Post Cleared of Espionage.....they didn't reveal contents of Iran policy document

Co-bloger and intrepid sleuth Bob Samet has the goods.....Frum overstates the case that the Post disclosed the Iran policy document over a year ago.

Frum wrote:

Perhaps you would like to know what was in the draft directive? Well, good news: You can. The thing was leaked to the Washington Post and a story based on the link was published on June 15, 2003.

Bob 'the slueth' Samet read the Post article and found that

"The Post article doesn't talk about the contents of the document, but rather, merely refers to it and at the same time talks in general about the subject of the internal debate going on within the government over US Iran policy. It then goes on to say that the Post couldn't find out what was in the document. Here's an actual quote from the article that Frum doesn't mention:

"Senior administration officials refused to talk about the status of the
Bush policy directive on Iran, on the grounds that it is classified ...."

The upshot...the Post seems to have hyped the story by playing it out over three days when there wasn't much news to report and the real charges aren't known....but they aren't hypocrites, they hadn't also previously revealed the contents of the classified document.

Did the Post conduct espionage...Post decline watch day 3

The Post decline continues.

Day 3 of the espionage story at the Post has been taken over by subjouralists Moore and Anderson and the result is....no news.

And strangely there is news to report.

As David Frum shows below, the Post published the very document that is at the heart of the so called espionage story?

Shouldn't the Post have reported that most interesting fact ...wouldn't that be the real news?

Israel, Iran Trade Threats As FBI Investigates Spying
U.S. Ally Said to Have Received Documents on Tehran
By Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page A18


Lacking any new details to advance the story, what do they do...they link this controversy to Israel's New Zealand passport fiasco:

"The investigation is the second in recent months involving allegations of Israeli espionage against an ally. In July, a New Zealand court found two Israeli men, accused of being agents for the Mossad, guilty of attempting to forge New Zealand passports. Israeli officials denied that the men were members of the Mossad, but New Zealand's prime minister announced diplomatic sanctions against Israel and demanded an apology."

Espionage against New Zealand? Come on..what secrets does New Zealand have?

....but worse, they write,


"Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Israeli officials have expressed more concern about the danger Iran poses and have been more emboldened in their threats to quash it."

Haven't US and European officals also expressed concerns about Iran.

Jpost reported that

"On Sunday, Fischer told reporters in Jordan that an Iranian nuclear arms buildup would be a "nightmare," and said that Europe is looking to head off any dangerous confrontation with Tehran."

But the problem with their analysis (although never described as analysis) is that Israel emphasized the dangers of Iran before - even long before -the US invasion of Iraq and always thought Iran is the larger threat, not Iraq.

Mischaracterizing the timing of Israel's concerns about Iran and using the word "emboldened" creates the impression that the current conflict with Iran was caused by Bush's liberation of Iraq and an aggressive Israel.

That's typical of the Post, they reverse cause and effect.

They also don't mention that the alleged law breaker is not alleged to have accepted money, that no Israeli is accused of espionage or is even being investigated or that the subject is only one employee of 1500 employees of Douglas Feith.

But here is the bombshell....David Frum has scoop on the larger problem with the story lineof the last three days....and its ugly.

The original document was leaked to the Post last year...yes it was already a public document!!!

"Remember, this whole story turns on a supposedly super-secret draft presidential directive that Franklin disclosed to the Israelis. Perhaps you would like to know what was in the draft directive? Well good news: You can. The thing was leaked to the Washington Post and a story based on the link was published on June 15, 2003.

Here are some extracts from the Post story:

“[T]he national security presidential directive on Iran has gone through several competing drafts and has yet to be approved by Bush's senior advisers, according to well-placed sources. In the meantime, experts in and outside the government are focusing on Iran as the United States' next big foreign policy crisis, with some predicting that the country could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006.

“While the officials have stopped short of embracing a policy of ‘regime change’ in Iran, U.S. officials from Bush down have talked about providing moral support to the ‘reform movement’ in Iran in its struggle against an unelected government.

