BREAKING: Gay Porn Star Joins WND! Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 23 WorldNetDaily article began with the following editor's note:
With Democrat [sic] leaders openly proclaiming the U.S. has lost the Iraq war and calling for immediate troop withdrawal, and with Gen. David Petraeus' eagerly awaited report coming next month, it's a pivotal time for America in Iraq. At the same time, there's a growing perception the news media are not reporting the reality of the war – always focusing on the latest car-bomb or IED story, but almost never on the big picture of what is actually taking place in post-Saddam Iraq, and what it means for the Mideast and the U.S.
Beginning today, reporter Matt Shachez [sic], currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war effort.
The name is correct in the byline: Matt Sanchez. At the end of the Sanchez's article -- in which he claims that, according to the headline, "Iraqis actually like the U.S. military" -- Sanchez is described as "a New York City-based writer currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq. His work has appeared in the New York Post, National Review and the Weekly Standard. A corporal in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and a student at Columbia University where he's working on degree in American Studies, Sanchez says his mission in Iraq is 'to report on the stories that matter the most, first-person accounts by the men and women on the ground.'"
One previous job Sanchez held, however, is missing from his bio: gay porn star.
As Max Blumenthal hasreported, prior to joining the military, Sanchez acted in several adult movies under names such as Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors, and he has not denied that he has worked as a male escort.
Given that WND regularly prints anti-pornography articles and columns by the likes of JudithReisman, is that really the kind of person WND wants writing for it?
Further, Sanchez is reportedly under investigation by the military for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying "'to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation' about deploying to Iraq at the commandant's request." According to the article, the email added: "'Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq' by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul." Sanchez has denied the charges.
Even more ironic than the fact that a gay porn star is now writing for WND is that WND editor Joseph Farah has a column today alleging that Google is placing ads on WND that are too hot for Farah:
A reader sent this to me because she was appalled at the kind of licentious ads WND was now accepting. Of course, the top two ads on this screen shot are not WND ads at all. The WND ads have been replaced by Google's own. In other words, Google is making money by dumping WND's ads for its own. It is also misleading the public into believing its disgusting ads are WND's.
Wait 'til that reader learns the background of WND's newest writer, Matt Sanchez.
New Article -- Lies, Conservatives and Statistics: Marc Morano's Fantasy Topic: The ConWeb
The former CNS reporter, now flacking for a conservative senator, peddles transparently bogus numbers about funding of global warming -- and the ConWeb eats 'em up. Read more.
An Aug. 22 NewsBusters post by Geoffrey Dickens, as well as the Aug. 23 "Gaggle" cartoon takeoff on the post, declares something as fact for which they have no evidence: that Michelle Obama's remark that "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," was, as Dickens wrote, a "slam of Hillary Clinton."
But if one listens to the whole quote, the word "Hillary" is never mentioned (nor is the name of any other candidate), and Obama frames the remark by talking about her own family.
While NewsBusters and "Gaggle" artist Greg Sheffield seem to have arbitrarily chosen Hillary as the purported target of Obama's words, they certainly weren'talone. How do they know she wasn't referring to Rudy Giuliani, who can't even get his own kids to campaign for him?
UPDATE: The MRC CyberAlert version of Dickens' post softens it a tad, calling Obama's remarks a "presumed slam of Hillary Clinton." On what evidence is that presumption being made?
Clinton Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 22 WorldNetDaily article begins by asserting that cellular provider Alltel "is raising eyebrows with a TV spot featuring a woman wearing large earrings in the shape of a Pentagram, the symbol of Satanism and other occult beliefs and practices." The article doesn't mention the pentagram earrings again; instead, it launches into an anti-Clinton rant that began:
Alltel, an Arkansas-based company, has long ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Little Rock Rose Law Firm and has been shrouded in mystery and intrigue since its inception.
Because, obviously, a company tied to the Clintons would use pentagrams in their ads.
The article then descends into an orgy of factually questionable Clinton conspiracy-mongering.
