Wall Street Journal Backtracking From Sketchy 'Beanpole' Obama Story

Wall Street Journal Beanpole Article

Remember that story in the Wall Street Journal last week about how maybe elite Barack Obama was too skinny for lardy everyday Americans? Sure you do, it was a total water cooler piece and we all ate it up like the obese news gluttons that we are. It had great details, like how the Democratic presidential candidate drinks Black Forest Berry Honest Tea, and great quotes, like that one Clinton supporter who said "I won't vote for any beanpole guy," LOL. Well, it turns out that "beanpole quote" came from a sort-of jokey anonymous reply to a message board topic the Journal reporter herself created, and was the only remotely quotable line in that thread. And the Berry Honest Tea detail originated in a memo put out by Obama rival John McCain's campaign manager. Whoops! Today's it correction time:

A Weekend Journal article Friday about Barack Obama's weight included a quote from a Yahoo bulletin board that was posted in response to a question from a Wall Street Journal reporter who initiated the discussion. The article should have disclosed that the reporter used the bulletin board to elicit the comment, "I won't vote for any beanpole guy."

Ha ha, the article should probably also disclosed that the quote came from an account ("onlinebeerbellygirl") only used once — to post that message — and read in full as follows:
Yes I think He is to skinny to be President.Hillary has a potbelly and chuckybutt I'd of Voted for Her.I won't vote for any beanpole guy.

Fan of Hillary's "chuckybutt" suddenly won over to McCain by his jowls? Sounds like a serious, reputable source!

Also probably worth putting in a correction? Why the reporter, Amy Chozik, appears to have deleted the original discussion thread.

Fearless, honest journalism in the service of an important story — you just knew Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would turn out this way, didn't you?

Suskind: White House Ordered Forged, Backdated Letter After Invasion To Concoct Saddam-9/11 Link

A new book by Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that, after the Iraq war began, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein, in an attempt to tie Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. Here’s what Suskind reports:

– Saddam Hussein’s intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, told U.S. and British officials there was no WMD in Iraq, “intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.

– In the fall of 2003, the White House ordered CIA Director George Tenet to forge a “fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq” and that Iraq bought yellowcake uranium from Niger with the help of al Qaeda.

– The letter was commissioned “from the highest reaches of the White House.” “It would have to come from the very top,” Suskind told NPR today.


After the fake letter was released in late 2003, press outlets reported it as evidence of a Saddam/al Qaeda link. “Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam,” said Bill O’Reilly at the time.

“The White House plans to push back hard,” Politico reports. Former CIA Director George Tenet today called the charges “ridiculous” and questioned whether Suskind is a “serious journalist.” “There was no such order from the White House to me,” he said. On NBC’s Today Show, Suskind said Tenet simply does not remember the letter — but Tenet’s staff does:

I think this is part of George’s memory issue. … He seems not to remember it. That’s at least what he claims. In this book, instead of going to George, I went to all the people around George, close to George, who remember because they were involved in the thing, and they remember what George says to them.

Watch it:

After a White House meeting, Tenet went back to the CIA and ordered his staff to forge the letter. “Listen Marine, you’re not going to like this, but here goes,” Tenet told Rob Richer, former head of the CIA’s Near East Division, according to Richer.

Suskind also said he spoke with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

White House press spokesman Tony Fratto attacked Suskind today, stating that he “makes a living from gutter journalism” and calling the book one of Suskind’s “bizarre conspiracy theories.”

Cheney’s argument for not releasing innocent detainees: ‘They’ll all get lawyers.’

In his New York Times review of Jane Mayer’s new book, The Dark Side, Alan Brinkley describes how by the end of 2005, torture advocates within the Bush administration were fighting to continue their extreme detainee program “because they feared being prosecuted should the program be halted and exposed.” In one White House meeting described by Mayer, Vice President Dick Cheney argued against releasing innocent detainees because “they’ll all get lawyers“:

By the end of 2005, those defending the regime of torture were no longer seeking primarily to protect the search for valuable intelligence. They were fighting for its survival, in the face of considerable evidence of the failure of SERE and other programs, because they feared being prosecuted should the program be halted and exposed. Even releasing detainees whom they knew to be entirely innocent was dangerous, since once released they could talk. “People will ask where they’ve been and ‘What have you been doing with them?’” Cheney said in a White House meeting. “They’ll all get lawyers.”