“Just how far the United States should go in supporting the protests is the subject of heated argument inside and outside the government, even among conservatives. Some argue Iran is ripe for revolution. Others contend there is little guarantee of radical change in Tehran in the three-year period some independent proliferation experts estimate it will take before Iran could acquire nuclear weapons, and the United States should be thinking about other options, including preemptive action against suspected nuclear sites.”

Etc.

The Post very obviously got its leak from State Department sources seeking to scuttle the draft directive. Back then, apparently, the permanent government did not regard the secrecy of this unimplemented document as anything like a vital national secret. Back then, the advocates of a soft-line policy were perfectly willing to air the directive in order to scupper it. Fourteen months later, however, you’d think the contents of this directive were the plans for the Stealth bomber. So, question: if this document was indeed so vital, when will the State Department seek to identify and punish the officials who revealed it to the Washington Post – which anyone, even the Israelis, can purchase a copy of for 35 cents."

Does Pentagon in-fighting cause fair reporting at Post?

Post's first day reporting on alleged Israeli espionage is surprisingly fair. Astonishingly, they make no attempt to link the suspect with the Pentagons neocons.

FBI Probe Targets Pentagon Official
Analyst Allegedly Gave Data to Israel
By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 28, 2004; Page A01


Could the difference with their usual reporting be different editors and reporters (not the usual foreign desk Said-imatons) or that Pentagon reporters will still need their sources and they don't know who will win the Pentagon in-fighting.


The only important missing piece was reported by CNN that there may not be charges at all.

Haaretz also reported that Israel hasn't been asked for comment, information or testimonies, which is surprising for an espionage case.


By day two, with the addition of Robin Wrong, the reporting suffers.

Analyst Who Is Target of Probe Went to Israel

By Thomas E. Ricks and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 29, 2004; Page A01

They describe AIPAC staffers as "two Israeli lobbyists"

Moreover, a truly fair report would describe the intense fighting in the Pentagon and the various intelligence agencies that are threatened with ..well, having to do their job after not for many years.

Several articles have noted that the CIA and other hostile (to Israel) agencies have falsely tried to discredit AIPAC and Israel with ties to espionage before.

Instead, the Post briefly notes Jonathan Pollard.

My guess is that during the next week, with the political damage done, the charges will fall apart but the Post won't report (and certainly not on page A01).

Post's Edgy Editorial Reeks of Recklessness

Today's Post editorial scorns the Bush Administration's support for Israel's Prime Minister Sharon during an election year....its political pandering!

Read below to understand Post-style pandering.

"Mr. Bush's concessions have exacerbated an already parlous U.S. diplomatic position in the Middle East; Mr. Sharon, meanwhile, has suffered a string of reverses in his attempt to carry out the withdrawal. The administration might have responded by reassessing its reliance on a notoriously reckless leader. Instead, Mr. Bush has doubled up on his bet. "

Here's how they conclude,

"The fact that the White House has taken this position at a time when Mr. Bush is seeking support from pro-Israel voters in Florida and other closely contested states will raise reasonable questions about whether there are any grounds for his position other than electoral pandering."

Reading between the lines, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that the Post editor wants the Administration to pander to Palestinian terrorists, not Florida (read Jewish) votors.

Moreover the Post is wrong. The Administration's settlement concessions occured early in the Bush administration, when they were known as the Powell-Peres understanding.

Real journalist Janine Zacharia has the analysis in the Jpost here where she writes:

"Israeli officials say the Bush administration has privately endorsed the so-called Peres-Powell formula, hashed out between former foreign minister Shimon Peres and Secretary of State Colin Powell, which says: There will be no new settlements built; no confiscation of new land for residential activities; construction only in already built-up areas; and that the issue of settlements should be resolved as part of a final peace agreement.