It asserts that Alltel "was called Systematics"; in fact, Alltel was founded as Allied Telephone in 1943, changed its name to Alltel in 1983, and purchased Systematics in 1990. The article further claims that "Systematics would go on to develop the secret computer 'Clipper' chip capable of bugging every phone, fax and e-mail transmission in America." That's highly unlikely, since Systematics, as described in a 1990 Alltel press release announcing the company's acquisition, was "the leading provider of data processing management, services and advanced applications software exclusively for banks, savings institutions, mortgage companies and credit unions." Given that the company's expertise is in financial services, it's doubtful that it would be terribly involved in "develop[ing]" black-ops spy chips; its role, if there was one at all, was likely minor at best, probably limited to information-gathering (the bulk of Systematics' business was performing back-room processing for banks). Systematics was renamed Alltel Information Services in 1995; Alltel sold the company in 2003.
This is a little factually dubious conspiracy WND has been peddling for years; Joseph Farah was spouting the same stuff in a February 2000 column. A November 1999 WND column by Charles Smith spoke in similarly conspiratorial terms about Systematics.
From there, things decend even further into Clinton Conspiracy name-dropping, even throwing in a guest appearance by Vince Foster and another member of the Clinton Death List, Charles Wilbourn Miller (which WND misspells as "Wilbourne"). WND sinisterly notes: "Even though two weapons were found at the scene and two rounds from the Ruger had been fired, Miller's death was ruled a suicide." Apparently nobody actually commits suicide in Arkansas since, as WND wants you to think, Bill Clinton kills 'em all. That's recycled stuff too; Farah was peddling it back in 1999.
This makes an interesting -- if paranoid -- companion piece to Jack Cashill's ongoing Clinton Conspiracy-mongering series on Curt Weldon.
Cashill, Part 3: More Misleading Claims Topic: WorldNetDaily
Hey, kids, it's time for Part 3 of Jack Cashill's Clinton Derangement Syndrome epic at WorldNetDaily (we've gone through Part 1 and Part 2 already), portraying Curt Weldon has a victim of the Clinton Conspiracy. What did Cashill get wrong this time?
He starts off by dropping another reference to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as a "George Soros-funded watchdog group," again failing to mention that Richard Mellon Scaife has funded Judicial Watch to a much greater extent than Soros has funded CREW.
Cashill then asserted that during his 2006 interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, Bill Clinton's mention of Weldon was "announced out of nowhere" when he stated: "A three-star admiral who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania." In fact, Clinton's mention of Weldon and his opponent was not "out of nowhere"; it was in the context of describing the military backgrounds of Democratic candidates running in the election. From the Wallace-Clinton interview:
WALLACE: And the White House, the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?
CLINTON: Of course they do. Of course they do. They want us to be -- they want another homeland security deal. And they want to make it about -- not about Iraq but about some other security issue, where, if we disagree with them, we are, by definition, imperiling the security of the country.
And it's a big load of hooey. We've got nine Iraq war veterans running for the House seats. We've got President Reagan's secretary of the Navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania.
We've got a huge military presence here in this campaign. And we just can't let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box we don't belong in.
That's their job. Their job is to beat us. I like that about Rove. But our job is not to let them get away with it. And if they don't, then we'll do fine.
Finally, Cashill called the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" "an honest, if unflattering, account of events." Wrong; as we've detailed, conservatives loved the heck out of it because it contained fabricated scenes that made the Clinton administration look bad. Cashill must have a different definition of "honest" than the rest of us.
Cashill's got one more part left. Can he keep up the level of false and misleading claims? Stay tuned...
An Aug. 16 NewsMax column by Ronald Kessler claimed that "Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's greatest vulnerability in the general presidential election" is "their vote against revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)":
In voting this month against the measure, both senators opposed a continuation of the government's longstanding ability to monitor, without a warrant, calls between terrorists situated in foreign countries.
What if these two Democratic presidential candidates prevailed? If Osama bin Laden placed a call to an al-Qaida member in London to arrange a nuclear hit on Manhattan, a warrant would first have to be obtained. By the time that happened, the call would have been over.
But Kessler offers no evidence that either Clinton or Obama ever specifically opposed the government's "ability to monitor, without a warrant, calls between terrorists situated in foreign countries." In fact, as Media Matters notes, Clinton voted in favor of a version of the bill -- introduced by Democrats -- that would have reversed a reported ruling limiting the administration's ability to intercept certain foreign-to-foreign communications without a warrant. The bill Clinton voted against was a much broader bill to amend FISA to give the administration authority to intercept certain domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant.
Further, as the New York Times reported, the bill that was passed "could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records."
