“Web of Connections” Apparently in the Eye of the Beholder
So, when successful lawyers in Houston know prominent Republicans in the state (including Karl Rove), the New York Times calls that a “web of connections” between the White House and a 527 group led by one of those lawyers. And we are treated to a chart such as the FBI might prepare in a prosecution of top Mafia leaders.
But when Saddam Hussein’s intelligence officials repeatedly met with top Al Qaeda leaders — something a little more unusual than lawyers knowing politicians — I don’t remember seeing the phrase “web of connections” used in the New York Times. Or a chart.
Am I the only one who finds that a bit odd?
No. I made that exact point in an email to my moonbat Aunt earlier this morning.
Comment by Xrlq — 8/21/2004 @ 10:32 am
9-10 Commission Finds “No Operational Link” Between G.O.P. and SwiftVets
But the New York Times, a wholly owned subsidary of the Democratic National Committee, does. Patterico has the scoop.
Trackback by damnum absque injuria — 8/21/2004 @ 10:36 am
Hedging
Kevin Drum’s joined the bandwagon of calling the SwiftVets liars. He’s a lot more reasonable than most other left-of-center blogs I read, as usual, but I think he’s taking sides in a he said, she said. The fact is, 35…
Trackback by Kalblog — 8/21/2004 @ 12:28 pm
De-Linking the Times
Patterico’s post on the NYT inspired this, so I’m linking to it again. If we’re talking about connections, why not look at the New York Times directly? Specifically, let’s look at the connections between its fully-owned subsidary, the Boston Globe,…
Trackback by Kalblog — 8/21/2004 @ 1:07 pm
I’ve never posted on your site but i do visit and am loving watching you burn the butts of these papers, keep up the good work.
Comment by salty sailor — 8/21/2004 @ 1:36 pm
I appreciate the comment. Feel free to leave more, and keep reading! I have more butt-burning on the way . . .
Comment by Patterico — 8/21/2004 @ 2:24 pm
Want to burn this article too?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Oh that liberal media
Comment by SCfan — 8/21/2004 @ 2:39 pm
Whatever. This guy is avoiding all interviews, so he doesn’t get the scrutiny that the Vets are getting. Who has he voted for? Who has he contributed to? Who does he have a “web of connections” with? His account is at least as uncorroborated as any of the Vets’.
Yet, as to the single incident he’s talking about, he may well be right.
My point has never been that I know the Vets are right. I just think that their claims deserve scrutiny. Of course, their claims are getting virtually none, while they are personally getting quite a bit. Much of it unfair and distorted.
Meanwhile, don’t hold your breath waiting for this newspaper guy to face the same kind of scrutiny — or constant reminders in the press that he won’t subject himself to that scrutiny.
Comment by Patterico — 8/21/2004 @ 2:53 pm
Check this story out, it is Bellodeau’s account of the Rood incident. I remembered reading it weeks ago.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/21/215620.shtml
Comment by salty sailor — 8/22/2004 @ 7:18 am
Oh, that web of connections
Patterico nails one noting that the NYT’s ridiculous graph could be applied to, uhm, other connections.
Trackback by SayUncle — 8/22/2004 @ 7:38 am
I read Rood’s account and the accompanying article in today’s Baltimore Sun (a paper owned by Tribune Pubishing, the LAT’s publisher). Three comments:
1. This quote from Jones’ article: “The [SBVFT] allegations have fueled a nearly two-week-long TV ad campaing against the Democratic nominee. Talk radio and cable news channels have feasted on the story.”
Feasted. No, this was page 10A, national news, not the Opinion section.
2. To me, Rood’s account of his recollections of the events of 2/28/69 (for which Kerry was awarded his Silver Star) is gripping, credible, and believable. That he doesn’t mention Bellodeau (salty sailer, immediately preceding) doesn’t diminish the account–it’s Rood’s personal recollection.
SBVFT may have fallen into a trap of their own making. Clearly, many are embittered by Kerry’s “Winter Soldier” years and view it as a betrayal; O’Neill has said as much. All have reason to distrust Kerry, some have first-hand knowledge that makes them feel this way. But there are two possible presentations. One is “Kerry’s 1968/69 and ’70s actions in aggregate lead us to distrust him, here are our accounts of a series of Viet Nam incidents.” The second is “Kerry is a fraud, and every instance of bravery or wounding for which he received a commendation is fraudulent.” To disprove the latter case, all Kerry has to do is choose one of SBVFT’s incidents, and show that the weight of the evidence is on his side. Rood may have done that here, for this incident.
3. Rood mentions other crew members of his with firsthand knowledge of the 2/28/69 firefight. Perhaps we will find out what Larry Lee, Denneth Martin, Benjamin Cueva, Wayne Langhoffer, or Jerry Leeds recollects. Presumably they support Rood’s version, as presumably they gave him permission to list their names in his account.
Comment by AMac — 8/22/2004 @ 11:45 am
Blogs for Bush put together a “web of connections” chart tracing connections between MoveOn and the Kerry campaign.
Comment by Les Jones — 8/22/2004 @ 4:14 pm
The Kerry Grill
The Kerry Grill - where news about John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is seared - seared! - into your memory Beldar found this letter from John Kerry to his girlfriend in the Kerry campaign biography Tour of Duty: There are so many ways t…
Trackback by Les Jones Blog — 8/30/2004 @ 6:22 am