Eason Jordan said what? Update
posted at 9:31 pm on January 22, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
A better title for this post might be “Can anyone connected to the MSM read? At all? Or is getting an accurate quote, in the age of Skype and digital voice recorders, just impossible?” But that’s a pretty long title.
In the NY Observer, Eason Jordan had this to say about Michelle Malkin:
Mr. Jordan said he “took note of the fact that Michelle Malkin—who writes obsessively on Iraq, and how wonderful things are over there—had never herself been to Iraq.”
Ever since I read that quote a day or two ago, I’ve been debating whether to give Jordan both barrels or give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he could have been misquoted. And wouldn’t that have been ironic.
Whether he was quoted accurately or not, the quote as it reads is entirely wrong. Michelle doesn’t write “obsessively” about Iraq–the use of that word being a subjective and perjorative judgement and not a recitation of fact. And she certainly doesn’t write that it’s wonderful over there. I haven’t done a tally but I suspect that a third to a half of her posts about Iraq are tributes to US soldiers killed there. She has voiced pessimism about the war both in her interview with Mark Steyn and in her interview with Robert Spencer. It’s hard to misread that as saying how wonderful Iraq is, unless you want to misread her for your own purposes.
She has written quite a bit about the heroism and dedication of US troops in Iraq, but that’s not the same thing as writing that the war or Iraq itself is “wonderful.” You don’t get heroes without ordinary people finding themselves in some pretty awful circumstances.
This is the same Eason Jordan who accused the US military of targeting journalists in Iraq for death. That’s what cost him his CNN job. He did not at that time note, as far as we know, that the terrorists actually do target journalists for death. As far as I’ve seen, he has never noted that indisputable fact. If he has, I’ll be happy to correct the record here.
This is also the same Eason Jordan who famously confessed to covering up Saddam’s many crimes in exchange for access to Iraq for CNN. But the thing is, he confessed. How many others in the MSM, who also trade truth for access in repressive countries every day, confess to doing that?
And this is the same Eason Jordan who has criticized the AP over its six-burning-Sunnis misconduct, even while the MSM looks the other way and liberals actually mount spirited defenses for reporting what isn’t happening. But notably, Jordan has focused most of his AP-related ire on the narrow question of Jamil Hussein’s existence, not on the larger story that the AP misreported or what the AP’s misreporting in this story means to everything else it has reported from Iraq. And rather than just challenge the AP to prove its story right, he challenged whistleblowers like Michelle to go to Iraq and prove the AP story wrong. Shouldn’t the AP have been challenged to prove itself right without dragging its critics into things so deeply? If the AP’s Iraq sources are so good, surely they could have gone to that same mosque we went to without us having to go over there. There was always a flaw in Jordan’s thinking, on who should be challenged to prove what about that story. Kathleen Carroll should have been the one on that United flight to Kuwait, at Jordan’s insistence.
Not that I’d trade the Iraq trip for anything, now. It was an amazing and enlightening trip. But Jordan misfired in challenging bloggers to prove something wrong that the AP had in its power to prove right–if it was possible to prove it right. Turns out, it wasn’t possible to prove that story right.
Getting back to Jordan’s quote above, notably, it’s not Michelle who named her blog anything to do with Iraq. Eason Jordan did that, calling his blog “IraqSlogger.” If I may use the word, Jordan is so obsessive about Iraq he’s planning to build a business around knowing where the IEDs are and publishing that information to a select subscriber base. How is he going to do that without using sources like the AP’s own dubious Sunni sources over there? Is it moral to tell a NYT reporter where an IED is because his paper subscribes to your service but not tell a USA Today reporter the same thing because his paper doesn’t subscribe, if you know that they’re both going to drive down a road where you know there is an IED waiting to blow them up? Those are questions for another post, I guess.
For me, the bottom line is I don’t trust Eason Jordan, and that quote above solidifies my mistrust. It became apparent not too long after his challenge to Michelle to go to Iraq and look into the Hurriya story that his plan for getting her over there stood a good chance of getting her killed: He planned to use private security instead of embedding with the military. Private security workers in Iraq have been captured and killed in large numbers all over that country. Just as an aside, we ran into a PSD (”private security detail”) at BIAP that consisted of two rather attractive young women, a ponytailed blonde in a shiny pink jumpsuit and an Asian in a shiny blue jumpsuit, sporting snug body armor and toting assault rifles. They looked like a couple of models with guns, and I couldn’t help thinking that Jordan’s security plan might have looked something like them. Which might have been nice for a few minutes, but I would not have wanted to trust my life to them when the Big Red One was available a half hour’s drive away. I wouldn’t have wanted to trust my life or Michelle’s life or Jordan’s life to a PSD in Iraq at all, anytime, anyhow. But using a PSD was Eason Jordan’s plan.
