RELATED: Dana Loesch Endorses Taliban Desecration By Marines: ‘I’d Drop Trou And Do It Too’

Countdown host Keith Olbermann and liberal watchdog Media Matters, among others, have called for CNN to fire Loesch over the remark, and according to Big Journalism, even Politico is in on the act. Lest you think that this is all a bunch of ginned-up liberal outrage, however, a conservative think-tank in Illinois also backed away from Loesch over the comments, withdrawing an invitation for her to appear at their ”Women, Liberty, and America’s Future” event.

RELATED: Military Investigating Video That Appears To Show U.S. Marines Urinating On Corpses

Olbermann took to Twitter to slam CNN, and to add some trademark innuendo:

A) why hasn’t CNN fired her already; b) she sounds way too familiar w/topic @DLoesch says she’d urinate on dead Taliban

He also paid Loesch a backhanded compliment, while also saying she was worse than the Taliban:

Actually, no. They are unthinking religious fanatics. You’re worse RT@DLoesch So @KeithOlbermann thinks I’m the Taliban? So ridiculous.

The implication there is that, unlike the Taliban, there is thought behind Loesch’s remarks.

Big Journalism‘s John Nolte notes that Politico, like Mediaite, reached out to CNN for comment on Loesch’s remark, but went the extra mile by wondering “whether or not it will have any impact on her role at CNN.”

CNN responded with this statement to Mediaite:

CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.

Media Matters, though, has gone full-bore at Loesch. In addition to a Twitter barrage from Eric Boehlert challenging Loesch to repeat the sentiment on CNN’s air, their investigative reporter Joe Strupp has published an article in which numerous CNN on-air sources (anonymously attributed) express displeasure and embarrassment at Loesch’s remarks.

That last item is probably the biggest reason for concern for Loesch, who could probably count on CNN to ignore pressure from liberals, but might lend a more attentive ear to internal voices. Loesch’s supporters can tell themselves that Strupp’s reporting is meaningless because the sources are unnamed, but he’s a real reporter with a real reputation. Those quotes are real, and depending on the relative juice of the speakers, could signal trouble for Dana Loesch.

As someone who knows a thing or two about being fired over political speech, I think it would be wrong of CNN to fire Dana Loesch over this. Within reason, my philosophy is that more speech is always better than less speech. Most of the speech-related firings of the past few years could have been handled more productively, in my view, by expanding the dialogue, rather than shutting it down.

RELATED: Bill Maher Not Outraged Over Marine Urination Scandal: ‘If They Were Real Taliban… I’m Not That Upset’

In this case, rather than see Dana Loesch fired for saying something so silly and wrong, I’d rather see her defend those remarks on a panel with people like Bill Maher (who, while not cheering the desecration, said he didn’t see what all the fuss was about), former Marine Goldie Taylor, and maybe even Sen. John McCain, who knows a thing or two about war atrocities. Like it or not, Loesch’s false bravado resonated with a lot of people, and such a discussion could prove clarifying for Loesch and her defenders. Alternately, Loesch could possibly smoke them all in a debate, and we’d all run out to look for an appropriate corpse to piss on. Who knows?

The point that the “fire Loesch” crowd misses, and that CNN apparently gets (if their statement is any indication), is that aside from being offensive and cheap, Loesch’s remarks were revealing in a way that true journalism is supposed to be. Having disparate viewpoints represented on their air has value to CNN viewers because they come away knowing something they previously didn’t. In this case, I learned that if Loesch is going to be at my funeral, I’d better request a closed casket.

RELATED: Goldie Taylor Calls Out CNN’s Dana Loesch On CNN Over Urinate-Gate

There are cases in which pressure campaigns like boycotts are justified, but often, efforts like this are led by people who aren’t watching in the first place. Except in extreme cases, my solution is simple. If I don’t want to see someone on my TV, I change the channel. For example, I was very disappointed in the way Joe Scarborough handled Ann Coulter‘s slurring of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on Morning Joe a few months back. Before that, I was a fairly regular viewer of Scarborough’s program.

I didn’t call for a boycott of Morning Joe, or for Scarborough to be fired. In fact, I still tune in every once in a while, but the incident soured me on the program, tainted the collegial vibe that was key to its appeal. As a result, Morning Joe lost a loyal viewer. Now, who knows, maybe they also gained a bunch of fans who groove on that sort of thing.

For CNN, it’s probably tougher to gauge Loesch’s performance in terms of viewers, and I don’t think I’ve seen enough of her segments to pass judgment on them, but I don’t think they hired her to play tiddlywinks.

