That's pure bullshit.

Kevin Drum adds this email address -- make sure you hit both:

Eason.Jordan@turner.com

That address for Eason Jordan is for CNN's Chief News Executive.

To hell with her. What a bunch of horseshit.

Arena big ass! I sent a note to her and her boss.

Dr. Wu.

Only three other Beatles were better  drummers than Ringo Starr.

They repeated the story this morning, doubling the offense.

Dear Kelli,

You know what al Qaeda thinks? Perhaps you should tell this stuff to the government and not to the air? Or were you just making it up? Either way, you probably shouldn't be saying it on the air.

...at Venzke's words:

...is going to stay much longer than possibly what they might hope a Democratic administration would.

Implicit in this, I think, is the notion that the US occupation of Iraq is a boon to Al Qaeda.  It suggests that they want us stuck in the quagmire as long as possible.  And I doubt I have to convince anyone here of the accuracy of this...but it's entirely at odds with the unnamed Justice Department source Arena cites.

Perhaps that's CNN's idea of balance.

kelli.arena@turner.com, topstories2@turner.com, topstories4@turner.com, christiane.amanpour2@turner.com, dane.greene@turner.com, larry.king.live3@turner.com, lou.dobbs2@turner.com, jeff.greenfield2@turner.com, larryking@turner.com, leon.harris2@turner.com, bill.hemmer2@turner.com, daryn.kagan2@turner.com, andrea.koppel2@turner.com, arthel.neville2@turner.com, miles.o'brien@turner.com, kyra.phillips2@turner.com, fredricka.whitfield2@turner.com, judy.wooddruff2@turner.com, livetoday@turner.com, paula.zahn2@turner.com, cnnpresents@turner.com, daybreak@cnn.com, insidepolitics@turner.com, crossfire@cnn.com, wolf@turner.com, moneyline@cnn.com, headlinenews@cnn.com, late.edition@cnn.com, other.anchors@turner.com, eason.jordan@turner.com

Don't expect much from Eason Jordan.  This scum has so little ethics he screwed around with Daniel Pearl's widow...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37389-2004Mar30.html

...this.

Terrorist group endorses Bush

Here is my letter:
Ms. Arena:

The following is a quote from a statement you recently made on CNN:
"ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."

Tell me, Ms. Arena, do you get paid by the RNC?    If you had any journalistic intergrity, you would say "Republican speculation" instead of implying that it is a widely held speculation that Al Queda wants John Kerry to win so that it could win in Iraq.

If you did any research whatsoever, you would find that this is not the case.  Here, I will do your job for you:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

Sincerly,

Jason Melrath

Subject:  Al Qaeda prefers a Kerry presidency???

Seems to me that Al Qaeda did much better attacking Americans on American soil under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones, and seems to me that Al Qaeda's big victories, both in targets hit and in recruitment, came under George W. Bush's presidency.

Please keep your blatant Bush favoritism out of the news.

Thanks very much,

Mr. Jordan,

   I am sure your inbox is filled with messages like
this one, from people who object to your
"journalist's" (Kelli Arena )on air declaration that
"there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it
has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry
is in the White House."

   Add my name to the list of people who think that
such a statement has no place on a network which
aspires to meet even the most minimal standards of
journalism. If such unsourced speculation on this
topic is somehow newsworthy, should not listeners be
reminded that several former administration officials
with relevant expertise (such as Richard Clarke, and
Anthony Zinni, to name two) have "speculated" (on the
record and with voluminous evidence) that the current
President's actions have greatly strengthened Al
Qaeda.

   Based on his record of bravery and good judgment
under combat conditions in Vietnam (as evidenced by a
Silver Star and Bronze Star), I have great confidence
that as President John Kerry will do a much better job
of identifying and fighting our Al Qaeda enemies than
our current President. George W. Bush seems to be
unable to distinguish between Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein, or distinguish a patriotic exiled
Iraqi freedom fighter worthy of support from a con
artist who would betray American secrets to Iran
(costing American soldiers lives) to further his own
undemocratic grab for power. (Perhaps you have heard
of Ahmed Chalabi?)

