Only on Fox: USMC captain in Control Room film labeled "TRAITOR?" for taking job at Aljazeera
During the October 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, the network suggested that former Marine Corps captain Josh Rushing may be a "traitor" for taking a job with Qatar-based news network Aljazeera. While co-host Alan Colmes was promoting Rushing's upcoming appearance on the show, saying that "a former U.S. Marine captain will be here to defend his decision to take a job at a television network that is frequently criticized for its anti-American coverage," a picture of Rushing appeared on the screen, with text below it asking, "TRAITOR?"
Rushing gained national attention after his appearance in Control Room, a 2004 documentary about Aljazeera filmed over a six-week period around the time of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. When Control Room was filmed, Rushing was a military spokesperson stationed at United States Central Command (CENTCOM) Forward Headquarters in Qatar; his increasing unease with the military's representations of the war was featured prominently in the documentary. Rushing, who resigned from the military after the Pentagon ordered him to cease granting interviews about the documentary, will appear on Aljazeera International, the forthcoming English-language news channel.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Now, now, they did add a "?", as in
"Fox News - Fair and Balanced?"
LOL
I hope he sues them for defamation ... how ironic ... this from the same people who don't see the treason in Rove/Libby/Novak's betrayal of US security interests ...
Hilarious. These guys are beyond the pale and have no scruples at all. Who, again, made them the Commissars of the country? I have seen "Control Room" and in my opinion it showed Rushing to be a fairly open person with a decent intellect who started seeing through the propaganda and jingoism in regard to the Iraq invasion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just the kind garbage that the righties at Fox News love. Their going to milk this one for all its worth just like they did with Kerry's informed opinion of the Vietnam War. This is will be front page at Fox News. They'll devote huge segments of their shows it. No doubt there will be endless bashing from Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Bennet and Gingrich in the days to come.
"Fox News - We Report, We Decide."
Anderson Cooper did an interview with Rushing yesterday on CNN. My impression of him is that, unlike most of the teleprompter readers at Fox News, he knows the difference between journalism and propaganda.
I'm sure Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson and Brit Hume will be doing their hit pieces on Rushing shortly.
Hmmm... I wonder if these guys consider themselves traitors for moving from the realm of legitimate journalism to the dark side?
I guess this means that longtime UK broadcaster Sir David Frost is likewise a traitor to the British crown, eh?
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
I've seen the movie. This Rushing guy is awesome. He started out just spewing the military line, regardless of the falsehood or half-truth. By the end, he had realized that he was being misled and was in turn misleading the American public. He continued to do his duty, but you could tell he was no longer comfortable with the work.
I'm not surprised he took a job with Al Jazeera, arguably the most "fair and balanced" of all news networks (which is precisely why rabid hawks on the Right hate them so much). They treated him respectfully and probably offered him a pretty good salary.
I wonder if the same "traitor?" label applies to any American public servant who quits his job to go work in the private sector for a corporation whose activities he was supposedly watchdogging while on the Federal payroll?
PS: Also, I note with little surprise that Alan "I'm Not a Liberal But I Play One On TV" Colmes uncritically labeled Al Jazeera's coverage "anti-American," as though anti-Americanism is a deliberate part of their agenda. Anyone who's actually watched Al Jazeera knows this is not the case.
I agree. Rushing is pretty good in Control Room. I think everyone should see that movie before they make any harsh judgements about Al-Jezeera.
To open_mind....you said, I think everyone should see that movie before they make any harsh judgements about Al-Jezeera.
While Al-Jezeera may try to meet some form of journalistic credibility by their standards, it will remain a 3rd world barbaric form of FoxNews as long as it is willing to air any taped beheadings of foreigners by captors of a misguided belief. There is no room for televised killings on any level by any news organizations. It only fuels the discontent of a population who has(and the network knows)the ability to watch & formulate a slanted position.
"There is no room for televised killings on any level by any news organizations."
Why?
If it really happened, and they are honest about what they are showing and how they obtained the footage, why should it be hidden from people? I agree that people who don't want to see such things shouldn't be forced to, but on the other hand, if the true brutality of war was brought home to all of us every day that the war continues, perhaps we would be less eager to participate in the future.
Great post Bartman. The standard for journalism shouldn't just be that you can watch it while eating a sandwich. Sometimes reality is terrible, repulsive and jarring. Insulating us from that unpleasantness does not do anyone any favors. Maybe if we weren't so insulated, we would wisely think twice about going to war.