RELATED: Goldie Taylor Calls Out CNN’s Dana Loesch On CNN Over Urinate-Gate

“What’s really disturbing to me is the over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military, it appears. Whether it’s the Secretary of State or whether it’s the Secretary of Defense. I mean, these kids made a mistake. There’s not any doubt about it — shouldn’t have done it it. It’s bad — but to call it a criminal act, I think, is over-the-top.”

The Blaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern notes that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called the video “utterly deplorable” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned it as “absolutely inconsistent with American values.”

Watch Perry’s remarks below via CNN:

(h/t The Blaze)

RELATED: Military Investigating Video That Appears To Show U.S. Marines Urinating On Corpses

Lemon opened the segment by issuing the shortest window ever to get the kids out of the room, then played the now-infamous clip (strategically blurred) of four US Marines doing a number (one) on some enemy corpses. Taylor told Lemon that the tape wasn’t representative of the Marine Corps that she belonged to, and that “When I look at that, and look at what four marines did to defame my Marine Corps, I’m disgusted.”

She went on to say that the four Marines should be court-martialed.

Lemon asked Taylor about people who defended these Marines’ actions. I’ve heard it,” Taylor said. “And I’ve heard it on this air, frankly. That is disgusting in and of itself, not as satire not as a joke but to say you would ‘drop trou’ and do the same thing, I question someone’s integrity who would say something like that. I want to know if they understand what our young men and women are up against every day. I don’t want to demonize the men and women who serve our country. I honor them, and served alongside them, and am proud of them. But when something like this happens, we have to stand up and call it for the behavior that it is.”

RELATED: Dana Loesch Endorses Taliban Desecration By Marines: ‘I’d Drop Trou And Do It Too’

The incident has stirred significant outrage, which led CNN contributor and Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism Dana Loesch to wonder what all the fuss was about, and to opine that she would “drop trou and do it too.”

Loesch responded to criticism of her remarks by pointing out that worse things than this have been done (an odd point of agreement between Loesch and Bill Maher), and falsely claiming there wasn’t enough outrage about them. She also used the tried-and-true Limbaugh method to recast her ill-considered remarks as satire, claiming “I was using absurdity to highlight absurdity.”

It’s probably rare that you’ll see Loesch in agreement with Real Time host Bill Maher, but in addition to the “things happen in war” argument, both of them seem to think that the acceptability of pissing on a corpse is a matter of relative merit, that because the corpses in question were America’s enemies, it’s not such a big deal.

RELATED: Bill Maher Not Outraged Over Marine Urination Scandal: ‘If They Were Real Taliban… I’m Not That Upset’

I admit that the first argument has some appeal, that young men charged with killing in their country’s service, and exposed to constant peril and horror, ought to be forgiven such a lapse. While I agree with Taylor that this incident literally screams “dishonorable discharge,” there’s a good case to be made that these men have earned a measure of mercy in their sentencing.

But people like Bill Maher and Dana Loesch completely miss the point when they defend this incident based on how bad our enemies are, and how good and righteous America is. In my view, this desecration has little to do with the unceremoniously moistened corpses. As Bill Maher and The Bible point out, the dead know nothing. If they could talk, I’m sure those dead men would be less offended at the urination than at the whole being made dead thing.

Respect for the dead is for the benefit of the living, and not just for the dead’s loved ones. How we treat the dead says something about us. In doing what they did, those Marines didn’t just piss on some empty meatbags, they pissed on their own humanity.

If that video had shown America’s enemies similarly desecrating US troops, there would have been outrage, for sure, but would anyone be shocked? Do we hold the Taliban, or al Quaeda, in such esteem that this would surprise us? This incident was shocking because America is exceptional, because we don’t do things like that, and we ought to hold ourselves in higher esteem than we do our enemies.

This “things happen in war” excuse is valuable to a point of forgiveness, but using it to mitigate this incident is an insult to the many men and women who fight for our country, who witness the same horrors, yet manage to retain their humanity.

Taylor’s condemnation also highlights the tendency of armchair warriors like Loesch, Maher, and others to co-opt the sacrifices of our fighting men and women into a faux-wizened toughness, perverting and cheapening them in the process. Just because you’ve watched Platoon or The Hurt Locker a bunch of times doesn’t mean you “get it.”

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

RELATED: Military Investigating Video That Appears To Show U.S. Marines Urinating On Corpses

As a matter of perspective, Maher argued that a couple of soldiers peeing on members of the Taliban did not necessarily rank in the top 10 offenses the United States has committed in times of war. Rob Reiner acknowledged he did not condone their actions either, but admitted that “war does make people a little crazy” and “these are the kind of things that happen during war.”

