Ribs, Fishing, And The Amateur Diplomat

Jim Manzi at The Corner points us to a WaPo article about New Jersey restauranteur Bobby Egan, who serves up BBQ ribs and also dabbles in amateur diplomacy with the North Koreans:

"You couldn't put Condoleezza Rice or Madeleine Albright on a level with me in dealing with the Koreans," he says. "They've never even been in a fistfight. I've been in fistfights — including with the Koreans. These are tough guys. Condoleezza Rice is a piano player."

It is a fascinating story about how this guy just stepped in and made connections with both North Korean and Saddam-era Iraqi diplomats. He befriended them with fishing trips and ribs slathered in sauce, and proved his bona fides by willingly undergoing a 'chemical interrogation' by his North Korean handlers.

About a year ago, serious questions were raised about 'Damascus' Nancy Pelosi and whether her amateur attempt at mideast diplomacy violated the Logan Act. You could argue that Egan's forays too might have run afoul of the Act, except Egan seems to have been quite cooperative with the State Department and other arms of the federal government, and sometimes operated at their behest.

I disagree with Egan's fatuous statement that 'we got a few political differences, that's all' between the U.S. and North Korea. That Americans eat ribs while North Koreans eat bark demonstrates slightly more than a mere difference with the North Korean regime. But what Egan is doing is creative and is at least somewhat effective (the idea that he somehow prevented nuclear war in the Korean peninsula is, however, ridiculous), and it is great that the feds have enough imagination to work with him cooperatively instead of just dismissing him as 'obnoxious and pushy' as one agent described him.

Talk is cheap, so why not?

19 comments:

TV de LCD said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tvlegalnews said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Ms. TVLegalNews", maybe you ought to start removing your "own" facebook article:

http://ja-jp.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=53227389078&topic=6941&post=27728

That IS "your" Facebook page isn't it?

BTW, I left "you" another comment here on this blog on a more recent article about North Korea where "you" requested comments be removed.

Problem is, Gwendolyn Jackson edited her Syndicated News article to take out all the names and there you have all the names you edited out on your Facebook page!

Ms. Jackson, are you sort of like a cat chasing its' own tail and haven't quite managed to do so yet, or as asked in the other comment I left here, would the REAL Gwendolyn Jackson PLEASE STAND UP.

tvlegalnews said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ah Ms. TvLegalNews, removing your own comments and your facebook page, "Barbecue Diplomacy". You are a busy little bee today! Glad to have been of service to you by pointing that one out.

Here's the thing, the comment by "anonymous" above that reads as the following sure does seem to be you:
..... a former Mil Academy instructor, 9-11 first time responder with the National Guard, TV Legal Analyst, and superb human being"

You are a JAG attorney Ms. Jackson. Obviously you have gotten yourself into some very hot water for your public statements. But do you REALLY think going around trying to get comments deleted which were either posted by you yourself or by someone else cut and pasting YOUR information you wrote is going to help you in any manner? Humble question here, couldn't this be seen as an attempt on your part as obstruction of justice if you are trying to cover up evidence of your activity if there is an active case against you going on at the moment? If this is the case then blog owners complying with your requests to remove comments based on your own information could be aiding and abetting in an attempted obstruction of justice attempt. I am NOT saying this is what you have been doing, only stating the POSSIBILITY without knowing why you are doing this.

I'm not passing judgment on your efforts to uncover what was written in the original Vanity Fair article by adding to it with your own information, I am questioning your efforts NOW to try to get any evidence of your efforts deleted from the internet.
You just very well may get yourself into more hot water by doing this. MAYBE this is a part of your "apology" you wrote at the end of your Syndicated News article. If so, I suggest you forward your order to do what you have been doing to any blog administrator you are asking to delete any comments based on your information concerning "Barbecue Diplomacy". Just remember though, it is not their obligation to comply. Besides, maybe you are unaware that anything on the internet can always be retrieved through cache. Once on the internet, always on the internet. Journalism and posting things on the internet can get VERY tricky sometimes, but as a JAG attorney you should have known full well what information you could write publicly when you did so, stress or no stress, only YOU are ultimately responsible for your own behavior and its consequences, be they just in your opinion or not.

Maybe you should take this part of the comment by Anonymous to heart:

"This case is a travesty of justice and the officer is willing to go out as an example of why in this country there is a continuous struggle against anarchy and biased and serious judicial misconduct and the fact that Rosa Parks like was also convicted of a minor petty disorderly persons offense for failing to give up her seat on a public bus to a white male, is an example of how intolerable and racist the justice system is in this country currently and in particular in NJ."

