Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Truth Out - The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:29 PM
Original message
Truth Out - The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now
(let me know if this is a dupe, Kpete)

The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

By Marc Ash,

Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:23:39 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/19/162339/1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think we should probably let this one stay open as a separate thread.
Edited on Fri May-19-06 09:36 PM by Skinner
So people who haven't been following the 50,000 "official" threads can be aware of it.

Mods... Don't lock this.

ON EDIT: In case there's any confusion: We still are not permitting multiple threads on this topic. Keep your comments in this thread, or in the "official" threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. I guess this is my reward for
staying away from the computer all afternoon....

What a week...

Peace, love and eventual indictments...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
47. I think that sounds like good advice.
I'm hoping and wishing Jason good luck , and peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #22
164. Thank you kpete for all the articles
and information you bring to this forum... Can't say it enough :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #164
242. Thanks dogday
but I am already SO OVER this story...

So much shit happening - torture, spying, debt, lies, immoral assholes, death, destruction, lack of aid for children, old people, sick people, hurt people....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. You administer well, my friend, and yet...
I only hope that you haven't mixed Pop Rocks with Coke here.


And I've honestly been impressed with the way the admins have handled this week. Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, Zen master, said that the way to control your cow was to give it a big pasture, and you've done that skillfully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
185. Even if he did mix the two
Mythbusters proved that one wrong...won't blow up, it'll just make you belch :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
90. That word - "permitting" -
just has a bad feel to it, you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
108. .
Edited on Sat May-20-06 06:26 AM by Maddy McCall
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Opening_Day Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
178. I believe!
He will be indicted!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. once, twice, three times a dupe, but we lovvveeeee you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's beginning to look a lot like Fitz-miss....
Edited on Fri May-19-06 09:41 PM by IDemo
On edit..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scoody Boo Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well...
I don't know how anyone else sees it, but to me that means that a stake has been driven through the heart of this story and it's mouth was stuffed full of garlic.

It may happen. Rove may get indicted soon enough, but he was not indicted last week so this story is basically done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Time to break out the disappointment whine.
patience, patience, patience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scoody Boo Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I stopped riding rollercoasters years ago.
I don't get excited about these "scoops" anymore. When it's big, it won't get ignored. All a "scoop" tells me now is that I should keep an eye on that story. The rest of the media will jump on it also if there is any substance to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. me too, I see no need to be the first to know. Eventually I will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
252. Welcome to D.U.!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks, kpete, for the update
Thanks, too, to Skinner for leaving this separate. Wading through the playpen to see if there are updates is not worth the trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Marc, Jason and Will have a lot of explaining to do.
What does "getting too far out in front of the news cycle" mean? They had double, triple sources here. For days, they were standing vehemently behind this story.

What the heck happened?

Sorry guys, I'm not joining the 'that's okay, we forgive you' club.

If the New York Times or Washington Post had done this, would everyone be so forgiving?

Will, stand forwarned. As readers of your site, we are going to demand answers if they are not shortly forthcoming. Just as we would be doing in bombarding the ombudswoman of the WPost via emails if they had done something like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texasleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I agree with you
we can not pretend like nothing happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. How about "it's ok, we will be amused by you", and take what they
say with a 10 kilo bag of salt.

The story is when Rove resigns, when we stop the war in Iraq, when rid this nation of BushCo. This is for us to make happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. Absolutely right...
If this had happened at the NYT or WaPo, careers would be ended over it.

If it had happened at Fox News, we'd be holding them up to ridicule for years over it.

Why should truthout get a pass? This is simply bad journalism.

And note that, even if Rove gets indicted on Monday, it won't matter. The story was that he was indicted on May 12th not May 22nd or June 12th. It was a done deal. Even if an indictment comes down the pike later, this story is still false.

And, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Ash should know that his "partial" apology of "getting too far out in front of the news cycle" doesn't wash. The story announced that the indictments had already come down. Either they had or they hadn't. I can't see how someone can say "well, they never came down, but they will in the future, so that means we were just out in front of the news cycle."

As it stands, it looks to me like truthout...well, left the truthout. :-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #29
71. I agree. I hold Truthout to a higher standard than the MSM.
There'd better be one hell of an explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #29
106. I refused to put the word News after the word Fox
how about Fox "infommercial for the whitehouse"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #106
138. The way I handle that one is:
Faux "News"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
67. You mean like if the MSM had told stories about WMDs and Mushroom
clouds coming our way in 45 minutes? And telling people about the Iraq/Osama connection so that 70% of Americans believed Iraq did 9/11? And then tens of thousands of people had died, been tortured and maimed because they told a bunch of lies, and are still helping the liars to tell more, or covering up stories like the Downing St. Memos or holding them for the White House, like the Domestic Spying story?

I don't know, but someone has forgiven them. They're all still there and have lots of sponsors. Compared to the lies and cover-ups of the MSM, this is a minor little story, but there's more fuss over it than all the other lies told by our press put together.

What I wonder is how many posts I would get if I started a topic on the NYT covering up the NSA Spy program. Now that's something that should enrage people. But threads covering that got very few posts. Why is that?

I think this is personal, rather than genuine outrage ~ and it's mean-spirited and nasty from what I've seen. Against people who are on our side. I'm not too upset by this at all. I think Jason Leopold probably was used or else the story changed, such as Rove was indicted and Bush pardoned him, or Rove realizing the end was near, asked for time to think about making a deal.

But whatever the reason, I'll be reading TO and Will Pitt and probably Jason Leopold unless something more than what looks like a mistake, or a change in the story, is revealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #67
72. I love reading your posts, Catrina. Always clear and reasonable. ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #67
76. I wish I could recommend a reply...
Edited on Sat May-20-06 12:51 AM by mikelewis
K & R anyway.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Will is no liar. He may be wrong but he's honestly wrong. I think that's part of the problem though. Will's word carries a lot of weight and many are dissappointed that his story has yet to pan out. Also I think the aggravation with the failures and outright deceptions of the MSM also has a lot to do with the hate-filled rhetoric.

Anyway, a Rove indictement will mean about as much to me as a Libby indictement; diddly-squat. The only indictments I care about are those listed in the Articles of Impeachment for Bush and Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #67
81. oh please
look, they fucked up a story, and bad. They're still great guys, but journalism relies on CREDIBILTY. let's not hold a double standard here. And to be truthfull, we're talking about 2-bit wanna-be web journalists, so who the hell cares anyhow? just sayin. No one outside of DU gives a shit about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #81
93. 2-bit wanna be web journalists?
Have you interviewed anyone of note lately? Pitt has. Have your written and published a book? Pitt has. Have you chosen to work for less money than you could make doing something else because you believe that getting the word out is more important than money?

Who really cares anyway you ask? Many of us care when we see someone who has worked really hard to champion the causes that the vast majority of us believe in.

No one outside DU gives a shit about this? About what, exactly? About the story? About the Pitt bashing? Which thing does no one care about?

Seems to me that the story (not Pitt) have been written about quite a bit on blogs and in the press. Seems to me that others are paying attention .... OUTSIDE OF DU ... that are watching what is happening to Pitt here, a poster and a friend to many, and they are thinking that DU is just whack a mole to anyone that doesn't "perform". People make mistakes, sometimes they are bulls in the china shop even. I'll take a voice that can speak for me with the people that Pitt has access to any day ...warts and all.

Sometimes, you have to look past the warts and value people (and their efforts) in spite of themselves.

Here's a blast from the past ... have you sat down with any of these people for a one on one?
http://www.truthout.org/dnc04.shtml Pitt has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #93
237. Have I published lies and not apologized?
Edited on Sat May-20-06 02:42 PM by dionysus
Pitt has. OK, thats hyperbole. I like Will, I bought his books and like em. But the story is bunk. They need to admit it didn't work out. That said, we're talking web news sites no one but us has heard of. It's a gaffe no one outside of our sphere cares about.

on edit" Yes... 2-bit punks who can't get hired by a respectable newspaper
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #237
260. Will didn't write the story
and he isn't the "owner" of TO. TO published the article, Jason Leopold wrote it. Will merely believes the story is true, from an insiders perspective. Perhaps, there ARE things that they know that we are not privy to as yet that support the story.

Why would they make any statement on anything at this point? To give more fuel for the bonfire?

If it's about the article, it's not about Will directly. If it's about Will directly, it's not about the article.