When Reiner brought up the Abu Ghraib scandal, Maher stated that was more of a “premeditated” situation, and the current scandal was more like, to put it in sports parlance, an “end-zone game.” DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz outright condemned their actions as “unacceptable in any way, shape, or form.” Reiner insisted that war is ugly, and while actions like these are deplorable, they should not be unexpected, and we should not be so surprised and shocked when news of it emerges.

Maher again asked for perspective on the issue, reminding the audience these were not innocents who got pissed on, but members of the Taliban.

“It would depend upon what the people they were pissing on did. If they were real Taliban, if they were people who burned down girls’ schools, and, you know, do honor rapes and throw acid in people’s faces, I’m not that upset about pissing on them.”

Maher appears to be echoing similar sentiments to Dana Loesch, who earlier today said she didn’t understand why the video was so controversial, adding “I’d drop trou and do it too.” In her later remarks defending her statements, she said the same thing Maher did tonight, namely that “it’s absurd to desecrate corpses but it’s not wrong to hate terrorists who are trying to kill our troops–and us.”

RELATED: ‘Tea Party Person’ Dana Loesch Throws ‘Teabagger’ Back in Bill Maher’s Face

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

The Marine Corps quickly condemned the video, according to CNN, with a spokesperson calling it “egregious, disgusting behavior.”

“While we have not yet verified the origin or authenticity of this video, the actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps,” said U.S.M.C. Media Officer Kendra Hardesty. “This matter will be fully investigated and those responsible will be held accountable for their actions. We are in the process of verifying what unit these Marines are with right now and as soon as we have more information, we will let you know.”

“Regardless of the circumstances or who is in the video, this is egregious, disgusting behavior,” said DOD spokesman Capt. John Kirby. “It’s hideous. It turned my stomach.”

Warning graphic content, watch the explicit video below:

Watch additional reporting on the video via CNN below:

(h/t The Atlantic Wire)

RELATED: Sen. Joe Lieberman Wants Google To Let Users Flag ‘Terrorist Content’

While a Twitter spokesman told the Telegraph that they were not at liberty to comment on the matter, the office of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which Sen. Lieberman shares, confirmed the move as part of a broader campaign against Islamic extremist propaganda on the internet. The Telegraph report also included the names of some accounts in question, and the interesting tidbit that NATO press officers on Twitter actually engage in Twitter wars with these agents on occasion, as well as noting that the veracity of the Taliban Twitter reports could be anywhere from absolutely true to absolutely fabricated:

The Taliban movement has embraced the social network as part of its propaganda effort and regularly tweets about attacks or posts links to its statements.

The information has ranged from highly accurate, up-to-the-minute accounts of unfolding spectacular attacks, to often completely fabricated or wildly exaggerated reports of American and British casualties. Twitter feeds including @ABalkhi, which has more than 4,100 followers, and @alemarahweb, which has more than 6,200 followers, regularly feature tweeted boasts about the deaths of “cowardly invaders” and “puppet” Afghan government forces.

Taliban spokesmen also frequently spar with Nato press officers on Twitter, as they challenge and rebut each other’s statements.

While Congress will not be in session again until the new year, aides are apparently working on the project as a forthcoming one for Congress’s return.

RELATED: Jake Tapper And Jay Carney Get Into It Over Briefing Protocol, Bestiality Evoked Again

Real Clear Politics transcribed the oft-times tense back-and-forth between Carney and Tapper:

Carney: “I think it is important — I know you’ve written about this — to understand what most Americans I think know, which is that we didn’t invade Afghanistan, we did not send U.S. military personnel into Afghanistan because the Taliban were in power. They had been in power. We sent — we went into Afghanistan because al-Qaeda had launched an attack against the United States from Afghanistan.

“And what the vice president was reflecting is that, and this is related to the reconciliation process that I was just discussing, is that the Taliban per se, while we are fighting them, it is not the elimination, the elimination of the Taliban is not the issue here. The objective that the president laid out when he laid out his Afghanistan strategy made clear that the number one principle here is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately to defeat al-Qaeda, as well as help stabilize Afghanistan. And that’s what we’re doing.

“Part of that process is our support for the Afghan-led reconciliation talks. The conditions for reconciliation for the Taliban are very clear. But reconciliation has to be a part of the long-term process in Afghanistan if Afghanistan is going to evolve into a peaceful country.”

Tapper: “I understand that. Obviously, there isn’t much of an al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. Leon Panetta, when he was CIA director, told me a year or two ago that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. We’ve been devoting a great deal of blood and treasure, focused almost entirely on defeating Taliban insurgents, Taliban fighters. I understand that ultimately that there is going to have to be some sort of reconciliation. I just wonder if the language was regrettable at all?”

