pose that question to is Lt. Col. Gibson."
Ava: Exactly. Pickering did not contact the Committee, he contacted the White House to state he wanted to testify. Why? Why would you do that? The White House doesn't choose the Committee's witnesses. What a bunch of nonsense, what a media stunt. But as Ruth's quote notes, this isn't the last hearing. Democrats on the Committee even agreed with that on the hearing when they referred to statements made by, for example, General Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or NIA Director James Clapper. There was a feeling, expressed repeatedly, that they might need to bring those witnesses and others back before the Committee. Pickering himself? It's been stated the Committee would be happy to schedule a hearing to take testimony from him. This was a whistle-blower hearing. As Kat's pointed out, it was the longest hearing we can remember. Had Pickering been there with just two rounds of questioning, not only would the Committee have missed votes, but we would have been there for seven hours. I don't know that the press would stomach that. As it was the hearing was far too long to provide easy coverage of it. We've been talking forever, it seems, and there's still so much from that hearing that we haven't touched on.
Dona: We have been going on forever. C.I. help me out, I've got about twenty other topics on my list. Obviously, we can't do them all. What should I keep?
C.I.: I'd like to discuss what I noted about Landay and the NPR discussion. I think that Cheryl Mills certainly has to be discussed. The other topics? They're important but we've covered a large number of topics already. That's me. Others can disagree.
Dona: That's fine. And if you do disagree, you can include it in your response. I want move to Cheryl Mills and toss to Kat, Wally and Ruth for this. Who is Cheryl Mills?
Kat: Cheryl Mills is a Clintonista from the 90s. Hillary brought Mills over from her 2008 presidential campaign into the State Department where Mills was both Counselor and Chief of Staff to Hillary. She also led the State Dept.'s prepping of anyone who spoke about Benghazi, to the ARB or anywhere else. Cheryl Mills was the gatekeeper, Cheryl Mills was the enforcer. Ruth?
Ruth: Ms. Mills gave an order after the attacks. US House Rep. Jason Chaffetz was the first member of Congress to visit Benghazi after the attacks. Ms. Mills gave the order to Gregory Hicks that no one was to speak one-on-one to Mr. Chaffetz. The State Department had sent an attorney, in a different plane, following Chaffetz and the attorney would be present for any and all conversations that the diplomatic employees would have with Chaffetz. This was considered odd to the Committee because they always have one-on-ones with the person in charge -- Mr. Hicks was in charge of Benghazi after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, Mr. Hicks had been second in command. It is considered a courtesy and a show of respect for Congress, as Chair Issa, among others, pointed out. This move was unheard of. They referred to the attorney as "the minder" and "the babysitter" in the hearing. Mr. Hicks did speak with Mr. Chaffetz alone. This resulted in an immediate call from Cheryl Mills who must have been informed immediately by "the minder" of what was taking place. Kat or Wally?
Kat: I'll grab, Wally's pointing to me. Mills wanted to know what was said. Hold on a second. Okay, this is Hicks testifying, "She asked for a report on the visit which I provided. The tone of her voice was unhappy, as I recall it, but I faithfully reported how the visit transpired. I described the content of the briefing." It was noted that such a call was akin to hearing from Secretary Clinton herself.
Dona: And what was the reason given in defense of Mill's edict?
Wally: Democrats on the Committee testified for Mills. I didn't realize that was their role, but okay. They stated that Mills made the edict because she had heard that some of the staff was uncomfortable about the thought of talking to Jason Chaffetz. Apparently they thought he might trip them up with math or science questions, who knows. So that's why Cheryl Mills issued the edict. Do you buy that, because I don't? If that were the case, what you do is you say, "If you're not comfortable, only speak to him with the attorney I'm sending present." You don't declare no one can talk to him alone. So it's another lie from another lie. I mean, come on. There's an e-mail she wrote that the Committee wants released to the public, I think it should be. Doug Collins noted, in a discussion on Mills, that his constituents in Georgia are looking for the truth. I think that's what most of us are looking for. I don't think there can be many more hearings like this though. Briefly, I think there's need to be a single committee. As it is, some of the reporters were having hissy fits about Lindsey Graham and what he had said and making that their report on the Committee. This was a House Committee, Graham doesn't even serve in the House, he's a senator.
Dona: Okay. Last topic, I believe. On The Diane Rehm Show last Friday, Jonathan S. Landay disgraced himself by insisting there was nothing to discuss, nothing new. Ava and C.I. demolish the liar in their pieces this week -- they've got two media pieces -- but they couldn't cover it all. C.I. wants to address an offensive moment on The Diane Rehm Show. Diane's to blame?
