THIS JUST IN! GINA CHON PHASE II!

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



DISGRACED JOURNALIST GINA CHON (PICTURED ABOVE) -- AKA THE LOLITA OF LONG ISLAND -- IS VERY UPSET THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE NERVE TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS WRONG FOR HER TO HAVE COVERED IRAQ AND SLEPT WITH A U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL AT THE SAME TIME.

IN AN E-MAIL INTERVIEW WITH THESE REPORTERS, GINA CHON EXPLAINED SHE HAD LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO START AN AFFAIR, "BRETT [MCGURK] HAD BLUE BALLS.  BLUE BALLS!  DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT CAN DO TO A MAN?  LOOK, I VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN WAR AND SLEEPING WITH HIS MAN IN IRAQ WAS DOING MY PART FOR THE WAR EFFORT! WE DID NOTHING WRONG!"

ASKED WHY, IF SHE DID NOTHING WRONG, SHE CONCEALED HER AFFAIR FROM HER EMPLOYERS, GINA CHON E-MAILED BACK THAT SHE HAD TO GO, THAT SHE WAS WORKING ON A BOOK ENTITLED 'BLUE BALLS CAN BE DEADLY' AND THAT SHE WAS "BORED WITH WORDS THESE DAYS SO IT WILL PROBABLY BE A PICTURE BOOK.  YOU KNOW, SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today disgraced former Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon attempted to shove Jesus off the cross so she could climb up there herself.  Gawker posts her e-mail:

I've seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S. The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for the last two years, look like a playground.

But underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost many friends.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.

I want you to know, though, that while I worked in Iraq for the paper, Brett never gave me sensitive or classified information nor did he trade his knowledge for my affection. We were both dedicated professionals too committed to our jobs and had too much respect for each other to do anything like that. And as individuals, it's simply not who we are or how we approach our work. Nor did he need to. He was authorized to speak on occasion on background with journalists and did so with me, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other news outlets.

Gina Chon, you were not a 'dedicated professional.'  If you had been, you would have followed the ethical guidelines of journalism as well as the Dow Jones written ethical policy you signed.  If you were a 'dedicated professional,' you would still be working for the Wall St. Journal.  So stop lying.

Let's go through some of that.

I've seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S. The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for the last two years, look like a playground.

How typical that all she could recall is the ugliness. Most people would embrace the humanity or see a mixture.  How telling that she chose to wallow in the ugliness.  The glass is always half full, chipped and unwashed for Gina.

And what venom?  Most newspapers and outlets have ignored your huge lapse in journalism ethics.  Jokes have yet to circulate about you -- but they are coming, they are.  You did wrong and you got caught. 

The fact that you were fired and you still can't admit that it was your fault goes to your lack of maturity and your failure to practice your profession ethically.

But underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost many friends.

The full truth is you were forbideen to sleep with your sources.  The full truth is you ignored the Dow Jones ethics policy.  The full truth is you violated it.  A lapse?  One tumble might have been a lapse.  But you didn't inform your editor of what happened and a 'lapse' turned into an affair.

I don't give a ___ whether you sucked him off to glory or you rode him to ecstatsy, Gina Chon.  I give a damn that you lied to everyone including the readers.

You do not sleep with government officials you are supposed to be covering.  You are obviously as stupid as you are unethical to even write such a whine.  The one thing you had going for you was that people respected the fact that you appeared to be taking your lumps without bitching and moaning in public.  You've blown that.  Now you're just another pathetic scandal, someone who gets caught and refuses to take accountability.

We have wall between press and state in the US.  Maybe that's news to you, Gina.  But unlike in China, Iran and other countries, we don't have state control of the media. When you're sent to cover Iraq for the Wall St. Journal, readers have a right to believe that you're doing it to the best of your abilities.  When you sleep with a US government official, that throws that belief out the window.  You violated the ethics, you showed your copy to McGurk -- which is what outraged everyone and why they suggested you resign immediately or they could fire you on the spot. 

You lost your right to whine about "loss" in the War Zone.  You know why?

Because you're the cheater.  Ask John Edwards, the cheater doesn't get to whine.  You cheated on your husband, Brett McGurk cheated on his wife.  While that's not our focus here when you try to play utlimate victim you better grasp that you and Brett can't pull it off.  You're two people who didn't keep your vows.  Public sympathy goes to the spouses you cheated on.  Try another trick, Gina.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.

You know what, Judith Miller probably would love to still be at the New York Times.  Reporting is not a hobby, you don't dabble in it.  Most people and outlets do not say "Gina Chon reported . . ."  They say, "I heard on NPR" or "I saw an NBC Nightly News" or "I read in USA Today."  You disgraced the Dow Jones with your behavior.  You're going to be in the journalism text books now so you better start trying to come up with a better line of argument than 'My hot loins moistened at the thought of his throbbing member while he texted 'blue balls' to me.'   It was not a "stupid mistake," it was a gross violation of journalism ethics.  You're very lucky this came out in 2012.

