And so far... Brian Williams is still employed.
“He is not going to be suspended or reprimanded in any way. He has the full support of NBC News,” a network source said.
Folks... whether you see yourselves as liberals or
conservatives... or moderates...
Whether you're registered as Democrat... Republican... or
"Other"...
Can't we all just admit that the mask is off?
The liberal media is out of control. (And they don't even
bother to try and hide the fact anymore!)
NBC’s most revered journalist is furious that Brian Williams is still in the anchor chair after he sheepishly admitted he hadn’t traveled on a helicopter hit by enemy fire.“Brokaw wants Williams’ head on a platter,” an NBC source said. “He is making a lot of noise at NBC that a lesser journalist or producer would have been immediately fired or suspended for a false report.”
Well, folks... here's the problem with that:
Brokaw, 74, was still the “Nightly News” anchor when Williams came back from his Iraq expedition — and an insider said he knew the story Williams later spouted was bunk.“Tom Brokaw and [former NBC News President] Steve Capus knew this was a false story for a long time and have been extremely uncomfortable with it,” the source said.NBC News execs had counseled him to stop telling the tale.
So they knew...
They knew all along...
9 comments:
http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/11526453-148/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams
NBC News anchor Brian Williams ... is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.
* GRIPPING FICTIONAL ACCOUNTS...??? (IT APPEARS LIKELY; READ ON.)
Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry...
(*GUFFAW*)
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN CONTEMPTUOUS AMUSEMENT*)
...and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a [false] claim [repeatedly made] that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.
The online feeding frenzy quickly turned to the 55-year-old anchor’s signature assignment: covering Katrina from before it made landfall, when he spent the night of the storm with refuge-seekers in the Superdome and then reported on the harrowing days that followed.
“When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country,” Williams said in a 2006 interview.
* BUT...
But the French Quarter, the original high ground of New Orleans, was not impacted by the floodwaters that overwhelmed the vast majority of the city.
* OOPS...!
And last year, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, the man he replaced in the anchor chair at NBC, Williams said: “My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery, our hotel was overrun with gangs, I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer. We are friends to this day. And uh, it just was uh, I look back at total agony.”
* BUT AGAIN...
The French Quarter, the original high ground of New Orleans, was not impacted by the floodwaters that overwhelmed the vast majority of the city.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Other accounts have Williams curled up in the fetal position between his on-air reports from a bad bout with dysentery.
A spokeswoman from the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals said dysentery is not one of the reportable diseases the agency tracks but that contaminated water sources are possible “transmission points” for dysentery. Dr. Brobson Lutz, a former city health director who manned an EMS trailer that was set up in the 900 block of Dumaine Street, a block from his house in the French Quarter, said he was a fan of Williams but dubious of his claims. “We were never wet. It was never wet,” he remarked of the conditions in the city’s most historic neighborhood.
As for dysentery, “I saw a lot of people with cuts and bruises and such, but I don’t recall a single, solitary case of gastroenteritis during Katrina or in the whole month afterward,” Lutz said.
(*SILENCE*)
“I saw fear, I saw death, I saw depravity, I saw firearms being brandished, I saw looting,” Williams told the Los Angeles Times a year after Katrina made landfall.
He also "recalled" the danger of the moment in a 2007 interview on C-SPAN: “We had to have men with guns behind me one night because I was the only source of light downtown, was the lights that were illuminating the broadcast,” Williams said. “We were told not to drink our bottled water in front of people because we could get killed for it.”
Questions about Williams’ recollections of his experience during Katrina weave into a larger tapestry of erratic, and sometimes downright erroneous, journalism that emerged from the chaos of the storm and its aftermath.
Four weeks after the storm, The Times-Picayune published an article noting that many of the most shocking stories that had been reported by media outlets across the world — reports of widespread violence and babies being killed, raped or trampled — had no apparent basis in fact.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/amnesty-bonuses-tax-code-illegal-immigrants-receive-earned-income-tax-credit_841496.html
[His Majesty] Barack Obama has promoted his recent "executive action" on immigration by arguing that he’s only deferring action – holding off on enforcement of the current immigration laws until an immigration reform he approves of passes Congress. But that's not really true...
* SURPRISE, SURPRISE...
In fact there’s a way for illegal immigrants immediately to receive “amnesty bonuses,” as Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska terms it.
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Here’s how. A recent Homeland Security Committee hearing on immigration revealed an alarming consequence of President Obama’s executive amnesty — that illegal immigrants with deferred status may be able to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
* IT GETS WORSE, FOLKS...
