Response from Eason Jordan
Our friend, formerly of CNN, passed along this statement from Eason Jordan. It seems that he is making a semantic argument, i.e., that when he said that the journalists had been "targeted", he didn't mean to imply that the U.S. military realized that they were journalists. (That is, soldiers intended to shoot the people who were killed -- they just didn't know they were journalists.) Perhaps that's true. Perhaps. But why wouldn't he have made the point about mistaken identity clear in the original remarks?
Here is the statement:
"To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. I said so during the forum panel discussion. But, nonetheless, the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage." Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is ppropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage." That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive."
-----------------------------------------
When our friend checked with Jordan in response to my inquiry about whether these remarks were for attribution, he received the following response:
"NBC, Reuters, and Al Jazeera have all complained to the U.S. military that their journalists have been wrongly detained, imprisoned, and abused by U.S. military forces. I am unaware of any transcript of the Davos panel discussion. My comments were part of a conversation, not scripted. It's fine with me if my comments here are posted on a blog."
Here is the statement:
"To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. I said so during the forum panel discussion. But, nonetheless, the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage." Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is ppropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage." That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive."
-----------------------------------------
When our friend checked with Jordan in response to my inquiry about whether these remarks were for attribution, he received the following response:
"NBC, Reuters, and Al Jazeera have all complained to the U.S. military that their journalists have been wrongly detained, imprisoned, and abused by U.S. military forces. I am unaware of any transcript of the Davos panel discussion. My comments were part of a conversation, not scripted. It's fine with me if my comments here are posted on a blog."
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:15 PM
10 Comments:
Can you believe this guy Jordan? Semantical gymnastics. He should be very sore indeed.
Nobody's buying this. Jordan said what he said and meant it: journalists are being targeted. The implication was that United States soldiers were specifically going after journalists. Now he wants to backtrack and parse "collateral damage" and mistaken identity? Sorry. Too many fact-checkers on this case. The blog swarm has descended...
My post title stands: Eason Jordan Claims American Troops Targeted And Killed Journalists.
Great scoop, Carol. This sounds like more of the same spin we received from CNN - that his remarks were taken out of context, he didn't say what he meant, he didn't mean what he said, etc. (pick your favorite excuse).
Sounds like he just doesn't understand the concept of "collateral damage".
Thanks for putting this up, but it does sound like Jordan's trying to lie his way out of the hole he dug with his own mouth.
So according to Jordan, Pat Tillman's death was NOT collateral damage, rather he was "targeted" by his fellow Rangers. Both reinterpretations of existing terms are absurd. Jordan must have stayed up all night looking for a way out of his bold-faced lies.
Despite what Rumsfeld and the bombing cameras tell us, a military force (even America's, could you believe) lacks what some might call "finesse," what others would call "discernment," what still others would call "regard for the lives of non-fellows in combat." Aka, all of Iraq is a free-fire zone.
Which is why Iraqis, no doubt, should be understanding when loved ones become collateral damage. As should dead journalists. In Iraq, if you're not onboard the embed program, as far as the military is concerned, you are fair game.
And then people complain that all they do is sit in their hotel rooms all day and don't go to nice Iraqi school openings! Nice armchair quarterbacking guys.
The term "free-fire zone" raises your hackles, since it was an official policy during the Vietnam war. I know that it is not official policy in Iraq... it is de facto, however. Do you think our soldiers are being prevented from shooting whoever they want anywhere in the country? Convoys go through every town with machine-guns trained on everything that passes... one false move, one IED blows and civilians get caught in the crossfire. They're not fighting in the wilderness over there- it's an urban society.
Acknowledging the reality of what a foreign army does while in hostile territory isn't treason, especially since they do it "to protect America." Sorry if you'd like to keep living in your patriotic dream world where an American soldier has never killed an innocent Iraqi or foreign journalist.
I think you, and Rumsfeld, take the concept of collateral damage a little lightly.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050203/2005-02-03T200920Z_01_N03377963_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-MARINES-GENERAL-DC.html
Carol,
You need to hit back with Geraghty’s comment
http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/055232.html
“
What's perhaps most disturbing - and clearest - is that the Arab attendees definately heard what they wanted to hear out of Jordan's remarks, even if it was only implied or was a misstatement. And there's no indication that Jordan attempted to make clearer what he meant — there's no reports of him saying, "Hey, fellas, wait, you're putting words in my mouth."
“
Why is Jordan trying to explain here, to you, but not in front of the Arab attendees? Does the truth change depending on the audience? Who really misunderstood him, you or the Arabs?
Re: U.S. General Says It Is 'Fun to Shoot Some People'
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050203/2005-02-03T200920Z_01_N03377963_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-MARINES-GENERAL-DC.html
If you look at the context, the General was talking about shooting bad guys, not journalists, not innocents. He just spoke roughly. Remember,
Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -George Orwell
Post a Comment
<< Home