Please don't pull the race card Ms. Jackson, it isn't necessary whatsoever. If what is written about "Barbecue Diplomacy" is true, then the parties involved most DEFINITELY need to be prosecuted and you can stand tall as a human being whatever color your skin is by acting in complete moral manner which I wouldn't say includes trying to delete your information from the internet.

Anonymous said...

Here's the perfect case of once on the internet, always on the internet Ms. Jackson. Obviously you were able to get Pat Gray to remove comments off of his blog. Here is the current blog post

http://www.patgray.com/?p=1741

See the comments? Nothing there concerning you.

Now look at this:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:kBFQhUZ6Gv8J:www.patgray.com/%3Fp%3D1741+Please+call+the+United+States+Attorney+in+Washington+DC.+To+report+this+problem.+Try+to+reach+the+ethics+unit+(202)514-7566+to+ask+that+the+us+attorney+remove+the+case+from+the+fort+dix+prosecutors+or+call+the+NJ+US+attorney+Christopher+Christie%E2%80%99s+office+a&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

You are spinning your wheels Ms. Jackson.

urgentupdated
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009, 3:51 pm"> January 7, 2009 at 3:51 pm

"Contact me if you have any problems by visiting my website http://www.tvlegalnews.com and send me and email through my contact us page"

Maybe you need to relax a bit and take stock in your actions.

Anonymous said...

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:wvRgEZq7SegJ:ja-jp.facebook.com/note.php%
3Fnote_id%3D65965243625%26id%3D53734662454%26index%3D6+facebook+barbecue+diploma
cy+gwendolyn+jackson&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Now what have you been chasing down all over the internet to be removed Ms. Jackson claiming it is false and dangerous to the military yet it was YOU who first posted it on your Facebook page but yet it appeared all over the internet under different commenter names? Is that post you made there false?

I have found this one SOLELY for the benefit of the blog administrator here and anyone else's blog you have approached to remove the comments from not
claiming them as your own (that I am aware of from your public comments)

Mr. McCracken, if you read here, there is the proof positive that the comment from January 7, 2009 is either Ms. Jackson's herself or a cut and paste of her own article she published on her own Facebook page posted here by someone else. She has since deleted the above but it is in cache. You might want to ask her just why she is so desperate to have this removed if she hasn't informed you that it is her OWN publication which has been peppered all over the internet and here on your blog.

Just click on the picture on the cached link above and you will see that definitely it is hers. (it links to her main Facebook page) You will definitely
want to find out if there is an open case with the military in this matter currently.

Ms. Jackson, again, you could get yourself into more hot water possibly by continuing to ask blog owners to remove comments, ESPECIALLY if you are not informing them that the one above is your own which has been published here (either by you or someone else) If this information in Vanity Fair and what you have added to it is true, those involved MUST be prosecuted and it wouldn't help matters for you to get into any more trouble.

Here's another one. Are you informing blog administrators this comment has been placed on their blogs and it is you OWN Ms. Jackson? (whether posted by you or someone else)

http://74.125.155.132/searchq=cache:SmsoKJPsCnMJ:www.gadling.com/profile/249359
4/+barbecue+diplomacy+winkler&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Anonymous said...

Woops, want to make sure both those links are fully here

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:wvRgEZq7SegJ:ja-jp.facebook.com/note.php%
3Fnote_id%3D65965243625%26id%3D53734662454%26index%3D6+facebook+barbecue+diploma
cy+gwendolyn+jackson&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SmsoKJPsCnMJ:www.gadling.com/profile/249359
4/+barbecue+diplomacy+winkler&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Ken McCracken said...

Well, I took down Gwendolyn Jackson's comments because she asked nicely, so I did her a favor.

I think her story that her comments were somehow a threat to national security were farcical, and I did not appreciate in particular her comparing herself to Rosa Parks. I am pretty sure she wants this material removed because it is interfering with her career.

If anyone is really interested in what was removed, Anonymous is correct, the comments have indeed been cached.

The internet is forever.

Anonymous said...

Ken,
Gwendolyn was on a mission to begin with as a whistleblower it appears. Interfering with her career certainly doesn't compare to our national security which she is now backtracking from. You just helped her remove VITAL information which she uncovered which is URGENT (if true)AH, but there's cache.

Take a look here, because this she also deleted but it is in cache. You have to google this, don't link to it, then when it comes up click cache.

http://syndicatednews.us/View.aspx?id=955

She sure did implicate a whole lot of people there!

Notice that she claims in that article that the only one that can do anything about what she claims is a national security threat is HER!

