Who let the claws out?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


YOU DIDN'T EXPECT HIM TO DO THE WORK, DID YOU?  IT EMERGES THAT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE 'HE COULD LOSE!' TALK IN THE PRESS ABOUT BARRY O IN THE LAST 48 HOURS WAS NOTHING BUT SPIN THAT THE CAMPAIGN HOPED WOULD ALLOW THEM TO FLEECE RICH CONTRIBUTORS OUT OF MORE MONEY.

NOW FOR TODAY'S STRATEGY WHEN THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A MAJOR ECONOMIC SPEECH.  WITH A FAILING ECONOMY AND A RECORD THAT MOST 1ST GRADERS COULD BEAT, BARRY O HAS LITTLE TO CAMPAIGN ON.  SO WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING, WHAT DO YOU DO?

ATTACK.

AND AS 2008 DEMONSTRATED, NO ONE DOES BITCHY LIKE BARRY. 

TODAY'S SPEECH WILL BE ALL ABOUT LINKING MITT ROMNEY AND BULLY BOY BUSH AND TRYING TO SCARE THE VOTERS.  IT'S AN OLD WHORE'S TRICK BUT IT'S THE ONLY TRICK BARRY O HAS LEFT.

SAID ONE WHITE HOUSE SOURCE, "CAN YOU BELIEVE HOW QUICKLY HE WAS ALL USED UP?  THIS ONE CAME WITH A SHORTER SELL BY DATE THAN A GALLON OF MILK!"




FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Turning to the topic of Two and a Half Men . . .  James Jeffrey, Ryan Crocker and adolescent Chris Hill signed a letter.  Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports the three signed a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisting that Brett McGurk is qualified to be the US Ambassador to Iraq.  Jeffrey is the outgoing US Ambassador to Iraq.  Chris Hill was the nightmare ambassador.  Prior to Hill's brief stint, Ryan Crocker served as US Ambassador to Iraq.  Rogin writes, "In their letter, the former ambassadors argue that McGurk showed his understanding of the complexities facing Iraq in his June 6 confirmation hearing and said that he has the full trust and confidence of the current leadership team at the embassy. "  I'm sorry, where were they?

 

They weren't at the hearing.  I was.  How can they vouch for his performance at a hearing they didn't attend?

 

They can't.  And this isn't the 1960s.  Meaning forget the press coverage because there was none.  Note to what passes for a press corps: Your 'great job, Brett!' wasn't reporting.  Most outlets ignored the hearing completely (including TV evening news).  Find a report where they report what McGurk said and examine if it was accurate.  You can't find that in the MSM.  We covered it here, the hearing, in three snapshots.  We covered what he said versus reality.  We covered it in the editorial for Third as well:

 

 

McGurk took credit for the surge.  The only aspect of the surge that was successful was what Gen David Petraeus implemented and US service members carried out.  That was not what McGurk and other civilians were tasked with.  Their part of the surge?  The military effort was supposed to create a space that the politicians would put to good use by passing legislation.  It didn't happen.  McGurk's part of the surge was a failure.He revealed incredible ignorance about al Qaeda in Iraq and seemed unaware that, in 2011, then-CIA Director (now Secretary of Defense) Leon Panetta told Congress it amounted to less than 1,000 people or that in February of this year, the Director of National Intelligence declared that a significnat number (of that less than 1,000) had gone to Syria.Though the press has reported for years about Nouri's refusal to bring Sahwa members into the process (give them jobs) and how he refuses to pay these security forces (also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq"), McGurk told Congress that Nouri was paying them all and had given government jobs to approximately 70,000.  (For point of reference, in 2008, Gen David Petraues told Congress there were approximately 91,000 Sahwa.)

 

It's really easy to pretend someone's 'qualified' when you refuse to do the work required to vet the nominee.  Those links above don't go to MSM reporting on the hearing because there is NO MSN reporting on the hearing.  They go to the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday snapshot (as well as a 2008 snapshot for Petreaus' testimony in 2008).  The press didn't do the job they're paid to.  You can say they're overworked and many are.  But that doesn't excuse anyone filing a 'report' that fails to examine one word of what was said, that fails to provide context.  There's a world of difference a transcript and a report or a 'feelings check' and a report.  No reporting was done by the MSM on McGurk's hearing.

 

AP reported this morning that Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were drafting a letter that would ask the White House to pull McGurk's nomination.  Aamer Madhani (USA Today) posted the letter which expresses concern over his management experience and his judgment (as well as his ability to work with Iraqis -- remember the political slate that won the 2010 elections, Iraqiya, has asked that he not be made ambassador). 