    As someone who has worked (as a civilian) either
directly or indirectly for the Department of Defense
for a quarter of a century, and as the father of a
U.S. soldier who has served in both Afghanistan and
Iraq, I take the "War on Terror" very seriously. It
is my opinion that John Kerry will do a much better
job than George W. Bush has done of using all of
America's resources (including the armed forces) to
battle the scourge of al Qaeda. That is why I plan to
vote for Kerry.

   If someone else honestly believes Bush can do a
better job of protecting us from al Qaeda (despite all
of the evidence to the contrary) then by all means
they should vote for him. But for a purported news
anchor to suggest that al Qaeda wants Kerry to win a
such an unfair partisan smear that CNN should be truly
ashamed.

   With profound disappointment in a network that used
to at least strive to meet journalistic standards, I
await your response.

    Regards,
         Schmendrick's name and
             address redacted

Dear CNN,

Why did Al-Qaeda wait until Bush took office to launch a major attack on New York and Washington?

Did they think it would be easier to wait until Clinton left office because Bush was too busy selling Star Wars to pay attention?

Did they think that the summer of 2001 was the perfect time to get ready, what with Bush lying around Crawford all day, clueless and apathetic?

Just asking.  Please look into this.

They probably give a rat's ass about the elections. And we should give a rat's ass about them when we vote.
But if you really want go go down that road: George Bush really has created jobs... he's the best recruiting agency for Al Qaeda.

Hello,

I saw your comments about "speculation" as to whether Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations would prefer John Kerry in the White House, and I was appalled, not just as a Democrat, but as someone who holds the newsmedia partially responsible for the intelligence of the electorate.  What in the world would lead you to make such an asinine comment?  Perhaps it was this statement Kerry delivered yesterday:

So this is my message to the terrorists. As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We'll use every resource of our power to destroy you.

Does that speak of appeasement, on any level?  Certainly not.  Furthermore, wouldn't a logical conclusion be that since President Bush's invasion of Iraq has alienated our allies and fueled terrorist recruitment, these same terrorists are actually benefiting from BUSH'S presidency and would prefer HIM to Kerry?

I find your comments insulting, and hopefully your future reports will show a greater deference to reality rather than the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign.

Glenn Rehn
Columbia, Missouri

Should have copied and pasted my text, but it's pretty much the same as what other people have been saying... in my own words.  I can't believe they're saying such stuff.

I don't have a TV handy.  Someone please list CNN Sponsors that are running ads today so we can add them to the list!

I heard the same thing and was like what the fck.  All I was thinking is, if I was OBL, I would want Bush to win.  He's united the Arab people behind OBL, he has taken the country into debt and has overstreached the armed forces killing moral without furthering any important goal of the USA.  Bush is the best ting Osamah could hope for, so why are the terrorists rooting for Kerry?

"there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes"?  

There is some speculation that the opposite hypothesis is true.  

There is some speculation that al Qaeda believes that CNN does responsible journalism.  

Clearly, this is not an example of that responsible journalism.  

I know that you know better than this crap.  I won't insult either of us by saying that you harbor a bias.  However, I think Ms. Arena needs a reminder about what journalism is; because it is not purely regurgitating blind quotes from the current administration.  You guys aren't going to beat Fox by trying to suck up to the administration more than they do.  You'll win by being responsible journalists.  (You might want to get rid of all that Michael Jackson crap also).

Thanks,

It's certainly ironic that Kelli Arena can make asinine comments about al Qaeda backing John Kerry in the election at the same time that news organizations like the New York Times are issuing apologies for failing to exercise responsible journalism regarding the truthfulness of the Bush administration.