Had it come in 2008, CJR would be crucifying you, The Nation would forget the name "Judith Miller" as they went to town on you, Greg Mitchell would do non-stop posts about you, speaking to everyone you've ever worked with.  But because Bush is out of office and your husband is Barack Obama's nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq, these outlets and others are down playing what happened.

It's amazing that, as you climb on the cross, and glorify yourself, you forget to apologize for what you did which was not "stupid mistakes."  You weren't a teenager, you weren't an intern.  You were a professional journalist working for a US newspaper with the highest circulation.  When this started, last week, I was reminded of James Brooks' Broadcast News.  Albert Brooks makes a crack.  And I thought, "What is it he says?  It's about  whether you'd tell a source you' loved them to get information --  it's funny, it's . . .  Oh." 

"Oh" because the butt of the joke is a woman and when that happens, we always have to wonder, is the joke fair or not? And so I decided not to include an excerpt of the whole would-you-sleep-with-your-source-to-get-a-story bit which ends with Albert Brooks saying, "Jennifer didn't know there was an alternative."  Ha-ha-ha-ha.  And now Gina Chon's name can be footnoted to that joke apparently.  Guess what?

Women have not come far enough.  When a Martha Raddatz (ABC News) has to talk on NPR (Tell Me More, February 22, 2011) about covering wars and having children -- not to talk about the juggle that so many of us who work and raise children can relate to but because suddenly the spin for the day is 'maybe women shouldn't be allowed in war zones,' we have not come far enough.

Women have not come far enough in our society.  We can't absorb your inability to follow the basic ethics, Gina.  Your actions betray women.  Not because you cheated on a 'sister,' but because you were such an idiot that you have taken the Iraq War, where women came to the forefront of reporting -- and had to pay for that already by having the scapegoat for the war itself be a woman (Judith Miller) -- and put that accomplishment at risk, put it at risk of turning all of the work into a dirty joke.  Women have not come far enough to afford your ethical lapse.

Jane Arraf, Lara Jakes, Rebecca Santana, Deborah Haynes, Nancy A. Youssef, Sabrina Tavernise, Alyssa J. Rubin, Tina Susman, Alexandra Zavis, Ellen Knickmeyer, Erica Goode, Deborah Amos, Cara Buckley, Anna Badkhen, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Liz Sly, Alice Fordham,  Deborah Haynes, Sahar Issa and many other women have risked a great deal to report from Iraq.  Your name used to be on that list.  Check the archives, earlier this year we were still including you here on that list. 

You should be apologizing to women in the profession for you failure to follow the ethics policy.  One woman on the list in the first sentence of the above paragraph has been dogged by false rumors that the US military brass in Iraq fed her stories because she was sleeping with a general.  We've talked about that before here and how her male colleagues were the ones spreading the false rumors.  It wasn't a rival outlet, it was her own colleagues.  Jealous over what she was doing and feeling petty so they spread rumors about her.  She kept her head up, ignored the rumors and continued (and continues now) to do her work.

Gina Chon, that woman knows about being persecuted.  She knows about being turned into  a joke.  And she was innocent of the slander her male colleagues spread.  She didn't climb on the cross and play the victim so why you think anyone should give a damn that you wish you hadn't been caught violating the ethics of your profession is beyond me.

Now we haven't gone there here.  We've tried to make it about Brett McGurk.  I'd hoped to not write about you at any length.  But when the so-called media watchdogs refused to bark over the fact that you had a sexual relationship in Baghdad with a Bush official while covering Iraq, we had to wade in.  But there are several barriers I still haven't crossed.  For example, we haven't examined your part in the 2008 e-mails here or even quoted from your own 2008 e-mails.  In addition,  I was asked by a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about your reporting from that period and I tried to play dumb and he pointed out that I was stalling and I said, "I'm just not comfrotable with that question."

Gina Chon, if you continue to try to play the world's utlimate victim, I can easily say, "Check out the story filed ___, paragraph three, specifically ___" and you and I both know what I mean.

Because of Barack the media watchdogs -- which apparently are partisan as the right has long charged -- aren't doing their job and you're very lucky for that.  But I can do their job for them.  And I will if you don't stop trying to play injured party.  You violated journalism ethics and just as a reporter who plagiarizes gets fired, you lost your job.  Quit trying to make it about love.  You weren't fired for falling in love.  You were fired for sleeping with your source, you were fired for sleeping with someone you let see your copy -- your former bosses say "vet," you say "seek feedback."