Even using FISA's emergency provision, it takes at least two days to prepare the paperwork and obtain all the necessary approvals. Because a call was not intercepted in time, millions of Americans could have been killed.
"You can't go back and ask for a FISA for a conversation that's already occurring," says a counterterrorism operative. "That's the fundamental issue. When they pick up on a U.S. conversation, they can't tell these two guys who are talking: ‘Hey, hold on a minute while we go get a FISA.' A conversation is a conversation; it happens, and then it's lost."
In fact, FISA has long allowed the government to obtain warrants for wiretapped conservations up to 72 hours after the conversation has taken place.
Gladnick Doesn't Think Rove Leaked Plame's Identity, Even Though He Did Topic: NewsBusters
Call it Rove Denial Syndrome.
An Aug. 19 NewsBusters post by P.J. Gladnick, in declaring that San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford is suffering from "Rove Derangement Syndrome" for his rant against Karl Rove, in which he says, among other things, that Rove "intentionally commit[ted] treason by leaking the name of a CIA agent to reporters in an insidious attempt to silence critics of your boss' horribly failed war." Gladnick responds:
Committed treason for leaking the name of Valery [sic] Plame? Oh yeah, that must have been why Karl Rove was indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald on May 12 of last year. Or was that Richard Armitage who really did leak that name but which the left has conveniently tossed down the memory hole?
But Rove did leak Plame's identity to reporters -- in fact, he served as confirmation of hte information for columnist Robert Novak, who first went public with the name. Rove also leaked to then-Time reporter Matthew Cooper.
This follows a longpattern of NewsBusters writers trying to shove all blame for the leak of Plame's identity onto Armitage, peddling the absurd notion that because Armitage leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, and Novak was the first to report it ahead of the reporters to whom Rove (and Scooter Libby) leaked, Rove's and Libby's leaks somehow magically didn't happen.
It's Part 2 of Jack Cashill's Clinton Derangement Syndrome series for WorldNetDaily, so the question is: How does he mislead in this episode? By smearing Curt Weldon's opponent for his House seat, Joe Sestak.
Cashill calls Sestak "a former vice admiral forced into retirement for what the U.S. Navy charitably called 'poor command climate.' " But he lets the smear stand without telling the full story. (Cashill did the same thing in a November 2006 WND column.) In fact, here's what the Delco Times -- which Cashill cites authoritatively elsewhere in his article -- reported about Sestak's military service
Retired Capt. Mark Rogers, however, thinks such criticisms come from men who weren’t as smart and didn’t like working as hard as Joe Sestak made them toil.
"He never worked anybody any harder than he worked himself," said Rogers, who was Sestak’s commander on the USS Underwood.
Sestak, Rogers said, was brilliant and went on to surpass him in rank, but they remained good friends.
"I’m a die-hard Republican," Rogers told me yesterday. "I voted for George Bush. In the military we’re not Republicans or Democrats, we’re just sailors who serve. That was what Joe was all about."
The Times also quoted critics of Sestak, but none of them "would talk about Sestak without a promise of anonymity." Brave folks, eh?
Cashill also claimed that Mary O. McCarthy, a Sestak donor, was "recently fired from the CIA after failing a polygraph on leaked classified information in regards to CIA prisons overseas." In fact, as Media Matters has detailed, McCarthy has denied that she was the source of the Washington Post's November 2006 report by reporter Dana Priest regarding the CIA's secret detention operations. Moreover, the Post has reported that "a senior intelligence official said the agency is not asserting that McCarthy was a key source of Priest's award-winning articles last year disclosing the agency's secret prisons." The CIA has acknowledged only that McCarthy was dismissed for "knowingly and willfully shar[ing] classified intelligence," and that Priest was among the journalists McCarthy allegedly contacted.
What fresh falsehoods and misleading claims will Cashill serve up in tomorrow's segment? Stay tuned...
WND Columnist Hearts Michael Vick, Sorta Defends Dogfighting Topic: WorldNetDaily
There aren't many people running to the defense of Michael Vick these days following his arrest on dogfighting charges. But one who has is WorldNetDaily columnist Ilana Mercer -- who paints Vick as a misunderstood manly-man and even quasi-defends dogfighting as part of a noble tradition of "blood sport." From Mercer's Aug. 17 column:
Dog fighting, which has been outlawed in all 50 states, is certainly uncivilized and cruel (although not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal). But even more uncivilized than Vick's alleged dog fighting violations has been the zeal among media pack animals to convict him. Vick is not a thief, a murderer or a rapist. Neither has he defrauded anyone. He is a gifted athlete – and an obviously aggressive young man, who may have channeled his abundant aggression into a blood sport, as men have done throughout time.