Carney: “It’s only regrettable when taken out of context that I just explained. It’s regrettable to present it out of context because it is a simple fact that we went into Afghanistan because of the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. We are there now to ultimately defeat al-Qaeda, to stabilize Afghanistan and stabilize it in part so that al-Qaeda or other terrorists who have as their aim attacks on the United States cannot establish a foothold again in that country. So what is also completely clear is that Afghanistan’s future has to include within it reconciliation, and that is why we support the Afghan government-led effort there.”

Watch the contentious exchange below via CSPAN:

(h/t RCP)

RELATED: Watch Herman Cain Flounder With Libya Question During Editorial Board Interview

The Libya question was, the question was too broad. Now I do admit that I was a bit fatigued, but the question was too broad and so I paused, and what they didn’t show was I asked the reporter to be more specific. Well, he didn’t get more specific. His question was — and I hope you all show this, or write about it — “Do you agree or disagree with President Obama on Libya?”

What part?

Do I agree with the part where we intervene with rockets and missiles? Do I agree with siding with the opposition? Do I agree with saying that Gaddafi should go? Do I agree that they now have a country where you’ve got Taliban and Al Qaeda that’s now going to be part of the government? Do I agree with not knowing the government was going to be? Which part was he asking me about?

He goes on to talk more about the interview, and what was shown and hot shown, asked and not asked.

Update: In defense of Herman Cain, a rebel’s account of the turmoil in Libya did offer links between his country and the Taliban, as well as to Al Qaeda. You can read an LA Times article about these alleged links, right over here. Here’s the pertinent section:

There was only one place for Mohammed to go: back to Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban. He spent time studying in military camp, and in classes on politics and Islam. About 100 members of the LIFG congregated in Kabul, the capital, longing for the day when they could kill Kadafi and rule Libya in accordance with Islam.

Here Mohammed would have his encounter with the two men who shaped the future of radical Islam: Bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri.

Have a look, via CNN:

Malveaux, then, has something of a unique perspective on the various attacks that unfolded today around 1:30 p.m. local time in Afghanistan. Taliban members had targeted several high-profile locations, including the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters, as well as an area near a local high school. So far, seven have been killed in the attacks and ensuing violence, including Afghan police officers and civilians, and seventeen have been reported injured. Current reports also indicate that three of the four attackers are dead.

“The last we heard,” Malveaux tells Mediaite, “Afghan police were going through the building. They’d killed three, with one left.” She also describes hearing explosions and gunfire and shares that, while passing a local military hospital, she spied an insurgent laying out, clearly lifeless.

A Taliban spokesperson, whom Malveaux tells us makes himself quite “easy to reach” when it comes to the press, has informed CNN that that the group has targeted the embassy, the International Security Assistance Force (a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan) and NATO in an effort to promote what Malveaux described as “bold, high-profile attacks.”

In speaking with U.S. General John Allen, Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai over the past few days, Malveaux has been able to obtain a more complete picture of our mission in Afghanistan, including whether the current timetable for pulling troops out of the region is realistic and whether Afghanistan is “better off” today than it was a decade ago. Her reports have included an in-depth look into ongoing efforts to train Afghan police, a revealing interview with President Karzai about working towards a peace agreement with the Taliban, reports on the Taliban hit on an Afghan coalition base over the weekend, and the challenges U.S. troops face in training Afghan recruits to take over.

As Malveaux explains in the CNN video report below, eyewitnesses say the four Taliban members launched their attack on the Embassy from an abandoned building nearby:

In a statement to the AP, Mujamid blamed U.S. intelligence agencies for the alleged hack and insisted that mar is “overseeing operations in the country.”

An emailed statement from Qari Yousef Ahmadi, yet another spokesperson for the group, insists that the Islamic Emirate’s Information and Cultural Commission is looking into the hack.

h/t LA Times

Schultz opened up the program telling his audience that he was “not sold” that President Obama’s plan would be successful or lead to a quick enough withdrawal, noting that even with the full withdrawal announced tonight, the number of Americans in the country would be significantly higher than they were on the day President Obama was inaugurated. In fact, about 68,000 Americans would remain, with only about 50 known Taliban members working in the country. “We can’t have peace everywhere,” Schultz submitted. “It’s wishful thinking.” In addition to the fact that bringing democracy to Afghanistan seemed far-fetched, Schultz added that there were serious financial hurdles to jump in order to continue the war and fix the domestic economy. “There’s a political reality to all of this: nation-building with what money?” Schultz concluded it was, all in all, “not a good night at the office.”

Once joined by Maddow and Matthews, they gave their own objections to the speech. For Maddow, it was pivotal to point out that the withdrawal deadlines proposed in his speech today were not news. “This was the same deadline he was talking about in December 2009,” she noted, “but a really big important thing has happened since then: bin Laden is dead.” Maddow argued that the speech was unsatisfactory because it “did not answer the question that’s on everybody’s mind: now that we killed Osama bin Laden, can we please go home?”