As Dolly Parton says in Straight Talk, "Get off the cross, honey, somebody else needs the wood." 

RECOMMENDED: "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Gentlemen'..."

"Iraq snapshot"

"Biden will get left holding the bag"

"The pious War Criminal"

"Sexpot in the Kitchen"

"Diana West is wrong"

"Gina Chon and her half-truths and outright lies"

"Does this clarify?"

"5 men, 2 women"

"4 men, 2 women"

"gina chon, do you swallow when interviewing?"

"how brett mcgurk continues to remain the nominee"

"Gina Chon The Opportunist"

"Oh, Jane Mayer, stop embarrassing yourself"

"Gina Chon can't stop lying!"

"What about the Iraqi women?"

"Judith Miller is dancing on the ceiling"

"Books"

"Absence of Malice"

"They grow 'em might stupid at The New Yorker"

"Who Could Have Guessed?"

"The Embed Who Bedded Down"

"Idiot of the week: Gina Chon"

"The embarrassing Erika Fry"

"Axelrod finally puts his degree to use"

"THIS JUST IN! THE EDUCATED AXELROD"

THIS JUST IN! THE EDUCATED AXELROD

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

YESTERDAY THESE REPORTERS SCOOPED THE COMPETITION WITH THE NEWS THAT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WAS GOING BITCHY ("Who let the claws out?" AND "THIS JUST IN! NEW STRATEGY: GET BITCHY!").

ASKED IF THIS WOULD HURT HIM WITH MEN OUTSIDE OF N.Y.C., CAMPAIGN GURU DAVID AXELROD AGREED THIS WAS A POSSIBLE PROBLEM "BUT WE JUST HAVE TO TRY TO MAKE HIM APPEAR MANLY ELSEWHERE."

WHICH MEANT KEEPING HIM AWAY FROM THE BIG UGLY LAST NIGHT.  AXLEROD EXPLAINED, "I TOLD HIM, 'YOU GO STAND NEXT TO SARAH JESSICA PARKER, YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE IN SHORT PANTS.  SHE'S TIRED, SHE'S OLD, HER CAREER'S DEAD AND SHE'S THIS CENTURY'S MISS HAVISHAM.'  DIG ME, I MADE A LITERARY REFERENCE!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Thursday, June 14, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, War Criminal Colin Powell said his 2003 UN speech was about inspections but today let's slip the decision to go to war was already made, CJR self-embarrasses with a novel concept on journalistic ethics (If you marry, it wipes the slate clean -- quick, someone tell Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke and so many others!), the political crisis continues in Iraq, Senator Patty Murray has some tough questions for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and more.

 

Collie The Blot Powell continues to plug his bad and co-written (Tony Koltz) book It Worked For Me: Killing and Lying.  It's really amazing the way the liar keeps saying more than he means to.  But a War Criminal, like any other criminal, has a compulsion to confess (as Freud and Theodor Reik both argued).  You can't turn a trick without a john and a whore.  Presumably Colin played the role of the john for Kira Zalan (US News and World Reports).  We learn that Powell sees meaning when an elderly man is unable to pay attention to a discussion both due to age and to illness but to Collie it's a life lesson about division of labor.  As usual, he discusses the blot and for those fearing Colin's suddenly become part of the Neville family, it's not a facial blot.  It's the fecal smear on his public image that won't wipe off.  It's the lies he told the United Nations in an attempt at kick starting the war on Iraq.  Collie first floated the blot on TV in an interview he gave to Barbara Walters for ABC News.  After it aired, September 2005, Ava and I wrote about it:

 

 

 

Walters says, unable to look at him while she does -- oh the drama!, "However, you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for the rest of your life?"
Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record.

Walters: How painful is it?

Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it *was* painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now.

Has a less convincing scene ever been performed?

Possibly. Such as when Powell informs Walters that the fault lies with the intelligence community -- with those who knew but didn't come forward. Unfortunately for Powell, FAIR's advisory steered everyone to a Los Angeles Times' article from July 15, 2004:

Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week.
Two memos included with the Senate report listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department experts.

 

 

 

That's the blot.  His lies that he denies were lies.  A year after his speech, Martha Raddatz (ABC News) observed:

 

 

But instead of discussing Iraq's weapons in terms of "possibilities" or "estimates," Powell spoke before the United Nations last February with certainty.

"These are not assertions," Powell told the Security Council. "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Powell qualified only one of his remarks during the 75-minute presentation, saying there was some "controversy" over the intended use of high-strength aluminum tubes. On all other issues, Powell left no room for debate. He used the phrase "we know" 32 times.

 

Jonathan Schwarz (Mother Jones) fact checked the lies here.