What's the difference between Al Jaziera playing beheading videos and USA corporate media showing Abu Graib photos?
The real story is what USA corporate media barely shows and under-reports - soldiers' caskets / crippled civilians, maimed Iraqi and Afghan kids, etc. Go through a stack of Time / US News / NY Times / check out the network news. This 'liberal' stuff makes up a super tiny fraction of the 'liberal media'.
Liberal Media is nothing more than two words strung together. Like "Peppermint Sombrero" or "America's Anchor" (the new Clear Channel-Limbaugh propaganda line). Totally meaningless, but repeated so relentlessly than most Americans believe it exists.
jinxer - Thursday October 13, 2005 08:43:11 AM EST
There is no room for televised killings on any level by any news organizations.<<
Do you remember all the 'shock and awe' footage of the artillary and bombs going off in Baghdad? You do know people were dying on the recieving end of most of those explosions dont you?
You have to realize that Bush is in so much trouble that FNC is going to look for sideshow issues. The other day, the stunningly gorgeous but empty headed Laurie Dhue actually read a report claiming at the start that Bin Laden may have been killed in the earthquake. But at the end of the report, she stated there was no evidence of this occurring. Huh???
This will give them new ammmo and create a smoke screen just as the "looters" did in New Orleans. I predict the following reaction from FNC hosts.
Hume- A sneer followed by trying to link this guy to the DNC.
Gibson-Outrage and an idotic My Word where he will call for the guy's arrest.
O'Reilly- Feigned outrage claiming more GI'S will be killed. An appearance with by resident nutcase Col David Hunt as well. And of course Judge Andrew Napolitano calling for executions to take place.
Hannity- A popmpous smirk.
You've got the Fox team down pat.
I like that Aljazeera shows the atrocities of war. I wish more of the chicken-hawks in this country had a better feel for what war is like and what it does to the innocent like the women and children and the elderly. If people were more educated, caring and humane we would not get videos like this... "which country would you bomb next?" [link to www.crooksandliars.com] Lots of people in this video would bomb Iran and when asked to put a flag on a map they marked a mislabeled Australia. So sad.
-
Thanks for the link and be afraid, very afraid!!!
Wow, that video is absolutely stunning.
"Lots of people in this video would bomb Iran and when asked to put a flag on a map they marked a mislabeled Australia. So sad." -- jlegato
--------------------------------------------------------------
This surprises you?? It doesn't surprise me. I think I remember reading something to the effect some time ago that an inordinately large number of American high school students weren't even able to properly identify their own state on a map of the US! Now that's sad!
Yeah, videos like this make one want to re-introduce voting requirements. Like maybe a college degree, or a least a literacy test. Or maybe $100k net worth.
One could argue that Alan Colmes is the real traitor for taking a job at Fox.
I agree there are a couple of issues here:
First, Fox's attempt to denigrate a US military veteran by suggesting he is a "traitor". The suggestion is abhorant and unwarranted and was put on the screen in a cowardly manner.
Second, Alan Colmes uncritically passing off the accusation that Aljazeera is anti-American. Since Fox has called CNN International and BBC anti-American, does Alan Colmes also pass off accusations that CNN and the BBC are anti-American when mentioning them?
Links to articles on above Fox accusations related to CNN and the BBC:
[link to www.sebimeyer.com]
[link to www.nydailynews.com]
I'm used to "liberals" defending Hugo Chavez and even Fidel Castro, but I wasn't really expecting to see MMFA supporting al Jazeera. But, now that I think about it, they're quite up the "liberalism" alley.
Here's just one of the many links I could provide about that fine network.
Up next from MMFA: Was Tokyo Rose just misunderstood?
The article you cite contains one major flaw of perspective. It assumes that an independent international news agency should take a side in the conflict in Iraq. Why? Because it is our side? I believe Al-Jezeera is making an attempt to remain objective. You are just not used to seeing the other side of the argument.
The goals of Dorrance Smith (the author of this article) is to have Al-Jezeera take a side in the conflict in order to silence the voice of the violent opposition. Mr. Smith would prefer the side of the terrorists/insurgents not be heard at all. It is quite natural that Smith, a propagandist himself, would like to mute opposing propaganda and information.
Of course, some of what Al-Jezeera shows would be considered by Americans to be propaganda, but what exactly do you think we are pumping over Iraqi TV anyway? Is it bad for Al-Jezeera to do even to a lesser extent what we do?