VECO Employees Speak Up About Senator Ted Stevens' Renovations

Two VECO employees shed new light on who was behind the idea to renovate the home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday.

The two employees, David Anderson, the nephew of former VECO CEO Bill Allen, and Robert "Rocky" Williams, a trusted VECO worker, told the ADN that they met with Allen over drinks at the Alyeska Prince Hotel in the spring of 1999 or 2000. It was during this meeting that the three men first discussed plans to renovate the Stevens' home.

Bill Allen & Steven's House

Stevens was indicted last week on seven counts of false statements, stemming from his failure to disclose the $250,000 worth of renovations made to his home by the oil company VECO.

Anderson, who had a falling out with Allen over the construction and once claimed that his uncle threatened his life, told the ADN that there were numerous projects that Stevens was not billed for -- and Anderson would know, since he handled the billing:

Among the electricians' tasks was to wire up a switch for a generator that would automatically turn on whenever the power went out, Anderson said. Allen told him to buy an oversized power plant to install in the back yard. It was so heavy that Anderson had to order in a Veco crane from the shop to lift it over the garage from the driveway and set it in place in the back.It was another gift that Stevens got for free, Anderson said. "I know, because I ran the paperwork -- I did all the purchase orders."

The generator is not mentioned in the indictment.


Anderson and Williams worked closely with Stevens' wife, Catherine Stevens, who had a say over much of the renovations:
Williams said Catherine Stevens wanted to put her touch on the place, which she and Stevens had bought as a 12-year-old house in 1983."So she picked out the carpet, she picked out the tile," Williams said. "She made it her place and that was what Ted wanted . . ."

In addition to shedding light on the work done to the Stevens' home, the ADN also speculates about the likely identities of two of the three anonymous parties in the Stevens' indictment, stating that Person A is Bob Persons, a local business owner who diligently oversaw the renovations, and Company A is Christensen Builders, a local construction company owned by Augie Paone, already known to have done work on the Girdwood chalet.

Anderson initially told the ADN that the "at least some" of the costs for the renovation were passed on to VECO clients, like "BP Exploration." Late yesterday, ADN ran a second story, saying that Anderson backed away from those statements.

FCC Says BitTorrent Throttling Illegal, EFF Releases Tool for You To Test Your ISP For It

Reposted from Read Write Web.

The Federal Communications Commission ruled this morning by a 3 to 2 vote that Comcast's arbitrary throttling of customers' use of BitTorrent was illegal. Hours before the ruling, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released software that anyone can use to see if their Internet Service Provider (ISP) is engaging in the same or similar behavior.

BitTorrent accounts for a substantial percentage of traffic on the internet and some people believe it causes unfair slowdowns for web users doing anything else online. Many other people argue that ISPs have an obligation to treat all internet traffic equally regardless of content. This is a key battle in the Network Neutrality debate.
Enforcement Against Comcast
Comcast voluntarily stopped throttling in March, but today's FCC decision is important FCC Chair Kevin Martin says so that "consumers deserve to know that the commitment is backed up by legal enforcement." Martin, a Republican, is believed by some to be taking an out-of-charecter populist stance on the matter because he's preparing to run for a position in the US House of Representatives.
EFF Releases "Switzerland"
The Electronic Frontier Foundation today released software called "Switzerland" (as in, the neutral country) that can be used by consumers to test our networks for ISP interference.

The EFF explains:

"Switzerland is an open source, command-line software tool designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data by ISPs. Switzerland detects changes made by software tools believed to be in use by ISPs such as Sandvine and AudibleMagic, advertising systems like FairEagle, and various censorship systems. Although currently intended for use by technically sophisticated Internet users, development plans aim to make the tool increasingly easy to use."

We'll keep our eyes peeled for a version of the tool that doesn't require using the command line, though every network in the land can now assume that it has users tech-savvy enough to be monitoring its behavior.

This quote from the EFF release puts things into context:

"The sad truth is that the FCC is ill-equipped to detect ISPs interfering with your Internet connection," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney. "It's up to concerned Internet users to investigate possible network neutrality violations, and EFF's Switzerland software is designed to help with that effort. Comcast isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, ISP to meddle surreptitiously with its subscribers' Internet communications for its own benefit."