"These are the understandings. They accept it," an Israeli official said. "They did not change their policy in terms of new settlements. But they came to grips with reality [and the need to allow for natural growth]." "Everybody knows the United States does not object to natural growth," Abington said. "Over a year ago we knew what the [White House] National Security Council was thinking about was this concept of a settlement freeze, which basically drops the idea of natural growth."

Wrong on facts and morals, it seems to me that the Post editorial is reckless.

In fact, I'll bet the American voter understands pandering when they see it...... and will vote for Israel everytime.

Shocked, do you hear?

Come on, Peter, are you really surprised to find Partison [sic] bias at the Post? Does it take "pundits" to point this out? The Post has been a Democratic paper since your granpappy was kneehigh to a grasshopper. Maybe we need Claude Rains to come into the newsroom and say, "I am shocked - shocked, do you hear - to learn that there is Democratic bias going on." And even if you think it's news, since when is Democratic bias the concern of eyeonthepost? Is eyeonthepost now to become a Republican "truth squad"?

Which is not to say that I find much truth in your blog. Your continued attack on John Kerry (which actually consists of pastes from others) because he got a date wrong makes no sense. By now everybody on this planet knows that Kerry's Cambodia missions didn't occur on Christmas 1968, and he himself has acknowledged it. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to claim he "lied" because of an error in date of something that happened 35 years ago. (And to answer rsamet, what was "seared" in his memory was not the date, but the events: the missions in Cambodia.)

Yet you call this tiny error a "lie" and say it is "devastating for Kerry"! Well, Peter, if a misremembered and corrected date is "devastating", what do you call the misstatements and errors of Pres. Bush that led to nine hundred or more lost American lives and thousands of casualties? What is devastating to me is how quickly truth becomes a casualty when a person has an agenda.

But I still say that the real question is: Are we here to shoot down John Kerry, or to fight the anti-Israel bias of the Washington Post? If it's the former, count me out.

Arafat Acknowledges Corruption, will the Post?

The comPost notices that both Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat have political opposition.

But while Prime Minister Sharon, in an act of extraordinary political courage, risks his career to compromise with his political adversaries, what does he get at the Post...he's compared to the butcher Arafat.

Well, they both gave speeches.

More Pundits find partisan Bias at the Post

In the words of Roger Simon below, the media is the story now...................

The Post finally addresses the critics of Kerry's war record, but rather than investigate the merits of the charges, alleges that the critics are ...hold your breath....Republicans. At least they acknowledge that Kerry, instead of responding to the critics, only blames President Bush.

"Instead of rebutting each charge, Kerry blamed Bush for sanctioning such highly personal attacks."

LGF finds a double standard at the Post and received 540 mostly favorable comments.


WaPo Suddenly Discovers Swift Boat Veterans
The shameless bias of mainstream media in favor of John F. Kerry has been one of the big stories of this campaign. Case in point: the Washington Post has totally ignored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their allegations against Kerry for weeks—until today, when they discovered a small discrepancy in one of Swiftee Larry Thurlow’s statements.
That story goes on page A01 of the Post: Records Counter a Critic of Kerry. Will WaPo readers wonder why this story suddenly pops up on the front page, when they’ve read nothing about it until today?

Instapundit offers an explanation......the story is devastating for Kerry.

August 19, 2004
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE POST LOOKING AT MILITARY RECORDS? A story that's bad for Kerry's critics, I guess. No mention at all of the Cambodia story, though, in which Kerry's critics have been proved right (as even the Kerry campaign has admitted) -- and which the Post has ignored.

UPDATE: Something I said there that bears repeating -- the reason why the Christmas-in-Cambodia story is getting the media cold-shoulder, and why what SwiftVet coverage there is focuses on the medals, etc., is that the Christmas-in-Cambodia story is clear, and has already been proven false. It's easy to understand, and that makes it much more devastating for Kerry.
The medal stuff is complex, and can be spun in a way that makes people's eyes glaze over. So that's what we'll mostly get, along with "political" stories that will treat the SwiftVets stuff as partisan hackery in a way that Michael Moore never gets treated by the same outlets.