To date, no journalist embedded with the US military has been abducted, and only one or two have been killed. One of those, Michael Kelly, was killed in an accident in the early days of the war. There is a US military post not far from Hurriya, and it responded to the calls on Nov 24 and wrote up an official after action report. It made sense to at least contact that unit and find out what they knew. Michelle and I embedded with that unit, which made even more sense. It made no sense to me to trust our security to private guns who didn’t answer to us, and whose carelessness might result in tragedy.
That’s not to say that I believed Jordan’s plan was a set-up. It is to say that given his record of covering for Saddam, of accusing the US military of doing what terrorists are known to do, and his backward approach to verifying the six-Sunnis story, left me…dubious.
And now this same Eason Jordan is either misquoted mischaracterizing some pretty basic facts about Michelle, or he’s been quoted accurately mischaracterizing some pretty basic facts about Michelle. So far, he hasn’t seen fit to correct the record if he has been misquoted. Either he can’t read or the NY Observer’s reporter can’t quote accurately.
So what do you think? Both barrels or benefit of the doubt?
Update: I’ve emailed the article’s author, Michael Calderone, and the quote is accurate, which is what I suspected. The rest of the article is too solid and well-written to have gotten that quote wrong.
I want to be clear that I’m not taking issue with Jordan saying Michelle hadn’t been to Iraq. In the timeframe he’s describing in that quote, she hadn’t yet been to Iraq. That part of the quote is one of three things Jordan says–the first two being that she writes “obsessively” about Iraq and how “wonderful” it is there. Those are the parts I’m taking issue with, because they’re completely inaccurate. Jordan can’t have followed her writing too closely if he carries that impression of it.
I do have a correction to add–it turns out that more than a couple of journalists have been killed while embedded with the military. Michael Fumento has the details on that here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Both barrels, then hit the body with your shoe.
bdfaith on January 22, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Just give him one barrel…say “are you sure that wasn’t a misquote” and then give the second barrel in a non-lethal place.
Spassvogel on January 22, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Remember, this is the guy with the accusation that our soldiers were deliberately targetting journalists - announced at a major conference, not over a drink at a bar. Wonder which source(s) he used for that slander?
You’re too kind, really. This guy has a track record.
naliaka on January 22, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Who writes obsessively on Iraq?
What about the quarterly, half-hour, hourly, daily, weekly, yearly reporting on every single death, mistep, mishap, mistake, grim, bad news, HATE BUSH over the past four years regarding the war on terrorism in the current Iraqi theatre?
And before????
Can you say “propaganda”?
Re-load Bryan, and fire again, and again, and again…….
PinkyBigglesworth on January 22, 2007 at 10:00 PM
You really thought a member of the MSM wouldnt stick up for the MSM when it got caught being wrong ?
They are elitists they dont care about what the peasants think.
William Amos on January 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM
confront very publicly. this post is a nice start. i’m sorry you have to suffer such a weasle.
jummy on January 22, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Both barrels! I would like to see his rebuttal for the opportunity to call, give him two more barrels and raise him an IED.
spazzmomma on January 22, 2007 at 10:02 PM
He is going to start a business locating IED’s and tell reporters where they are but not the military? I doubt the military needs his help, but it say’s a lot about him. Both barrels.
Scot on January 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM
If you do give ‘em both barrels, make sure they’re a couple of 101 mm Howitzers.
kevcad on January 22, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I’d say both barrels. Anyone cozy enough with the bad guys to get details on IED placement deserves no less.
flipflop on January 22, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Do a Jack Bauer on him…
Zorro on January 22, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Who cares what Eason Jordan says or thinks?
Lawrence on January 22, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Seriously, don’t trust him or his writings. He’s a loser looking to regain momentum on the backs of real journalist, like you, Ian, Allah and of course our Michelle.
Zorro on January 22, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I say if you wouldn’t keep giving Jordan any ink, he would fall off the radar screen completely, except for the Left nutroot’s blogs. He isn’t worth the effort for those who have a hankering for the truth.