I'm utterly amazed that you did this for her because she asked "nicely" Those are some pretty damn serious charges she made and I HOPE this isn't just a matter of her career to you, but that you asked her first if her reporting was being taken seriously and dealt with by the authorities (though if that comment you removed claiming she has gone through hell over this is true, not so) because it is our NATIONAL SECURITY which is at stake here according to HER investigation which is certainly more important than her career which she risked HERSELF willingly. Now she is running around like a chicken with her head cut off trying to erase. Gwendolyn Jackson is two things, an attorney (JAG) and a journalist/tv commentator on major channels. CERTAINLY she knew what she was doing when she went on this mission to uncover Ltc. Winkler & cohorts she named. Now her "career" is important and it's a "threat to national security" to keep comments up (her). You're darn right it's a threat to national security if what she reported is true, NOT her writing it, but if nothing is done about it IF TRUE.

Did she ANYWHERE on the internet or to you retract the veracity of what she reported by claiming she was wrong? See, there's the rub.

But......now she gets to just trot along, se la vis and having the GAUL to post comments places that information that SHE has written (not necessarily posted herself but originally WRITTEN by her) -but not SAYING that, is not true and should be deleted for "national security". UnFREAKING believable.

I'm going to say a prayer tonight that the above article written by her has NO truth whatsoever. And next time I happen to see her on tv I'll just laugh my butt off. That is UNLESS she has been pressured into doing what she is doing now in which case everyone who complied with her requests has aided and abetted the BAD GUYS who SHE listed.

"Career" my fanny! And if it IS her career she is concerned about and is duping people such as yourself, there's nothing more to say other than she should stick to television appearances concerning topics such as Rob Lowe and stay AWAY from "national security" if her CAREER is more important to her. At least there's a buck in it and if you are real CAREFUL you won't have to go around the internet covering up what YOU have written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EShXoyR1Ms

Did you hear the one about Rob Lowe being a "national security threat"? QUICK Ms. Jackson, get this comment removed!

"I have learned over the years that when one's mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear".
Rosa Parks

Anonymous said...

Mr. McCracken,
Here is some more rather interesting to say the least information which I think you need to pay CLOSE attention to.

Here is the ruling overturning the original probation set on Ms. Jackson (Note the reason she won her appeal, (v)-free speech:

http://www.loislawschool.com/prp/result.htp?BookList=P%40eLsoKQglg7V0oe1elAavk3M
Q9kYvcmsXrXVLoxYQsNiEN4Po1IKmrOUMoWjdUqZNCxnaMg528nSEpZfQYJCpWBvLeBrJyI1jAKP6oUg
%3D&ErrPage=%2Fdoors.htp&LOGAUTO=&PageName=Search+Loislaw&content=%2Fprp%2Fresul
t.htp&fdGB=njsa&srcquery=

Loislaw Federal District Court Opinions
U.S. v. JACKSON (N.J. 6-11-2008)
No. 08-00070 (DMC).
June 11, 2008

This matter comes before the Court upon Appellant Gwendolyn Jackson's appeal
from a final judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by United States
Magistrate Judge Mautone. Appellant appeals on six grounds: (i) Appellant's
conviction was against the weight of the evidence and should thus be vacated and
a new trial granted; (ii) Appellant's conduct did not satisfy the elements of
the offense of harassment; (iii) the government submitted evidence that violated
Appellant's right to remain silent, (iv) the Magistrate Judge's denial of
motions for a change of venue and to disqualify the Prosecutor was an abuse of
discretion; (v) the Order barring public comment as a condition of her probation
violates Appellant's right to freedom of speech; and (vi) Appellant's sentence
exceeded the maximum sentence under state law, or was otherwise unreasonable.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, no oral argument was heard. After carefully
considering the submissions of the parties, and based upon the following, it is
the finding of this Court that Appellant's appeal is granted in regards to
ground (v) and is denied on all other grounds.

Look at this:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:wZrNVTbaADwJ:www.topix.com/forum/city/dover-plains-ny/TA9QO8HTH9GC258I3+ltc+winkler+egan&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

In particular look at the last comment and the location of the ip
(when making comments on Topix, it does not ask you your location, your ip is picked up, although it depends on routing, sometimes it is exact, other times your ip is routed to a nearby routing tower)

The location is Valley Cottage, New York.