Moreover, this person, who is here in the U.S. unlawfully, could be able to file an amended tax return for up to the last three tax years, possibly receiving upwards of $24,000 in tax credits.
(*SILENCE*)
The discovery was made by Eileen J. O’Connor, a tax lawyer and the former head of the tax division of the United States Department of Justice, who used her congressional testimony in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to explain it. “The law makes a social security number a requirement of eligibility to receive the earned income credit,” O’Connor explained. “But in 1999, the Chief Counsel’s office of IRS ruled (in a non-binding, non-precedential way, but no one but the IRS pays attention to those disclaimers) that when a person receives a social security number, he can file amended returns to claim the credit for the three preceding years during which he did not. The logic is puzzling: the credit is not available if you don’t have a social security number, but you can receive it retroactively for years during which you did not qualify for it because you didn’t have a social security number.”
(*HEADACHE*)
* THE FULL ARTICLE IS WELL WORTH READING. (SEE: LINK ABOVE.)
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/average-soldiers-don-t-trust-their-generals-and-they-have-a-point.html
* THE HEADLINE:
Average Soldiers Don’t Trust Their Generals and They Have a Point
(*PURSED LIPS*)
A survey last year showed only 27% of the military felt senior leaders looked out for their best interests. To fix the morale crisis generals need to stop acting like politicians.
Through a decade-plus of war, America’s military men and women, and the families that support them, have experienced their share of hardships. Separations through multiple deployments and the inherent dangers of combat are enough to press the emotional and physical limits of even the strongest individuals.
For some of these faithful defenders of America’s interests, there have been difficulties far beyond the battlefield — difficulties not imposed by any [foreign] enemy or the distance and time that separates them from their loved ones. Most ironically, the assault against them — intended or not — can sometimes come from within the military institution for which they fought, bled and sacrificed so much.
It’s no wonder why there’s concern for morale in today’s force. Just recently, outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said he too is worried about the decline in enthusiasm, and he believes it will take some time to reversing the mindset and perspective of the force.
There’s no single reason for the decline in morale, although some reasons are more pronounced than others. Take for instance the question about whether “senior military has my best interests at heart.” In 2009, 53% of respondents answered yes. By 2014, only 27% answered affirmatively.
* FOLKS... PONDER THAT... JUST... PONDER THAT.
One recurring complaint involves what many service personnel perceive as the excessive politicization of the military during wartime, giving rise to high profile prosecutions, excessive punitive actions and decision making that is at odds with the best interests of service personnel.
* YA THINK...?!?!
So much so, instincts necessary in combat have been replaced with second-guessing and hesitation, matched by a growing sense of distrust among the ranks.
* AND ALL THE WHILE THE AVERAGE SHEEP OF "WE THE SHEEPLE" WILL ROOT ON ANY CALL FOR SENDING OUR BEST AND BRAVEST INTO COMBAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
* IS IT ANY WONDER I'M DISGUSTED BY THE STUPIDITY, SELFISHNESS, AND IRRESPONSIBILITY OF MY AVERAGE FELLOW-CITIZEN?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
The examples are plentiful. So too are the excuses — often given in defense of ambiguous and restrictive rules of engagement — that seem to ignore the realities of war or the fact that in combat, split-second decisions must be made for the purpose of preserving lives and attaining objectives.
In one case, a Special Forces soldier, Major Matt Golsteyn, was investigated by the Army for more than a year and a half under the suspicion that he violated the rules of engagement and illegally killed a known enemy fighter and bomb maker in Afghanistan. The allegation was presented through "informal channels" to the Army, which went to extraordinary lengths to investigate Golsteyn. The Army tried to turn up anything it could, but was unable to find one piece of evidence to corroborate the allegation.
* MORE ON THIS IN A SEPARATE POSTING!
Today, Golsteyn is still waiting for the Army to make a determination about his future. He’s been sidelined, his Special Forces recognition stripped, all while a guessing-game has ensued about what will happen to this decorated warfighter.
(Even the men who served under Golsteyn have been threatened at times, with the Army going as far to promise them full immunity several times over. None of them had anything to say.)
If that wasn’t enough, the combat valor award that Golsteyn received for heroism — a Silver Star — was recently revoked by the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh.
(It’s McHugh’s belief that if the nominating and approving authorities were aware of allegation, Golsteyn would never have been awarded one of the Army’s highest awards for valor.)
The career of a decorated soldier and everything he has accomplished over a nearly fifteen-year service career has been taken away. The reason: an allegation that the Army was never able to substantiate.
* AGAIN...
The reason: an allegation that the Army was never able to substantiate.