 

The lies that you tell

will leave you alone

they'll catch you and trip you up,

Keep you hangin' around

-- "Love You By Heart," written by Carly Simon Jacob Brackman and Libby Titus, first appears on Carly's Spy album

 

 

Yes, liars usually will trip themselves up.  Like today when Powell tells Kira Zalan:

 

 

And when I gave it, people stopped and listened. And the president by that time had already decided that combat would be necessary, he decided that sometime in January. And now it's 5 February and I'm simply telling people why it may be necessary.

 

 

Does Collie realize what he just let slip?  It's no surprise to the peace community.  But still he just admitted that the decision by Bully Boy Bush to go to war was made in January -- two months before the Iraq War started.  That wasn't a part of Colin The War Criminal Powell's speech to the UN.  Click here for the full speech at the Washington Post (warning, not everyone has the full speech even when they claim to -- for example, the Guardian's lost the last third of Powell's speech -- specifically the 'human rights' portion -- but insists that it's the 'full text').  Lot of words, none of which revealed that a decision had already been made to go to war.

 

These, these, these are the words

The words that maketh murder.

These, these, these are the words

The words that maketh murder.

-- "The Words That Maketh Murder," written by PJ Harvey, first appears on PJ's Let England Shake 

 

Today Colin Powell tells US News and World Reports that the decision to go to war on Iraq was made a month before his UN speech.  Strange because the day of his speech, CNN reported (February 5, 2003):

 

At a lunch that followed Powell's presentation, diplomats said he responded to the French foreign minister's concerns about the impact war with Iraq would have on the region by saying, "I wasn't talking about war, but about strengthening inspections."

The diplomats said Powell also made clear to Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin that the United States is not ready to go to war immediately, and is interested in hearing France's proposals to strengthen inspections with the added value of the evidence Powell presented.

 

 

So Colin didn't just lie to the citizens of the world in his UN speech, he continued to lie immediately after and lied to diplomats and France's Foreign Minister.  Colin Powell is a liar.  He can pretend all he wants but the record bears out the reality that he has repeatedly misled over and over.  That is lying.

 

And it's really sad that someone known for doing so little on a national level (other than War Crimes) gets so much press attention for a co-written clip job while former US Senator Russ Feingold put real thought and real work into While America Sleeps: A Wake-Up Call for the Post-9/11 Era and the press is far less likely to offer coverage (or swoon).  Randy Hanson (Hudston Star-Observer) provides coverage on a recent book discussion Feingold gave:

 

 

His chapter on the Iraq War is titled "The Iraq Deception."

"What I tried to do in the book is explain what happened because of our general strategy in Iraq,"  Feingold said. "Everything we did was defined on the basis of Iraq. And it was crazy, because Bush actually said in his speeches over and over again that there were 60 or 65 countries where al-Qaeda was operating. His list included Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, the Slavic republics, Ireland, England -- but not Iraq."

He said that while the United States was concentrating on holding Iraq, terrorist groups were expanding in other countries.

"What I thought 9/11 showed us is what happens when we're not alert. We learned what it felt like to be taken completely by surprise," he said, recalling how the big news story during the summer of 2001 had been shark attacks in the country's coastal waters.

 

 

One book is mature and thoughtful, the other pure piffle.  The one with nothing to offer gets the bulk of the media attention. 

 

It's the immaturity that the press repeatedly embraces while pretending to be 'high brow' in order to justify their refusal to cover actual news stories.  One example, refusing to explore serious ethical violations by using matrimony as an excuse:  "But that was in 2008, and they're married now."  Is that Margaret Carlson?  No.  No, it's much worse than columnist Carlson.  That's Erika Fry forced into covering the story for CJR.  I was on the phone earlier today with a CJR friend for a half-hour, it was a pre-emptive call asking me to please understand . . .  No, it doesn't work that way.

 

I will allow that Erika Fry got stuck with the assignment (that's what I was told, I do not know her and didn't speak to her).  But she's an assistant editor and it's Columbia Journalism Review.  I'm real damn sorry that your panties and boxers go dry when you have to critique someone your wet dream Barack loves -- Brett McGurk.  But I'm genuinely sorry that you're such whores that you rush to minimize what took place. 

 

Brett McGurk is Barack Obama's nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq.  He's gotten into a lot of trouble for numerous things but Fry ended up stuck writing about the e-mails.  E-mails became public last week (see the June 5th snapshot) that he had exchanged with Gina Chon in 2008 when both were in Baghdad -- he was working for the US government, she was working for the Wall St. Journal.  The Wall St. Journal let Chon go on Tuesday due to the fact that she had concealed the affair in 2008 when McGurk was not only a US government official but the primary source for her stories and she was let go because she had shared stories she was working on with McGurk to let him alter them (she stated in her defense that she was using him as a sounding board for input). 