Which is it? Place your suspicions where they belong ... not the middle man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #93
269. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #81
169. Journalism relies on CREDIBILITY?
Just like when the M$M pushed the Iraq war. Why is it we still find credibility with them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #169
206. The point is that DU helped expose those lies.
And DU has exposed this lie.

The system is working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #206
210. If the system were working
my son would be home from Iraq... Poor Dan Rather, tell him the system is working...

I believe in DU, it is why I come here to seek the truth. And I give credit to them for always looking and never taking anything at face value....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. DU's system, I mean.
For separating the fact from the f***ed.

I'm sorry to hear about your son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #212
214. I am glad about that, we need to
catch everything we can, and bring about the truth....


Thanks for the thought of my son :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #206
292. Bingo
That's what looking for the truth is about, and that's what Fuckface got America NOT to do with his lies and his bullshit that got our country to the sad state it's in today.

On any level, lies have to be exposed and shown up for what they are. Fuckface will pay, in one way or another.

The system is people, and the system is working.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #206
319. So, who lied?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #319
320. Leopold, it seems.
Either that or he's deluded. It's hard to imagine how he could present what he wrote as the truth without indulging in a deceit of some kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #81
307. DRehm show Friday mentioned truthout and Leopold and the story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #67
98. And all the other lies
Tell them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #67
133. Thanks for saying it for me, Catrina
What sets us apart is not they we never make mistakes, it's that we admit them and we . . .


actually learn from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #67
196. "I think this is personal, rather than genuine outrage..."
I think you have your head in the sand. Most of the people on these boards who were pi$$ed off with this "scoop" in the first place simply don't want DU to be the clearinghouse for unsubstantiated nonsense. Are crackpots like Jason Leopold made more credible just because Pulitzer Prize-winning Judith Miller isn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #67
257. What Catrina said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Last Stand Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
273. If we slaughtered well-intended news sources for one inaccurate story
then we would be just talking amongst ourselves. There would be none left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #67
318. You're right
IMHO, a lot of this seems to be motivated by
some sort of wannabe blogger jealousy.

'I think this is personal, rather than genuine outrage ~
and it's mean-spirited and nasty from what I've seen.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
134. I was amazed at the "baker's Dozen Eyes" sources
Edited on Sat May-20-06 08:15 AM by symbolman
statement.. it was pretty well lampooned somewhere, I think KOS..

A "Baker's dozen" eyes would have to include a CYCLOPS, or perhaps a Pirate.

Whoa, a thought here.. if you are DRUNK and SEEING DOUBLE then How many SOURCES DO YOU SEE? (and what about a DRUNK CYCLOPS, do they SEE in STEREOSCOPIC VISION WHEN LOADED?)


Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen is FINE REPORTING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #134
249. Ahhh, but unless they were wearing puffy shirts, they weren't real
pirates!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kierkegaard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
136. Great question, Kstewart33.
What does the news cycle have to do with reporting what you know to be true and not some wild speculation? I have avoided posting on this subject since its inception, but this isn't an acceptable excuse and I'm not holding my tongue anymore. Since when is publishing a 'scoop' and then taking a 'wait and see' approach considered to be journalism???

I'd have much rather heard "We dropped the ball on this one, folks" than a non explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
264. I am with you. I was highly skeptical of the story when it broke. I was
also very surprised that Will stuck his neck out, as it could prove very risky if the story didn't pan. Now, truthout, Will, and Jason are in danger of being as reliable a source as Matt Drudge. What a pity it had to come down to this. My sincere hope is that they will be vindicated. Otherwise, it is a black eye for the entire left wing blogosphere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. while I stand behind truthout, what about this:
if the story isn't true, when are the sources that were promised to be revealed, going to be revealed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. that said, whatever happened to Jeff Gerth?
he started Whitewater, which was a total fabrication

what happened to him?

oh, yeah, he was the one who got Wen Ho Lee indicted.

he's got a pretty good track record, hey?

doesn't seem to matter much, depending upon which side of the toast your butter's spread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Whitewater Probably Wasn't A TOTAL Fabrication
but the Clintons didn't make any money off of it

It was the S&L and it's owner James McDougal who made off with the money.

Clinton didn't have anything to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. which part was the Clinton's fault, exactly?
what did they do that was illegal?

which part of the prosecution's closing statement said anything other than that the Clintons were VICTIMS of Hale, McDougal, and Tucker?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Did You Even Read My Post Gabi?
take a chill pill

I said the clinton's were not at fault, they made no money off of it and it was McDougal.

Hale for sure.

I don't know that Tucker had anything to do with it?

Hale is a crooked bastard.

I remember working in his court during grad school doing DWI evaluations.

He had a racket going of kickbacks for referring people to Defensive driving classes in addition to the state's required DWI classes.

Only he got no money for the DWI classes, but got a kickback for the defensive driving classes.

If he did that in that small potatoes game, I bet he had rackets everywhere he was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Semblance Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. Non
It's an embarrassing non-response.

Where are Mr. Pitt and Mr. Leopold?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. I hope their 'apology' will be retracted upon indictment.
There are soooo many layers to the rancid onion that is our government.... Deals, Bribes, legal maneuvering.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. Too late...
The story said that Rove had been indicted, not that he would be in the future.

Even if an indictment comes down Monday, Leopold's story remains false. No future events can change that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Gee, the last 6 years of US policy/lies/subterfuge....
make me confident in your assessment...... really.



not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. Oh, so you mean that "the last 6 years," etc....
...means that Rove really was indicted on May 12th?

If so, why is truthout making a "partial apology" now?

If not, your attempt to change the subject is pathetically irrelevant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
springhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #43
57. I understand the partial apology......
and if you took the time to read it and then actually think about it, you might too. What they are saying is that the indictments did come down on the 12th, which they have already said will have the date on those documents when they are released. However, because the announcement of that indictment has not yet happened, they regret releasing that info so early as to make everyone think that it would be announced in a more timely fashion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #57
120. That is how I read it too.
Hope that is how it will all pan out. In the mean time, I would advise a few of my DU friends here to get a hobby until this happens. Before you break out in hives. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #57
139. yep that's exactly how I parsed it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
316. How am I changing the subject?
Dan Rather was out-maneuvered by these parasites (remember-FR was the site that 'broke' the story). Misinformation shrouded in authenticity is one of their primary 'modus operandi'.


I always keep an open mind and recognize the type of parasites we are dealing with. Time will tell.


A Dem majority in '06 will tell (almost) all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #31
70. What if Rove WAS indicted but it was sealed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #70
112. One week later, that's unrealistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #112
140. Not if he agreed to sqeal
The indictments might then change in number and severity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #70
290. We hear about sealed indictments
ALL THE TIME

It's public that someone's indicted, but why they are can be sealed. At least, that's my best guess. Excuse me while I get into the reporting business
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #290
321. That's patently untrue.
A magistrate to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. Until the defendant is in custody, the clerk of court must then seal the indictment, ensuring that no person will be allowed to disclose the return of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance and execution of a warranty or summons.

Not sure if it applies in this case, but the fact is that the information that a person has been indicted via sealed indictment is NOT public knowledge until either that person is arrested, which creates a public record via the booking log, OR until a judge orders the indictment unsealed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
137. I honestly believe that you have missed the point here. The point isn't
Edited on Sat May-20-06 08:35 AM by OmmmSweetOmmm
whether Rove would be Indicted. I hope to the heavens that will happen real soon.

The point is that the article said that Rove WAS Indicted. It also gave specifics. That Rove received a target letter on April 26 and that he was indicted on May 12th. Then Leopold gave all sorts of details behind the indictment, many that just didn't hold water, or would have set Mr. Spock's logical brain into a tailspin. He claimed he had several sources, and Will Pitt said they were bulletproof.

Then the topper was that Rove had 24 hours to get his affairs in order last Friday. 24 hours which some thought this would be over the weekend, and that became 24 business day hours? And still nothing. BTW... why would he have time to get his affairs in order? Did Libby spend even a nanosecond in jail? Libby was indicted, charged, and then released. Rove will have until up and through the trial to get his affairs in order if he is convicted.

I also don't know if you appreciate the damage they have done to DU. By having thread upon thread of people buying the story hook, line and sinker, DU has lost credibility. This has the feeling of Rove's grubby fingerprints all over it. DU has been getting good media attention in the last few months, and what would be a better way to stifle that attention than to send DU into "disgrace".