Matthews concurred and added his own personal passion against nation-building. Aside from questions he had pertaining to the status of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan early during the military effort, to Matthews, it was about his own “deep deep prejudice against American occupation of countries overseas,” stemming from his belief that “what we call patriotism in the country is not unique to us,” and that “people don’t like other people in their country with guns.” The occupation, he concluded, makes being a Taliban official “the easiest job in the world,” because America had so squarely positioned itself as the bad guy, resulting the nations America spent trillions to defend telling American leaders to “get the hell out of here.” Maddow added that she could not a difference in the impact American troops would have on Afghanistan if they all left tomorrow as opposed to the current proposed timeline.

All of this coming from liberal commentators does not dilute criticism from the right that the President’s withdrawal plan is too fast, rather than too slow, and Schultz did not omit this question from the segment. Given that General David Petraeus had requested more time for troop withdrawal, Schultz asked whether President Obama had exposed himself to further criticism from the right. Matthews took particular objection to this despite being so vehemently opposed to a further stay in Afghanistan, arguing that anyone who would attack the President for not allowed Gen. Petraeus to dictate policy “does not understand the U.S. Constitution” and the President’s role as commander in chief.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The President’s statement began with the story of the Afghanistan war, and how Al-Qaeda had brought the nation into that region. With that, he announced that “starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops by next year,” and “a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point.” He also explained that the mission evolved from “combat to support,” and that by 2014, “this process will be complete.”

Aside from the official troop withdrawal announcement, President Obama also addressed Pakistan and their status as a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terror groups:

Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. We will work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keep its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe-haven for those who aim to kill us: they cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.

President Obama did not expand upon what “continue to press Pakistan” or “never tolerate a safe-haven” mean, but hinted at further action, most likely reserved for further statements after the Afghanistan situation is sorted out and, perhaps especially, the American situation: “it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” the President added sternly.

The President’s full remarks via WireUpdate here, and video via Fox News below:

Asked to evaluate the situation in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld began by noting that he had “a lot of confidence in [Gen. David] Petraeus,” but that, ultimately, Afghanistan would have to “nation-build itself.” To that end, he expressed satisfaction with the current government and decried “corruption baloney” surrounding Karzai’s administration, arguing that criticism of the regime was “misplaced.” In response to his optimism, O’Reilly countered that many in the political realm were not equally convinced that Karzai was trustworthy, or Afghanistan salvageable. “Everybody says that it’s too corrupt, too backward,” O’Reilly noted, but Rumsfeld wasn’t buying it.

“How many Congressmen have been sentenced?” Rumsfeld responded, arguing that nearly every nation on earth had some level of corruption, and that finding some “gambling in the casino” was not worth the widespread concern about the nation. Besides, he continued, Karzai won his election fair and square. Except O’Reilly didn’t quite agree, and countered that the election was “rigged.” “There is no indication that Karzai is corrupt,” Rumsfeld noted, continuing to press the point that “there was an election” and, additionally, that “he is the president of that country– we want him to succeed.” Finally finding a point on which to converge, O’Reilly ceded that Karzai’s uncontested rule in the region at the expense of the Taliban would be universally beneficial.

The debate via Fox News below:

Moore should be ashamed! Doesn’t he know that America is always a leader in trends? When we create conservative fundamentalists, they’re completely new and original! We don’t need to copy anyone else! I’d love to see the Taliban come up with their own Sarah Palin. Oh, wait, they can’t. They’d be too busy stoning her to death for wearing running shorts. USA! USA!

Ahem. As Moore’s done previously, he followed up his exaggerated comment designed to infuriate his enemies with a rousing comment meant to engage his followers. Moore pointed out that Muslims as well died on 9/11 and that, if Palin wanted to keep Ground Zero Islam-free, she’d have to raise them from the dead and lead them off.

Bill Maher, meanwhile, tried to remind him that Real Time’s technically a comedy show.

Assange, who rarely makes appearances in the US media, explained to Judge Napolitano that the documents were, in fact, legitimate, and that he had partnered with the New York Times and the German newspaper Der Spiegel to confirm them. And asked whether the American military had “truthfully and accurately” reported on the war in Afghanistan, he had a simple answer: “No.” “The corruption in reporting starts very early,” he explains, “it’s like the police reporting on the police.” He also argues that, not only are the reports inaccurate, they are “written to excuse the behavior,” and gave several examples of reports where the death counts were altered and civilians were written up as soldiers.