The English relished dog fighting for centuries. Fox hunting is still a much cherished way of life in rural England, and, some argue, beneficial to conservation "and a method of pest control." The same animal-rights activists who've successfully lobbied to have dog fighters declared felons are gunning for hunters. These activists consider hunting a blood sport, too. To them, the toreo – the Spanish bullfighter – is worse than a terrorist.
Mercer goes on to claim that "Animal-rights activists share a humanity-hating agenda with environmentalists," concluding: "Human beings ought to care for and be kind to animals, but a civilized society is one that never threatens a man's liberty because of the callousness with which he has treated the livestock he owns."
Farah Falsely Ties Heinz Kerry to Tides -- Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Maybe we can call this Kerry Derangement Syndrome.
An Aug. 20 WorldNetDaily article by Joseph Farah, reporting on a "Soros-backed media outlet" -- the IndyMedia network of websites -- that suggested that a federal nuclear-terror drill "may be a 'false flag' operation leading to the detonation of a real nuclear device to set the stage for martial law," claims that "IndyMedia.org has also received support from Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation."
In fact, Heinz Kerry does not sit on Tides' board of directors, so it can't really be "Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation." As we detailed the lasttime Farah and WND tried to falsely portray the relationship between Heinz Kerry and Tides, foundations controlled by Heinz Kerry have donated money to Tides, but that money is earmarked for specific environmental projects in Pennsylvania. Farah offers no evidence whatsoever that any money Heinz Kerry donated to Tides sent to IndyMedia.
This goes to show just how much of a bitter, angry, hateful man Farah is that he still feels compelled to tell lies about Heinz Kerry three years after her husband lost the race for the presidency.
Jack Cashill's four-part Clinton Derangement Syndrome special at WorldNetDaily has kicked off, and as we predicted, he's not disappointing, already tossing out a few misleading claims.
Cashill's main point is that, unlike the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton complained about (which Cashill called "self-parodying"), the Clinton Conspiracy is real:
I hesitate to call this a "left wing" conspiracy as there is no real ideology involved. Indeed, some on the hard left have applauded the work [ex-Rep. Curt] Weldon has done in tracking the steps and missteps that led to Sept. 11.
Properly understood, the Clinton communication stream has resulted from a collaboration, not of ideologues, but of well-placed Democratic activists whose motives involve some combination of fear, greed, spite, wishful thinking and lust for power.
These collaborators did not have to rely on Arkansas state troopers to leak private information. They had – and have – allies working within the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department.
They have not depended on the generosity of one millionaire for support, like a Richard Mellon Scaife, but rather on an influential cluster of unscrupulous plutocrats called the Democratic Alliance.
Note that Scaife is merely called a "millionaire," while liberal financiers get disparagingly tagged as "unscrupulous plutocrats." Of course, Cashill is wrong; Scaife was never the only funder of conservative causes. Cashill conveniently overlooks family foundations such as Koch, Bradley and Olin that have pumped millions into conservative causes.
Cashill goes on to haul out its favorite conservative bogeyman: "For coordination, they have been able to count on an aggressive and effective George Soros-funded 'watchdog' group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW."
Cashill misleads here, too. As we've pointed out, CREW did not receive Soros money until after scandal-tarred Rep. Bob Ney made the accusation, as CREW's Melanie Morgan said, "We now get money from The Open Society Institute, and it is probably thanks to Bob Ney."
Cashill then compares CREW to Judicial Watch, asserting that "CREW was to function as something of a counterweight to Judicial Watch, the D.C.-based conservative watchdog group" but "has emerged as something of a dirty tricks operation for a truly worrisome cabal known as the Democratic Alliance." Cashill, at this point, offers no evidence that CREW is involved in "dirty tricks" or how its operation differs from the way Judicial Watch attack the Clinton administration.
Cashill also ignores a more significant contrast between CREW and Judicial Watch. As we've noted, as of 2006, CREW has received a mere $100,000 from a Soros-backed group. Meanwhile, from 1997 to 2002, Scaife foundations gave more than $7 million to Judicial Watch.