ANOTHER UPDATE: And here's an example, in the "budget" from the New York Times, advising affiliate papers of what's coming:
ANTI-KERRY-ADS (Undated) - The story of how swift boat veterans with a grievance were found by Republicans looking to tarnish Kerry's image, and soon came to be running ads, writing books and blanketing cable television in a modern day tale of the creation of a political attack machine. But some of the veterans have recanted their stories or made charges that military records prove untrue. A look at how the veterans were organized and what they claim. By Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg.
With photos and a graphic.
Editors, will move in both full and abridged forms.


Will it say that the Cambodia story has already panned out? I doubt it.

Roger Simon weighs in against the Post also....which remains reified!

MORE: Just for the record, the WaPo and others are casting aspersions on one of the Swift Boat Vets Larry Thurlow. They may be right. But frankly I don't care. That's about medals, arguably a pompous and silly side issue. (In warfare, they're given out by the bucketful anyway). What is not pompous and silly is a Senator lying on the floor of that institution in order to advance his foreign policy position. Cambodia, Mon Amour... Until the WaPo et al deal with that, they remain reified. And if they don't know what that means, they can look it up.


The Post's reporting about Israel remains reified also......if only we had such an outpouring in the blogsphere about her reporters there...if only.

I propose a truce

I really think we should end this partisan debate. This web site has now been used for four attacks on the Democratic candidate and three responses (including this one), and I think it is distracting us from our real mission. However I do think there is a lesson to be learned here that applies to our battle with the Washington Post, because those who are attacking John Kerry are using the same technique that the Post uses in its Mideast reporting: namely, they focus on part of the story while ignoring the main part, the part that provides the true picture.* Consider:

1. In the case of "Kerry in Cambodia", they focus on a wrong date and ignore the truth that the event "seared" in Kerry's memory really did take place. In fact, Kerry ran three or four missions into Cambodia in January and February of 1969, albeit not on Christmas of 1968 (a statement that he later corrected). And yes, Nixon was president then, and yes, it was against stated US policy at the time. Sure, you can make fun of him if you want for misremembering a date (who hasn't?), but you shouldn't ignore the real truth of his claim. (See earlier post for authentication.)

2. They focus on the minor nature of his first wound (a small piece of shrapnel penetrated a fraction of an inch and required only a small bandage), but ignore the main truth that Kerry spent 4 1/2 months in highly dangerous combat and was hit by shrapnel three times, and still has shrapnel embedded in his left leg. While these three wounds together don't compare, say, with an amputated limb, he was there, putting his life on the line.

3. They attack Kerry for "building a resume" to bolster his political ambitions. Now he himself says he volunteered because "it was the right thing to do", but the important truth is that, whatever his motivation, he DID IT. He served two tours of duty in the Pacific, including 4 1/2 months in combat. He was hit by shrapnel three times. He fired at the enemy and saved the life of a crewman. Most people doing this receive gratitude, not criticism for their motivation. The criticism seems particularly inappropriate when you compare Kerry's war record with that of his opponent, who used the National Guard to avoid the draft, and reportedly didn't even bother to show up for some of its meetings. (Anyone interested in the comparison should look at http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html). Now please note: I don't censure Bush for doing that; I'm chicken myself and would have done the same thing, but I do censure those who attack Kerry for not being wounded enough or brave enough or having the right motivation.

Finally, don't we have better things to do than to use this web site to attack either presidential candidate? I believe there is room in our movement for both Democrats and Republicans; I believe we need both Democrats and Republicans. Let's unite and get back to attacking the Washington Post.
----------------------
*My analogy, of course, is with the way the Post focuses on and blows up Palestinian "suffering", while concealing the fact that this suffering (which in many cases is real) arises from their persistent efforts to kill Jews and destroy Israel, and indeed would end if they would only stop the attacks.