 

Columbia JOURNALISM Review.  And they rush to dismiss it.  And they rush to treat it as no big deal.    "But that was in 2008, and they're married now."

 

Who gives a damn?

 

That doesn't change a thing.  You either start having standards or you don't.  Right now, CJR has no standards at all.  Judith Miller could go back to work for the New York Times tomorrow and any argument CJR might make would be pointless.  Because right now, they're telling us, that if you marry the source for whom you cater coverage too, it doesn't matter that you misled readers and your editor and it doesn't matter that your lover got copy approval of anything you turned in.

 

If that's the position CJR wants to take, then they are nothing but a joke. 

 

 

"We get that sex sells," Fry lies.  It's not about sex, it's about ethics.  If it were about sex, we'd talk about the doggie style encounter in a hallway.  We can do that.  Brett McGurk was very 'popular' in Iraq.  Gina Chon wasn't the first woman he cheated on his wife with.  (That may or may not be news to Chon.)  If Fry wants to make it about sex, we can do that.

 

But don't dimiss sleeping with a source, letting your lover vet your copy and misleading the public and your editor as it being about sex or as ethical lapses that expire because they two got married.

 

This is embarrassing and shame on CJR for this nonsense.  Again, I had to listen to  half hour of excuses today.  I hadn't even read the piece.  I return a voice mail and suddenly it's "Well we . . . and we . . and we . . ."  Wee wee?  That about sums it up.  CJR has just pissed on journalism ethics.  That's not a proud moment.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The violence and the political crisis continue"
"The unsuited and unsuitable Brett McGurk"
"Again, personal"
"No to Brett McGurk"
"3 men, 3 women"
"why does barack hate families?"
"Trash walks"
"Camp Lejeune"
"For the sake of Iraqi women, McGurk should step aside"
"To cleanse . . ."
"McGurk needs to withdraw his name"
"Brett McGurk needs to withdraw his name"
"Who let the claws out?"
"THIS JUST IN! NEW STRATEGY: GET BITCHY!"

THIS JUST IN! NEW STRATEGY: GET BITCHY!

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!"

THIS JUST IN! THE WORLD WANTS HIM TO GO AWAY!

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

IN MORE BAD NEWS FOR BARRY O, THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF CONTINUES TO LOSE SUPPORT DOMESTICALLY.  THE LATEST POLL FINDS ONLY 47% APPROVE OF HIS JOB PERFORMANCE WHILE THOSE INSISTING "THE COUNTRY IS ON THE WRONG TRACK" HAS SKY ROCKETED TO 63%.






AND ANOTHER POLL SHOWS THAT DISENCHANTMENT IS, IN FACT, GLOBAL -- ESPECIALLY IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHERE ONLY 15% APPROVE OF HIS JOB PERFORMANCE.

BUT BARRY O'S HANDLERS THINK THEY HAVE THE SOLUTION: ASKING VOTERS FOR FOUR MORE YEARS FOR BARRY O TO . . . DO WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

It's official: The Barack Obama administration is now the least accountable administration in modern history.  How did it earn that dishonor?

 

When Rupert Murdoch's Wall St. Journal shows stronger ethics than your administration, there is a problem.  When Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon and married Bush administration figure Brett McGurk decided to get hot and heavy in Baghdad in 2008, each was violating written policies of their employers.  At present McGurk is still attempting to become US Ambassador to Iraq.  Gina Chon, however, has parted with employer today.

 

Howard Kurtz (Daily Beast) reports, "Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon resigned on Tuesday over her relationship with a U.S. official who is now President Obama's nominee to be ambassador to Iraq." Lisa Dru (Business Insider) reports 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.

 

 

 

Whitney Lloyd, Jake Tapper and Dana Hughes (ABC News) explain, "The emails, first published by the blog Cryptome last week and confirmed by ABC News, are sexually explicit and suggest that Chon got much of her information, guidance and access for her reporting from McGurk during their affair."  Joe Coscarelli (New York magazine) quotes Senator James Risch on McGurk's nomination,  "Prior to these e-mail revelations, I had reservations about confirming Brett McGurk as ambassador to Iraq. Now that additional issues have been raised, more information will be needed and I reserve final judgment until all the facts are brought to light."  Adam Martin (The Atlantic) observes, "In the end, it wasn't the sex with a source but the admission she shared unpublished stories with him that caused Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon to resign from the paper."  Like Howard Kurtz, Meenal Vamburkar (Mediaite) is reporting that Chon took her leave of absence from the paper after the e-mails were published.