C.I.: Yes, she is because she has allowed this topic to come up before. She's never called it out. Just to back up, Landay was bragging about attending the hearing Wednesday and presenting himself as an expert on Benghazi. Four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. I am getting real tired -- and pretty pissed -- at them being blamed for their own deaths. Diane took a caller that she shouldn't have taken who wanted to float -- and she's allowed this before on her show -- that it is Chris Stevens' fault that he is dead. Chris Stevens should not have gone to Benghazi and he should not have stayed overnight, the caller insisted. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing that people killed by terrorists are to blame for their own deaths.
Dona: Let me stop you to repeat what we're talking about. People are saying Chris Stevens was killed because of his own fault. The US Ambassador to Libya died because of his own fault -- presumably they assume that he was being 'reckless.'
C.I.: Right. Anne Gearan wasn't in the hearing. Karen DeYoung was covering the hearing for The Washington Post. But Gearan was on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show with Jonathan S. Landay. She didn't present herself as an expert. But when this offensive nonsense was raised -- and treated as a serious topic -- Anne did point out that Chris Stevens stayed overnight because he had a meeting in Benghazi the following morning. It was also noted that others had stayed over with no problems. So give her credit for pushing back on that slander. This is Hicks from Wednesday's hearing, "At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the Secretary's wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and also there because we understood that the Secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year. We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people the establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time." He was being questioned by US House Rep Doug Collins. Hicks declared, "Chris told me that in his exit interview with the Secretary after he was sworn in, the Secretary said we need to make Benghazi a permanent post and Chris said 'I'll make it happen'." That alone is one reason he was there. More importantly, the US government signed off on Chris Stevens being there and did so weeks before. I'm quoting Hicks in the hearing, "Washington was fully informed that the ambassador was going to Benghazi, we informed them August 22nd or there abouts." While a person killed by terrorists was being smeared as responsible for his own death, Jonathan S. Landay noted none of this. The self-proclaimed 'expert' on Wednesday's hearing did not note this, did not reject the idea that Chris Stevens caused his own death. Landay's an idiot.
Dona: Okay. And on the topic list was that Hillary called Hicks at two in the morning during the attacks. I was hoping to do a little riff on that. 'She asked in 2008 who would be ready to take the three a.m. call when maybe she should have worried how she'd handle placing a two a.m. call.' We had a number of other topics. In addition to following the press on this, I read over Ava and C.I.'s notes. US House Rep Jason Chaffetz made a point of remarking on Hillary's January testimony that Hillary made a point of telling the House that Hicks was responsible, Hicks and the people on the ground in Libya, He summed it up as her saying, "It wasn't us it was them." And he noted how laughable that was to say when you're also insisting, "I take full responsibility -- but it was them that made the decisions." This has been a rush transcript and we did not get to veterans issues. We didn't even get all of our topics on this. I think we did establish that the hearing was intense and covered a huge number of topics. Our new e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.
Ava and C.I. show but do they tell (Jim)
Jim: Okay, a transcript piece. What makes this one different? I'll tell you in just a minute. Remember our new e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. We're going to plug that change for two more weeks. Okay this is a small discussion group. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava, and me as moderator, and C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review. Readers have loved Ava and C.I. from the beginning. Just briefly, most of the features hear are written by a group. We do community writing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In January 2005, this online magazine started. Our first weekly edition included TV and only because I insisted that college students -- which I was then and which was our target audience then -- always have the TV on. Either watching front and center or background noise. You couldn't not cover TV. It's eight years later and our TV and media coverage is what we're known for. It's always the most read pieces. And guess who was against that back during that first Sunday in Janaury 2005? Ava and C.I. And yet now they write all these pieces -- just them. What happened there was the readers, in the e-mails, were strongly agreeing or strongly disagreeing with the input that Ava and C.I. offered. Their points and their writing stood out. This was clear before the month ended. So Dona, Jess, Ty and I said, "You two need to write these alone. We're holding you back." And we were. Because they immediately exploded. Only people didn't know it was them. And we started hearing from relatives telling us how much they loved X in this TV piece or that. And we were happy about that and would say thank you but then add, "Ava and C.I. wrote that." It was happening in e-mails too. So about six weeks after they were writing them by themselves we got them to agree to let us note that here. TV and media is them. We offered a byline but they felt that was against the whole nature of the project. It's hilarious to think that they excel, that's they're huge online, because they are writing about a topic that they didn't want to write about.
Ava: And that you twisted our arms to get included. Yes, I think we got the point. I think everyone did. Praise be Jim.
Jim: Let me note that we're all laughing. Every week, tons of e-mails come in on their commentaries and about their commentaries. They don't see it unless Ty's taking a break from the e-mails. If he's taking a break, they work the e-mails to give him time off. But there are all these questions -- personal ones, topical ones -- that readers always want answered. Now both of them have sat with Mike for an interview --
Ava: I think Mike interviewed us both over the phone.