As the Scandel Continues, Pundits Notice that the Post Misses the Story

Micheal Barone notes a double standard at the Post.

The Post hasn't covered candidate Kerry's false claim to have been in Cambodia yet, but repeated the lies made by Michael Moore and others about President Bush.

Shocking, it's shocking ............a double standard at the Post.

Barone writes, to establish candidate Kerry's false claim that,

"Andrew Antippas, the foreign service officer in the Saigon embassy in charge of keeping tabs on the Cambodian border from 1968 to 1970, recalls only one “river incident involving the Cambodian border or Navy actions inside Cambodia.” Adm. Roy Hoffman, the commander of the swift boats then, says that none of them went inside Cambodia."

.......and later he notes the double standard,

"Kerry’s Christmas-in-Cambodia claims were first noted in the widely read instapundit.com on Aug. 6. As this is written, on Aug. 13, not a word about them has appeared in The New York Times or The Washington Post, nor have they been discussed much or at all on ABC, CBS or NBC News. This is a vivid contrast with the treatment by these news organizations of the charges -- false charges -- by Michael Moore and Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe that George W. Bush was AWOL while in the National Guard. A double standard seems to be at work."

Why is this night different from all other nights?

You probably know a lot more about this than me Postwatcher ... I've been foolishly limiting myself to reading The Post and can't be expected to have read much negative about John Kerry... but didn't Kerry say he had a vivid memory... actually said "burned" into his memory, didn't he... of spending x-mas in 1968 in Cambodia p.o.'d at Nixon for telling the world we weren't in Cambodia?... The only problem being that Nixon wasn't yet in office. Didn't Kerry only serve 4 1/2 months over there, so it couldn't have been x-mas 1969, right? What part do you think was mistakenly burned into his memory... the fact that it was x-mas... (maybe it was Easter ... or maybe even Passover.. Oy!! Why is this night different than all other nights? Because we're in Cambodia dummy!!!) Or maybe it was x-mas, but he was mistaken about the part about who was president.. (maybe he was p.o'd at Johnson for lying... Or maybe he really was p.o.'d at Nixon, but not for lying, but rather for dishonoring the memory of Checkers by coming back only to be kicked around again). Do you think he was just puffing it up a bit when he said the whole thing was burned into his memory?

I also heard that he told another serviceman at the time that he was going to get more out of this swift boat gig than JFK got out of PT 109. Did you read that?

And what about that minor scratch .. a minor injury according to the affidavit of the doctor who treated him... that got him one of his Purple Hearts? Maybe he was collecting medals. Maybe, just maybe, John Kerry proceeded in a very deliberate manner to build a resume for himself that would bolster his eventual political ambitions. That's something we're entitled to consider, right? His campaign has put him forward as a military hero, so that would seem to make the whole issue of his military service relevant, wouldn't it?

When is a scandal not a scandal?

Of course I'm aware of what Peter, my co-blogger, calls a "scandal". Some Republicans are making quite a fuss because John Kerry got a date wrong, but later corrected the error. Some scandal! How many of us remember dates of things that happened 35 years ago? Or even five years ago?

According to his biographer, the one person besides Kerry with access to his wartime journals, "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys... He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off." (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/wus13.xml).

What I call a scandal is the way the anti-Kerry forces have used his temporary date-confusion to cast doubt on his main point: that Americans (Kerry included) were sent to Cambodia, despite our government's stated policy. As Stephen Hayes wrote (Washington Times, Letters, 8/12/04), "I served as Officer-in-Charge of a Swift Boat (PCF-71) in Vietnam and my tour overlapped with that of John Kerry... my crew and I also went into Cambodia (without orders)... while I don't recall who was where on Christmas 35 years ago, it is certainly plausible to me that Mr. Kerry and his crew could have been across the border that night."