Do you think that those of us that questioned the article, the ones who had a wait and see attitude or those with our bs meters going off the charts, sensing that the article stunk to high heavens, wanted to see this happen? Yet those that didn't accept Leopold's tale with Blind Faith, were attacked. We were called foul things. The same kind of intimidation that I would see bushbots use on AOL message boards and it was sickening. As I said before "Rove's filthy fingerprints".

So if and when there is an indictment, when the details are layed about before the public (and I hope you trust Patrick Fitzgerald to do so), I wouldn't hold out to the notion, at this point in time, that the indictment will be dated May 12th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bamboose Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #137
159. you nailed it
This has the feeling of Rove's grubby fingerprints all over it. DU has been getting good media attention in the last few months, and what would be a better way to stifle that attention than to send DU into "disgrace".



That's what's been making me nervous about this whole issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #159
232. Thank you Bamboose and welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brazenly Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #137
255. I have to disagree. I think DU has not lost any credibility with this.
As a relative newbie to DU, my perception of the site isn't colored by fond memories of the past. I only see it as it has been for the past year (during most of which, I read but didn't post). So, for what it's worth, this was my reaction to seeing "thread upon thread of people buying the story hook, line and sinker"

What I saw was an article posted, hopes raised, doubts raised, conclusions reached, conclusions avoided, joy, anger, disappointment, patience, impatience, people reasonably and rationally stating the case for their beliefs, people ranting and raving, people asking questions, people demanding answers, people giving possible answers, people giving impossible answers, people giving nonanswers.

IOW, I saw that DU offered an arena in which progressives could discuss, debate, disagree, and hash things out. When the topic threatened to take over the site, a most reasonable action was taken - go ahead and hash it out all you like, but do it in this space rather than all over the site.

TO's reputation may or may not suffer once the dust settles, but DU's reputation does not rest on the outcome of any one issue discussed here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #137
293. I rather doubt Rove had anything to do with this
Great post, and I agree with you, except that this one belongs to DU, and we should be proud for having taken it on and debunked it.

God, if we can't handle the truth here, what on earth are we entitled to out there in the Real World?

This was an example of people doing well and staying on the story and taking it apart as it unraveled on its own. It's also a story of people acting badly because they were personally invested in a cult of personality - for want of a better term, since I know none of the parties involved on a personal basis. For some, the shoddiness of the story was a distant second to wanting to believe. I can understand that, but it doesn't excuse bad behavior.

Karl Rove, though? I don't think he really pays much attention to DU. We're little, and it's a great big world out there.

It went well, though, and, you know, as Leonard Cohen wrote (oy, is HE old!):

"There is a crack in everything;
That's how the light gets in."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i miss america Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. What?!? Rove was indicted? When did this happen?
:sarcasm:
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. As a cretin, f**kwit, and of limited mental capacity
I laugh at this atrocity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
66. You forgot "shitdog". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #66
145. OMG
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
109. .
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bamboose Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
160. that's funny . . .
I don't care who you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevendsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
17. Where did Leopold say he would out his sources? Is there a link?
Edited on Fri May-19-06 09:47 PM by Stevendsmith
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #17
77. I think he discusses that here during this interview
Listened to it a while ago -- so I'm not totally certain, but pretty sure Leopold says something about that here:

http://ianmasters.org/ian_masters_051406_80.mp3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
113. It's bad enough for a "journalist" to get a story this huge wrong...
if he outs his source, he might as well move to Pelahatchie, Mississippi and write obits. No one will ever talk to him again--his career as a journalist will be 100% over.

I thought all along that perhaps this controversy was purposefully created by him to create interest in his book--in other words, for book sales, and nothing more.

I bet more DUers will buy his book as a result of this than would have if he hadn't written the farce of a story. It's blogosphere manipulation, pure and simple.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
18. well he previously had not been cooperating, maybe reflecting on how his
hemorrhoids would flare up in prison.. he started cooperating and thus the indictment was delayed :hurts: :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Nice try, but...
...an indictment, once issued, cannot be delayed. And, according to truthout, one had already been issued. They were wrong. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
19. thanks for the info!
I agree about the partial apology.........I still think Rove will be indicted but not today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
21. In my first and only post on this subject,
I find the most disappointing thing here that truthout seems to find it necessary to resort to euphemism and coyness. It's never to late for straight talk. Just tell us what is going on. I for one am your friend, one among many here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jjmalonejr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. Great post
The non-apologetic apology with the non-explanatory explanation bothers me almost more than the story being wrong. I'd still support truthout if they would just level with their readers and do it quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. You are dead on. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. The "wait and see" attitude is the only realistic one.
Edited on Fri May-19-06 10:05 PM by ConsAreLiars
I've been surprised (well, not really) by the observation that so many people who were posting here seem so intolerant of ambiguity. Those dreaded "true believers" who demanded that us "normal people" either vouch for the accuracy of every word or denounce the story as a complete fabrication.

Unfortunately for them and their demands for immediate closure, we gain a deeper understanding of reality over time, incrementally, and certainty about most things not directly experienced is always a bit less than absolute. I can live with that, and wait to learn more, but others seem to get a bit agitated. The mods showed good judgment in consolidating all of those faith-based rantings and and endless repetitions into single sequentially locked threads.

Good work by the admins, and yet another reason to donate if you can.

(edit to add a bit)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. People here are only "intolerant of ambiguity"...
...because Leopold's story admitted of no ambiguity.

Had Leopold simply written "Rove is on the verge of being indicted," then there would be no controversy. But he said something had happened, when, in fact, it hadn't...and that's about as unambiguous as it comes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. the ambiguity is in what happened to lead him to believe (or assert)
such a thing. Was the story his sources gave him accurate when written but something changed, did his sources dupe him, is it a complete fabrication, is it completely accurate but still a secret -- I see plenty of uncertainty, but, as I said, I can wait for more information before deciding I know the answer to these questions. Actually, I have no choice but to wait before I can decide one way or another with any confidence. The story was not confirmed by other reporters when it came out, and still has not been. Beyond that, there is simply no more data. Time will tell, maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #45
99. Then he SHOULD NOT HAVE PUBLISHED
the Story, and Pitt should not have run around saying it's CONCRETE, BULLETPROOF, etc.

Cart before the HORSE. REAL journalists don't ask you to Wait and SEE.. the GET the REAL NEWS.

Nothing like lowering the BAR for your pals, and people complain about BUSH..

How can you even think they have any measure of respect for anyone here, We've all been called CRETINS, SHITDOGS and WORSE, Skinner was treated like a RAT, the Story is COMPLETELY FALSE,

and some people want MORE of the Same?

Even hear of masochism?

Don't you wonder WHY Google will no longer serve TO up as NEWS? OR Yahoo now? Do you know how much Damage Leopold has done to TO ALONE? Not to mention the Civil War they created right here, pitting DU'rs against each other?

And all over a "scoop".. WHO'S SCOOP? THEIRS. They DID stand to gain and as Skinner said, they must be sweating Bullets.

If you don't hold people accountable for their actions, Trashing people, a history of plagiarism, Grand larceny, forgery, drug abuse, abusing sources and proud enough of it to write a book about how you get to BULLSHIT PEOPLE, and they LIKE IT, Fall for it Every time?

This is Faith Based Media, and has no Credibility whatsoever. Apologise my ass. You were INSULTED and some are coming back for MORE.

I pity this country, when people are willing to take it in the shorts like this, and for what.. so you can Feel like you "won" something?

TO is getting trashed by this Leopold garbage, is that what you want? But then again, if their "apology", so heartfelt and vacant of any real Answers is all that's left of TO, then I won't miss them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #99
117. See the "Shitdog"...
Edited on Sat May-20-06 07:50 AM by Hubert Flottz
Scoop Doggies Scoop



I think the guy really did do some serious damage to TO and that is a damned shame. It hurts everybody who depends on the net for the straight skinny. Did the guy do a job on TO for the Rovian Hordes, with a mind to do damage to a lefty "trouble maker", is the question. You know the dark forces of evil from GOPerland would love to shut us ALL up. The whole thing smells of a set up deal to me and has from the get-go! I had high hopes for a couple of days though.

