« Happy New Year from MediaBloodhound! | Main | MediaBloodhound's 2008 Fact or Fiction Challenge »

January 07, 2009


Brad Jacobson

AP Reporter's Tough Gaza Questions Disappeared

Christopher Flynn

So what do you expect from this administration??? It never has told the truth and never will...The ideals of America, truth and justice. are a joke.


It certainly looks like MCCORMACK was trying to stress that he thinks that getting a temp cease fire now, and then a permanent one in a few days would cause more deaths than having no cease-fire now, and a permanent one in a few days, and I just don't believe it.

I highly doubt that getting the quick, temp cease fire would cause more deaths overall (Israeli and Gazan) than not getting one. Sure, it may give Hamas time to regroup and fire one or two rockets more into Israel (if they chose to break the cease fire) that MAY kill a civilian, but it'd save perhaps dozens more Gazan lives by cease firing.

We're asking Israel to maybe, MAYBE, lose one civilian to a broken cease-fire, in exchange for not killing more Gazans, and they are just not willing to do that.


Good catch. David Gregory occasionally asked fairly tough questions, but would offer milquetoast reports. In Lee's case, given that this is the AP, I suspect editorial interference is the main problem.


That's pretty abysmal, even from the AP.


Has anyone asked Lee if the story he filed contained any of this Q & A? In other words do we know for sure who dropped it from the story, Lee or the "editors"? I'd sure like to know.


yesterday I watched as the world media reported on the Israeli bombing of the UN school throughout the day...throughout the day the us headlines changed and the story began to include something like 'residents admitted miltants were in the area by later afternoon.' listening to 1010 wins radio that night the story was read something like 'israel was forced to return fire after miltants fired on troops from a un school. dozens were killed.

Meanwhile in another news story John Ging, Gaza director for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, said he visited the school, where he was "reassured by my own staff [there] that there were no militants in the schools.

I was appalled by how 1010 wins had presented this story - even the number of killed was changed from over 40 to the more palatable 'dozens' to make israel seems less accountable. seriously, wtf?


it's interesting to note that no other reporters present there picked up on teh line of questioning or chose to report on any aspect of the exchange.

also, it is possible that lee included somethin in his report, that his editors nixed.

Horrible Calculus

No ceasefire will be approved unless it is brokered by Abbas.

The unspoken endpoint here is forcing Hamas to share power with Fatah in Gaza.

Just wait for (the mostly silent) Tony Blair to 'stand up' to the US and ask us to consider Abbas' peacemaking overtures. The US will then 'twist' Israel's arm and end the incursion.

But in the meantime, Hamas and the Gazan victims must be so thoroughly desperate that they'll welcome assistance from Fatah - and McCormack signals the US will wait until that point - the point when Hamas blinks.

bob in SLC

Typical corporate news filtering, somewhere AIPAC is laughing at the US and the world. Frankly if Israel wants to be the Nazis of the 21st century I say let them but don't my US tax dollars or the time of the US congress supporting them.

If the US support of Israel was withdrawn and Israel had to deal with its neighbors on its own, lasting peace or all out war would be almost immediate. In either case the situation would be resolved for the long term.




Muslim CANADIAN CONGRESS condemned Hamas for treating the Palestinian people as human-bait in a ploy to provoke Israel into launching an all-out attack on Gaza. In censuring Hamas, the MCC said, the Islamist group had deliberately put the civilian population of Gaza in danger as it played the role of Iran's agent provocateur in the region.

The MCC believes Hamas deliberately rocketed Israel in an attempt to provoke an Israeli response. The fact that Hamas did not fire a single rocket at Egypt, despite that country's blockade of Gaza, clearly demonstrates the attacks on Israel were not to protest the blockade, but to trigger a military response.

Instead of working towards a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian State, Hamas has done everything in its power to undermine the authority of President Mahmoud Abbas and sabotage the peace process. No other national liberation movement in modern history has offered martyrdom as a substitute to freedom and statehood. Hamas has set back the clock for the Palestinians and it is time for all Palestinians to recognize that Hamas offers only death, destruction and a place in Paradise, not a Palestinian State

Paul Krolowitz

The main gist of McCormicks response was the goal of a "sustainable and durable cease fire", that goal was correctly reported in the peice. Lee's desire for an immediate cease fire regardless if it be "sustainable and durable" is not the administrations goal, and is therefore to be left to an opinion piece.
Everyone should be aware by now that when viewed tactically, the GAZA war is a mistake for the Israeli's, the US, and the Gazan's. However strategically viewed, whereby the coming conflict over Iranian attainment of nuclear strength is considered, this Gazan war is the first battle. In war, the first deaths are considered tragic, before long they are forgotten as the death toll overwelmingly climbs. Unfortunately, the fable that there are "no winners in war", is just that, a fable. There are winners, those that are left to live life.