Or how about the president's claims that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S., that Iraq was behind the Al-Qaeda terrorism? No damage resulted from Kerry's date error, but almost a thousand Americans (so far) have died, with thousands more wounded, not counting the many innocent Iraqis who died, as a result of Bush's mistaken claims. Or how about the promise that American forces would be welcomed as liberators? Just read today's papers to see how false that one was. Or how about the claim (made amidst much military hoopla on an aircraft carrier) that the war was over, when more soldiers died afterward than before? Or how about the billion dollars in contract money given to Dick Cheney's company that the company refuses to account for? Or how about the lack of any realistic plan for dealing with Iraq after our victory, with our plans based on an Iraqi "leader" who has now been discredited and dumped? To me, these are SCANDALS that make a misremembered date look like a speck on a flea's wing, if that.

But the greatest scandal of all, I believe, is that Kerry, who as a young man answered his country's call, is being called "unfit for command" because he wasn't wounded enough, wasn't heroic enough, didn't serve long enough, and got a date wrong. I note with irony that while Kerry was getting hit by shrapnel (no matter of what size) in Vietnam, George W. Bush reportedly didn't bother to show up for some of his National Guard meetings.

I hope this helps to clarify the issues raised by Peter. As for the Washington Post, he and I agree that it is well-known to be a Democratic paper and have a Democratic bias in its reporting. What is not so well-known is that the Post also has a strong anti-Israel bias - much worse than any other paper I have seen, including the New York Times. And that, after all, is what this web site is all about, isn't it?

A Scandal the Post isn't Covering

Postwatcher, and no doubt others, are unaware of the controversy swirling around Kerry's claim to have been sent to Cambodia. The Post and the other major US media aren't covering it.

Clarifying the issue, while only tangentially related to the Post's journalistic ethics, might help clarify my earlier Post, so here is a link to an article in the British press that summarizes the issue to date:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/12/wus12.xml

Cheers

When is the Post detached? When the Terrorists kill their Own.

Friend of the blog, Leo Rennert, gives additional insight to the Post coverage of the Jerusalem checkpoint bombing. Thanks, Leo.

Something struck me as rather odd reading Molly Moore's article about a Palestinian "militant" setting off a bomb near an Israeli checkpoint that ended up killing two Palestinians and a score of others, mostly Palestinians. (Aug. 12, page A17).

What was odd about it is that it was reported in cold, detached, statistical terms. Usually, Moore's pieces overflow with sympathy for Palestinian victims of violence. But in this case, there were no quotes from bereaved Palestinian relatives or friends. Or explanations of how the bomber, out of supposed frustration or personal despair, set out on his killing spree.

So I got to wondering what accounts for this rare un-Moore-like Moore article. And then it dawned on me that what made this incident different is that this was a case of Palestinians murdering Palestinians. If Moore had followed her usual approach, she would have had quotes from family members of the dead pointing a finger at fellow Palestinians. And that just wouldn't do. It would shatter Moore's predilection for casting the conflict as one of an overly aggressive Israel creating havoc with Palestinian lives. In Moore's script, it's pull out all the emotional stops when there's the slightest opening to blame Israel, but put a veil over Palestinian sins.

In identifying the dead, she mentions only Salah Abu Sneinah, 60. She doesn't even tell readers that the other murdered Palestinian was Ayed Mustafa, 45. Nor does she mention that three other members of Abu Sneinah's family were wounded, including a child, Mahdi, 6, who was described as being in serious condition. No such oversight would have been likely in a Moore report about Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Bottom line: Palestinian lives matter less to the Post when Palestinians kill Palestinians than when they die in clashes with Israelis.

But there was still another egregious omission in Moore's report. Remember the much criticised Israeli security barrier? The Post has been in the forefront of reporting all the terrible disruptions it does and would inflict in the lives of West Bank Palestinians. Yet, in this instance, Moore failed to report that the bombing occurred near where the construction of the fence was halted by a recent order of Israel's Supreme Court, which ruled that Israeli officials must go back to the drawing boards and find an alternate route that's less disruptive for Palestinians. And the Israeli government immediately complied and halted further work on the barrier. What Moore failed to point out is that if the barrier had been completed in this section, which includes the most common route from Ramallah to Jerusalem, the bomber in all likelihood would not have succeeded and Palestinian lives would have been spared.

