New York Sun also about to publish a story......
Does Jordan and Frank have a "relationship" that needs to be disclosed or exposed?
Let's give credit where it's due; Gergen (who looks like a Matt Groening character) who is supposedly some kind of Republican, isn't the one out front on this. Barney Frank, the liberal dem, is. We don't have to agree with his politics to acknowledge that he wasn't letting this boob get away without addressing his stupid comment.
Hugh Hewitt stated tonight that Jordan had said the exact same thing ten months or so back in Portugal. He referenced an article from the Guardian that said this. The prior statement is what is so damning to his backpeddling now.
I'm sure Kurtz is aware that Jordan has stated his believe in U.S. Military torture of journalists. I'm not going to register with the Post to get the rest, but I hope he's not covering for Jordon.
BTW, there is a video of the meeting, but it is being withheld.
He said "targeted".
Thats the price of being an insurgent in Iraq
"Would that it were so." -- Ann Coulter on Kudlow and Cramer today
No excuses - none whatsoever - for a person with Eason's 's experience, career and position of responsibility to utter a syllable that needs clarification, context, or backpedaling. He said what he intended to say, implied what he intended to imply, and deserves only a chance to neatly fold his pants before he's tarred and feathered on his naked way out of town.
Tim Ryan letter for review
I clicked on Kaus at the same time I clicked on this thread, and his comments are very apt:
Kurtz Does CNN's Damage Control: If you were worrying that WaPo's conflicted Howie Kurtz would bend over backwards to be tough on his own CNN bosses, you can stop now. Kurtz's article ... well, let's just say that if a p.r. agent or damage control spinner produced a piece designed to try and save CNN exec Eason Jordan's job, it would be the piece Kurtz wrote in the Post today. Why? Here are some of the blatant and subtle pro-Jordan tricks:
1) Witness Protection: Kurtz has Barney Frank recalling Jordan--after he "modified" his shocking remarks--still saying shocking things at Davos about U.S. forces "maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger." Kurtz then has Jordan denying this, admitting he "wasn't as clear as I should have been" but saying he "never once in my life thought anyone from the U.S. military tried to kill a journalsit" and "[n]ever meant to suggest that." It's Frank vs. Jordan! Then Kurtz says portentously--opening a new paragraph-- "Two other panelists backed Jordan's account."
(...much more at the link.)
What a pathetic coverup job. Did I miss Kurtz mentioning that Jordan is a serial-offender?