A bigger problem, according to Assange, was a project the government called the “kill or capture list”– a list of suspected terrorists that a special task force was assigned to take care of. “Informers are being paid by the US military to reveal information about Al-Qaeda or the Taliban,” he explained, “but, in fact, they just make up stories about their political enemies or their business enemies in order to have these people raided.” He continued:

“We noticed an unusual classification in one of the reports. It was ‘No foreign.’ That means do not disclose to foreign partners including the United Kingdom, Australia, and so on. 373 involved a deliberate missile attack on a house which held seven children and killed the seven children. We saw how people get on to the list. Some governor in Afghanistan doesn’t like you, and recommends you go on the list. The problem is that we can see that’s clearly a corruptable process. Previous media reportage showed that a senior US official had told Karzai, the president of Afghanistan’s brother, if he didn’t behave, he would be put on the list.”

The interview below:

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy quotes an unidentified senior Pakistani official, who tells the publication that “neither the U.S. government nor the Pakistani government are saying this is true and it is not true… it just doesnt make sense that we would arrest a man and keep it a secret.” Tensions are high between the Pakistani government and US officials since Secretary of State Clinton told 60 Minutes that she suspects that Pakistan knows where Mullah Omar is, although she does not think they have captured him.

The speculation began when Big Government‘s Brad Thor posted an exclusive stating that his sources have told him that Mullah Omar is in custody. Most of the skepticism with the story revolved around shady sources and the fat that Thor’s credentials before Big Government were mostly known to be as a novelist. The Nation went in search of an answer to who Thor is and why he would know, and found that he does have a military background. According to Jeremy Scahill, Thor has connections in Afghanistan, which he made during his time there as part of a “black-ops” team. “This would be the only way Thor has this story remotely right: If, by chance, he happens to know people on the ground who are in a very small, compartmentalized loop on this.”

Perhaps this is what Breitbart is banking on as he continues to defend the story. While Big Government itself has not posted any updates on the topic, Breitbart has been retweeting attacks on him about the topic throughout the day, noting the silence of his arch-nemeses at “TeamPodesta” on the subject as confirmation that he is right, as well as independently stating, “This would be a nice time to tell Karzai & the world that the Pakistanis have had Mullah Omar in custody for over a month.”

For now, with anonymous sources claiming one thing and anonymous sources denying it, it seems to early to tell who in the media will pick up the story and whether, based on the same sources, a major media organization picking it up will strengthen the story.

According to Big Government‘s Brad Thor:

At the end of March, US Military Intelligence was informed by US operatives working in the Af/Pak theater on behalf of the D.O.D. that Omar had been detained by Pakistani authorities. One would assume that this would be passed up the chain and that the Secretary of Defense would have been alerted immediately. From what I am hearing, that may not have been the case.

When this explosive information was quietly confirmed to United States Intelligence ten days ago by Pakistani authorities, it appeared to take the Defense Department by surprise. No one, though, is going to be more surprised than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It seems even with confirmation from the Pakistanis themselves, she was never brought up to speed.

Today, as a reinforcement of yesterday’s report, Big Government ran a column by Jed Babbin analyzing the repercussions of having someone like Omar in custody, and warning that an interrogation on the part of the American government would be detrimental because he “would be Mirandized and pushed into the civilian criminal justice system where he, and his ilk, manifestly don’t belong.”

Unlike the type of reports Big Government and it’s sister sites specialize in, there was no undercover James O’Keefe, pimping his way into a secret cache of Pakistani intelligence. There was no video evidence of Taliban members throwing eggs at a Tea Party bus. There really isn’t any sourcing, either, other than unidentified “key intelligence sources.” The story and its style deviate significantly from what the Big sites usually do. Unsurprisingly, Big Government isn’t getting much support from the mainstream media. In fact, even among default allies like RedState and Hot Air, there seems to be a level of skepticism. RedState reported it with a question mark and made sure to point out Thor’s credentials as a “best-selling novelist.”

Allahpundit at Hot Air went through a list of reasons to believe the story— namely that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had commented that she believed Pakistani authorities had information on the Taliban they were refusing to share— and reasons not to believe the story (“how come this hasn’t leaked? Nothing against Brad Thor, but this is so tippy top secret that he knows about it when the NYT, WaPo, and even Hillary Clinton don’t?”). Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic also reported it with extreme skepticism, but other than these sites, no one seems to have picked the story up.

Reporting the story is a peculiar decision to make on the part of the Big sites (Big Journalism ran it, too), as they usually stay away from major foreign policy journalism. Not to mention that by Brad Thor breaking it, he is putting professional provocateur Andrew Breitbart‘s reputation at risk, as well. Breitbart’s sites have rarely broken a story without video evidence, and the Big sites usually shy away from news from outside the US, with the exceptions of denouncing Che Guevara‘s war crimes or updates on Hugo Chavez‘s crackdown on the Venezuelan media. If he’s right, Breitbart will have branched out as a legitmate source on military intelligence and beaten all of the mainstream media to the punch; if he’s not, he just gave all of the media– not just his enemies– carte blanche to ignore anything and everything he says, a risk that doesn’t seem to be worth the short-term increase in web traffic.