Al-Jezeera has frequently asked the administration for interviews and they have also aired them unedited, but often the administration refuses to go on air. We should take every opportunity to go on Al-Jezeera if we really believe what we are doing is right.
By Rushing joining Al-Jezeera, it is great PR for our country. He shows that many of us are decent people, who want to do the right thing.
The liberal-Castro line is all yours. You're the person accusing fellow Americans of this. There's a lot of WWII vets opposed to Bush. Think they're socialist? How many people you call liberal that you know truly want our country to become socialist? That don't want to be able to drive whereever they please, don't want to shop, buy books of their choice, own a car or cell phone, don't want to go on vacation, don't want freedom of speech? Is Joseph Biden a liberal by this definition? What exactly are you saying? Are you opposed to government, for example, pollution laws, traffic laws, airline safety regulations? By being for these, are you anti-capitalist? Takes a tiny mind to remain binary in a complex world.
LoneWacko, I assume you are taking time out from your assignment in Iraq to criticize the liberal straw men here at Media Matters.
I like how one of the "many links" was a Wall St Journal online article.
The best part of the article was the disclaimer about the author Dorrance Smith:"Mr. Smith, currently a media consultant in Washington, spent nine months in Iraq as a senior media adviser to Ambassador Paul Bremer."
Let's see Rushing was given an order that he did agree with or feel that he could comply with. So, he resigned he commission. Then he went out and got a job. Hmmmmmmm?
Well, that is correct procedure. And financially responsible. Why's the right carping.
As for the al Jazeera is on this side or that. I bet if you ask the, what's the term, Islamofacists they'll say al Jazeera favors us. Extremists like to do that when they disagree with people. "You believe I am not always right. Then you must be the enemy." So, go at it righties have a field day.
I have Marines in my family and for one to "go over" to the other side makes me wonder just how much Rushing had to be seeing that we were not. You don't go green for laughs. The fiction versus fact ratio would, IMHO, have to reach the critical BS to make a Marine Captain even contemplate this. The fact that the right is even hinting that this guy has some lag in his patroitism should worry everyone. When the rest of the Iraq story comes out, and it is not out yet, I imagine the right will be running for cover while screaming, "We did not know,honest." But until then they follow SOP, Lie early and lie often.
For people who slavishly idolize free market capitalism, they sure seem to hate it when an ordinary soldier gets a good job.
How typical of the "support our troops" right-wingers to smear a veteran who doesn't come out singing the glorious praises of war. If a single one of the chickenhawks who so valiantly supports the war in Iraq from the safety of their studio, or White House office, had ever been close to carrying a gun they wouldn't be so gung ho to send other people off to die for their fantasies. I would hardly say that Rushing is comparable to Tokyo Rose. He is not in hiding, resigned his commission and is acting professionally as a journalist. The right-wingers claim to love "freedom" and yet, every step of the way, they want to curtail someone's freedom. If anything, it is less responsible for Rush Limbaugh to be the only one on radio to our troops spewing right-wing hatred for hours on end. That's a traitor.
Well, I'll give Fox News this much (although why I'm defending them is beyond me) -- at least the punctuation they used after the word "traitor" was a question mark and not an exclamation point!
Take the Fox News Quiz:
Q1. What do you call an American soldier who takes a job with a news agency popular in Muslim countries?
Q2. What do you call an American that never served in the military and who breaks the law by doing business with countries the US has placed sanctions on?
----
A1. Traitor
A2. Mr. Vice-President
So wait a second. Let me get this straight--this captain joins al-Jezeera, the most virulently anti-American pro-terrorist propaganda machine out there, a network that regularly broadcasts videos made by terrorists of executions of innocents, and he's supposed to be a great patriot?
"So wait a second. Let me get this straight--this captain joins al-Jezeera, the most virulently anti-American pro-terrorist propaganda machine out there, a network that regularly broadcasts videos made by terrorists of executions of innocents, and he's supposed to be a great patriot?" -kenkong77
------------------------------------------------
Do you actually watch Al-Jezeera? Do you even know what you are talking about?
"Do you actually watch Al-Jezeera?" --No, I do not, and for some reason I am not tempted to. Read this article, for example. [link to english.aljazeera.net]
"Do you even know what you are talking about?" --Apparently I do not. But you apparently do know what you're talking about! Do you watch al-jezeera regularly, or only when they say women had it better under Saddam's torturous regime? You really believe that stuff?