* ANOTHER EXAMPLE...? OK. READ ON!
There is also Clint Lorance, who is serving 19 years in military custody for giving an order to engage several fighters. The Army argues the individuals were not a threat, but evidence denied to Lorance’s legal team could prove differently. That same evidence may have been withheld by the chain of command for reasons that are still being examined and sure to be raised on appeal.
The case was reviewed and Lorance’s command was cleared of any wrongdoing, but there is still no explanation about why the Army refuses to produce the criminal investigation report and other information. Perhaps Lorance was not the best soldier, which may in fact be true, but is he a murderer who deserves nearly two decades in prison? Unlikely.
* MORE?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Another incident involves a soldier who received the Medal of Honor, but only after a major fight. That soldier, Will Swenson, found that his nomination for the top valor award was reportedly “lost” after he criticized commanders for denying him and others air support in Afghanistan out of concern for the rules of engagement, leaving them stranded. Swenson and his men fought their way out of danger, but not without taking casualties.
Swenson’s nomination was finally "recovered" and he received the award years after being nominated. However, events that transpired during a period of investigation are unspeakable, giving credibility to the idea that the Army resisted the award at every turn.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
In fact, Swenson’s overall experience was so bad that the Army was forced to alter its process for Medal of Honor nominations and for the Secretary of Defense to issue him a direct apology. What most people and soldiers in particular took away from the whole episode was a warning not to criticize — even when permissible — the chain of command for its failures.
* MORE?
In another incident, several severely wounded Special Forces soldiers were twice nominated for Silver Stars, the second time coming after the initial paperwork was "lost." The Army had said the awards were downgraded, but years later, a mistake by a private contractor provided information on the Army’s top award recipients. Within that listing, the soldiers in question were all listed as receiving Silver Stars. The Army responded that a “typo” by the contractor might have caused the error. What they didn’t say but was discovered sometime later was that there was an unrelated disagreement with the nominating officer.
A typo? No way.
A poor excuse? More like it. All at the expense of soldiers who deserve better.
These occurrences certainly differ in their severity, but each is useful in demonstrating the pursuit of political ends to situations that begin with the battlefield actions of America’s sons and daughters who willingly and selflessly put their lives on the line. Unfortunately, there are many more incidents like these, which have only served to make service members more suspicious of their leadership.
The services — and the Army, in particular — must look inward. There must be a desire to initiate a cultural shift that reassures service personnel that the institutions under which they serve won’t let them down, and they will receive the support — whether through legal, administrative or operational channels — that is worthy of their service. They want to know their best interests won’t be disregarded.
More than ten years at war and distressed budgets are sure to have an effect, but there is no denying the fact that a problem of equal size exists that’s been brought on by a propensity to question the actions and judgments of young men and women tasked with carrying out dangerous missions. With the right leadership from within, this could be the easiest change to make, and perhaps make the biggest impact.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/afghanistan-war-hero-stripped-of-silver-star/
* FOLLOW-UP TO THE PREVIOUS NEWSBITE...
By February 20th, 2010, the Battle of Marjah had been underway for a week. In order to seize the Afghan district — an IED-infested, Taliban-dominated collection of villages and crisscrossing canals and tree lines that were a defending fighter’s dream — the U.S. military had divided its force into thirds.
A task force of more than a thousand U.S. Marines, accompanied by Afghan soldiers, assaulted the northern portion of Marjah.
Ditto for the central portion of the district.
And the southern third? It had been attacked by a single U.S. Army Special Forces team consisting of nine men, accompanied by a handful of Marine engineers tasked with clearing bombs from the roads and a few hundred Afghan troops that were more of a babysitting case than true partners.
(Such a light American footprint on at least part of the battlefield would “put an Afghan face” on the operation, as the lingo went at the time.)
As the Special Forces soldiers wore Afghan Army uniforms, the Taliban concluded that there were virtually no Americans on their southern flank. The fighting there was intense.
Having secured a defensive position in the heart of the Balakino Bazaar (picture the Bakara market in the film Black Hawk Down, but more impoverished) the Special Forces team, led by a captain named Matt Golsteyn, repeatedly attempted to expand their footprint, but regularly met fierce resistance. On the 20th, one of the team’s assaults into Taliban territory took a turn for the worse. An Afghan soldier was wounded and a vehicle got stuck in the mud as insurgents raked the coalition formation with gunfire.
Under heavy fire, Golsteyn, as Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post summarized this week, “ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav.”
Running through the open despite the fact that the Taliban had successfully pinned down the rest of his men, Golsteyn looked like he “was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields.” He then coordinated airstrikes from F/A-18 Hornets and a drone, silencing the enemy. The battle lasted four hours.