What Do You Think?
The FCC's ruling was narrowly decided, through a 3 to 2 vote. Do you think ISPs have a legitimate interest in favoring some web traffic over others? On one hand, a future where big players get preferential treatment could cause a major slowdown in innovation. Startups and unknown application providers could be prevented from leveraging maximum bandwidth to offer new types of services to consumers. The most common example given is that YouTube may have struggled to make online video so common if they were discriminated against in their earliest days.

On the other hand, people downloading long lists of huge media files over common networks could be seen as an onerous drain on the "bandwidth commons." Slowing down an entire neighborhood's web use because you want to get the entire archives of some TV show is arguably pretty anti-social behavior.

We'd love to get our readers' thoughts on these questions - and for those of you able to put Switzerland to use, let us know if your ISP appears to be doing the same kinds of shady things that Comcast was slapped for today. These are going to be very big issues for the near-term future of the web.

Reposted from Read Write Web.

AP's Washington Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier, exposed as a McCain shill

On Tuesday Michael Calderone at Politico produced definitive evidence of Ron Fournier's bias in favor of John McCain. He did it by linking the Associated Press Washington Bureau chief directly to the McCain presidential campaign. Over a period of several months during 2006, Fournier discussed taking a high-level communications job with the McCain campaign. Apparently Fournier turned down the job offer in the end.

I say 'apparently' because often it is difficult to tell from the reporting produced by Fournier and his Bureau whether or not he views himself as a campaign operative.

The most striking thing about this story is what is absent. Although he oversees reporting on the presidential race for the purportedly unbiased and nonpartisan AP, Fournier has never disclosed to the public his close contacts with the McCain campaign. And though he doesn't deny the contacts, when asked about them Fournier declined to discuss the matter and referred Politico to an AP spokesman (who issued a bland statement). If Fournier has had nothing to hide, then why the secrecy and evasiveness? Who would argue that the public does not have a right to know that the AP Washington Bureau chief considered working for a presidential candidate?

Here are details from Politico:

In October 2006, the McCain team approached Fournier about joining the fledgling operation, according to a source with knowledge of the talks. In the months that followed, said a source, Fournier spoke about the job possibility with members of McCain’s inner circle, including political aides Mark Salter, John Weaver and Rick Davis.

Salter, who remains a top McCain adviser, said in an e-mail to Politico that Fournier was considered for "a senior advisory role" in communications.

"He did us the courtesy of considering the offer before politely declining it," Salter said.


Discussions with McCain's top aides lasting months don't constitute a mere 'courtesy' no matter how Salter tries to spin it. If Fournier had not been interested, he would have rejected McCain's advances at the outset.

After entertaining this job offer, Fournier should not have been covering the presidential campaign, certainly not while keeping his contacts with McCain secret. That's not a hard call, ethically.

This is just the latest in a series of controversies surrounding Fournier, from his unseemly attention to John McCain's donut-gustation at an interview, to his eager embrace of Republican talking points, to the extraordinary changes he introduced at AP encouraging the freer expression of opinion in news stories. His predecessor at the AP Washington Bureau, Sandy Johnson, sees Fournier's policies as a threat to it.

"I just hope he doesn’t destroy it."

Fournier's ties to the Republican establishment were exposed garishly earlier this month by a House Oversight and Government Reform report. Discussing the Bush administration's political response to Pat Tillman's death in 2004, it cited emails sent to the WH offering political advice. This exchange stood out.
Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

Fournier tried to explain away his seemingly cozy relationship with Karl Rove.
"I was an AP political reporter at the time of the 2004 e-mail exchange, and was interacting with a source, a top aide to the president, in the course of following an important and compelling story. I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence."

However he convinced almost none of his critics that his Rovian correspondence was appropriate. For one thing, Fournier has never written about Tillman. So what was the need to contact Rove in the first place? The episode gives the impression that Fournier was just worshipping at Rove's altar.