Well, actually, we called them [The White House], Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins had the story pretty well nailed down last Thursday and they took it to the White House for comment, of course, as we routinely do, and the folks at the White House said, well hold on for a second we need to talk to you about this, and several of the people from our Washington bureau went over to the White House and sat down with people from the National Security Council and the press office and they said that they were pretty sure that Mullah Baladar’s colleagues in the Taliban were not yet aware that he was in custody. I don’t know the details of it, but they thought it had been a clean snatch and they were afraid once the word got out, other Taliban officials would go deeper underground or take measures to cover their tracks, so they asked us to hold off for a while.

Keller explains why they decided to hold this time around (can you ever really be sure the administration is not pulling your strings in their own best interests) and not others…interesting that he says this time was a no-brainer.

No, we get asked to withhold information, not often but from time to time sometimes it’s a no-brainer, you know we have reporters embedded in military operations — obviously they don’t file information that would put troops at risk. W’ve had other stories that were much more controversial where we decided that we would publish. This one was not, honestly, a very hard call. Obviously we were eager to break the story, it represented a lot of resourceful reporting by Mark and Dexter, but there was no obvious public interest reason to rush the story into print and you know we are responsible people; we didn’t want to compromise what sounded like a possible intelligence coup.

Keller also notes the paper’s relationship with this White House is less “acrimonious” than with the last one. The entire interview is interesting, and a good reminder how much power what we now refer to as ‘old-school’ journalism wields: “There are others [stories] where to this day we can’t talk about things we’ve held out because they would, for example endanger agents who are working in foreign countries.” Full interview here.

****

UPDATE: The NYT and David Rohde have issued this statement regarding the allegations. Per Rohde:

“As I stated in the series on our captivity, no ransom was paid in our case and no one, including our guards, helped us escape. I would never have written — and the newspaper would never have published — a five-part-series based on a lie.”

***

# Kept it all quiet for NYT. Now why are the NYT endangering British hostages in Somalia? NYT needs to shut up. They are endangering British.3:59 AM Nov 1st from web

# I have been told by very close sources that ex-CIA officers helped pay off release for Rohde. I knew this while it was ongoing.3:56 AM Nov 1st from web

# NYT is endangering the hostages in Somalia.3:54 AM Nov 1st from web

# Am told by good sources Rohde is good guy, but still NYT cannot ask for discretion when they don’t use it.3:53 AM Nov 1st from web

# Numerous very well placed sources have told me New York Times/associates paid millions to get Rohde release.3:52 AM Nov 1st from web

# New York Times cannot expect quiet about David Rohde when they blab all: http://www.nytimes.com/2009…3:51 AM Nov 1st from web

That’s a wildly bold assertion. If it turns out there is any truth to it it directly contradicts NYT executive editor Bill Keller‘s assertion back in June that “no ransom was paid” and would also throw into some questionable light the five part series ‘Held By The Taliban’ series the Times ran in October, authored by Rohde himself.

Shortly after Rohde’s release, it was reported that the only money to exchange hands were small bribes paid to Taliban security guards by a private security company with ties to the CIA, that the Times used in an effort to free Rohde.

The New York Times used a private security company with ties to the CIA to bribe Taliban guards as part of its seven month effort to gain the freedom of reporter David Rohde and two others taken hostage with him in Afghanistan, according to people involved in the case.

The bribes were reportedly paid in small amounts of only a few hundred dollars at a variety of locations where Rhode was held. It was not clear what role, if any, they may have played in Rohde’s daring escape early Saturday….In a statement attributed to Keller, the paper said it would not talk about “strategy, tactics, deliberations, advice we got.” Such stories, he said, “only raise the level of danger for our reporters in the field, who already have enough risk to contend with.”

If there is any truth to Yon’s report — and thus far it appears to be his word against the Times‘ (Yon is apparently displeased at the Times reporting of the Somali pirates taking a British couple hostage) — it is a very slippery slope the paper has put itself on, to put it mildly! As someone noted in June when the Times declined to discuss details: “They didn’t want to turn every New York Times reporter into an ATM machine for terrorists.”

(h/t NRO)

Initially the channel had two videos posted. According to Zakaria one, which has since been taken down, showed “hideous scenes of death and destruction set to music.” The video that remains up is a series of peaceful scenes set to words and music, which we are unable to translate but is apparently “propaganda set to Pashtun-language music.”