Jim: Okay. But they've allowed Mike to interview them but that's it. C.I. will do interviews as herself but not as "C.I." And Ava and C.I. turn down all interview requests which used to piss me off because I would say, "If you went on ____ radio program, this site would explode." They said the site would grow to the level it needed to be -- which is either very Zen or very lazy. But they've turned down interviews over and over and that includes my requests.
Ava: Let me note that we are the ones transcribing this. It's a roundtable piece but we're transcribing -- C.I. and I. And I bring that up because I'm rocking my little girl to sleep and about to hand her off to her daddy, Jess, and then I'll be able to help C.I. But that's why I'm jumping in. C.I. can't speak and transcribe all this. So let me clarify that we did Mike's because it was Mike and because it allowed us to talk about issues. We're not trying to be mean to the press and we're fine with Ty giving a statement for us. But we feel we have our outlet here and say what we need to hear. We also don't feel we need to become media gasbags and, though you didn't grasp it, that will be what this discussion is about. I'm handing off to Jess. Give me a second to grab a pad and paper before you speak, Jim.
Jim: Okay. I can go now? Okay. One of the big topics in the e-mails in the last ten or so days has been media critic Howard Kurtz. He hosts the CNN program Reliable Sources. He's on an internet program as well. He used to be a media critic at The Washington Post and then he moved over to The Daily Beast. When NBA player Jason Collins came out, Kurtz wrote a piece that was wrong about what Collins had said. The Daily Beast pulled the piece and announced Kurtz was no longer with them leading to coverage that he was fired. Kurtz states that it had been an ill fit for some time and that the day he left was a planned event, that there was a meeting that had been scheduled in advance to talk about his leaving. He wasn't happy, he says, and they weren't happy. He was also criticized for using Twitter to issue a correction on the Collins story and for doing so in what some regarded as a light handed manner. C.I., your thoughts?
C.I.: On what?
Jim: Howard Kurtz's dismissal.
C.I.: I'm not friends with Howard, I do know him. I know his work at The Post. I don't know his work at The Daily Beast. When he moved, I was trying to follow him to include him in snapshots -- as a favor to Tina [Brown]. I couldn't find him. They needed to create a special folder, a Kurtz page. If he didn't make the front page -- or didn't make it obviously -- you had to search and the search engine wasn't adequate. So I can't speak to Kurtz's work for The Daily Beast because I missed 99% of it. Any time I was asked to highlight him at The Common Ills I did so you can see what stories of his I read by searching that. But I'm not qualified to speak to his output at The Daily Beast. Again, I don't know him intimately, but I would say overall he's been a forthcoming person. If he says there was a meeting planned, I'd have some reason to believe it. I'm also aware that it can be embarrassing to be fired so a person might fudge that or lie outright. Anyone.
Jim: So you're saying you don't think he'd lie but he could have lied?
C.I.: I'm saying you've asked me a question beyond an area that I'm able to speak to so I can't answer your question.
Jim: Okay. Next question, for Ava, It emerged last week that the IRS was targeting the Tea Party and other conservative activists groups with regards to the 501 tax status. And then on Saturday, it turned out that despite the IRS saying it had taken place last year, it has actually started, according to the AP, it had actually also gone on in 2011. So what's your take on this issue and that was asked for by reader Blythe.
Ava: Well, hello, Blythe, thank you for asking my opinion. I'm sorry I have none to give you. I could spit back out what Jim just said but in different language. That's about it. I haven't followed this topic. Last week, we spoke to 14 -- 15? -- groups about the wars and about veterans issues. Because we speak on those issues, I can talk about developments on those issues because we stay up to date -- or try -- meaning we're reading about Iraq, Afghanistan, The Drone War, the aftermath in Libya, you name it. That's where my reading time's going. In addition, we attended four Congressional hearings -- two of which we reported on -- and we also tried to figure out what we could cover this week for the media. This is when networks make their last decisions. So no one wants us to cover their show. Not this week. Not last week. We get people asking for us to cover their entertainment programs all the time -- either people with the show or with the networks -- but not during this period. So we knew we'd be covering news programming. And we spent the week discussing that. C.I. wrote "Lt Kelly McEvers enlists in The Drone War" on Friday and only did so after we both agreed that we had something else we could cover here, that we didn't need to save that for Third. As it turns out, later Friday morning, it turned out we had something else to cover that was more important than what we thought. But we had to listen to a lot of programming last week and watch a lot of TV news programming to figure out what to cover. I believe the story Blythe's asking about broke on Friday. Friday, the only new development I was following was Benghazi.
Jim: So you have no answer to the question?
Ava: That's what I said.
Jim: I'm a little lost.
Ava: Well, as I told you before you didn't grasp why we agreed to this. I'll let C.I. wrap up.
C.I.: In our pieces this week -- we have two media pieces -- we're talking about someone destroying their reputation by becoming a gas bag. Jonathan S. Landy was admired for his pre-Iraq War reporting. He's taken that to mean he's an expert on every topic. He's not. He flat out lied on radio or showed extreme stupidity on Friday's second hour of The Diane Rehm Show when he declared all US troops are out of Iraq. Not only is that not true, the opposite true. US troops remained in Iraq and now Barack has sent more in. We've covered this over and over until we're blue in the face. I'm quoting from the US Congressional Research Service report by Kenneth Katzman from last month entitled "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights:"
General [Martin] Dempsey's August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports. Regarding U.S.-Iraq security relations, Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems, and border security equipment. [. . .]
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to reengage intensively with the United States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations forces had deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence, presumably against AQ-I. (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or related understanding crafted for this purpose.) Other reports suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary forces have, as of late 2012, largely taken over some of the DOD mission of helping Iraqi counter-terrorismf orces (Counter-Terrorism Service, CTS) against AQ-I in western Iraq. Part of the reported CIA mission is to also work against the AQ-I affiliate in SYria, the Al Nusrah Front, discussed above.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during December 5-6 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five year MOU provides for:
* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises
The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put forward, such as joint exercises.
C.I. (Con't): It was never just The Third Estate Sunday Review or just The Common Ills saying this what was happening. So for Jonathan S. Landy to go on NPR Friday and declare that all US troops were out of Iraq? That's outrageous and it goes to the fact that he's not qualified to speak on everything.
Jim: Okay, I'm feeling sucker punched and set up. But Ty gave me a print out of your April 30th Iraq snapshot and highlighted a section to work into the discussion:
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Jim (Con't): I get now why that was.
Ava: We've talked before about The Power of No. Sometimes it's the only power you have. Along with "no," there's a phrase that's very helpful: "I don't know." What our goal was with this, C.I. and mine, was to answer any issue you asked about that we weren't up to date on by noting that and noting that we weren't qualified to comment. You'll note I'm still breathing. So is C.I. Admitting that we don't know everything did not kill us. If you're going to be a media guest, it's especially important that you learn the phrase "I don't know." Otherwise, you're not a guest, you're a gas bag, like Jonathan Landay. And, like him, you will quickly embarrass yourself by speaking on topics you are not qualified for. Readers get upset, and we understand that, that in many of the roundtables we don't speak. First, we're usually tired from the week before. And I've already told Jess that the weeks he's taking off, he's staying in DC at C.I.'s house. I'm mainly flying back here every weekend because I've got our baby on the road and I don't want Jess not to be able to see her. But we're usually tired. We've usually already written our media piece. We just want the thing to be over so we can go to sleep. And also, a lot of times, we don't have anything to say. Either the topic is one we're not familiar with or we're thinking, "Wow Betty, Stan, Mike, Elaine, Rebecca, Ruth, Cedric, Ann, Wally, Dona, Ty, Jess, Trina, Kat or Isaiah really said that better than we could." And now I'm tossing to C.I.
C.I.: It's really not necessary for us to weigh in on everything. That's actually true of everyone.
Jim: Before you go on, can you give me a program you watched or listened to that you ended up not covering.
C.I.: Sure. Doug Henwood's Behind The News. It was idiotic and then some. Doug was all thrilled to have on a lefty who could explain how the right thinks. The lefty had never been right but Doug just knew it was wonderful. It was lousy radio and it was lousy information. It was a man who defines "the other." Which on the left we call out repeatedly until we do it to the right and then it's okay. If you want to understand the right, as Doug insisted he did and that we on the left needed to, then you talk to the right. They are not an exotic and rare breed. They are people so stop making them the other. And it's not necessary to weigh in on everything, I was saying. Tying it to that program -- I think you're upset we tanked your discussion -- Tying it into that Doug Henwood broadcast, Doug started going on about how, on the right, you have reactionaries. On the right? Yeah and on the left and in the center. But Doug couldn't make that point, he just insisted they were on the right. As a general rule a media gas bag is the most reactionary creature on the face of the planet regardless of where they lean politically
Jim: Okay. Thank you for the Behind The News critique. I'll claim that as a victory even though you hijacked my planned discussion using it instead to make a point -- instead of providing a discussion -- and you certainly worked your Iraq issues in, no surprise there. We'll close with this is a rush transcript and Ava and C.I. do not type these features up, that was a question Ty kept getting. He was also asked why Ava and C.I. are the only ones who transcribe? Ava and C.I. can transcribe. The rest of us would be saying, "Okay, could you hold on?" In extreme cases, we record. But that's a hassle and a half to stop the recording, type up five or seven words, play, stop, type up five or seven words. It takes forever. For our readers, I had planned to squeeze in 15 of the topics you were asking about. My apologies to you, I tried.