Even before that email correspondence came to light (almost accidentally), Fournier had long been notorious both for carrying water for John McCain in particular, and for savaging McCain's rivals. Among other things, under Fournier's leadership AP reporting this year has consistently downplayed or suppressed information about McCain's many contradictory, false, and otherwise embarrassing statements. Last week at Media Matters Eric Boehlert surveyed Fournier's long and tawdry record of partisanship:

In two "Analysis" pieces and a column, Fournier questioned whether John Edwards was a "phony," announced the Clintons suffered from "utter self-absorption," and claimed that Barack Obama was "bordering on arrogance." That's the right of a pundit. But at the same time, Fournier avoided raising any doubts about Sen. John McCain, and in fact rushed to his aid in print during the senator's time of campaign need.

That ethos seems to have been adopted by the larger AP political team, which, honestly, writes as if it's completely in the tank for McCain...

Fournier wrote those pieces in which he routinely unloaded on the leading Democratic candidates -- Edwards, Clinton, and Obama -- while thoroughly questioning their motives and their character.

Yet I have searched in vain for a single example from the primary season in which Fournier raised a column's worth of uncomfortable questions about McCain's motives and his character...

In fact, one of the few times that Fournier dedicated a column to the Republican primary battle was following the Michigan contest, which McCain lost to Mitt Romney. The win presented Romney with his one brief window of opportunity to knock McCain from his front-runner perch. Fournier unleashed a wild column targeting Romney and practically threw his body in front of McCain to protect his beloved candidate.


Boehlert highlighted a series of reports and columns in which Fournier has advanced unfounded assertions and used flagrantly biased language to promote McCain or belittle his rivals. He concluded, as many others had already, that Fournier has a man-crush on McCain.
The fact is, Fournier's McCain love runs deep and goes back years.

The Associated Press desperately needs to find a new Washington Bureau chief.

Intersection Of Freedom’s Watch And McCain? All Roads Lead To Rove

When you think about the biggest skunk in the Grand Ole Party, does Karl Rove's eau de turdblossom spring to mind? It should:


We have recently learned that Rove has signed a mid-six figure consulting deal with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to oversee the activities of the right-wing shadow group Freedom's Watch. With the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) underfunded and in disarray this cycle, it has outsourced its work to Freedom's Watch, a shady soft money group with ties to President Bush and Senator John McCain.

If you ever wondered what the Bush political team is up to this campaign season, you need look no farther than the team behind Freedom's Watch. Rove, along with former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, former White House Political Director Tony Feather, and a slew of Bush cronies have teamed up with the third richest man in the country, Freedom's Watch's sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson - to form this unprecedented swift-boat operation. Their goal is clear -- to preserve Bush's legacy by delivering a third Bush term....

Please take a moment to visit www.TheRealFreedomsWatch.org and sign our petition demanding the National Republican Congressional Committee and Republican campaigns nationwide denounce Karl Rove's new attack shop....


Funny thing about Rove: he's been writing regular op-ed columns for the WSJ and Newsweek, and doing regular political commentary for Faux News. He also works both for Freedom's Watch AND for the McCain Campaign. All at the same time. All with no regular public disclosure of his rampant conflicts of interest nor with much if any oversight of his pivotal role between McCain's presidential campaign and Freedom's Watch which, as a 501(c)(4), is supposed to have no coordination with McCain's camp or any political campaign.   And yet:

“Karl is up to his eyeballs in this,” says one prominent GOP consultant who has met with Rove a few times this year. “They’re trying to figure out who is going to do the presidential, who is going to do the Senate and who is going to do the House. They’re trying to assign resources to maximize the dollars and minimize duplication. Karl has taken it over.”


Anyone else getting that inevitable whiff of GOP corruption and flouting of the rules?

I'm sure Rove protege Steve Schmidt, newly installed at the McCain campaign's helm, is shocked...shocked, I say...to learn his mentor Karl Rove might be involved in a rule-flouting scheme to game the 2008 election.  Especially when you consider the timely roll-out of prior Freedom's Watch campaigns which just happened to coincide directly with the McCain messaging roll-out of the week?  (And with Congressional campaign strategy, which Blue America has already been fighting.)

Why is it that when we talk Republican corruption, all roads inevitably lead to Rove? And shouldn't we all be asking if Grover Norquist is up to his old launder the Republican money and take a cut tricks again? Is this yet another "follow the money" scheme? Inquiring minds and all...given that after Jackie Boy Abramoff, none of these people ever again get the benefit of any doubt.