Really, do think people are more or less likely to believe the quality of your `reporting' with Arena's kind of ridiculousness? No wonder people are turning their backs on regular news outlets- you guys just can't be trusted anymore.

who is BEN VENZKE?

since neither spoke in coherent sentences, but how can we say on one hand that the leadership vacuum in Iraq is sucking in Al Qaeda people from all over, and is now their biggest recruiting area, and then say that oh no, we aren't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Sure, most of the Iraqis shooting at US troops are the native resistance attempting to defend their country against invaders, but there are Al Qaeda people there too.  One reporter who spent a lot of time there says the Iraqis think that when you see a police station blown up, that is foreigners doing that.

Dear Mr. Jordan,

I want to report my profound displeasure with CNN for repeatedly playing Kelli Arena's thinly-veiled faux-news report on "speculation" that Al Qaeda would consider a Kerry presidency a victory for their cause.

I won't go into all the reasons why this segment is so objectionable, because I think you know them. I will simply say for the record that whether A.Q. feels this way or not is completely irrelevant. Since when do we base our decisions on what we think Al Qaeda would or would not prefer? The only newsworthy point here is that White House operatives are spewing disinformation like this. Again.

This type of "news reporting" is not worthy of the name. At best, this is a weak attempt to distance CNN from an antiquated notion of a Liberal Media Establishment, which you and I both know very well is a convenient myth. At worst, this is voluntary campaign propaganda for the Republican Party, compliments of a once-respectable news organization.

For some time, it has been apparent that CNN is chasing Fox News' success by weakly attempting to ape their despicable brand of Newsertainment. I would therefore like to congratulate you for finally succeeding in this hollow endeavor. Mission Accomplished! I hope CNN likes the view from down there.

I hope that CNN is able to climb out of this hole. Now more than ever this country needs responsible news media. Will you help to provide it?

Sincerely,

____________
San Francisco, CA

You recently reported:
"But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."
Competent and ethical reporting requires that you identify who exactly is "speculating" as to what Al Qaeda is thinking.  Otherwise you are either serving as a partisan mouthpiece for those who seeking to cause John Kerry political damage, or you are injecting your own personal biases into your report without identifying them as such. I certainly hope you take this criticism to heart, and clarify you prior report.

I'm all for holding journalists accountable and stopping a Gore-ing.  We can't let the news get hijacked by RNC talking points.

But isn't this sort of true?  Don't most Americans hope Kerry will stay in Iraq for a shorter time than Bush would?  Isn't that part of the reason he's doing so well right now?

Idiotic framing, of course, and Arena should be held accountable for that "al Qaeda thinks it'll win in Iraq under Kerry".  But aren't most of us hoping that Kerry will get us out faster?

Here's what I sent:

"So there are whispers that a Kerry victory is good for Bin Laden...
gee, I bet you have thoroughly sourced these rumors and confirmed them
as true, right?  I bet they don't come from Karl Rove or anything.

Are you insane?  Better yet, are you a journalist?"

This is what I emailed to Eason.Jordan@turner.com; kelli.arena@turner.com

Your "Justice Correspondent" Kelli Arena stated last night, "Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."

I can't watch Fox because they are obviously Republican partisans, and a poor excuse for a news network in the classic sense of the job--to report, not make news! I hoped CNN was at least trying to be neutral.  These above comments bring that hope into serious doubt.  It is not your job to speculate for the benefit of George Bush, but to report facts.  If you interviewed al Qaeda, then tell us who they are and what they said.  If the U.S. Justice Dept. said these lines, then you must tell us that is the source of the "speculation".  You cannot just say this obvious partisan line on your personal whim.  This election is too important to be rigged, and if the news media is controlled by one party to this extent, then new laws are sorely needed to put you in your proper role, again to report, not make news.

CNN as an organization should issue a formal apology for this out of bounds reporting effort..

Neil Gardner

Kelli,

What sources do you have telling you that Al Queda wants Kerry to win in November?  Have you told the US Military about them?  