So it turns out that the incomplete barrier, which already has saved countless Israeli lives, also would help, once completed, to save Palestinian lives. But for the Post to acknowledge that an Israeli security measure to protect Israelis would also prevent the killing of Palestinians would require Moore to take an entirely fresh look at the conflict. She also would have had to report that, just a day earlier, an official report by the Palestinian Legislative Council, blasted Arafat for not reining in group like the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which claimed credit for the bombing that killed the two Palestinians. Not a word about that in the Post either. Far better to stick with the old stereotypes.

LEO RENNERT

No Politics, Please

I'm sorry to have to object to a posting (8/11/04) by my esteemed colleague and friend, Peter Vardon. Peter writes brilliantly about Israel, but I'm afraid he's gone off his rocker in his attack on John Kerry.

First of all, and most important, this web site is no place for partisan politics. This is a web site devoted to exposing the Post's biased reporting in the Mideast conflict. We should welcome Republicans and Democrats, pro-settlement and anti-settlement adherents, Jews, Christians, and yes, Muslims, who only want to see the Post tell the truth about Israel. Yet, Mr. Vardon has used this as a forum to call Kerry "slightly wacko" and imply that he lied about being in Cambodian waters in 1968. The "wacko" slur seems to refer to a story that Kerry carries in his briefcase a "good luck hat" from Vietnam. What the hell is wacko about that? As for his being in Cambodia, how dare anyone who wasn't there call him a liar?! Mr. Vardon might want to read the letter in today's Washington Times from a fellow SWIFT boat commander who says "I also went into Cambodia", and states there is no reason to doubt Kerry's story. (Even his detractors would have to admit that Kerry is certainly smart enough to know where he was.)*

Even Peter's claim that the Post lied about the Kerry story is suspect. His claim rests on a third party report that the bylined reporter denied in a phone call that she wrote a particular passage in the story. There could be a lot of reasons for that; e.g., that passage might have been inserted by a home office editor. Or the third party could have misheard or even lied. So this charge doesn't hold water, and in any event, falls far short of the mortal damage given to the truth when the Post reports about the Mideast, which is our real business here.

Today's article is a good example. While my two esteemed colleagues have already reported flaws in the article about the checkpoint bombing, I would like to add a comment of my own:
It's interesting that two other papers in Washington-Baltimore got the story right: The Baltimore Sun's article led off with "A Palestinian bomber detonated explosives..." and the Washington Times headline read "2 Palestinians die in Fatah bombing" (my emphases). ONLY THE POST failed to mention that it was a Palestinian act until the 9th of 11 paragraphs. So much for the "Who" of journalism that is supposed to be so important. And when it finally got around to it, they added the quote from an anonymous caller: "This is a response and reaction to the occupation's crimes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". In doing this, the Post perpetuates its myth that Palestinian terrorism is directed against Israeli occupation of these areas, rather than against the very existence of Israel.

The facts and the logic are very simple. If the Palestinians want peace and a state of their own, all they have to do is stop the attacks. This is precisely what the road map calls for, and precisely what hasn't happened. The problem, of course, is that the Palestinians want a lot more than the West Bank and Gaza - they want Israel also, and Israel is fighting for it's life. That's the story the Post doesn't want you to know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*If anyone objects that I too am being partisan, my response is that I am only canceling out the damage done in the earlier blog, not trying to start a dialogue. We have had an erroneous, inappropriate post and now a rebuttal, and I hope that will be the end of partisan politics on this web site.

Post Regrets their Coverage of Major News Topic

Bully for Howard! The Post has at least one honest reporter.