"MCCORMACK: You know, again, you’re viewing it through a particular – you know, the particular prism of somehow the United States is offering some sort of counsel about Israeli military operations. We are not.
LEE: No, no, no.
MCCORMACK: Our interest is in bringing about a durable, sustainable ceasefire so that the – what you have after conflict has ended is better than what you had before conflict began. Yeah."

Lee probably suspects that the "durable, sustainable ceasefire" excuse is to allow Israel to kill as many people as possible in revenge for the few deaths that Hamas has caused.

It sounds exactly like "Dick Cheney" foreign policy. Problem is that it is counter productive and based upon a childish, narrow view of the world and life in general. In this case, it is fed by a variety of factors.

1. The longstanding concern for the lives of Jews that many of us have because of the Holocaust.

This is being squandered to a certain extent. For some people it is gone entirely.

2. The cold war's few hot battles were fought between the Israelis and the Arabs with the U.S. and USSR sponsoring the opposing sides.

The cold war is over though the current administration seems intent on restarting it if they can. President Bush even admitted as much privately. Republicans do better when there is an external threat to cow some of the population into accepting their otherwise unacceptable policies.

3. Money - AIPAC bribes congress and tries to control the news as much as possible. A bribe isn't necessary for many of the Democrats, just the threat of appearing "weak" on foreign policy.

This will likely lead the U.S. to not actually change their foreign policy much under Obama and will probably lead to further terrorist attacks in the U.S. Also, it will lead to failure to reign in spending because the military will still be spending billions in the middle east and U.S. military spending, in general, will not decrease. Under Clinton, we had a chance to reduce the deficit with limited cutting of the military budget. Now, that is not possible. The military needs to get out of the middle east and the Air Force and Navy need considerable reductions in size. Whether wise of not, these have become necessities. While I advocate closing most military bases abroad, I agree that it may not be always wise but it is definitely necessary. I might also add that the U.S. military is probably not the best advocate for the United States in foreign countries. Even wealthy Republicans will agree or they may lose everything as the dollar drops in value and their U.S. holdings become worth less and less.


The only media I see calling the media out on their pro-Israel bias is the Daily Show. The rest of the US media seems to be in-the-pocket of Israel. Why is this? I hope they don't think for one minute that we Americans are so stupid as to buy their line - their refusal to discuss the Gaza situation objectively.


This is how much of the US population is kept on the ideological reservation. AP goes into all the small town newspapers that can't afford their own writers and reporters. Controlling AP output is a huge lever on "mainstream" political consciousness

Brian Bradley

How Much Do We Really Pay?
..... & OTHER INJUSTICES ('click on' the Internet hyperlinks provided below)

The following revised history of this veteran’s claims with Veterans Affairs is due solely to both the exceptional and outstanding “temerity” of Canadian Senator T. Banks, along with his persistent patience with this veteran. All of which prompts the belated expression of this veteran’s gratitude for such a diligent Senator. Thank you very much Senator T. Banks.

My name is Brian C. Bradley. I am a Veteran of the Canadian Forces.

In 1966 I completed my army reserve basic training. In 1989 I completed my army reserve officer training, and began nearly five years of service in the Canadian Navy training as a Combat Systems Engineer (CSE, or 044A in Canadian military classifcations). This same ‘five years of service’ began with basic officer training at Chilliwack, B.C., continued with second-language training at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, and a year in Esquimalt, followed by just under three years of service in Halifax, NS.

While training in Esquimalt, I was billeted to the HMCS Qu’Apelle, where I suffered a fall in the shower onboard that warship, injuring my spinal cord at three levels.

Because the accident occurred while the HMCS Qu’Appelle was away from her home port, I was confined to my rack, and provided with painkillers until returning to Esquimalt five days later. On arriving there, I was rushed by ambulance to the base hospital.

Other than being supplied with additional pain killers and 3 or 4 brief sessions of physiotherapy, my real injuries were not treated at that base hospital, nor at the base hospital in Halifax, where I was sent about two months later as part of the next phase of training.

Upon release from the Canadian Navy in 1993 I was assessed by a civilian general practitioner in Lower Sackville, NS, who immediately identified a C5/C6 radiculopathy (upper spinal cord condition), along with indications of other potential spinal cord level involvement, that had resulted from the accident onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle.

This same GP initially referred me for assessment to a diagnostic service in Halifax (i.e., spinal cord MRI), an orthopaedic surgeon, and an internal medicine specialist. All of these physicians agreed that the three levels of spinal cord injuries (i.e., C5/C6; T11/T12 & L2/L3) were most likely the result of the accident that had occurred while I was serving onboard HMCS Qu’Appelle.

Email author: bcbrad3

In March 1996 I applied to the Veterans’ Review and Appeal Board (VRAB; a division of Veterans Affairs) for a disability pension. On three separate occasions within the first year of application (refer to Table ‘A’ on next page) the VRAB ruled against my application for a disability pension. I then obtained a ruling from the Trial Division of the Federal Court (Fed. Ct.) that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board (Fed. Ct. case T-157-98).

In the next year, the allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel ruled twice more against my claim. The matter was once again brought before the Trial Division which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel and awarded me costs (Fed. Ct. case T-2137-99).

Because this next allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel failed to provide a decision within the next year, I filed a motion of Contempt of Court with the Trial Division. While the Trial Division (i.e., the Hon. Mr. Justice Martineau) would not grant this motion by citing the VRAB in contempt, it did again award me costs, even though none were requested, and supplied a step-by-step procedure to obtain justice in my case.

With no legal training, I attempted to bring the VRAB before the Trial Division again, after being once again denied a disability pension by the VRAB’s next (and sixth) decision. I lost this decision despite having provided professional testimony from a neurosurgeon, an orthopaedic surgeon and a general practitioner with more than 35 years of experience.
Email author: bcbrad3

None of these submissions by physicians were contradicted by testimony from similar professionals on behalf of the VRAB, yet the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. ruled against my claims.

I was encouraged to re-approach the Trial Division based upon the experience of a lady who won her case in the Appeal Division in Ontario using my first two cases (i.e., T-157-98 & T-2137-99) as precedents.

To render such a re-approach at such a late stage in the events, I was encouraged to concentrate on my lower back injuries .... thereby, allegedly attesting to settlement for the upper back injuries .... with neither of these settlements ever occurring!

Not more than four years ago, The Trial Division ruled again in my favour (T-401-05) and referred the matter back again to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board. That same board ruled on four more separate occasions against my application for a disability pension, forcing the matter back to the Trial Division for ultimate resolution (T-617-09).

The VRAB fully exhausted the total number of decisions to which they were entitled in my application, recognizing that an award to me of a disability pension would mean financial ruin and subsequent political suicide for the government ‘in charge’ at the time of such a decision, given the tens of thousands of other veterans who remained deprived of such benefits.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan (T-617-09) decided: "THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the Appeal Board's decision is quashed." Unfortunately, such a ruling does nothing more than refer the same matter back to the Respondent (e.g., Veterans’ Affairs), thus prolonging the history of my claims and thereby moving the VA's actions from the ridiculous to the sublime.

While Canadian governments over the past 80+ years have continued to disregard their legislated obligations to veterans of the CF and Mounted Police, how do you think these same governments are treating(?) the remainder of Canadian citizens?

Email author: bcbrad3

On top of all of this, I have had to represent myself in the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. on several separate occasions with at least 6 of these applying to my claims with the VRAB [refer to case numbers: T-157-98, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 CanLII 7476 (F.C.) or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1999/1999canlii7476/1999canlii7476.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 793 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct793/2001fct793.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 12 (CanLII) or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fct12/2003fct12.html; T-67-03, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 996 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc996/2004fc996.html; T-401-05, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1470 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc1470/2005fc1470.html; and T-617-09, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 309 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc309/2011fc309.html].

In all of these decisions (including the latter two), the Hon. Justices supported my claims and rejected the VRAB's decisions. The greater weight of factual evidence by specialists in the fields of medicine applicable to my spinal cord injuries supported my claims, as did the greater majority of the above-listed decisions.

Who but a politician who allegedly represents his electorate but didn't see 'adequate votes' in seriously supporting this applicant's claims, would ignore these facts and not attempt to ensure this applicant receive something resembling the actual service of justice .... not to mention the adherence to legislated laws by a Fed. government dept. (i.e., VRAB)?

History has been written, how more often do we have to ignore it before learning our lessons? To support our (i.e., all veterans') efforts 'click on' the following and join our group:



Email author: bcbrad3

Yours truly,

Brian C. Bradley
#801 - 939 Bracewood Dr. S.W.
Calgary, AB T2W 3M4
Phone: (403) 455 - 9353
email: [email protected]

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Don't miss the latest media critique, scoop or satire.

    Enter Your Email:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

Help Support Truth in Media

  • This is a one-man operation. Your donations, which support timely research and investigations, are greatly appreciated and needed. Thanks for whatever you can give.


Read Satire (Trans Fat 0g)

Never Again...Again