Oh well, what's in a big SCOOP anyway? Thanks for the rush, I guess ...It felt good for a couple of days to hope and dream. I can still hope, but I'm sad about the damage done! Too bad that TO had to rise to the bait. I think they were Dan Rathered .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jjmalonejr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. I don't understand "wait and see"
I keep hearing that. Wait for what? See what?

This discussion isn't about whether or not Rove will be indicted. It's about whether or not Jason Leopold and Truthout are credible. The story seems to have been so spectacularly wrong that there had better be a good explanation.

This "partial apology" was their opportunity to provide an explanation or take responsibility. They did neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
58. You say "there had better be a good explanation"
and I hope for one as well. I expect to hear one eventually, but Fitzgerald doesn't say much outside of court. You believe the explanation should have been made in full today. I can still "wait and see," but if you have made up your mind that you already know all you need to know, that's your right. I'm still waiting for more information, and don't find that uncertainty disturbing in any way. Life is like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
247. Indeed. The problem was, there was no actual ambiguity at the outset
They gleefully announced that Rove HAS been indicted, not will be. They said Fitz spent half a day (fifteen hours--didn't know days were 30 hours long) at Luskin's office. Luskin, for his part, later claimed he was at the vet with his sick cat.

The ambiguity only started when 24 hours morphed to business hours, and anyone who asked what that meant was termed a cretin or fuckwit. And then, the non-apology "partial apology." Getting ahead of the news cycle? In other words, making stuff up?

That's what was irritating, I think. We tend not to take the MSM on pure faith, but we're supposed to blindly, unquestioningly support the website where Leopold posted his sloppily written tale simply because it's left leaning? The comments that are posted following the non-apology on that site are something to read--there are a lot of people who are still screaming that questioning the gods of TO is somehow...unpatriotic, or something.

It has a very creepy feel to it, rather Faux-like.

I'm all for TRUTH. But it seems Leopold has taken the TRUTH OUT of reporting, and if that website doesn't do a massive mea culpa ASAP and explain fully how they were sucked into the vortex, they'll be relegated to the whacko-whacko category, and all their hard work in the past will be flushed down the BushCo toilet...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
25. I'm willing to wait and see
and that's speaking only for myself. With the enormous problem of credibility the WH has, I'm not willing to rule anything out. I know Will Pitt only through DU, but believe he is honest. I feel that I have nothing to lose by waiting, until the final act of this has been played out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #51
74. Yes, I noticed. :( And like you said, it isn't just this incident, either
I'm not sure an apology from Mr. Pitt would be enough after the abuse he dished out. He has a history of melting down, then offering apologies after saying terribly hurtful things that cannot be unsaid. I admit it. I was waiting to see if the pattern would be repeated and was upset and disturbed when it was. Damn. :(

Yes, we're all human, but as an activist fighting on the front, Mr. Pitt is in a different position from most of us. All I'm saying is I'm aware of Mr. Pitt's apparent Achilles' heel. Me? I'm chock full of character flaws, but I'm also--luckily--not in the public eye. I guess I'd like to know what Mr. Pitt intends to do to keep this pattern from repeating.

To be honest, I'm not terribly interested in trusting him after this latest episode. The Will Pitt groupies will probably attack me for saying so, but there it is. Even though I wasn't a target, I've watched him hurt other people one too many times and I'm not planning to be in the lineup next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #74
259. "Groupies"????????????????????
Flamebait.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKDem08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #51
79. Whoa! That was harsh
although not completely unjustified. Am I missing something or were Mr. Pitt's most recent comments on this subject something along the lines of "I'll expect your gracious thank-you to him (JL) when the time comes." Although I respect WRP's articulate nature, I do recall when I was new to DU & Mr. Pitt's disparaging remarks toward those who were not enlightened enough to gauge the truth at the inception of the Iraq War (as was I).
Those who live by the sword...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #79
256. Also the little incident of throwing doubt on Andy Stephenson's cancer.
Which Pitt apologized for, but damage WAS done.

I too am a fan of Will's writing, and think his essays and analysis are TOP-NOTCH. The reporting... less so. Maybe he's too easily manipulated by emotion? I have no idea, and have no business speculating.


Oh, well. Either Leopold was basically correct, and something unforeseen happened (though I can't imagine what), he was deliberately Rathered, or he's a lying fool. I don't know him or his work well enough to venture which.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #256
282. Here is a possibility
Edited on Sat May-20-06 06:24 PM by worldgonekrazy
If you were to want to give Leopold the benefit of the doubt, things could have played out a little like this:

Patrick Fitzgerald DID get a sealed indictment from the grand jury. Because these proceedings are supposed to be secret, nobody could officially go on record as saying this happened. Thus, the main stream sources could not run with the story, whereas blogs like TruthOut could. So Leopold was told by people with knowledge of the case that Rove had been indicted and that an announcement of his indictment would be forthcoming.

However, SOMETHING happened that delayed the announcement of the indictment. A few theories of what that could be have been floated and they are:

- Fitzgerald used the sealed indictment as leverage against Rove to get him to cooperate in the larger investigation.

- Fitzgerald is deliberately leaving Rove and the rest of the administration to twist in the wind, perhaps hoping they will do something desperately stupid and thereby make his job that much easier.

- The Bush Administration pulled some sort of manuever that put Fitzgerald on his heals. This is quite possible because Fitzgerald does not have the immunities that an independent prosecutor enjoys. He is at the behest of the Justice Department and thus vulnerable to any political weight the Bush Administration can flex there. Lets not forget that Gonzales is the Attorney General.

So you can see that if one of these options (or some other major development between the time of the alleged indictment and when an announcement should have been made) did in fact occur, then Leopold's story could have still been factually correct at the time but did not quite play out as had been anticipated.

Now I'm not saying that Leopold does deserve the benefit of the doubt. But if you were inclined to give it to him, you could come up with a reasonable scenario in which he is not a stinking liar or pathetic idiot played by Rove and his minions.

On edit: botched the AG's name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #282
283. I'm still pretty open to the possibility that Leopold got it right.
I know nothing of the law, so I have to take your word that your scenario is plausible. We will know eventually, that's all that's certain!

(My gut, usually pretty trustworthy in times like this, is having paranoid fantasies about Leopold -- so I'm going to ignore it and continue to Sit and Wait.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #283
287. I'm with you on the paranoid fantasies
I'm not at all sure Leopold does deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I'm also not going to execute him prematurely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. Fine. I "partially apologize" for considering you to be...
...responsible for distracting left-wing people and the rarefied media channels available to them toward the farce that you created. Congratulations, you have now become the story. There are much more important stories than you, yet you have shouldered them aside in order to promote yourself. Shame on you.

I think that you know this by now, but you have discredited yourself as a reputable source of information. You are just another unidentifiable piece of egotistical roadkill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. "just another unidentifiable piece of egotistical roadkill"-that can apply
Edited on Fri May-19-06 10:11 PM by cryingshame
to any number of posters on this thread as far as I'm concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Do you seriously think that "posters on this thread" should be...
Edited on Fri May-19-06 10:44 PM by Wrinkle_In_Time
...held to the same standards as truthout.org?

Speaking for myself, I'm an individual who occasionally posts on this discussion forum. truthout.org seems to be something different. I couldn't find anything on their site to describe them, but I think they are collectively different than me.

You seem to think otherwise. Please present your comparison of what has been posted here by "any number of posters on this thread" against what has been posted by William Pitt and Mark Ash representing truthout.org.

Bonus points will be awarded for the correct citation of the words/phrases: "ego", "cretin", "call out", "no better than", "my mother", "crow", "I'm faster than you" and "you should pay me money".

On edit: you ignorded the "partial apology" reference in my post. Any further submissions from you about my posts will be considered null and void unless you address what was my primary point: that there is no such thing as a "partial apology".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
236. I Don't...
I think that many posters on DU, this thread included, work their asses off for the cause. They vote, register voters, walk precincts knocking on doors, foment petition drives, call and write their congressmen and women, swear in newly minted citizens to this country, march in protests of war (before and after they start), support (in tangible ways) the troops once they get sent off to war, go to local political gatherings, support important political groups, call in on radio shows, write articles for publication, start their own websites, travel across the country when needed, use various art forms to get their message out, feed and clothe the homeless, adopt unwanted children, organize into unions, and literally, most CONCRETELY, change the world for the better.