 

 

 As usual The Huffington Post does a lousy job covering this story (while Poynter and CJR ignore it outright) as demonstrated by the comments where stupidity is flaunted with comments like "They got married!" or that they only had an affair.  You don't sleep with your source.  And, yes, HuffPo should do a better job covering the issues involved; however, most grown ups should already know that sleeping with your source -- especially someone working for the government -- is a huge conflict of interest.  Not an apparent one.  A conflict of interest.

 

That's what Lisa Du was explaining yesterday, "Aside from the fact that Chon probably committed the biggest no-no in the journalism industry by sleeping with her source, McGurk, by the way, was apparently still married when he and Chon had their rendezvous in the summer of 2008, the Washington Free Beacon is reporting."  And McGurk also had a written code of conduct.  We knew McGurk was hiding the affair from his bosses (and he was hiding it because it was a violation of the written rules of conduct he signed and agreed to follow).  And it's the point Erik Wemple (Washington Post) makes today, "Not alerting an editor to a relationship with a ranking official in the center of her beat is a job-ending breakdown. Though a grace period must apply to the initial stages of courtship, Chon had progressed beyond that point, as the e-mails make clear. Let's just say that if you're discussing masturbation with a high-ranking lover/source, you have some news for your editor. The statement from the Wall Street Journal states that Chon neglected to take that step."

 

 

And more troubles keep coming Brett McGurk's way.  Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports on Senator Mark Kirk, "One Republican senator [Kirk] is now making an issue out of McGurk's role in the case of Ali Musa Daqduq, the alleged Hezbollah commander who was transferred from U.S. to Iraqi custody last December and acquitted in an Iraqi court last month. He remains in Iraqi custody pending an automatically triggered appeal, but could be released thereafter. "

 

Who?

 

In May, Mike Jaccarino (Fox News -- link is text and video) quoted Charlotte Freeman stating, "It was like a pit (opening) inside of me. I briefly read it and couldn't read on.  I couldn't go there.  It wasn't like he was dying again.  It was more shock that these people get away with what they do.  There's no justice. It's amazing and shocking to me that someone who did what he did could go free."  That was her reaction to the news that Iraq planned to set freem the man who allegedly killed her husband, 31-year-old Spc Brian S. Freemen as well as 22-year-old Spc Johnathan B. Chism, 20-year-old Pfc Jonathon M. Millican, 25-year-old Pfc Shawn P. Falter and 25-year-old 1st Lt Jacob N. Fritz.  The 5 US soldiers were murdered in January 2007.  The US military had Ali Musa Daqduq in custody along with others who were said to have orchestrated the killings.  But they let go of the League of Righteous members in the summer of 2009 to help out England (5 Brits had been kidnapped -- only one would be returned alive after the League was released).  They kep Daqduq in US military custody.  What happened?

 

December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis, "He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration 'sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes,' according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington."  Though US Senators objected to his being handed over to Nouri's legal system, the White House insisted he would be prosecuted and, if for nothing else, he might do eight years for entering Iraq illegally!

 

5 deaths.  Brutal deaths.  This was an attack that involved kidnapping.  And Barack was fine with  Ali Musa Daqduq just getting a slap on the wrist for entering Iraq without the proper travel visa.  Then on May 7th, Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqduq of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five U.S. troops."  This is currently on appeal but it's not exepcted to be any trouble for Ali Mussa Daqduq to walk on all charges.   Kitabat reported  in May that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was released.   It was also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility. 

 

Was Brett McGurk involved in those decisions?  He was in Iraq as the decision was being made and as we quoted him in last Wednesday's snapshot telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

 

In my last assignments in Iraq, I participated in almost every internal conversation -- both inter-agency and in Baghdad -- about how not only to plan the transition after our troops were withdrawing but also uhm, uh-uh, how to get the size down.  Uh, quite frankly, our presence in Iraq right now, uh, is too large.

 

 

But not that one, Brett McGurk?  You were supposedly a whiz on the Iraqi legal system.  Didn't you blog about that?  What happened to that blog?

 

 

 

Your now deleted blog?  Maybe the Committee should ask you questions about that?

RECOMMENDED:

Iraq snapshot

The price Jalal now pays

The Blot won't wash out (or shut up)

Like Maria Said Paz

CCR, Isaiah, Katty-van-van

23 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!

Mondays

23 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ

Not a prank

23 hours ago

Ruth's Report

Three accidents?

23 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

the pioneer

23 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

An answer over 30 years later

23 hours ago

Ann's Mega Dub

4 men, 1 woman

23 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen

The economy, the planet

23 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends

The ridiculous

23 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

The embarrassing Jay Carney

23 hours ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! PISS STAINS ON THE PRESIDENT!

14 hours ago

Cedric's Big Mix

Stroking the ego

14 hours ago 

THIS JUST IN! PISS STAINS ON THE PRESIDENT!