For his actions, Golsteyn was awarded the Silver Star, and was told that the medal would likely be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (the Army’s equivalent of the Navy Cross, and second only to the Medal of Honor) after review by the Secretary of the Army.
(This writer can confirm that this was true because I was present at the ceremony where Golsteyn received his Silver Star, and personally overheard Lieutenant General John Mulholland, then the commander of the Army’s Special Operation’s Command, say that an upgrade was under consideration.)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
In fact, I know Golsteyn — now a major — well.
I served alongside him in Marjah for months (though not on the 20th of February — I was among the thousands of Marines fighting elsewhere in the district that day) and can attest that he is one of the most courageous, dedicated, and honorable officers I encountered during my service in the military. He would give his life for the men he led without a moment’s thought — and he very nearly did, on several occasions.
(When we returned from our deployments and honors began to roll in for Golsteyn, I reflected that it is nice to see the good guys get recognized.)
* UNFORTUNATELY...
It didn’t last long.
In 2011, shortly after a book by author and Marine Bing West came out that detailed Golsteyn’s heroism and quoted him making critical remarks about the American strategy in Afghanistan, I learned that the Army had launched a criminal investigation into his actions during the battle. (Again, full disclosure: I was also interviewed for that book, The Wrong War, and make a brief appearance in it.)
The investigation, apparently, had nothing to do with the acts of bravery that earned Golsteyn his medal. Instead, according to the Washington Post, which cited officials familiar with the case, it concerned “an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker.”
The investigation stretched on for nearly two years, during which time the Army effectively put Golsteyn’s career on ice.
In 2014, Golsteyn and his lawyer were informed that the investigation was finally complete. No charges were filed, but Golsteyn still wasn’t released from administrative limbo.
* NO... CHARGES... WERE... FILED...
Alerted about the controversy by another Army officer, Captain Will Swenson, Congressman Duncan Hunter wrote last year to John McHugh, the secretary of the Army, asking about the status of Golsteyn’s seemingly endless career freeze. Apparently the secretary did not take kindly to the inquiry, as he responded in a letter last November that not only would he not be upgrading Golsteyn’s Silver Star to a Distinguished Service Cross, but would be revoking Golsteyn’s Silver Star entirely, a fact that Hunter revealed publicly in an article for the Daily Beast published on Tuesday.
* MCHUGH'S POSITION SHOULD BE REVOKED!
* THIS... IS... THE... OBAMA... ADMINISTRATION...!!!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
The revocation of an award such as the Silver Star is extraordinarily rare, and typically would happen in the case of the recipient being convicted of a serious crime that in some way dishonored his service. But not only has Golsteyn not been convicted of a crime — he hasn’t even been charged with one.
(*BLOOD PRESSURE SHOOTING THRU THE ROOF*)
McHugh would not reveal to Hunter specifically why he was taking his action beyond submitting the innuendo that he was privy to “derogatory information” regarding Golsteyn’s record.
* IS THIS YOUR AMERICA, FOLKS...? NO! BUT IT IS OBAMA'S AMERIKA!
What could this information be? Who knows? Having, according to Hunter, spent years threatening Golsteyn’s men, searching for and failing “to find one piece of evidence to corroborate the allegation” that launched the investigation, the Army clearly decided to punish Golsteyn anyway, through publicly dishonoring him in a manner that allows him effectively no recourse or due process.
* NOT "THE ARMY." MCHUGH. MCHUGH AND HIS SUPERIORS - ULTIMATELY UP TO AND INCLUDING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Such institutional cravenness is even more extraordinary when one considers the circumstances of Golsteyn’s service. Commissioned in 2002 out of West Point, he has served combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was already the recipient of valor awards by the time he fought in Marjah. There, he and his handful of American soldiers succeeded in securing a big chunk of one of the deadliest places on earth at the time, under constant and intense opposition from the Taliban. Working with the local tribes, Golsteyn came to be recognized as one of the most successful officers in Helmand Province. The Taliban tried to kill him and his men again and again, and found themselves driven back every time. What success there was in Marjah was in no small part due to him.
Such is the quality of American military leadership that generals and political appointees like McHugh will send courageous soldiers like Golsteyn into incredibly difficult (some would suggest impossible) circumstances, then invest years in second-guessing their actions after the fact — and then, finding no evidence of wrongdoing, still publicly dishonor the man without giving him a chance to defend himself.
* THIS... IS... DISGUSTING...
* THIS... IS... THE... TRUTH...