Al Queda seems to be doing quite well under Bush, thank you very much.  They managed a spectacular and jolting act of terrorism inside the US, recruitment is way up since we invaded Iraq, their leadership hasn't been caught, they have a whole new playing field in Iraq that was closed to them before the US went in -- Arab sentiment is running higher against the US than at any other time in recent memory.  Plus anti-American sentiment is running high among our allies as well.  Especially given that the Bush Administration has declared the Geneva Conventions irrelevant.  Even Britain is distancing itself from our policies.  Seems like Al Queda is hoping for a Bush win, considering how well they've done under the radar of his administration so far.  

And Kerry?  He's a whole new ballgame.  They don't know what they've got in him.  He's smart and not ideology-driven (or blinded).  He can make friends with our allies.  He'll send more troops in to Iraq.  He can change course when mistakes are apparent.  

If you were reporting from sources, you need turn them into the Intelligence Agencies so they can track down Osama Bin Laden and capture the guy finally.  If you were reporting analysis, it was obviously flawed and extremely partisan -- and you should report it as such.  And guess what: last I heard, Osama Bin Laden doesn't have a vote in this election -- so why do we care what he thinks?

Sincerely,

For the third day in a row, MSNBC is still flogging that "barbecue buddy" poll, with its decisive edge for W. I wonder which pundit is most likely to run with the barbecue angle--Brooks? Dowd? If it's Broder, his suspected senility will be confirmed.

Ms Arena:
Concerning your piece dealing with "speculation" on whom Al Queada would prefer  as President (your experts concluded Kerry): here's another side from a purported Al Queada member. Perhaps, in the interest of balanced journalism, this information should be mentioned the next time you're in the mood to "speculate."
Terror truce in Spain, Australia could be next: report. 18/03/2004. ABC News Online:
"An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as Al Quaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the US-led Iraq war.
"...The Spanish people ... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said. The statement said it supported US President George W Bush in his re-election campaign and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you [Bush], who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom".
In comments addressed to Mr Bush, the group said "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation".

"Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the US-led war in Afghanistan. "

Dear Kelli,

Just to let you know, there has been a lot of speculation here at Justice that the earth's core will explode if John Kerry wins.  Also, intelligence indicates that an alien race of flying-super goats will take over the Earth if Kerry wins.

Please keep this off the record, but feel free to parrot it without exercising even a modicum of critical thinking.  

Do we really have an impact with all our howls of protest, or does it all fall on deaf ears?  When your ears are stuffed either with unexamined lies or wads of corporate cash it may take more than a handful of emails to set things right.  At some point we have to hope that some members of the more conventional media will begin to show courage and independence enough to reverse this trend.  It is the very stuff of creeping fascism at this point.  If you have any doubt, read:

The sorrows of empire : militarism, secrecy, and the end of the Republic / Chalmers Johnson

Kos, you also ought to weigh in on the other thread at Atrios's place (inspired by a Matt Y post), about why the Democrats, Progressives, Liberals aren't better at nurturing (that is paying and encouraging) young progressive writers and organizers and what could be done about it.  

It's an important subject about which you may have some significant insights.

Sorry for no content.  There's nothing to say.

Just unloaded on the phone to CNN and I must say, it felt good!

Hello
I have called the local FBI and the national Homeland security office concerning your comments this morning..
" Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House." It seems as if you have some sort of direct link to the organization for you to make a comment like the one above. Or even second hand information would be of some interest according to the FBI agent I spoke with. I don't think your first amendment rights are covered when it comes to supporting terrorists and their agenda. And I am not sure about the right to protect you sources when perhaps they could be related to the al QAEDA. I hope you let us all know about how the investigation into your sources go!! I would be interested in  who the al Qaeda would like to control congress..Please let us know that information as soon as you have it...
Thanks

Dear Ms. Arena:

"But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."