"Do you actually watch Al-Jezeera?" --No, I do not, and for some reason I am not tempted to. Read this article, for example. [link to english.aljazeera.net]
"Do you even know what you are talking about?" --Apparently I do not. But you apparently do know what you're talking about! Do you watch al-jezeera regularly, or only when they say women had it better under Saddam's torturous regime? You really believe that stuff? --kenkong77
----------------------------------------------------------
I noticed how you have changed my question to you when you turned around to ask me a similar question. You changed it from "Do you actually watch Al-Jezeera?" --open_mind to "Do you watch al-jezeera regularly, or only when they say women had it better under Saddam's torturous regime?" --kenkong77
I will answer the original honest question in reciprocation of your response.
I have watched Al-Jezeera, read stories on their website including the one you posted above and spoken often with several people from that part of the world about it.
I find it telling that you would rather Al-Jezeera not print or air articles that show a different perspective than the American (current administration) perspective about a comparisson to the role of women in pre-invasion Iraq to post-invasion Iraq.
Do you really need everyone to see things the way you do? You or I can agree or disagree with Al-Jezeera's articles. What does that matter? They are successful because they provide perspectives that are actively suppressed here. It appears the only people who want to shut down Al-Jezeera are people who don't want the other side of the debate to be told or known so they can monopolize information/disinformation for their own self-serving purposes.
I will answer the original honest question in reciprocation of your response.
I have watched Al-Jezeera, read stories on their website including the one you posted above and spoken often with several people from that part of the world about it.
"I find it telling that you would rather Al-Jezeera not print or air articles that show a different perspective than the American (current administration) perspective about a comparisson to the role of women in pre-invasion Iraq to post-invasion Iraq."
--I find it telling that you would defend an organization like al-jezeera in the first place. I'm all for different opinions, just not the terrorist kind. I tend to look down on those. Do you disagree?
"Do you really need everyone to see things the way you do?"
--No, I do not.
"You or I can agree or disagree with Al-Jezeera's articles. What does that matter? They are successful because they provide perspectives that are actively suppressed here."
--So if you weren't being "suppressed" here in America, you'd have the opinion that women in Iraq have less freedoms now than under Saddam? You seriously buy that you're being "suppressed"? What a glorified view you have of yourself, pretending to be persecuted.
"It appears the only people who want to shut down Al-Jezeera are people who don't want the other side of the debate to be told or known so they can monopolize information/disinformation for their own self-serving purposes."
--By "self-serving" I assume you mean "pro-women." To want to suppress false information (Saddam was nicer to women than America is!, etc.) is not "self-serving." You are spouting words that sound meaningful but do not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. How can I be self-serving if I want the truth to be out there for not just myself, but for everyone? If that's self-serving, I'll gladly accept that label.
"--I find it telling that you would defend an organization like al-jezeera in the first place. I'm all for different opinions, just not the terrorist kind. I tend to look down on those. Do you disagree?" --kenkong77
---------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be of the opinion (although you haven't by your own admission actually watched Al-Jezeera) that Al-Jezeera shows news of the "terrorist kind". However, in the link that you provide, it seems to be a criticism of post-Saddam Iraq. How was this reporting of the "terrorist kind" and not just criticism? Do you think such criticism should be allowed? If no, why should it be censored? How does censorship add to the debate? If yes, than what is your point? --open_mind
~~
"--So if you weren't being "suppressed" here in America, you'd have the opinion that women in Iraq have less freedoms now than under Saddam? You seriously buy that you're being "suppressed"? What a glorified view you have of yourself, pretending to be persecuted." --kenkong77
----------------------------------------------------------
This part is quite muddled. It appears you are confusing oppression with suppression. I also made no claim to be suppressed. Reference my original post for clarification. --open_mind
~~
"--By "self-serving" I assume you mean "pro-women." To want to suppress false information (Saddam was nicer to women than America is!, etc.) is not "self-serving." You are spouting words that sound meaningful but do not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. How can I be self-serving if I want the truth to be out there for not just myself, but for everyone? If that's self-serving, I'll gladly accept that label." --kenkong77
----------------------------------------------------------
Again, you seem to be slipping away from us here. Self-serving applies to the purposes of the administration for controlling information although I find your interpretation above self-serving as well.
The problem is that you don't want the whole truth to be out. You mislabel the other side as "terrorist" (without admitedly even seeing it with your own eyes) in an attempt for any opposing view to be squashed before it can even be considered.