 

 

Now before the hearing we were reporting on the e-mails.  I say that because I cannot believe the stupidity of so-called professional writers.  Tuesday, June 5th, we were reporting on the e-mails between Brett McGurk and Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon who began an affair in 2008 and concealed it from their superiors.  Yesterday, Chon lost her job.  Lisa Dru (Business Insider) reported on the news as well and includes the Wall St. Journal's statement:

 

Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon agreed to resign this afternoon after acknowledging that while based in Iraq she violated the Dow Jones Code of Conduct by sharing certain unpublished news articles with Brett McGurk, then a member of the U.S. National Security Council in Iraq.

In 2008 Ms. Chon entered into a personal relationship with Mr. McGurk, which she failed to disclose to her editor. At this time the Journal has found no evidence that her coverage was tainted by her relationship with Mr. McGurk.

Ms. Chon joined the Journal in 2005 in Detroit, followed by an assignment as Iraq correspondent in Baghdad from 2007 to 2009. She also reported for the Journal from Haiti in 2010 in the aftermath of the earthquake and has served as a M&A reporter for Money & Investing in New York since April 2010.

 

 

Dru's done a fine job reporting on the e-mails and the issues.  We're about to get to two who are doing a lousy job.

 

Reality, Chon was asked to resign and given the choice of resigning or being fired.  She opted to resign.  Let's start with Maressa Brown whose work experience is "entertainment and women's magazines." It shows, dear, it really shows. Maressa Brown's "not quite sure Chon should have had to lose her job over the affair itself" -- if your company has a code of ethics, you follow it or your risk losing your job.

 

In addition, those ethics were the same code of ethics of any professional news outlet.  Now I know, in entertainment writing, you're encouraged to sleep with your interview subject.  But in most fields of journalism, you're only paid for the story, not for also granting sexual favors.

 

Maressa Brown might want to consider that and might want to consider that Gina Chon's little love life shouldn't mean a thing to the readers of the Wall St. Journal.  They shouldn't know about it, they shouldn't follow it.  Those rules, ethics, they exist for that reason.

 

The public is supposed to be able to trust that everything is ethical.  Gina Chon's decision to sleep with her source was grounds for instant termination.  Michele Norris is one of the finest radio journalists around.  She's a host of NPR's All Things Considered.  She's got reporting chops and she's earned a reputation of being a fair and accurate journalist.  To ensure that she's seen that way, she and NPR agreed early on that if her husband was working for a campaign, she couldn't cover it.  Last October, Norris went on an extended leave from All Things Considered.  She explains why here:

 

Hello everyone,

I need to share some news and I wanted to make sure my NPR family heard this first.

Last week, I told news management that my husband, Broderick Johnson, has just accepted a senior advisor position with the Obama Campaign. After careful consideration, we decided that Broderick's new role could make it difficult for me to continue hosting ATC.

Given the nature of Broderick's position with the campaign and the impact that it will most certainly have on our family life, I will temporarily step away from my hosting duties until after the 2012 elections.

I will be leaving the host chair at the end of this week, but I'm not going far. I will be wearing a different hat for a while, producing signature segments and features and working on new reporting projects. While I will of course recuse myself from all election coverage, there's still an awful lot of ground that I can till in this interim role.

This has all happened very quickly, but working closely with NPR management, we've been able to make a plan that serves the show, honors the integrity of our news organization and is best for me professionally and personally.

I will certainly miss hosting, but I will remain part of the ATC team and I look forward to contributing to our show and NPR in new and exciting ways.

My very best,

Michele

 

Again, Michele Norris a well known reporter with a sterling reputation for her work.  And yet, she follows the rules.  She goes out of her way to make sure there is no appearence of a conflict of interest.  She doesn't say, "Oh, well, everybody knows my husband is working on campaigns so since everybody knows, it doesn't matter."  She's a serious journalist who takes her profession seriously.

 

Dow Jones cannot afford the reputation of employing Little Ms. or Mr. Hot Pants who's going to sleep with the source and then possibly cater the news to benefit their lover.  Dow Jones has a reputation to uphold.  Chon probably could have gotten away with what she did -- which wouldn't have made it ethical -- if she'd worked for a different outlet.  But Dow Jones is a considered a trusted name and the reason for that is they don't tolerate unethical reporters.

 

People need to let go of the idea that this is love story or it's a happy ending.  I'm not concerned with whether Chon's found happiness or not.  I'm concerned with the fact that she was the chief reporter on Iraq for the paper in 2008 and she was sleeping with a US government official.  That would be the ultimate embed.  How much did that color what she reported? 

 

I don't know and that's a question that a real news outlet never wants any news consumer to have to ask.  That's why there is a code of ethics.

