BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

Aaron Brown's Double Standard: Gannon/Guckert vs. Scott Ritter

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Jim Tragos

Buzz,

Thanks to your posting I was able to see the CNN clip of Aaron Brown talking to John Aravosis of Americablog.org and Eric Boehlert of Salon regarding the Gannon/Guckert scandal and afterwards accessed the transcripts. Brown seemed almost too eager to dismiss the entire story as piffle, saying immediately after the introductions, "John, there is I think here a kind of so what quality."

Aravosis then sums up quite nicely and succinctly why the story matters ending with, "I think the White House is behind this." Brown addresses none of the points Aravosis makes but tries again to underplay, turning instead to Boehlert; "Eric, is there something a little unseemly about the way -- the way people went at this guy's personal life? I mean this was about ultimately partisan differences, political differences and they went at his personal life."

It was at this point that an Aaron Brown interview from the past jumped into my mind.

An interview in which Brown didn't at all think it "unseemly" to go at Scott Ritter's personal life, although no one can doubt, given the context, that the story "was about ultimately partisan differences, political differences", and one might argue after reading the transcript that that story in itself had "a kind of so what quality", but certainly it didn't to that double-standard bearer of CNN, the Preposterous Aaron Brown.

On Jan. 22, 2003, Brown grilled Ritter about a class B misdemeanor arrest from June 2001.

Ritter tells Brown the case was dismissed and the file was sealed and adds; "So, as far as I'm concerned, as far as everyone should be concerned, this is a dead issue."

Brown's response: "Well, first of all, obviously, it's not a dead issue, because it's been out there all week. So let's -- I want to go back to some of this."

So a dismissed case that isn't remotely relevant to Ritter's credentials as a weapons inspector is far from being "a dead issue" by dint of having "been out there all week".

Whereas the case of a fake reporter with a fake name and no credentials, who has access to White House press conferences and classified memos, has "a kind of so what quality" even though it, too has "been out there all week".

Interesting.

Later Brown says this; "I'm trying to give you an opportunity, if you want to take it, to explain what happened. And here's the point of that. And you know this is true. You are radioactive until this is cleared up. Until people understand what this is about, no one is going to talk to you about the things that you feel passionately about."

So according to Brown, Ritter is "radioactive" until he answers for his personal life and indeed Brown issues the not-so-veiled threat that until he opens up his personal life to the scrutiny Brown has decided it deserves, "no one is going to talk to you about the things that you feel passionately about."

Read the transcript of the Brown/Ritter interview and you may want to pose to the Preposterous Aaron Brown the same question he posed to Eric Boehlert the other day; (Aaron), is there something a little unseemly about the way -- the way (you) went at this guy's personal life? I mean this was about ultimately partisan differences, political differences and (you) went at his personal life."

Oh, and let's ask him why the tone of threats and ferocity seems to shift to a dismissive "so what" depending on ones "partisan differences, political differenecs". Maye it's not a double standard but two sides of one standard - sub-standard.

Jim Tragos

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION