Tuesday, February 01, 2005
This is outrageous. The head of CNN slandering our soldiers. This is beyond any policy disagreement, this is outrageous slander and demonstrates frankly a bizarre psychosis.
If CNN doesn't distance itself immediately from this man, CNN should be boycotted by anyone with a shred of self-respect.
UPDATE: Like Glenn, I received the following, otherwise unsigned, email from "'Admin, CNNia' ":
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."
Frankly, I don't believe it either. I'm especially suspicious that this statement is unsigned. It is unconvincing and unbelievable. Why would Jordan feel a need to correct a statemetn that journalists' deaths were "collateral damage" if all he was going to assert was that the military had killed people that later turned out to be journalists? That makes no sense. That Jordan might contradict the claim by asserting that the military intentionally killed them is more credible in terms of how a response/challenge series would occur. I responded with the following:
I thank you for the response; however, your statement is unconvincing. The
reports of Mr. Jordan's statements are far more specific and the claim that they
are being taken "out of context" is not credible.
I will add your statement to my blog comment but in the absence of an official
and specific explanation from Mr. Jordan, I will continue to condemn his
comments and CNN.
Final Protective Fire
Here's a direct witness to Jordan's comments.
UPDATE: Glenn points us to this supposed response from Eason Jordan. Assuming that this is in fact actually Eason Jordan's response, I think I would recommend - were he a client - that he go with a defense of mental defect. That response is completely confused. It is difficult to tell if the man is completely inarticulate or just trying to lie his way out of this. Frankly, given the previous comments that others have found, I think its an "oh, crap, how do I lie my way out of this?" approach.
I'm still not buying it.
Robin 7:01 PM