Howard Kurtz reveals the Post's journalistic tactics to shape their coverage of the news. In this case, Kurtz reveals how the Post attempted to shape the public's pre war attitudes about Iraqi WMD by accepting uncritically administration claims and placing them prominently on the front page. Critics of the claims were buried on the middle of the paper or in the last few paragraphs of each article that are rarely read.

Sound familiar? Readers of this blog know the Post uses the very same journalistic tactics. Palestinian claims or articles that make Israel look bad are placed on the front page, while Israeli counter claims are buried in the bottom of the articles or at the back of the paper.

Here are some their practices.

The administration voice is placed on the first page.

"Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

"In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."


"The Doubts Go Inside

From August 2002 through the March 19, 2003, launch of the war, The Post ran more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq. Some examples: "Cheney Says Iraqi Strike Is Justified"; "War Cabinet Argues for Iraq Attack"; "Bush Tells United Nations It Must Stand Up to Hussein or U.S. Will"; "Bush Cites Urgent Iraqi Threat"; "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare for War."
Reporter Karen DeYoung, a former assistant managing editor who covered the prewar diplomacy, said contrary information sometimes got lost.
"If there's something I would do differently -- and it's always easy in hindsight -- the top of the story would say, 'We're going to war, we're going to war against evil.' But later down it would say, 'But some people are questioning it.' The caution and the questioning was buried underneath the drumbeat. . . . The hugeness of the war preparation story tended to drown out a lot of that stuff."

Read the entire article here to see the full ugly picture.

Post's headline doesn't match article

Today's Post headline misidentified the location of the terrorist bombing. Don't they read their own articles?

While Moore correctly identified the checkpoint location where the bombing occurred in northern Jerusalem, the headline locates the bombing in the West Bank.

Moore also writes throughout in the passive tense. "A bomb exploded......." and "The blast occurred.... ", so you only learn that Arafat's terror arm, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed responsibility near the end of the article.

To read accounts of the terrorist bombing by professional journalists read the Jerusalem Post here or Haaretz here .

To read the Post account, go to Bomb Kills One, Injures Dozens Near West Bank Checkpoint

Can No Post Reporter Tell the Truth

Follow this link to http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ for the post below.

The story is significant for lgf because the Post reporter in 2003 repeats Kerry's claim that he was in Cambodia well before the claim was recently challenged. It also shows Kerry is slightly wacko.

It is relevant for us, because the Post reporter now denies writing it. Can no one at the Post tell the truth?

"Kerry: "A Special Mission in Cambodia"
From an article in the Washington Post, dated Sunday, June 1, 2003, on Page A01: John Kerry: Hunter, Dreamer, Realist. (Hat tip: Power Line and Hugh Hewitt.)

And who is he, really?
A close associate hints: There’s a secret compartment in Kerry’s briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.
“Who told you?” he demanded as he reached inside. “My friends don’t know about this.”
The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.
“My good luck hat,” Kerry said, happy to see it. “Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.”
Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn’t complex after all; it was Kerry.
He smiled and aimed his finger: “Pow.”

Wow.

On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, his producer said that the reporter who wrote this story, Laura Blumenfeld, denied writing the passage quoted above—then hung up.

UPDATE at 8/10/04 3:18:23 pm:

And now, the Washington Post page linked above will not come up. (It seems flaky, coming up sometimes but not others.)

I saved a copy."

Convicted of what?

In case you didn't get the sarcasm in yesterday's home page alert, Bob (who is a trial lawyer) was questioning the open trial and confession reported by the Post for two "collaborators".

But another question occurred to me. These men were convicted, by the Palestinian Authority, of "collaborating with Israeli intelligence" which, as we all know, is directed at anti-terrorism. Now the first duty of the Palestinian Authority, according to the "road map," is to stop the terrorism. These "convicted" men were doing that.

This incident makes it crystal clear (if it wasn't already) that the Palestinian Authority has no intention of stopping terrorism, but rather of punishing anybody who tries to. So much for the "road map". And so much for any hope of peace from the Palestinian side.