Chief1942 on January 22, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Take off your shoes and shake them at him.
htom on January 22, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Have you just asked him yet if he said that?
If he confirms that he said it, Michelle needs to ask Jordan and the Observer for a formal retraction and apology. If he denies that he said it, Jordan and Michelle both need to ask the Observer for a formal retraction and apology. If they won’t do it, then both barrels on Jordan and/or the Observer, depending on who’s guilty.
aero on January 22, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Lock, Load.
Misquoted my shiney Irish fanny!…….’a lie told often enough becomes the truth’ as our friend Lenin said (and oh how the MSM listened!)
Sic em’ Bryan, MM, EVERYONE!
Limerick on January 22, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Both barrels, and then reload.
right2bright on January 22, 2007 at 10:40 PM
BOTH BARRELLS!!
From what you just disclosed above about the “security” arrangements for you and MM…he deserves NOTHING less.
IF that “obsessively” quote is true …HOW FREAKING DISINGENUOUS is THAT? The VERY MAN who PROTECTED Saddam to preserve his own precious access…..and THEN names his own (LOOOKATME!!!) blog..IRAQSLOGGER….grrrrrrrrrr….Twofaced,opportunistict phony doesnt even begin to describe him..and put COWARD in there too!
labwrs on January 22, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Give him the benefit of the doubt privately until you talk to him (Eason). See if he says it was a miss-quote and as areo says both ask for a retraction.
However I doubt if any private conversation will be very helpful.
Get ready to go in with both barrels (and spare ammo).
F15Mech on January 22, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I thought you guys went WITH jorden on this trip, that he extended the invite to Michelle to go WITH him. Am I a day late and a dollar short?
debi118 on January 22, 2007 at 11:05 PM
It sounds like you definitely made the right decision staying clear of Eason. You guys did a great job.
gatewaypundit on January 22, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Verify and then decide which is appropriate.
.
GT on January 22, 2007 at 11:24 PM
On the contrary. This guy needs to be watched 24/7.
He does not disclose who his financial backers are for this new EID placement disclosure business. He claims 40-50 associates in Iraq. At the rate of $5,000 per month for a couple hundred clients - that’s a million a month.
Suppose part of that million is actually for having the EIDs placed to begin with. Either by some of his Iraqi associates or paying the opposition to place them.
Consider that his offer for Michelle’s trip was really advance advertising for the business. If it had come off as he planned, sometime during the trip he could have made a change of travel route with the explanation that he had received information that there was an IED on the planned route. Of course the EID would have exploded as he said with the implication being that his new business saved them from exposure. Under those circumstances, Michelle may have even written a few words about it.
At least in this case - the good guys win.
News2Use on January 22, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Safe your weapon a second, Bryan.
Reading the whole article for context, I think there’s a reasonable explanation. Jordan may have been saying that the reason he initially extended the offer to Michelle was because she wrote good things about Iraq, yet had never been there.
It makes more sense that way, I think–why would he just lambast out of the blue someone whose travel he was willing to underwrite?
The problem with my read of it is that the quote stands alone in the interview instead of being placed where it needs to go, in the fifth paragraph.
So if I’m right about what Jordan meant, then the Observer ought to clarify it.
see-dubya on January 22, 2007 at 11:44 PM
You’re watering down the quote, see-dub. The Observer has him saying:
None of that accurately describes what she’s written about Iraq or how often she’s written about Iraq. So as it’s written, it’s a false statement no matter where it’s placed in the article.
It’s possible he’s lambasting her now because she was wise enough not to travel with him and ended up blasting the AP story without his help. He stayed in Soho while she and I stood in front of that mosque and proved the AP wrong. Sour grapes?
Bryan on January 22, 2007 at 11:54 PM
In that case, kick his butt.
.
GT on January 23, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I guess I haven’t followed the story closely since you two got back, Bryan. Hats off to you both for your solid reporting from Iraq and amazing video. I feel like you brought home news I hadn’t seen anywhere else.
But I didn’t realize the deal with Jordan had fallen apart. What a disappointment it is to be right yet again, in my feeling that Eason Jordan is a lying pos and incapable of playing anything straight.
But, in fairness, he’s in a position not unlike Clinton trying to be C-in-C; everything that he had done in the past made working with the military impossible in the present. Private security, indeed. What a worthless prick.