Really? And from whom exactly does this speculation come? Care to share it with the rest of us? Or, why your "source" appears to feel this way? Or perhaps this is just another instance of the media throwing out an idea with absolutely no substance behind it in order to plant the idea that  Senator Kerry is a candidate who has Al Queda's backing? Is this similar to President Bush's mysterious "some people" who don't think that "brown people" can govern themselves?

I have news for you. Many Americans, including me, are fed up with this kind of "reporting". In fact I gave up watching CNN shortly after 9/11 when your network began cheerleading for war. But I still, unfortunately get to hear about new outrages like this.

I'd suggest that you and CNN take a hint from the New York Times and perhaps re-evaluate the ways in which you "cover" politics. If you want be a reporter, then report. If you want to shill for the Bush Administration, I'd suggest you give up the job and the self-deluded "objectivity, and go to work - legitimately - for the Bush campaign.

Sincerely

Jazzlover

How dare you let your reporter, Ms. Arena, "speculate" that Al Qaeda thinks it would have a "better shot at winning" if John Kerry were President (today, Wolf Blitzer Reports). In an era of increasingly irresponsible, easily manipulated news "reporting," I have never, NEVER, heard or seen anything quite this awful. You, sir, yourself, and your network, are allowing Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of this country, to directly influence our elections with this kind of crap.

Your reporter has NO evidence that Al Qaeda even cares who's President. Your reporter has no evidence John Kerry would pull the troops out faster than the President (in fact, he's as much as said the opposite). Most importantly, your reporter has no clue who would be tougher on Al Qaeda. Given the fact that Osama bin Laden still breathes after three years of Bush, I can take an informed guess, though.

It is quite obvious to me that this "speculation" comes from the AG or his staff. Isn't Ms. Arena your Justice Dept reporter? So why not report it as such? Tell us what kind of divisive, over the top figure Mr. Ashcroft really is. Why allow him to hide, and worse yet, let your reporter use such ridiculous phrasings as "speculation is," which carries with it the assumption that such speculation is widespread and likely to be true. It is neither.

Come on! This stuff matters. It's important. And what Ms. Arena and the Wolf Blitzer Reports staff has done is irresponsible and unpatriotic. It is disgusting.

Please apologize or at lease explain yourself, on the air.

I intend to boycott CNN until you do.

the other way?  Would it not then be logical (Arena-logical) to conclude that the terrorists want Bush in office, and that to vote for Bush is to give them what they want?

Why do I think that would never get said on TV?

I demand you reveal who is speculating, enough for you to pollute the airwaves with that bile, that Al Qaeda wants Bush to win! It is under this stupid selected war in Iraq that has caused the ranks of Al Qaeda to swell, if you care to read the IISS report. Bush, and his father, has been the best thing to ever come along for Usama. Maybe if we followed through in Afghanistan and now change our target to Sadaam, we would have Usama by now to friggin' ask him!

Are you now a shill for Ashcroft and his gang? Whose crap are you "speculating"!

Charles Stanton
ec: Eason Jordan

ARENA (voice-over): Terror experts say it's not about who wins the U.S. election, it's about impact.

M.J. GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: If, for instance, say, George Bush was in the lead in the opinion polls right now and an attack took place and that changes the equation as it did, for instance in Spain, then al Qaeda would feel that it has scored a major success.

ARENA: Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggests that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party.

ASHCROFT: We believe, for example, the attack in Spain is one that is viewed by al Qaeda as particularly effective in advancing al Qaeda objectives.

ARENA: The attack did result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Experts say the less Western influence in Iraq, the better for al Qaeda.

GOHEL: Iraq is a key battleground for the terrorists. The terrorists want to turn Iraq into another Taliban Afghanistan. They would like to see the premature withdrawal of the U.S.-led coalition forces.

ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.

BEN VENZKE, INTELCENTER: Al Qaeda feels that Bush is, even despite casualties,