Considering the video that does remain has only 2,850 views after being up for three weeks the channel perhaps can’t be considered a raging success. However keeping in mind that most Afghans don’t have easy access to the Internet one assumes the Taliban is perhaps planning on using it more as a recruiting tool to reach those outside the country than those already in Afghanistan. Either way, let’s hope YouTube has a experienced translator on site.

Almost a year ago, while reporting on the Taliban in Afghanistan for the New York Times, journalist David Rohde was taken captive. Rohde returned home in June, and now he’s telling the action-packed and emotional story of his kidnapping and captivity in Afghanistan and Pakistan on the front page of the Times.

From Part 1 of Held By The Taliban:

While one guard pointed his Kalashnikov at me, the other took my glasses, notebook, pen and camera. I was blindfolded, my hands tied behind my back. My heart raced. Sweat poured from my skin.

“Habarnigar,” I said, using a Dari word for journalist. “Salaam,” I said, using an Arabic expression for peace.

I waited for the sound of gunfire. I knew I might die but remained strangely calm.

Moments later, I felt a hand push me back toward the car, and I was forced to lie down on the back seat. Two gunmen got in and slammed the doors shut. The car lurched forward. Tahir and Asad were gone and, I thought, probably dead.

The Times and others news outlets, including Wikipedia, took flak earlier this summer for keeping news of Rohde’s kidnapping quiet in order to protect him and his family. News might have been scarce before, but it looks like over the course of five installments penned by the man himself, there will be no shortage of detail.

Related:
Freed NYT Reporter Reminds Us of Dangers of Real Journalism [Mediaite]
Nameless in Tehran – Empty Bylines in Sunday’s New York Times Articles [Mediaite]

They began with Afghanistan. Diehl addressed the difficulty that Obama now faces with the war, as he’s vocally and ideologically committed to his counter-insurgency policy. With every American general pushing him in one direction, and his cabinet tugging him in another, Obama is virtually stuck. Diehl feared that the pressures might create a middle-of-the-road endgame that he says could be the worst choice of all, as it may put additional soldiers at risk.

Diehl cast aside parallels to the Vietnam War, arguing instead that there’s much more to learn from 1990s Iraq. The proposed solution in Afghanistan is to train the Afghani army to fight in America’s place. But Diehl contends that it’s not possible to train a new army that quickly, after all it took the 1990s Iraqi army four years to get into shape. If there was a delay like that today, it might allow the Taliban to run free.

Haberman wondered if public opinion will hold on long enough to see a resolution. Once he broached the topic of media attention and approval ratings, Haberman turned to the question to whether Obama’s staff is patient enough with reporters. Diehl says that while Obama’s team has obsessively phoned the Washington Post, he recalls President Bush’s staff doing the same thing when they first took over. Eventually, the Bush administration relented and recognized that they had to work with newspapers or jeopardize their public image.

Asked whether we’re seeing an Obama doctrine at work, Diehl said that it’s been Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushing multilateral action as an overall strategy. As the conversation moved to the subject of Iranian containment, it was clear that each of these issues deserved an hour — if not more — of their own.

What They Said
“The Taliban have become at least as big a threat in the last few years as al-Qaeda, if not a bigger one.”
- Jackson Diehl doesn’t subscribe to Joe Biden’s foreign policy perspective

“I want to see these guys crushed, quite frankly.”
– Clyde Haberman likes his Afghani terrorists like we like our red pepper

“I’ve been covering foreign countries for many years now and we have yet to have any invasion that hasn’t been compared to Vietnam”
– Jackson Diehl finds comparisons to the Vietnam War unhelpful and inaccurate

“I’m sorry, you’re ahead of me. I was focused on Metrocards today.”
– Clyde Haberman response to an audience member who informed him about the most recent developments with the United Nations

“There are very aggressive people around the President. I don’t know if it’s Chicago politics or what.”
– Jackson Diehl says that the Obama administration spends lots of time trying to sway columnists’ opinions

What We Thought

• We liked how Haberman expanded on points that the audience asked about. Some foreign policy depends on events from decades ago, and Haberman at times added the context that some questions needed.
• Events at the School of Global Affairs feature refreshments afterward where panelists stick around to meet interested audience members. It’s also a great time for students at the school to network with other attendees. We wish more panels closed with invitations to stay and snack.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Competing Moderate Voice
We’ve seen it happen fairly regularly. Someone has a long statement to make before he ends on his question. Patience is hard to come by since we, and the moderator, have no sense of how long it’ll last. So the moderator cuts in, asking the audience member to phrase a question. When this happens, just ask your question; don’t compete with the moderator for the verbal space. It’s a Q and A, not a Crazy Rant and A. The moderator is only trying to keep it that way. Don’t fight him.