Jaibones on January 23, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I doubt Jordan’s ability to actually do the subscriber service he is “planning”. If he could, and did not inform our side he’s a bad guy. He will have to explain that’s not what he meant/said or seem an idiot. Of course he knows you went to Iraq. If anyone knows he knows. Even if he really did say it he’ll deny it. In order for HA to damage his credibility he’d need to have some first. When he challenged the AP over JH we all went huh? anyway. Good call to go without him. Although the PSD’s did keep Rush safe when he went there. Do the Jumpsuit girls have a glossy calender and where can I get one?
Buck Turgidson on January 23, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Sweep the leg. Do you have a problem with that?
We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the blogs, in competition. A man confronts you he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy. What is the problem Mr. Preston?
What do we study here?
Bryan Preston: THE WAY OF THE FIST SIR.
And what is that way?
Bryan Preston: STRIKE FIRST. STRIKE HARD. NO MERCY SIR.
I can’t hear you.
Bryan Preston: STRIKE FIRST. STRIKE HARD. NO MERCY SIR.
.
.
.
(Sorry. I just finished with that other post and I guess I was still caught up in it. Sorry. Won’t happen again.)
EFG on January 23, 2007 at 2:14 AM
PHOTOS.
Reaps on January 23, 2007 at 2:17 AM
I’d say give him both barrels with all that you outlined that this chump has done. He has a pattern of deceit and lying..those types NEVER get the benefit of the doubt with me. THEY are the ones that need to prove they are worthy of people’s trust.
This says it all to me what his character is. What an ass.
Highrise on January 23, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Bryan, I wasn’t trying to soften the quote up; I was just restating what I think was his poorly-expressed point. (I figured since it was right there in your post everyone would have seen it.) In fact, I think it only makes sense the way I described it; as Buck says in the comment above, he obviously knows that you actually made the trip. If I’m right about the context–explaining why he chose to extend the offer–it just looks petty instead of outrageous.
I’m not going to waste time defending Jordan here–but I would say that even if it was intended as an insult, much worse inaccuracies, slanders, and insults regularly get flung toward Michelle from the far-left monkey house.
And in any case it likes you already had an AD from your first barrel there! Nice pattern, though.
(As for trusting your security arrangements to Jordan, it sounds like you made a pretty good choice.)
see-dubya on January 23, 2007 at 2:34 AM
Bryan,
I for one and delighted that both you and Michelle have returned home in one piece, no worse for wear.
William
William2006 on January 23, 2007 at 3:27 AM
Notice how the trolls avoid this thread like the plague?
They’re ignorant, but not totally stupid.
Eason Jordan is a proven liar, proven coward, proven traitor to the nation and cultural tradition which sheltered his sorry ass and awarded him a totally undeserved position of influence and ( temporary ) prestige
Give the little turd THREE barrels…..just to be sure
Janos Hunyadi on January 23, 2007 at 4:01 AM
Let me make sure I’ve got this right. Saddam’s old media tool, who now writes a blog dedicated exclusively to Iraq, says Michelle writes obsessively about it?
I don’t think you need to give him both barrels, Bryan. Just poke him with a pin and he’ll deflate.
Pablo on January 23, 2007 at 4:33 AM
“That’s not to say that I believed Jordan’s plan was a set-up.”
Well you should. This liar and America-hating traitor was almost certainly trying to get you both killed. Then he would be writing Boo-freeking-hoo at how your “intransigent stupidity” in coming to the war zone got you killed.
Go “active” on him. Expose him as the lying bastard he is.
georgej on January 23, 2007 at 5:22 AM
Both Barrels plus a kick to the face.
It’s not the first time that prick has lied.
BacaDog on January 23, 2007 at 7:08 AM
Put the gun on safety, and point it in a safe direction.
This story first ran January 18 or prior, and was obviously written before then. I know, because I contacted the author, Michael Calderone, on that date about some other fact errors in the story.
I think it quite possible that Eason Jordan’s quote pre-dates his knowledge of Michelle’s trip, and perhaps does predate the actual trip, depending on how long Calderone had this interview “in the can.”
I’d suggest contacting him, not Eason, for verification.
Bob Owens on January 23, 2007 at 7:18 AM
Both Barrels, Kick Ass, ask questions later.
Wade on January 23, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Once a lefty spinster … always a lefty spinster.