And then there are those who post anonymously on an internet message board, and not much else.

And although we hold out hope that the information they glean from said message board will inspire them to move into the activist realm, we are continually disappointed that many will only rise to the level of gripe. Sort of like the two old guys in the Muppets, sitting up in the balcony criticizing, hurling insult and epithets... but NEVER setting foot on the stage themselves.

So yeah... you can't use the same standard at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
27. Oh, you don't want to know what I think. Now look sad and say, "D'oh..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beausoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
32. Wow. That's weak. I'm glad didn't get too caught up in this whole sham.
My dad was a pioneer broadcaster. He taught me alot about sources, rumors and facts.

This serves as an important lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
38. Oh Well,
I know the son-bitch will be indicted soon. Maybe now people will calm down. It's gonna happen, dont believe me? Wait and see :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
44. "getting too far out in front of the news-cycle" = making shit up
"We made some shit up. We thought it might be true but it turned out it wasn't. We guessed wrong."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deansyawp Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. they are just waiting
for reality to catch up to their reporting of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Oooh, nice one!
If it wasn't so sad, it would be even funnier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. LOL
Indeed.

Out in front of the news cycle.

That's almsost as bad as 24 business hours... :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
46. blah blah gooobley gook blah...
"We got out too far ahead of the news cycle?"

C'mon, just say you blew it big time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klimmer Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
50. I was so hoping that the Indictment was going to happen at said time . .
But I'm not going to hang someone for really trying and working hard with insiders and trying to get a story out sooner than others. It seems to me that things could have been happening as Jason, Will, et al. had been informed, but that new information or circumstances happened this week that gives everyone involved with the case pause, and changed the time line at least temporarily.

Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes moment by moment? Reality one moment can be different the next. Things can change in an instant. I can tell someone I'm going to do something a certain way one day, and yet I really change my mind 12 times that day before I conclude what exactly I'm going to do. Hey, no one is crucifying me for that.

Let's all back-off, take a deep breath, and wait.

Eventually we will all know what really happened. I don't think outing honest contacts/informants is a good idea. It could all have been true at the moment, but things changed rapidly. We want people with integrity to talk. We shouldn't help or be involved in creating a climate where people fear talking with journalists for fear of retribution and being outed. That's what the BCF and Neo-cons do. They control through the use of fear. WE DON'T PLAY THAT GOP GAME. We are better than that.

Now, if it turns out that they purposefully set someone up (like TO), then I say hang them publicly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klimmer Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #50
173. Well, all you naysayers . . .
Edited on Sat May-20-06 10:47 AM by Klimmer
Read it and weep.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Like I said, more is going on in the background than we are privy to knowing. I believe TO was right at the time, but the situation changed quickly.

I appreciate what Wayne Madsen has to say and what he finds out. I appreciate his contributions and his news service. He speaks the truth and doesn't hold back unlike MSM.

On edit:

Well, for some reason the above DU thread linking to Wayne Madsen's website has been deleted. Wayne Madsen is a legitimate news source regardless of how DU may feel about him. Check-out the story at his website on 5/20/06. He explains his reasoning and his position as a news service very well. He is different from MSM and for good reason. He is different than DU and for good reason. He has contacts in government and intelligence that no one else has. He reports what he hears from his many longtime trusted sources. It is important to have an outlet for inside whistle-blowers free from the threat of being outed. It helps expose the enemy moment by moment. We need to know what is happening regardless if it all comes to pass. It keeps us informed and exposes our political enemies. We need to know. So what does DU fear about Wayne Madsen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #173
277. And yet Masden keeps avoiding the fact that Gonzales is recused from the
Edited on Sat May-20-06 04:37 PM by Garbo 2004
investigation and in reference to the Plame matter doesn't have the authority to do the things Madsen claims he did. Fitzgerald doesn't even brief him on the progress of the investigation. Gonzales is out of the loop, as was Ashcroft who basically was forced to recuse himself, precisely so he can't interfere, prejudice or leak info regarding the investigation and grand jury proceedings to his colleagues in the Administration.

In regards to the Plame investigation, Fitzgerald has the powers of the US Attorney General. Fitzgerald is in charge of the investigation and proceedings, not Gonzales. Gonzales previously had testified before the grand jury investigating the Plame matter, was involved in the Plame matter when he was WH counsel and is/has been closely affiliated with those under investigation which is why he recused himself from involvement in the investigation when he was appointed AG.

Yet Madsen has reported that Gonzales, a witness in the Plame investigation, previously "as a formality" and now a "courtesy afforded him?" met with the GJ, was able to question them, and then informed the WH that Libby and now Rover were about to be indicted. All precisely the sorts of things that his recusal and uninvolvement in the case prevent him from doing, especially the part about leaking secret grand jury and investigation info to those who are subjects if not indeed potential targets of the investigation. From alleged sitings of a motorcade and "speculation" he derives "facts" if you read his reports.

Madsen reported that the GJ indicted Rove on the 12th and told Gonzo, despite Gonzo being recused from involvement in the case except in his role as a witness in the investigation. Then Madsen also reported that the Grand Jury was going to indict Rove on the 19th. Now apparently Masden has Rove both indicted and not indicted at the same time in the same article? And with that, Masden apologizes and bows out of the discussion.

There are reasons why many do not consider Madsen a reliable source. He also has a history with DU. The only time I "read and weep" is when I see Madsen cited in an attempt to shore up other reporters' reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #277
312. The DU mods told me Madsen's not credible and so we don't link to him.
It makes us look bad. We do have a responsibility to keep this reality based. We don't want to become a target of the reich wing, or give them reason to call us crazy. They do enough of that, already.

I respect the decision not to link to madsen. I think it's responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
53. BUUUUUU UUUUUUU UULLLL SSSSHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTT TTT
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oioioi Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #53
92. absolute and unadulterated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
55. This is not the retraction that should be offered.
Marc Ash saying "The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story" and "As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being" is extremely lame.

Admit that you were wrong. Apologise for it. If you feel up to it, explain why you were wrong and how you will try to avoid being so wrong in the future. We were already taking the "wait-and-see approach" until you claimed to have inside knowledge that trumped it.

To steal shamelessly from symbolman regarding the "Scoop Nazi": No scoop for you, one year. Go to the back of the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #55
91. I think truthout.org readers should send emails to Ash
And they should ask him to "wait and see" if they will ever read truthout again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #91
313. Already did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #55
132. No more Orange Juice for you - One year..
Too many hormones :)

But they were getting that "High Pro Glow" and Vitamin C is good for all creatures big and small :)

You crack me up! And you are RIGHT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
56. Who gives a flying f ck??
All of you wonderful people who believe you were right in the beginning are probably right.

Get over yourselves.

I haven't posted in the locked threads, but I had lost faith in the story, but so freakin what.

I think some on this board just like to feel better about themselves than others. Yeah, you're smarter. So what??

Or is it you just want to knock Will Pitt down a few notches.

I don't really care the story didn't pan out. It happens every single day. So we're going to crucify some people who really felt they were reporting the right thing.

I think they might have learned their lesson with out all of your lecturing, bad mouthing and condescension.

There I said it. Shoot me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. See, this just irks me...
You act like Will Pitt should be given a pass for the things he called people right here on DU. You act like Leopold and Truthout should be given a pass for, as far as we can tell, lying about an important story. You act like it is the fault of the doubters that this story did not come true.

If I had said the things to Skinner that Will Pitt did, I would be banned. So maybe Pitt DOES need to be knocked down a few notches! DU made Pitt, not the other way round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #59
80. Well said
:thumbsup:
Good for you!

(You cretin F^^kwit shitdog trying to take over DU)
:rofl: :hi: :rofl: :hi: :rofl: :hi: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #59
97. I never considered the story to be that important
at least I did not think it was important to be the first. At some point there is an official announcement. Why not wait for that and report on that instead of trying to scoop it? Plus, to me the personal fortunes of Rove only matter insofar as they will make a difference in the make-up of the next Congress.
Following the play by play of the Fitzgerald investigation is no more interesting than baseball to me. They are events beyond my control and knowing the details of that is not interesting to me. It does not seem as helpful as knowing how to deconstruct Bush's lies about Social Security.
But eveyone has their own interests. I feel I have an interest in the fortunes of truthout since they are an ally. Whatever else I may know about this issue, I know that William Pitt has written some eloquent and informative criticisms of the Bush administration. That does not impact this current brouha, which, again, I have not considered important enough to follow. I do not excuse bad behaviour, but since I kept to the sidelines, any bad behaviour did not really impact me, and it does not change the fact that William Pitt is on my side and thus I am on his side. Not trying to be a Pitt groupie, but on the side of anyone who is an effective and/or informative critic of the BFEE and/or activist for progressive causes as Pitt has proven himself to be in my experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #97
114. I agree, BUT....
Humilty is as important as eloquence. I may not look it but I have been around DU a long time. I saw Pitt getting help right here on DU to write that first book. I saw him getting help writing articles for Truthout. People here helped him for nothing. No not nothing, to help a friend.

And he called them cretins and himself the "magic man".

If that doesn't mean he needs to be knocked down a peg or two, I don't know what does. I always liked him, and I had great respect for him, especially as he took heat for sticking his neck out to help Andy Stephenson. That was the Will Pitt I thought I knew. There were some glimmers of arrogance, but I was willing to forgive him that as he had done so much good. In fact I am willing to forgive him even this IF he apologises. Not a half-arsed apology, but a genuine apology to the poeple he attacked, especially Skinner. Skinner didn't deserve that shit, and I hope Pitt is big enough to admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. thank you
i'll take a bullet for you and for what you've said, for it contains the crux of the kernal of the grain of the truth.

self-importance, the downfall of the human condition lies at the heart of this issue whether one wants to realize it, or not.

so who was right, and who was wrong? who cares ...

i fight bigger battles daily with myself in just trying to be a decent human being, and have no heroes to turn to anymore.

still, NGU.
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. Very well said.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
feistydem Donating Member (994 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
60. I'm surprised at all of the "faith-based" support posted on TO.
Does objectivity go out the window when one of our own screws up? I don't want to be like the FReepers with my eyes and ears shut to truth in order to remain loyal. Truth Out wanted less to get the truth out and more to be first in getting the 'story' out.

I will put less faith in their future breaking news stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #60
96. I don't get it, either. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #60
168. I'm disappointed
Some are behaving like the republicans who are still waiting for WMDs to be found in Iraq. Apparently loyalty is more important to some people than facts, and they cling to that loyalty as if it were a lifeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
62. Does this mean we can finally disallow unproven "scoop" threads?
Or at least relegate them to their own forum, where they can't disturb the Big Forums?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
63. Apology Not Accepted....
You'll still have your groupies, and followers, but I can assure you, it will take a couple of 100% accurate stories before I'll ever trust truthout in the future.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Everything published by you will be met with skepticism by a great many people from many people. Perhaps not everyone, but enough that you've now lost a great deal of stature, and will take Much accuracy in the future to ever hope to rebuild it.

But hey, you took a chance, and almost got away with it. If only rover had been indicted, it would have made you look brilliant. Win some, lose most. Sorry, play again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
234. Has the "Rove received a target letter" story that preceded the"indicted"
story even been verified?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
65. "we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle"
Well, that's clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jigarotta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #65
171. TO may be testing that new 'way-forward time machine'
sounds like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
68. Doesn't make sense to me. Not clearly a retraction, just an apology for
"getting too far out in front of the news-cycle" which confused people? WTF?

So does TO still insist that they have sources that are "concrete," "bulletproof," etc.? If so, why the apology for simply being ahead of the pack if they did due diligence wrt sources and info they provided?

Does Ash still stand by his May 18th post wherein he cited multiple subsequent confirmations of their story? http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/0...

Talk about confusing their readers. Is the "partial apology" re: being ahead of the news cycle simply due to the battering they've been taking and the lack of other media's public confirmations of their story? Or because they've lost faith in their "multiple, independent" sources and the info they provided? Presumably not all these confirming sources were simply funneled through Leopold, especially those confirmations Ash cited coming after TO posted the story on Saturday, although that's not been explicitly stated and should IMO be clarified. If it's the latter, I'd prefer TO just say so than to further muddy the waters regarding their own credibility by apologizing for being ahead of the rest of the media, some of whom Ash claimed yesterday had confirmed TO's reporting.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #68
78. I'm cooking eggs and bacon at 1:45am EDT...
... did I err in getting too far out in front of the breakfast-cycle? When will you catch up? Just wait-and-see. I partially apologize (which implies that I majorly don't care).

No, it doesn't make sense to me either. TO has been caught with its pants down and they are asking us to ignore the fact that they have been steeping their dangly parts in our orange juice for the last week, for which they partially apologise... I guess that means they only regret one testicle being in the glass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #78
125. Well, so much for the glass of orange juice I just started to drink.
Down the drain she goes. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #68
158. ~
Edited on Sat May-20-06 10:09 AM by arwalden
Very true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
69. 73% on DU thought Rove would be indicted Wednesday or Friday
Based on a poll Tuesday night. That just demonstrates the weight the Truthout story was given. So I completely understand the dismayed reaction here, a feeling of being taken. The percentage was not close to reality. I posted that in the thread with the poll, and many other DUers agreed elsewhere.

I still think Rove will be indicted. It's much better if it is delayed until summer or early fall, closer to the election. So I'm probably one of the few who turns on the TV hoping for silence in this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #69
86. The fact that Fitz gave Rove 10 days before he was supposed to
make a determination got my hopes up. I also think something is coming down the pike soon.
I will also wait for Fitz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nytemare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
73. Wasn't there something about outing the sources if the info didn't pan out
When do they say when?

I just wonder if this is a Rovian plot, outing his own indictment falsly. But, he would probably do it to a major source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wheres The Beef Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #73
82. Now there is some insight
Does anybody really think that people in Fitz's office or Rove's office even know or care who Leopold, Pitt, TruthOut or DU for that matter are, let alone leak or plot against them? Give me a break. They are all fly specks on Rove's windshield. This whole story stunk from the beginning. Truthout can't out the source, there aren't any. I can't imagine the motive here, but it sure makes DU look like the DUmmies that the blogs are calling it. Rovian plot my butt. I will accept my Wisconsin Pizza for telling the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nytemare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #82
84. If it was MSNBC, it would be Rovian.
Unless they are going after blogs, it seems a little small potatoes for Turd Blossom.

It would be a good trick, though. For him to be behind the leaking of his own false indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wheres The Beef Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. Exactly my point
If Rove wanted to leak a false story He would have gone big time, CBS, NBC, NYT, The Mpls Star and Tribune, but Truthout? Leopold? Pitt? How about somebody with an audience?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nytemare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. I did say in my first post he would probably do it to a major source.
It does seem like his style, but T.O. is bupkis in comparison with the major outlets. He would have to be going very grassroots to do that.

Even so, it would be pretty clever.

Turd Blossom, the Goebbels of our time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #88
124. Did you know Libby used a Leopold TruthOut article in one of his filings?
Maybe that has something to do with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nytemare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #124
218. That is interesting.
I didn't know that. Good info.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #82
122. The blogs?
I think the only time I have seen DUers referred as DUmmies was at free republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #82
162. You're right to make a mockery of this site
Even though I suspect your motives a bit, I have to agree with you. The 500+ post celebration thread was a disgrace and an embarrassment, and the behavior of too many on these boards over this has been laughable. As soon as the story broke, I reiterated my bet to WillPitt that Rove WOULDN'T be indicted. He didn't take up the counter-bet, but looked to feel pretty smug about it. Given the contents of the article, I had no doubt that I wouldn't have to pay this week, anyway. The whole episode is a disgrace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #82
285. DUmmies?
Welcome to DU!

NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wheres The Beef Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #285
308. Excuse Me!
I said some of the blogs out there. Go take a look, read some of the threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
75. There is only 1 scenario under which TO could still be right
Edited on Sat May-20-06 01:14 AM by Jersey Devil
I think it is far fetched (though not as far fetched as a secret pardon, which I consider tinfoil), but still a very remote possibility, maybe as remote as my chances of winning the lottery.

Rove gets indicted on 5/12 as reported by TO. For a moment, assume that true. The meeting with Fitz for 15 hours, the 24 hours (whether business hours or not), actually "serving" Luskin with the indictment at that time and everything else in the story is irrelevant.

Before Fitz holds a press conference and Rove is arraigned on the indictment Rove decides to take Fitz's offer to cop a plea to 1 count of perjury in a multi-count indictment charging him with many counts of perjury and at least one count of obstruction of justice (hiding the email maybe).

In exchange for the plea Rove agrees to recant the false testimony he made to the GJ in the past and implicate others (Cheney or take your pick of who else, maybe the whole damned WH staff) under oath and agree to testify against them and offers corroborating evidence previously withheld from Fitz such as emails, letters, notes, etc. He does this all in secrecy, just as many a drug defendant cooperates in secrecy with prosecutors to setup their dealers after indictment. He is brought back to the GJ in total secrecy.

Now you might say he'd never rat out his pals, but men facing long prison sentences sometimes do things they would not normally do and this guy isn't exactly the paragon of virtue, is he?

Of course, for Rove to continue working at the WH after making a deal would be extraordinary and unprecedented, but we have seen Bush change his statements about firing anyone involved in the Plame leak to firing anyone criminally accused in the Plame leak and who is to say he wouldn't change it again to say anyone convicted in the Plame leak? He has shown no respect for tradition or the constitution and has demonstrated over and over again that he has scorn for the law, so I find it entirely possible he would keep Rove on pending trial (part of the deal could be that he does not enter a plea until all his testimony at trial is completed and the fact of the indictment and the deal would not have to be publicly revealed until far into the criminal discovery process for the other indicted defenants), arguing that the country needs him and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You are talking about a president who does not even think he must follow law if he disagrees with it and who spies on Americans in clear violation of the law, gets away with it and does it arrogantly. It would also explain some of the WH "shakeups" and Rove's demotion from domestic policy advisor to a purely political role.

So that is why there is no announcement of an indictment and why TO could still be correct. Remote, certainly. Would I put any money on it? Not a chance! But is it possible? Yes it is. And it would also explain the seemingly completely meaningless statement about being "in front of the news-cycle" that is so cryptically stated in the "partial apology."

Now, if I was writing the novel that's how I'd end it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #75
85. Question
When was Duke Cunningham actually indicted? Remember he wore a wire for the prosecution, kept insisting that he would be vindicated, and then announced and was sentenced almost in the blink of an eye. Could he have been indicted under seal while he was cooperating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #85
141. Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about
He could well have been indicted under seal while working with a wire, though I do not know the actual details of that case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #141
161. And Duke continued to work
hiding what was happening, voting, doing business as usual. He didn't see the public loss of his security clearance until the 11th hour when he made his public statements, right?

So, let's examine recent happenings as far as Rove and his duties are concerned. The WH announces that Karl will be taken off of policy and will be focusing on the midterms instead. They begin to distance themselves from him as far as the "official" person for policy. Yet, he makes a lackluster speech at AEI on policy after that fact. It could be that the speech had been arranged far in advance and the general thought was, better to give the speech then create more intrigue as to why he canceled. He gives the speech with most reports making note that he was still out front, but also noting that they were cautious about spinning it as a way to prove that Karl is not in jeopardy at all. Rove is not a big speech making kind of guy, IIRC. He is more of a working in the bowels behind the scene kind of guy IMHO.

They are, at least publicly, distancing themselves from Karl. Even on the campaign trail, it's not Karl that's out front, it's Laura. Karl made one little appearance at a county race to campaign.

What ever happened to Karl being the guy in charge of the Katrina clean up? Was he ever officially removed from those duties or was it just another way for them to attempt to justify him having office space in the WH?

Just what is it that Karl does that justifies that? To my knowledge (and I might be wrong) no party affiliated person ( a person working on upcoming campaigns) ever had an office in the WH, did they?

Just what does he do there? Why does he get an office and security clearance that is, imho, unprecedented and get a salary from the taxpayers in the bargain? What has he been left in charge of in the latest dust up that justifies it?

Yeah, I've probably gone off on a tangent a bit, but these are questions that nag at me that are the foundation of the case I think. Just what does he do there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #75
142. Add a 2nd scenario - Libby (or someone else) flipped
Edited on Sat May-20-06 08:50 AM by Jersey Devil
If Libby flipped (or Armitage or Hadley or someone else unknown to us) and gave Fitz info on Rove after Rove was indicted Fitz might want to seek a superceding indictment adding more charges and possibly more defendants before making it public.

Again, this scenario is far fetched, but possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #75
149. An interesting scenario...and even though you qualify it as far-fetched
it would explain more about the actions of TO and those involved in the story than anything else I've heard.

I don't think "TO" would have gone out on a limb like this where their credibility would be destroyed based on the enormous egos of Leopold and Pitt who vouched for him or edited him or whatever.

Sometimes the truth is down the middle even when ego's and shoddy reporting are in play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #149
174. Yes, you're right
Edited on Sat May-20-06 10:36 AM by Jersey Devil
It would explain a lot. As I said in another post, I have no axe to grind here so I think I can look at this more objectively than some who have been personally involved with Pitt in the past.

I think they thought they had it right and maybe something happened to change that that they didn't expect. My scenario I think is one possible, though improbable, explanation. But if that happened there should be no reason why he couldn't come here and at least hint that this is the case instead of coming here with "fuckwit" posts and blowing everyone off who is critical of the article.

If my scenario (or something similar) is not the case then of course the explanation and "apology" should be complete and despite his ego he should have the guts to suck it up and take his lumps and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #75
153. I think 'far-fetched' is the new normal.
If a scenario akin to your speculation is indeed the case, I don't see any overwhelming reason that Rove would have to notify Junior or Cheney. It seems obvious that they'd be at least close to being regarded as unindicted co-conspirators. If Rove were 'cooperating,' I doubt he'd be eager to have it known prematurely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #153
176. yes, that should have been added to my scenario
unless, of course, Bush is ready to throw Cheney under the bus, which I highly doubt. People can talk about Rove's "loyalty" all they want, but when someone is facing the next several years in a federal penitentiary they can be quick to get religion and do their pennance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #176
294. Keep in mind one salient fact
The Presidential pardon power is absolute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
83. I guess the Luau is Postponed...sigh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cigsandcoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
89. The only thing that really annoys me about this screw-up
...is that it will take some of the "oomph" out of the story when Rove really is indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #89
95. No it won't,
not really. When Rove really is indicted there will be plenty of "oomph".

As far as this story goes if they had sources they knew to be credible and believed the story to be true I appreciate them sharing it. I don't know what went "wrong", where or why. But I'd rather have someone report a story in good faith than hold back in fear they'll appear a fool.

I'd resent it if they had forced us to sell our homes and donate the money or to hold our head under water until Fitz had an announcement.

I pass no judgment because I don't know the facts. I read it with interest and hoped it was correct but I would never believe anything was certain until Fitzgerald told us to believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Branjor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. What I don't understand is....
if they had sources that are so credible and forthcoming, why are these sources not forthcoming *now* as to the reason for the delay in the announcement of any indictments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #101
116. Bingo! Why AREN'T the sources telling Leopold anything now?
Maybe because there aren't any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
94. A little perspective
I'll preface this with IMO so I hopefully don't get flamed too badly: What's worse - printing a story that was thought to be true at the time or all the fucked up stuff Rove has done to this country to make it a story in the first place? I mean - come on. People make mistakes - even journalists. It's not the end of the world. Jason and truthout are NOT MSM, and that's a good thing. We all know the MSM will destroy you over one possibly wrong detail - like Dan Rather and Bush's national guard record. I have no doubt the story CBS ran about his guard service, or lack thereof, was true - yet because of one unverifiable document, Dan lost his job. Do we really want to treat good people that way? Does Jason's story not being true change your opinion of Rove? It doesn't for me. Sure I'm disappointed, and I'm sure Jason feels like shit over this whole thing. But to be honest, it's just as much OUR FAULT for believing a story from only one news source no matter how much we wanted to believe it. I'm just sayin, IMO, let's not eat each other alive over a STORY that appeared on a website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. How about because it was BULLSHIT
and personally I've had ENOUGH BULLSHIT from the RIGHT, I don't NEED BS from the Freaking LEFT.

"They're on OUR side!"

I don't think that Leopold could have done more damage to the blogosphere than if he'd been hired by the Right Wing, and you know what? According to his history he's sold out people MANY TIMES. Now not a PEEP about his so called "sources".. the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy..

If I were Will Pitt I would check my back, because if this guy's history is anything like it looks, Pitt, you're going to be experiencing a sharp pain between the shoulder blades..

and then another person, source, publisher will have been "LeoPOLED" with good old Faith Based Media..