Is this a coincidence? Several of the other comments as well are from locations near Valley Cottage
(possibly routed)

http://www.lawlink.com/listing/state/33/city/Valley%20Cottage

Gwendolyn Elaine Jackson
Valley Cottage, NY 10989

Mr. McCracken, do you realize who she is accusing of being in collusion as a coverup in this case? She was able to delete the cache of her original Syndicated News article which listed a LONG list of people she was accusing. I DO have a screen shot of that article if you want the proof of where she even when she could listed their home addresses! This is TOTALLY irrational behavior for someone of her caliber, a JAG ATTORNEY and television news commenter.

If that was her commenting in the topix article she was doing this under a pseudonym AFTER she got the original charges thrown out on free speech. Now she is running around the internet asking for comments to be taken down. Don't you find this ODD?

Don't you think you should contact Fort Dix to notify them of this? At least you may be able to get to the bottom of what is going on here and make sure it is above board. If it is, all is well, if not, the authorities at Fort Dix I think definitely need to be made aware.

Ken McCracken said...

I am not interested in investigating this, nor am I going to remove any more comments.

Have at it, I am washing my hands of this matter.

tvlegalnews said...

I am asking the Anonymous poster to please remove all comments youhave made. You are unaware that you are harming a great deal of people. I humbly ask youto comply.

Anonymous said...

Now who am I harming Ms. Jackson? It wasn't me who spammed the internet with an ADVERTISEMENT to read or buy YOUR "blockbuster article" for $30 which originally listed a whole SLEW of people, even WIVES, listing home addresses, of the people you claimed harmed YOU.

Care to answer that question? Because your strange behavior going around trying to wash the internet of your own article tells me YOU are the one who did the harming and are now having to do your penance.

Ms. Jackson, you have connections, you appear on CNN and FOX news as a "legal analyst", why didn't one of them run your "blockbuster story"? Where is your support from ANY Afro-American organization if you were racially harassed as claimed?

Care to answer those questions too?

Gee, you claimed misogynous attacks against you as well. Ever heard of NOW, Gloria Allred?

Heck, even though your Fire David Letterman organization might have folded into a larger umbrella group, Stop the Leftwing Media, one of those left wing media outlets would have salivated at your story.

Where are they Ms. Jackson? Where is ANYONE who would normally come to the defense of someone like you under circumstances that YOU claimed occurred?

You came on here, it is the PERFECT opportunity to explain your behavior because I for one am not buying endangerment to the military after researching your behavior. Why? Because in MY opinion I just cannot fathom someone of your credentials having no support from any of the usual supporters and I cannot fathom ANYONE writing the home addresses of people they claimed wronged them.

In my opinion the "great deal of people" you claimed have been harmed have been harmed by YOU. In other words, in my opinion, your behavior has completely overshadowed ANY veracity your original claims may have POSSIBLY had.

BUT, here's your chance. Spit it out. Pretend you are picking daisy petals. Here goes, my allegations were true, no they weren't, my allegations were true, no they weren't.

Thing is, it's YOUR daisy.

Have at it.

tvlegalnews said...

What a coward and A-Hole the Anonymous poster is who Does not have the courage to reveal his identity

Anonymous said...

Go edit your youtube page, the dead link to the blog you deleted is still there.

Visit our BLOGS
http://spywinkler.blogspot.com /
http://blogtvlegalnews.blogspo t.com/
About Me:
Television News Legal Analyst
Country:
United States
Occupation:
Legal Analyst/Lawyer

You logged on there two days ago. Guess you missed it.

You know you could just edit it and write, the above is not true and can harm a great deal of people and be a danger to our military.

cache:AHPgXDACbxAJ:www.youtube.com/user/tvlegalnews+tvlegalnews+youtube&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

What do you think?

BTW Ms. Jackson I've never heard of you in my life and have NOTHING to do with the military, so the men in uniform aren't out to get you, ok? Just an HONEST explanation is all I am asking.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.monclercool.net/]moncler femme[/url] fdzhi [url=http://www.chaussuresuggpass.org/]ugg[/url] jmfrw [url=http://www.abercrombiecs.com/]abercrombie france[/url] hgndp [url=http://www.abercrombiecs.com/]abercrombie france[/url] dyror [url=http://www.mclouboutin.com/]loubutin[/url] fpkdw

Anonymous said...

[url=http://escarpinlouboutinfr.com/]louboutin[/url] ycgqy [url=http://escarpinlouboutinfr.com/]louboutin[/url] rhuts [url=http://vetementsburberryfr.org/]Trench Burberry[/url] xexsk [url=http://monclerbransonfr.org/]moncler femme[/url] ermyl

Shea Kang said...

Either your run the day, or the day runs you.
imarksweb.net
imarksweb.net