One Angry Christian on January 23, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Since Jordan made such a “gracious offer” (inviting Michelle to Iraq and all), in the interests of civility, I suggest that we all make him a “counter offer”. From time-to-time, I have occasion to speak with former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson. He can put me in touch with Vice President Dick Cheney. How about we invite Jordan to accompany us on a hunting expedition — with Dick Cheney?
What?! Just bein’ neighborly, that’s all.
CyberCipher on January 23, 2007 at 9:18 AM
OK, kick Jordan’s ass. Now, with that out of the way, how about some pics of the hot security chicks you saw?
Aldo on January 23, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Unfortunately, I didn’t get any shots of them.
Bryan on January 23, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Both freaking barrels.
We have Republican traitors like Chuck Hagel pulling the rug out from under American Heroes in Iraq.
Both freaking barrels.
angryamerican on January 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Unfortunately, I didn’t get any shots of them.
Bryan on January 23, 2007 at 9:24 AM
And you call yourself a journalist?
The Monster on January 23, 2007 at 10:38 AM
“It’s hard to misread that as saying how wonderful Iraq is, unless you want to misread her for your own purposes.”
Bingo.
Mike H on January 23, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I could less about the quote, I’m more concerned with his apparent attempt to get the two of you killed. I’d follow that line and see where it leads and then if need be contact the authorities.
Capitalist Infidel on January 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Let me say it again: I don’t think he was trying to get us killed. But I did have significant misgivings about his approach to the trip.
Bryan on January 23, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I doubt very strongly that Eason Jordan was trying to get MM and Bryan killed–especially if he is setting up a “IED warning service” or something. Not good advertising, for one thing. For another, If MM and Bryan had died, under HIS protection, how would that have reflected on his comments about journalists being targets?
However, I also agree that his ideas seem stupid. Pink jumpsuits for the cute girl guards? Gee, what a way to draw attention to them! I also wonder if he’s mentioned anything since you and Michelle have come back, Bryan–if not, then I don’t see why not. He’s attacked the AP before, so wouldn’t he seize on this? Or, is it just MSM as usual?
Vanceone on January 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Both barrels? Why not use an artillery battery or ten?
Less seriously:
Am I the only one who thought “Dirty Pair” when he read this? :)
Patrick Chester on January 23, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Sigh. Here’s what I actually wrote:
That’s not a description of Jordan’s actual security plan. I thought using the phrase “Just as an aside” and “I couldn’t help thinking that Jordan’s security plan might have looked something like them” made that clear. Guess not.
It was, however, someone’s actual security plan because we saw them on the ground at BIAP. I just hope those two were a lot tougher than they looked.
Bryan on January 23, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Eason double dog dared Michelle to go to Iraq and she took the dare, to his ever lovin’ surprise. He’s not used to dealing with real people, just those 2-D media creations. With his background in Iraq, he himself is probably not welcome there anymore, in a very unpleasant way. He’s done this to himself - he’s snarking away, and now looks very irrelevent - as in “has-been” or perhaps “last year’s news” or “Old Media” or “Not reliable, try some other analyst”. He should take the advice: “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way.”
naliaka on January 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Well, even if his quote pre-dated Michelle’s trip the “how wonderful things are over there” line is definitely the typical sort of dishonest smear those who don’t think the war is lost get when they voice their views too loudly.
That, at the least, deserves a response. Same with the obsessively, since that seems to be another smear basically saying “gosh, she actually wants us to WIN, how DARE her!”
Patrick Chester on January 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
The quote may have been made previous to Michele’s and Bryon’s trip, but then why wasn’t that quote delete or identified as to have be made before the trip? Why was no correction offered? Why didn’t Mr. Jordan acknowledge the fact that a trip was planned and/or already taking place? He knew that a trip was planned before that quote was made. That makes his statement a lie
It is obvious that Mr. Jordan and the publisher wanted people to believe that he was talking about current events and not in the past tense. That makes it an attempt to smear Michelle and Bryon AFTER returning from Iraq. This shows planning and premeditation.
Hit ‘em with both barrels, Bryon!
RedinBlueCounty on January 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM
both barrels with bolo ammo. Figuratively speaking
Drtuddle on January 23, 2007 at 5:08 PM
TAKE THE HIGH ROAD—don’t stoop to the level of this scumbag.Just continue the high quality of journalism that you continually exhibit and continue to expose these yellow journalists and their minions as the FAKES that they are.Exposing their LIES will hurt them worse than anything you might say to them.
PAPA BEAR on January 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM