Dujack’s Op-ed: Food For Thought?
Stephen Dujack, the discredited Democratic activist who was pulled from the Democrats’ witness list after Drudge reported on his opinion that killing animals for eating was the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, has written an LA Times op-ed decrying Drudge and, who else, those dreaded right wing blogs for uncovering his assinine statements. Here’s the heart of his diatribe:
In 21st Century Washington, fame doesn’t last for 15 minutes anymore. It lasts for a single news cycle. There is the big press release. The next morning the major newspapers spell your name right. But by noon the Drudge Report runs a shotgun blast of half-truths and innuendoes, and by evening pundits are sifting through your entrails on CNN and Fox. Can citizen participation in government survive the advent of the Internet search engine?
OH MY!!! You mean that nutty activists can now be exposed for the fanatics that they are whereas they didn’t get exposed when the Agenda Media limited the flow of information? How dare these cable news organizations, talk radio and the citizen journalists of the right wing blogosphere tell the American people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I’d also ask Mr. Dujack what half-truths and innuendoes did Drudge torpedo him with? Here’s the money quotes from Drudge’s reporting:
In the April 21, 2003 LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dujack wrote: “Like the victims of the Holocaust, animals are rounded up, trucked hundreds of miles to the kill floor and slaughtered.” Dujack went on, “To those who defend the modern-day Holocaust on animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food and give us sustenance, I ask: if the victims of the Holocaust had been eaten, would that have justified the abuse and murder?”
In 1987, while Dujack was editor of THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL, a picture on its cover showed a readable copy of the government’s most sensitive intelligence document, the CIA’s National Intelligence Daily. At the time, THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that when government officials questioned Dujack, the individual who took the photograph, about giving up the slide, he “responded the he would refer the matter to counsel but that he doubted he would accede, citing freedom of the press guaranteed under the first amendment.”
It seems to me that Drudge had the goods on Mr. Dujack and that this went way further than just his Holocaust statements. It seems that Mr. Dujack isn’t too worried about national security either, even if it meant breaking the law by exposing classified documents which, in today’s world would mean that he might have jeopardized agents in the field.
The reality is that Mr. Dujack sounds like a far left wing nutcase who hates anything to do with keeping America safe and isn’t the least bit sensitive to the sensitivities of the victims of ethnic cleansing. We don’t need that type of trash smearing the good name of a Supreme Court nominee. His testimony wouldn’t have a bit of credibility. PERIOD.
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:07 am
Good observation, your ideas are right on.