Talk Left >> Another confirmation that Larry Johnson posts @ DU

[sabra]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1183853#1187186

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014842.html

<snip>

One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,


Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. I agree

Sources that lie or pass disinformation do not deserve and should not expect anonymity.

[cantstandbush]

2. All sources should understand that only TRUTH guarantees anonymity.

[sabra]

3. hopefully Leopold won't have to expose his sources... :-)

[Igel]

9. Of course, there's a third option that

involves neither truth nor lying.

But I doubt anybody cares.

[IndyOp]

11. What would the third option be and who would do it? (nt)

:shrug:

[Igel]

13. A neutral option.

They were wrong. Closed networks in which knowledge is prestige generate rumors and false memories, as well as misreporting in which all concerned believe themselves to be telling the truth because they so want to be seen as having information. If they believe the information is true, that, to me, means they're not lying. Just wrong. "Delusional" is a good word, but it's a strictly limited kind of delusion.

I could cite a few examples of this. Some are really stunningly, egregiously, bad. It makes me feel sorry for trial lawyers sometimes--the quantity of sincerely wrong testimony and 'facts' with no basis in reality is amazing.

Leopold might be right--we'll see in a few days. Then again, he might be lying or he might be wrong. He can be wrong without lying; I figure he's so anxious to justify his story because a lot of people can't or won't distinguish between the two. There's no dishonor in being wrong if you've done what you should, or at least what you could; there's shame and dishonor in lying.

If Leopold's wrong, it might be because his sources are lying. But that embeds the assertion they knew they were saying falsehoods and wanted Leopold to believe them. I don't see how he could prove his sources weren't simply wrong, unless he has knowledge as to what was actually said and who was actually there (and, if he has that, he doesn't need the other sources). I may believe that repub staffers always lie, but I try not to confuse that with proven fact. Otherwise I'm confusing belief and fact, and that would qualify me as delusional.

[stop the bleeding]

4. very cool - thank you

nominated

[MelissaB]

5. Recommended!

I saw this earlier, and it does deserve it's own thread.

[Spazito]

6. Thanks for this!

I never doubted it was Larry but there certainly a few who seemed to take great joy in trying to belittle and sow many seeds of doubt but, then again, it is those same few who are repeatedly belittling Jason, Will, Truthout and Raw Story so I should not have been surprised.

[Sydnie]

7. Thanks Sabra

I can understand some questioning of the poster's idenity, but it always helps when there is independant confirmation.

I hope we did more to make Larry feel welcome than uncomfortable. Voices with weight behind them are very important right now and will be invaluable in the future too.

[DemPopulist]

8. Never mind

n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Great!

Let's hope LJ find more time to post at DU. He would be a great addition.

[wryter2000]

12. I hold Larry J in high esteem

But he was wrong about all the indictments last time.

Still, if you see this, LJ :yourock: