Posted on 02/04/2005 11:10:20 AM PST by hipaatwo
CNN was scrambling to contact Davos blogger Rony Abovitz the moment he got off his airplane from Switzerland. Now we know why. Hugh Hewitt has had an email exchange with Abovitz that blows the lid off the story. There can be little doubt that Eason Jordan, the head news guy at CNN, did accuse American soldiers of deliberately murdering journalists in Iraq. Here are portions of the email exchange, as reported by Hugh:
HH: Can you describe the makeup of the crowd?
RA: At least one U.S. Senator (Dodd), journalists from the major media (Fortune, Wall Street Journal), a number of dignitaries and journalists from Middle Eastern countries, scientists, professors, corporate CEO's and senior executives....it was a a good mix of the powerful and influential people who essentially run the world.
HH: Was the session videotaped?
RA: I saw a cameraman operating a camera throughout the session filming everything. Unless he was just there going through the motions, it was taped.
HH: Did Mr. Jordan make his "targeted" remark in response to a comment by Congressman Frank?
RA: I believe that Congressman Frank was dragged into all of this after the fact. Mr. Jordan gave us all a monologue that evolved from his personal experiences in Iraq about this idea of U.S. soldiers targeting U.S. and foreign journalists. I first challenged Mr. Jordan, and then moderator David Gergen (of Harvard's JFK School of Government) brought Frank in as a member of the U.S. government to respond to claims that shocked all of us. I remember Gergen in particular being flabbergasted and disturbed to a very high degree by Mr. Jordan's statements. Congressman Frank told the audience that his briefings indicated that all the journalists killed to date in Iraq were due to "collateral damage". Jordan disagreed, and gave us an example of U.S. soldiers deliberately shelling a hotel in Iraq which was known to all as a haven for journalists covering both sides of the war. Congressman Frank was pretty much a bystander being dragged into all of it.
HH: Can you recall the reaction of the audience to the initial Jordan statement concerning "targeting?"
RA: Some members of the audience were shocked and in disbelief. Others supported Mr. Jordan's statements and seemed visibly impressed that Mr. Jordan had the courage to say such things to a world audience. One thing I will never forget: Arab journalists coming up to Mr. Jordan at the end of the session and praising his sheer bravery for standing up to the U.S. military in such a public way. I will also never forget the absolute look of horror on Professor Gergen's face, the disbelief that the U.S. military would ever do such things. Gergen went on to describe that in his own experience, the U.S. military were always the "good guys", rescuing journalists, never deliberately targeting them for death. Gergen also felt obligated to basically halt the debate at some point because the Pentagon and U.S. military were not represented at the session, and therefore no balanced discussion could be had (Congressman Frank is probably not a good proxy for the Pentagon). Another observation: those of us from the U.S. in the crowd were by and large disturbed, but it seemed that those from Europe or the Middle East were in large agreement with Mr. Jordan, as if he was confirming what they already new and believed. The divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world seemed large. I do want to note that the topic seemed to be an emotional one for Mr. Jordan, and I believe that he has had friends and co-workers who were journalists killed in Iraq. He seemed so moved and passionate about the subject that it only compounded the level of uncertainty and severity about what was being discussed. A number of people in the audience, including Senator Dodd, came up to me and thanked me for directly challenging what was a serious charge against the U.S. military. I wonder why Senator Dodd didn't take Mr. Jordan on himself right then and there. A lot of us were disturbed by the possibility of Mr. Jordan's statements being true, and at the same time equally disturbed by the lack of hard data, or any data, to back up what he said.
The contrast of what he was saying before and after he realized what he was saying was pretty incredible. His media savvy, professional executive brain did kick in, but not soon enough. The content and context of what he said would allow groups with an anti-American bias to take what he said and believe that the American military forces had targeted for assasination journalists. For someone with a pro-U.S. posture, you were left confused and in disbelief. It was easy and even credible to believe (in the WEF setting, post Abu Ghraib Prison scandal) that the U.S. military was capable of doing anything. A good answer to this question can come from someone like Afghan foreign minister, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, who also shared the stage with Mr. Jordan. I would also encourage you to get responses to this question from a wide spectrum of Arab journalists. Understanding how they understood Mr. Jordan's message could be helpful.
Jordan appears to be more or less in hiding. Where is the videotape?
What this story shows, I think, is how badly the left-wing media have damaged the United States with their incessant accusations and over-the-top coverage of stories like Abu Ghraib.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, a female Italian journalist has been kidnapped by a gang of gunmen in Baghdad. Somehow, though, it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that U.S. soldiers could be responsible.
"Jordan disagreed, and gave us an example of U.S. soldiers deliberately shelling a hotel in Iraq which was known to all as a haven for journalists covering both sides of the war."
That was the tank episode everybody in the world watched. Commented upon much here and elsewhere. During a battle a high building there was a large camera being operated, the tank on the bridge thought it could be a AT launcher or something.
Bump. I want to keep up to date on this.
Bookmarking...
US soldiers kiliing MSM journalists?
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
ping
I hope they got a few!!
bump
There ought to be a Bounty.
There's a little good in everyone.
You cannot make this stuff up.
His utter disregard for the truth and her choice of a lover.
Hey, what's the big deal? It's not like a Republican told a white lie or anything causing a crisis. This was a dem and and presstitute. Who would expect truth from such a person in the first place? Everything that the old-timey media says or prints is probably a lie, so what? They always work against America! And. that is what actually makes many of them source good sources of information for the Mossad and IDF!
Hey! It's like a mosque harboring the enemy. Got 'em cornered in one spot - I say bombs away. Very insightful: "journalists covering both sides of the war...is this tacic admission that journalist 'cover' the 'otherside', including knowing of car bombings, IED's etc?
Isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle back? Journalists, "lie-ing" in wait to capture [the other sides] war efforts that kill our troops. Then complain that journalists are being killed. Oh, the hypocracy !!!
That's the one.
Because Chris Dodd is a pansy and prefers to be 'acknowledged' rather than take the moral high ground for his country. How can he sleep at night? They don't call them RATS for nothing.
Actually I said a lot more. The gist of my note was that if Jordan could not back up his comments, CNN should take action against him to maintain whatever credibility they had left.
They emailed the following snippy, condescending answer the next day:
"Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan's remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists.
Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.
Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of collateral damage."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.