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

THOUGH CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O PROSECUTES WHISTLE BLOWERS AND LEAKERS, HE LOOKS THE OTHER WAY WHEN WHITE HOUSE MEMBERS LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO BUTCH UP HIS IMAGE.


BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "WHEN YOU'RE AS EFFETE AS ME, YOU REALLY NEED ALL THE HELP YOU CAN GET."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting in the US.  For years and years, CJR (Columbia Journalism Review) was said to be the left-wing journalism site and AJR (American Journalism Review) was said to be the right-wing.  Over the years, they both denied any real tilt, insisting that they covered the media and did so with regard to issues.

Lisa Du observes, "Aside from the fact that Chon probably committed the biggest no-no in the journalism industry by sleeping with her source, McGurk, by the way, was apparently still married when he and Chon had their rendezvous in the summer of 2008, the Washington Free Beacon is reporting."

And she's right. 

But, sadly, Lisa Du is writing for Business Insider and not CJR.  She is writing about the nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq Brett McGurk and Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon who carried on in Baghdad in 2008 with McGurk concealing the relationship from then-US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

As Ryan Chittum's June 8th post makes clear, CJR hasn't developed a sudden aversion to taking on the Wall St. Journal.  And Erika Fry's "The superintendent's racy e-mails" went up today indicating that CJR has no problem covering "racy e-mails."  So why the silence? CJR should be leading on this issue and instead they are silent.  This is the sort of silence that has people suspecting CJR tilts left and allows that tilt to influence their coverage?

(Does AJR tilt right?  I honestly don't know.  I ignored that publication until I started The Common Ills.  Then, if I was asked to highlight something from it, I did.  But I had heard it all my life and assumed it was true.  The truth is that I honestly don't know.  The pieces we've highlighted here have always been strong writing.  CJR?  I always assumed it was left like me.  But I kidded myself that being left didn't influence what it would cover.  I stopped kidding about that around 2008.) 

Meena Hart Duerson (New York Daily News) reports today:

Nominated for the post in March by President Obama, McGurk's confirmation hearings finally began last Wednesday, but the bipartisan backing he'd enjoyed having served under Bush seemed to be evaporating in the wake of the scandal.

"Overnight, support for him has cratered," a Republican staffer on the Foreign Relations Committee told ABC News.

Nevertheless analysts told ABC they expect him to ultimately succeed in securing the position.

In a statement published on Gawker, the Wall Street Journal said it was "looking into the matter" and that Chon was already scheduled to go on leave this summer in light of McGurk's nomination.

The Daily Mail notes:

Following the leaked emails Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who is on the Armed Services Committee, has said that he will not meet with McGurk, as he typically would, the Washington Post reported. 

'Senator Inhofe always prefers to meet with nominees personally before giving his support,' said his spokesman, Jared Young. 'In regards to this nominee, Senator Inhofe has heard some concerning issues, and until those issues are cleared up, he will not meet with Mr. McGurk.'

Cheri Roberts (OpEdNews) weighs in on Brett McGurk's nomination for US Ambassador to Iraq, "Is this the right man to be the new Ambassador to Iraq? I think not. If a man cannot hold up the weight of his zipper, there is no way he should be given the weight of Diplomacy."  Today Peter Van Buren offers:

State claims that McGurk is "uniquely qualified" for the job, and that he was the subject of "rigorous vetting." Yet now-authenticated, salacious emails, which call into question his judgment, maturity, discretion and ethics popped up online, straight out of State's own archives and blew his once certain Senate approval on to a back burner, at best.

As part of any political vetting process, especially in the age of the web, the candidate is asked at some point "Is there anything else? Anything out there that might come up we need to know about? Any skeletons in the closet, old affairs, angry ex', anything?" Because today, if it is out there, it will surface.

Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.  As a result, the State Dept has gone after Peter.  The book should have a sticker proclaiming it, "The book the US State Department doesn't want you to read!"

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is better known as OPEC.  It is run by the Secretary General.  Since 2007, the former Libyan Minister of Oil, Abdalla Salem el-Badri, has served in that position.  A conference president is not in charge of OPEC and serves only a one-year term (and is elected with an Altnerate President who serves that same year).  Calling Abdul Kareem Luaibi "OPEC president" is false.  He's a Conference President and only presides over the conferences.  He is not "President of OPEC" or "OPEC President."   Luaibi is the Oil Minister of Iraq. 