* THIS... IS... OBAMA'S... AMERIKA...!!!
Never mind the fact that if a Taliban bombmaker did in fact die in a violation of the rules of engagement, then in what topsy-turvy universe is that a bad thing?
* EXACTLY...!!!
The veterans who had to risk their lives because of these ROEs have almost universally criticized them. Established and enforced by men sitting safely in Kabul and Washington who never shared the daily risks of Golsteyn and his soldiers, the rules were wrong and self-serving to begin with, a politicized effort that has, without question, caused the needless deaths of many young Americans.
* DO NOT DOUBT THAT THE ABOVE IS THE EXACT TRUTH.
In any event, if the Army truly does believe that Golsteyn violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then they should charge him with a crime. If they can’t do that, then we must conclude that...
* THAT AMERICA IS CONTROLLED BY HER ENEMIES... THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS MORE AN OCCUPYING FORCE THAN AN ADMINISTRATION... AND THAT THE AMERICAN SHEEPLE HAVE VIA THEIR STUPIDITY AND IRRESPONSIBILITY ENABLED WHAT AMOUNTS TO A COUP AGAINST THE REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION.
Congressman Hunter pointed out in his article that a recent survey conducted by the Military Times revealed only 27% of the military felt that their leaders were looking out for the best interests of the troops. Golsteyn’s situation illustrates why this is the case...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-poor-standard-of-justice-1423180955
The Justice Department’s $1.375 billion settlement with Standard & Poor’s is being hailed as a victory by both sides.
The feds claim another corporate pelt related to the financial crisis, while S&P talked the fine down from $5 billion and didn’t admit guilt.
* AND YET... THEY PAID A FINE...
This means the only losers are Americans who may never learn if the suit was a case of political retribution.
The case always looked fishy.
Justice sued in 2013, though the facts about S&P ratings on mortgage-backed securities issued from 2004 and 2007 were known for years.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
The case launched 18 months after S&P had issued a historic downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt from triple-A. And Justice chose not to charge S&P’s main rival Moody’s.
(Though Moody’s had put an identical rating on most of the securities mentioned in the lawsuit. Moody’s never downgraded U.S. debt.)
A key piece of evidence was an affidavit from Harold McGraw III, the chairman of S&P’s parent company McGraw Hill Financial , reporting that three days after the downgrade an angry Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told him on the phone that the firm’s conduct would be “looked at very carefully.”
(Mr. Geithner denies making a threatening call, but Treasury records show the call occurred within minutes after Mr. Geithner left a meeting with President Obama.)
* OBVIOUSLY GEITHNER IS LYING...
(*SHRUG*)
What did Messrs. Obama and Geithner discuss? We may never know after this settlement. But after insisting for years that S&P admit wrongdoing, Justice recently dropped that demand when S&P agreed to drop its claim of retaliation based on what S&P had learned “to date.”
* EXTORTION IS FINE... ONLY THE AMOUNT WAS IN CONTENTION.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The settlement means S&P can’t continue discovery in the case, which was going well. Court rulings had required Justice to turn over numerous internal documents, and S&P’s lawyers told the government they would next seek documents related to why Moody’s wasn’t charged.
(*GUFFAW*)
Down the road were requests for sworn testimony from Mr. Geithner and for documents reaching into the Executive Office of the President. The judge made clear that such disclosures would be compelled only if S&P had exhausted all other avenues to obtain information and could overcome executive privilege. But given S&P’s success in forcing Justice to cooperate, Justice may have decided it was better to settle at a political discount and claim victory.
The New York Times reports that Justice official Stuart Delery told those involved in the settlement talks that there is “a great deal of cynicism about the functioning of government, and it’s very important that this case not add to that cynicism.”
Sorry, but a settlement that shuts everybody up won’t end cynicism.
* TRU DAT!
Mr. Delery insists that Justice “brought this case because S&P committed fraud.”
So... why isn’t he going to court to prove it?
If Justice is offended by S&P’s payback defense, remains convinced that fraud occurred, and wants to demonstrate how well government functions, the logical step is to go to trial.
(*SMIRK*)
In another remarkable "coincidence," on the brink of the settlement this week the Journal reported that Justice is finally investigating Moody’s.
(*CHOKING*)
Our guess is the timing was intended to blunt claims that Justice was only out to punish S&P.
If Congress can spare the time, maybe it can pick up the trail into what still looks like a case of political payback.
* OR AS THE LAW BOOKS LIKE TO TERM IT... CRIMINAL EXTORTION UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY. (OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT!) (I'M GUESSING IT'S ILLEGAL!)
Post a Comment