 

Bonnie Goldstein (Washington Post) wants to talk about the "brutal" confirmation process while, as an aside, noting the e-mails didn't come up in the hearing.  No, they didn't.  As I explained here already, I learned about the e-mails in a senator's office (a senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).  (I overheard a conversation, there was not a leak.)  That was Tuesday afternoon.  The Committee was aware of the e-mails on Tuesday (the day before the hearing), they just weren't aware if they were genuine or not.  (I can say a great deal more about that on the Democratic side but I'll stay silent right now while I wait to see what happens.)  McGurk was fawned over.  In addition, this story should have been all over but it's not.  The Washington Post is covering it.  One of the few papers that is.  CJR has daily blogs and were just posting about 'racy e-mails' last week but they've ignored this story and the ethics involved.  Goldstein writes:

 

 

 

Having read some of the correspondence in an excerpt in the Above the Law blog, I have to say it presents unusual but material evidence of McGurk's qualification to work with the reconstruction team and the Iraqi government.  His sequencing choices notwithstanding, the written correspondence indicates the nominee possesses confidence, sincerity and a lovely sense of humor (a quality I suspect he's needing to call on in great quantities as this painfully personal matter gets sorted out in public ... ).

 

Next time, try reading the e-mails posted, not excerpts and trying paying attention to what you're reading not on how wet it makes you.

 

In the e-mails it is very clear -- and was on Tuesday afternoon when I left the senator's office and pulled up the e-mails on my iPhone.  It wasn't hard, it wasn't difficult.  And maybe next time you should read all of them before weighing in.  Brett McGurk's words are very clear.  Ryan Crocker did not know about the affair.  Whether Crocker wants to take a bullet for him now or not doesn't matter.  It's in writing, Crocker didn't know, McGurk was concealing the affair.  Now he was married and that's one reason he was concealing.  But that doesn't excuse it, it actually adds to more problems because when the government sends you to another country to represent the US, you put your best face forward.  Not your trashy, bootie call face.  But your best face.

 

(Scary thought, what if trolling for women is the best face of Brett McGurk.)

 

It sure is cute to read Bonnie's stupidity and Maressa's as well.  Little girls, grow the hell up and pay attention, we're going to go over it one more time.

 

Iraq is a country.  It's not a mythical place.  People actually live there.  Children are born there.  For children to be born -- pay attention, girls -- women have to be present.

 

The Iraq War has destroyed the rights of women in Iraq.  Now I know, Maressa and Bonnie, that you're both too lazy to have ever attended a hearing in the last year on what the State Dept's doing in Iraq.  But among the excuses they've sent lower-level flunkies in with is that they are working on women's rights.

 

 

Yes, the country that destroyed Iraqi women's rights now will supposedly fix them. 

 

So Bonnie, Maressa, tell me how in a country in which so many males are embracing fundamentalism, in which so-called 'honor' killings regularly take place (women are put to death -- usually by family members -- for so-called crimes against 'honor' -- sex, divorce, being the victim of a rape, etc.), tell me how Iraqi women can comfortably visit the Embassy if Brett McGurk is the Ambassador? 

 

Brett McGurk is all over the Iraqi press.  Kitabat, you name it.  They are covering this story.  No surprise.  And McGurk's got a little reputation now in Iraq.  So tell me please, Bonnie, Maressa, how the hell are Iraqi women going to be served by a US Ambassador they can't be alone with unless they want to risk an honor killing or something more.

 

Let's be really clear, the only males that get killed for these so-called 'honor' killings are ones thought to be gay.  The man that sleeps with a woman or that rapes a woman or that divorces is not put to death.  Just the woman.

 

And you want to tell me that Mr. Can't Keep It In His Pants is the best Iraqi women can hope for?

Bonnie and Maressa, it's time you both woke up and realized that your  little fantasies of romance are something you should save for when you're alone,  Right now you should be focusing on Iraqi women.  No, it won't bring you to orgasm, but less focus on yourself for once in your lives might make you better women.

 

 

Essay topic: What is the connection between thinking and writing?  Short answer: Maressa and Bonnie demonstrate there is none.  They not only ignore the fact that a man who sends out blue balls e-mails to a woman he has not yet slept with probably isn't the one to supervise female employees, they also don't even bother to consider the fate of Iraqi women.  Shame on you both, shame, shame.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jalal really steps in it"
"Iraq slammed with bombings, over 60 dead"
"Yeah, it's personal"
"The economy"
"1 man, 3 women"
"ann rutherford"
"Does he ever stop lying?"
"WTF?"
"Reading"
"Little Dicky and his Dickettes"
"It's just not going to work"
"Dumb Ass Dylan Byers can't pass a fact check"
"The world grows weary of Barry O"
"THIS JUST IN! THE WORLD WANTS HIM TO GO AWAY!"