How do you know if Saddam treated women in general better than they have it now or not? Did you live there before the invasion or after? Niether of us know for sure. You would rather have it that one side of the debate about that would not exist.
open_mind - Thursday October 13, 2005 02:05:13 PM EST
I know this, under the Saddams rule women could wear western clothes, there were women doctors and women college professors, lets see if that continues under the new regime. Just because Saddam was a brutal butcher doesnt mean every single thing done under the Iraqi government from the time of the Baathist takeover was pure evil this may be true, we will see.
by kenkong77 - Thursday October 13, 2005 01:31:32 PM EST
"To want to suppress false information (Saddam was nicer to women than America is!, etc.) is not "self-serving." You are spouting words that sound meaningful but do not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. How can I be self-serving if I want the truth to be out there for not just myself, but for everyone? If that's self-serving, I'll gladly accept that label."
You're self serving because you're only interested in what you understand to be the truth. You're uninterested in anything that challenges that whether it's true or not. Women did have more rights under the Baathists than what appears to be coming down in this new constitution.
So, do you think he's a great patriot or what? Please give a straight, yes-or-no answer.
"So, do you think he's a great patriot or what? Please give a straight, yes-or-no answer." --kenkong77
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, can't give a yes or no answer. It's not that easy. I don't know. I know little about him other than what I saw in Control Room. He seems like a decent guy, but patriot is a designation that I don't just hand out because I like what somebody does.
The real topic here is whether he is a traitor. Do you think he is a traitor? Feel free to respond any way you like. I won't try to pidgeonhole your response.
by kenkong77 - Thursday October 13, 2005 12:03:14
Have you seen Control Room? This guy is in it throughout and he's always being a pro US PR guy. That he has now gone to Al Jazeera should say more about what he's seen and learned over there than to implicate he's a traitor. I was VERY surprised to hear he had gotten a job with Al Jazeera. To accuse him of being a traitor for it is uninformed.
Is Captain Josh Rushing a traitor; i.e. has he commited treason?
What he did wasn't right, at the very least unethical and qualifies as expatriation. Taking a job with Al-Jazeera is very poor form, but I'm not sure it qualifies as treason. Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of WAR, or outright engaging in war against the U.S.- pursuant to Article 3, Section 3, Subsection 1 of the constitution.
First, This war on terror is very broad, almost too vague to be a "True " war. Second it is a grey area that aiding media is giving aid and comfort. Even if it was the case it is unlikely that there are two witnesses who can prove Captain Rushing took the job at Al-Jazeera. Therefore there's no case for treason, and Fox to it's dismay is not going to see Captain Rushing face the firing squad, gallows, or however people who commit treason are executed these days.
"What he did wasn't right, at the very least unethical and qualifies as expatriation."
Huh? How was it wrong? Al Jazeera is regarded as a very legitimate news agency by a good number people. Just because they're not ra ra cheerleaders for America does not make them wrong. Him working for them is not wrong. It's him getting a job.
Him working for them is not wrong. It's him getting a job.
by losingfaith
--------------------------------------------
Getting a job with the equivalent of Fox News, that spreads distortion and misinformation (not on just Iraq), take a look for yourself sometime.
"Getting a job with the equivalent of Fox News, that spreads distortion and misinformation (not on just Iraq), take a look for yourself sometime." -1428a
--------------------------------------------------
1)If you make a direct assertion, it would be nice if you could provide (an) example(s). The burden is on you to support your own argument. Don't expect others to make your argument for you.
2)How do you know that (assuming what you say about Al-Jezeera is true) Rushing won't effect positive change at Al-Jezeera?
"Taking a job with Al-Jazeera is very poor form, but I'm not sure it qualifies as treason." --1428a
------------------------------------------------------
How is it even "very poor form"?
How is it even "very poor form"?
by open_mind
-----------------------------------------
Whether or not it's poor form would depend on how credible one think's Al-Jazeera is, as well as in their political views. Is Al-Jazeera solely propaganda, solely news, or somewhere in between the two extremes?
"Whether or not it's poor form would depend on how credible one think's Al-Jazeera is, as well as in their political views. Is Al-Jazeera solely propaganda, solely news, or somewhere in between the two extremes?" -1428a
----------------------------------------------------------
Again, examples please. Forgive me, but I have seen Al-Jezeera and I don't know what you are talking about.