Reuters reported this morning the OPEC is concerned that a "glut of oil" is depressing the price per barrel of crude and Iraq's Oil Minister Abdul Kareem Luaibi is noted in the report, "Luaibi said his own country, Iraq, would export 2.9 million bpd next year -- up from 2.4 million bpd now.  That implies total Iraqi output of 3.4 million bpd, which would allow it to overtake Iran as OPEc's second biggest producer.  Iraq has ambitious plans to expand production held back by decades of war and sanctions."  Peg Mackey and Daniel Fineren (Reuters) report that Saudia Arabia Minister of Oil, Ali al-Naimi, states, "Our analysis suggests that we will need a higher ceiling than current exists." They then state, "Iraq and Iran are expected to argue that Saudi Arabia should reduce supplies to help support prices." The three are apparently also divided on prices with Saudia Arabia feeling $100 per barrel of oil is fine but Iraq and Iran wanting $125 per barrel.

The disagreement comes ahead of the 5th OPEC International Seminar to be held in Vienna's Hofburg Palace starting June 13th.   KUNA notes that the meeting will also see the issue of Secretary General raised and that this will "overshadow on the meeting's deliberations after Iran and Iraq have officially nominated their candidates for this position against a contester from Saudi Arabia."  Who's proposed so far? 

Middle East Economic Survey notes that Iraq's pushing for Thamir Ghadhban (close ties to Nouri), Iran's pushing for one of their former Ministers of Oil, Gholamhossein Nozari, Equador's putting up Minister of Oil Wilson Pastor-Morris and Saudi Arabia is backing their OPEC Governor Majid al-Munif.  IOGN notes, "The selection of OPEC secretary generals is traditionally a fraught task, typically with unexpected compromise candidates eventually being selected."   There have been 22 secretary generals so far, that covers the period from 1961 to the present (el-Badri's term runs out at the end of 2012).  A citizen of Equador last served as Secretary General from 1979 to 1981.  Iran can claim the first Secretary General and it's never held the post since.  The Islamic Revolution of 1979 has made additional terms heading OPEC especially problematic with Arab member-states of OPEC.  Iraq has held the post only once, from 1964 to 1965 when Dr. Abdul Rahman al-Bazzaz was Secretary General.  Unlike Nouri's proposed candidate, al-Bazzaz was a pan-Arab nationalist. (He was also a Sunni.)  RIA Novisti offers a series of photos of then-Iraqi Prime Minister al-Bazzaz arriving July 27, 1966 in the USSR for an official visit and speaking with Premier Alexei Kosygin who headed the Council of Ministers from 1964 to 1980.  And here's one of then-Prime Minister Abd ar-Rahman al-Baazaz in Red Square.

In light of the current disagreement, it's worth noting the remarks of OPEC Secretary General el-Badri last month at the 13 International Oil Summit in Paris:

In terms of prices, this year we have generally seen moving in an upward direction. However, current prices are not due to market fundamentals. Speculation is pushing prices higher. Trading is being made on the perception of a suppy shortage, rather than evidence of any actual or impending shortfall. It is related to geopolitics. In many respects it can be described as a 'fear factor'.

As we are all aware, oil is increasingly being treated as an individual asset class by finanical investors. Since 2005, the total open interest of the NYMEX and ICE Brent crude oil futures and options have increased sharply.

Una Galani and Christopher Swann (Reuters) note that Iraq's increase has thrown OPEC off balance, "If Iraq's rising output isn't calibrated with the market's ability to absorb it, oversupply could become chronic and prices could fall further. Iraq has said that it would like to rejoin OPEC's quota system in 2014. Rivals may now want that to happen sooner even though Iraq will seek a large quota to reflect its high level of reserves." In some western countries, it all comes down to what's the price at the pump but in the oil-rich Middle East, this is a very serious issue. Ahmed al-Jarallah (Arab Times) reports that "Iran's representative Mohammed Ali Khatibi" is accusing Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia of flooding the market and al-Jarallah compares that accusation to the one which led Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait, "I think the leaders of Iran think they can repeat the same stupidity like Saddam Hussein or even more stupidity because on one hand the world at the moment cannot entertain such kinds of adventures and on the other the world will never allow it to happen under current economical hardships witnessed by several countries."

 

RECOMMENDED:

• Iraq snapshot
• Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Trusted Dr...
• The scramble to figure out where the crisis stands...
• Scandals and stumbles
• Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ambassador to ...
• Hejira

• State of Law swears the curtain is down on a no-co...
• I Hate The War

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Ambassador to Swingtown?
• TV: Parody and a dash of pastiche
• The Punk Almost Rises
• Shorter Leslie Savan
• Video of the Week
• When to worry about Wonder Woman, when not to
• Best news about the news
• The VA and reproductive injuries
• Wisconsin betrayed (Jill Stein)
• Leaks of Classified National Security Information
• Ballot Access (Green Party of Michigan)
• What happened in Syria? (Workers World)
• Highlights

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Out of touch and then some

  2 days ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! THEY'RE REALLY PRETTY STUPID!

  2 days ago