Cashill does seem to be backing away, though, from his suggestion that the Clintons are to blame for Mark Foley's downfall, saying that "Foley deserved his fate" but questioning "the highly suspect timing of his outing, just six weeks before the critical 2006 elections."
However, Cashill is more than eager to absolve Weldon of allegations that he traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter: "Regardless of any charges that may be filed against him, Weldon committed only one unforgivable crime: Investigating the intelligence failures of the Clinton era."
Should be a fun next few days as Cashill continues on his conspiratorial bent.
An Inconveniently Biased Column Topic: Accuracy in Media
An Aug. 15 Accuracy in Media column by Matt Hadro recycles Sen. James Inhofe's attack on Al Gore -- his demand that Gore take a pledge to "consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household." Hadro adds: " Also, today, August 15, 2007, marks the 147th day that Gore has failed to embrace the challenge and sign Senator Inhofe’s pledge. Quite an 'inconvenient' truth for the face of the global warming activists."
Hadro neglects to mention that Gore has made significant efforts in offsetting the carbon footprint of his energy usage by purchasing "green energy" at a higher price that regular electricity and installing solar panels at his house. Nor does Hadro mention that Inhofe didn't give Gore a chance to answer his challenge during Senate testimony, repeatedly interrupting Gore's response.
Hadro also wrote:
A study by the Senate EPW Committee reveals that Gore, as the leader of the nationwide crusade against man-made global warming, consumes 191,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year in his Tennessee mansion. The average American household consumes a total of 11,256 kilowatt-hours per year. That’s 12 times less electricity.
Actually, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee doesn't do studies like that. The number Hadro is referring to is the number reported by the AP after the Tennessee Center for Policy Research promoted a different, higher (not to mention unsubstantiated) amount. Hadro likely lifted his claim from the committee's minority spokesperson, serialmisleader Marc Morano.
According to his column, Hadro "is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia." Are such sloppy, biased claims what AIM and AIA think is "journalism" that should be taught to students?
NewsMax Defends Wash. Post Reporter's Attacks on Edwards Topic: Newsmax
The Aug. 12 edition of NewsMax's "Insider Report" does something unusual for the ConWeb: it comes to the defense of a reporter in the dreaded "liberal media." That's because the reporter has done some of NewsMax's work for it through misleading reporting on John Edwards.
The "Insider Report" item focuses on an Aug. 4 Alternet column (which NewsMax erroneously calls "Alter.net") by Alexander Zaitchik attacking Washington Post reporter John Solomon's articles on Edward, in particular Edwards' hedge fund work, real estate dealings and the infamous $400 haircut. NewsMax states:
Zaitchik goes on to cite numerous Solomon stories dealing with Edwards, all accurate and well-researched and all legitimate criticisms of some of John Edward's activities such as his less than savory role in his consulting work in 2005 and 2006 for a hedge fund, his sale of his Georgetown home for $5.2 million or $1.4 million more than he paid for it in 2002.
"Accurate and well-researched"? Not exactly. As Media Matters points out, Solomon's article on the sale of Edwards' house suggests without evidence that the sale was somehow shady without noting that the profit Edwards made on the house was not out of line with the state of the real estate market and the improvements Edwards made to the house while he owned it. In an online discussion about the article, Solomon went even further, baselessly suggesting that Edwards broke campaign finance law in the the sale of the house.
And even Post ombudsman Deborah Howell criticized the tone of Solomon's reporting on Edwards' work for a hedge fund for implying "that consulting for a hedge fund, whose offshore tax havens he has decried, is incompatible with caring about the less fortunate."
Beware when NewsMax praises your work -- that means you're adhering to the conservatives' agenda.
An Aug. 18 NewsBusters post by Michael M. Bates complained that ABC News reported "less than the whole story" by reporting an "incomplete" version of what Ann Coulter said in June about John Edwards. But in pointing out that Coulter's remark that "If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot" played off remarks Bill Maher made about Dick Cheney, Bates doesn't mention that Coulter misquoted Maher.
As we've pointed out, Maher did not say that "he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack," as Coulter claimed. Rather, he said: "I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. ... I'm just saying that if he did die -- other people -- more people would live."
If Bates is going to accuse one party of misquoting another, shouldn't he note all relevant misquotes?