Low Earth Orbit

Another example of professional standards in journalism

[source]

MEDIA BIAS IN IRAQ: Josh Marshall isn't happy that people are starting to complain about media reporting over Iraq: p(qq). CNN was in full grovel mode. It's revealing, isn't it, that by the professional standards of American journalism, groveling to Saddam was widespread and seen as barely worth reporting, while even the possibility that someone might write something favorable about the United States is seen as an appalling breach of accepted practices.

But not groveling to third world despots or praising America might _hurt a career_! Can't have that.

No, I don't see the elephant either.

[source, source]

If the CIA ever gets serious about investigating Saddam-al Qaeda ties, it can start by sending someone to Toronto. On April 27, 2003, Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter, his translator, and a colleague from the London Telegraph came across a document in the burned-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat in Baghdad. The document was found in the accounting department of the old Iraqi intelligence building and discussed who would pick up the tab for upcoming meetings between a bin Laden representative and Iraqi intelligence. It was, Potter wrote at the time, "the first hard evidence of contact between bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime." Bin Laden's name appeared three times in the document--crudely covered with liquid paper. The goal of the meeting, according to the memo's author, was to discuss "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The individual coming to Baghdad, the memo continued, may represent "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." […] His [Potter's] phone rang off the hook after he reported his find. One of those calls, he assumed, would come from the CIA or some other investigative arm of the U.S. government. It's been nearly six months. That call never came. As of Thursday, no one from the U.S. government had contacted Potter about the document his editors are now holding.

Apparently this kind of inaction is fine with President Bush, because we don't see him taking any action against an agency that's obviously shirking its mission.

America responds to Palestinian terror

[source, source]

The man, Akhram Tubassi, a member of the Palestinian Coast Guard, was detained by the Shin Bet on October 7th. He confessed to purchasing weapons in Egypt, commissioned by senior officials of the PA security system. The connection to Dahlan is still under investigation. To smuggle the weapons, Tubassi used tunnels (those same smuggling tunnels the IDF has been trying to eliminate in its recent Operation Root Canal) and three "errand boys", who went back and forth carrying, among others, guns, missiles and thousands of bullets. According to the allegations, the weapons were delivered to senior security official Nabil Tamus. Tubassi testified Tamus asked him to wait while he checked with Dahlan before "placing an order" for missiles. Tubassi was arrested before Tamus returned with an answer. Tubassi also testified to his involvement in smuggling six missiles in January 2001, commissioned by Fuad Shubaki, the man who financed the attempted smuggling of the Karine A arms vessel into the Gaza Strip. He was further involved in the preparation of anti-tank missiles.

And America responds [source, source]:

Yesterday, on the same day three Americans were killed by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, President Bush once again signed a waiver allowing the PLO to continue operating in the US by granting them an exemption from the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987.

Don't let them steal the election!

[source, source]

p(qq). […] writer Mark Barabak recently gave to University of California students: While the campaign may be over, Barabak said, the story of Schwarzenegger's past is not. He said *the Times is investigating potentially more damaging charges against the governor-elect*. [Emph. added.] p(qq). Do reporters usually say they are investigating damaging charges before they are proven? It seems permissable to me--but if a Times reporter announced that the paper was investigating unspecified 'potentially damaging' but unproven charges against, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, I suspect the editors of the Times might come down somewhat hard on him.

But Pelosi isn't a member of a "criminal organization such as the Republicans":1026, of which Schwarzenegger is a openly admitted member.