Now that is Bullshit. He ain't no lefty folks, he's only out for himself. Read his own book if you don't believe it.. but for god's sakes don't BUY one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamarama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
100. PARTIAL apology? WTF is a PARTIAL apology? Sounds like Bush Speak.
Edited on Sat May-20-06 05:11 AM by KzooDem
Lets not take the blame for something we fucked up on....well, okay, just PARTIALLY. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was some half-baked mea culpa coming out of 1600 Penn. Ave.

I was holding out, giving them the benefit of the doubt, not automatically assuming the story was totally cold. Now we get a "partial apology?" Don't fucking insult my intelligence, TO. Either apologize, or DON'T. You can't have it both ways.

I guess Will chose the wrong issue with which to fall upon his sword. And what does it really matter, I suppose? His doe-eyed, adoring groupies will no doubt forgive him and go back for more hepings of hangover-induced high dudgeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #100
123. ...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
103. GJ proceedings are fluid - Leopold could've been right about it...
Edited on Sat May-20-06 05:26 AM by Cooley Hurd
...but the indictment announcement could've been delayed by other factors. One such factor could've been additional testimony by Dick Armitage. Another could've been negotiations between Luskin and Fitz after the 5/12 meeting.

The notion that Jason made the story up out of whole cloth doesn't add up, given corroboration of the TO story by two very savvy Washington insiders - one a peripheral player and another directly involved in the case, Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson. And Wilson heard this from a different source than Leopold's.

If a mistake was made in any of this, it was Truthout's. And Mark Ash's explanation and partial apology is sufficient. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. Well, we still don't know for sure they were wrong...
...and won't until we see the actual indictment papers (and dates). All I'm saying is that there are so many factors that could've delayed the indictment announcement. I'm not ready to call Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson bullshit artists, and they've corroborated the TO story.

Yes, Will's drunken rant sucked donkeys. But, I'm not going to stomp on Truthout for that reason alone.

Believe me, I'm the LAST person to want to give anyone a pass just because "they're on our side." Doing so undercuts our own credibility - and at this stage, because we're not in power, at least we still have our credibility.

No offense taken, symbolman. :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #105
115. The problem I have is neither Johnson or Wilson...
Publically supported the report. Someone claiming to be Johnson (and it seems possible it was) made a statement that Joe Wilson said his sources confirmed, and Leopold had several sources. He never said Wilson told HIM, just Wilson said. To Who? Truthout? Did Johnson merely post what Truthout told HIM? I believe that is possible, because Johnson NEVER wrote a single thing on HIS BLOG about confirmation.

Why would he NOT write that Wilson had told HIM that it was true? Even when directly asked about it in comments on the article he remained silent.

So there is NOTHING but what was posted to DU, and that is ambiguous. Could it be that Johnosn posted what he was told by Truthout, then contacted Wilson and found out it was not true, and decided to stay out of it? I think that is more possible than him just being silent about it on his own blog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #115
129. Larry Johnson DID, right here on DU, and yes, it really was LJ...
Edited on Sat May-20-06 08:00 AM by Cooley Hurd
...he confirmed it on his blog. And Wilson also confirmed the Leopold article, via Larry. Larry said that Wilson's source was different from Leopold's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #129
131. Can you show me where he confirmed it on his blog?
I know TalkLeft said they had emailed him and he confirmed to them that he posted on DU, but neither of them said that he had INDEPENDENTLY confirmed the article. The post on DU simple said "Wilson said his sources confirmed" he did not say Wilson told HIM that.

He then went on to say that Leopold had multiple sources etc etc - which he obviosuly got from TO. So as far as I can see he got the whole thing from TO. I suspect that he then tried to confirm it with Wilson and found out it wasn't true, and has been silent ever since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #131
135. My bad - it wasn't on his blog, but on TalkLeft itself...
Edited on Sat May-20-06 08:18 AM by Cooley Hurd
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.
</snip>

Good enough?

On edit - I'm leaving for the day, so I won't be able to respond immediately to further queries... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #105
126. Good I never called Wilson or Johnson Bullshit artists either
and No one in their right mind would.. I sent the Pitt rants over to Wilson to make sure he didn't get a surprise from the media, and was glad to see that Johnson was the real deal, and not Leopold playing "sock puppet" games again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #104
148. Symbolman, why didn't anyone see this long ago?
Edited on Sat May-20-06 09:13 AM by Jersey Devil
I think I may have a more objective viewpoint than some of those who have been in scrapes with Pitt in the past and have no axe to grind here with anyone.

Though I have been a member of DU since 2001 it is only the past year and a half or so that I have been an active poster. Following his strings, which you really can't miss because each one seems guaranteed to get many replies, in instances where posters disagreed with him I saw many snarky, sarcastic and very nasty responses that demonstrated to me very quickly and very clearly that he is an egotist of monumental proportions and generally not a very pleasant person to have a discussion with. At the same time I'd look at the strings where posters flocked to his posts, scratch my head and ask what the hell the attraction was to this guy.

That he was extremely ambitious when it came to Truthout was also clear. I subscribed to the site for a short period of time and was absolutely bombed with email several times a day to the point where I unsubscribed rather than to continually receive mail of "breaking" issues as though Truthout was the most important news source on the planet.

Weren't these clues to anyone else?

I know it is generally against DU rules to talk negatively about another poster and I apologize in advance if this is taking things too far, but since your posts have been allowed to remain I assume it is OK, to a limited degree, to discuss it in order to understand what happened here, particularly in light of the total lack of explanation from the guy who started all this in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #148
272. Funny, isn't it?
Where there is one; there are many.

Contemplate that for a moment and ask yourself why this statement is true:

"Following his strings, which you really can't miss because each one seems guaranteed to get many replies, in instances where posters disagreed with him I saw many snarky, sarcastic and very nasty responses that demonstrated to me very quickly and very clearly that he is an egotist of monumental proportions and generally not a very pleasant person to have a discussion with. At the same time I'd look at the strings where posters flocked to his posts, scratch my head and ask what the hell the attraction was to this guy."

The follow-up is:

How can these threads be the ONLY threads in history on DU where the RECOMMENDATIONS outnumber the replies?

Look carefully - you will not find any other examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #103
167. You're joking right?
True believers...no fact pattern can dissuade them :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
107. It just doesn't make any sense that they ran this story if they
Edited on Sat May-20-06 06:21 AM by saracat
didn't have sufficient evidence that it was true.I think they were played, personally. The desire to get the scoop blinded them.They may have read more into what their "sources" had to say than was warranted. I dunno. Leopold had a problem before with Salon, and I don't think he retracted that one either. I don't think the apology is good enough and I really think some of the news speak is insulting. But I think TO was sincere. They were just wrong. It is too bad they have fallen into the pitt of unreliability. Ego and the desire to get the story can do that.They should hire Bernstein or Helen Thomas to instruct them how to research sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #107
110. Lol. The "pitt" of unreliability?
You still have time to fix that if it was unintentional :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #110
325. Oops. It was not deliberate. Sorry Will!
and good catch Charlie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
111. Hey, Will. Remember that thread you said you were going to start...
demanding apologies to Jason Leopold from the doubters?

It appears that the only person at DU who owes anyone any apology is you, for your tirade last Sunday night and also for the torturous week you put DU through.

You manipulated people here, cause more division than this place has experienced since the primaries, and you directly insulted DUers and the site owner.

Your next post should be an apology--if you come back. And you will come back, because you've threatened to leave 100 times before, but you always come back.

I guess we shitdog fuckshit cretins are important to you, for some reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_testify_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #111
147. oh my.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #111
150. Take it easy, Maddy.
Will fell into a huge pile of shit. Shit happens. We all fall in the shit at times. Clinton did. I've done it. You've probably done it. Booze brings out the worst in us. It's easy to love someone when they're shit free and doing great. A benchmark of what kind of a person you are can be how Will you climb out of the shit Pitt. Another, tougher benchmark, is how well you help others climb out of their shit pit.

I don't give up on friends. I can't afford to. I've never regretted it.

Let's get back to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #150
152. Well, let's see.
I've never mixed booze and work.

I've never posted drunk, especially on an issue on which I would stake my career.

I've never called fellow DUers names like "fuckshit" or "shitdogs."

I've never insulted a person in whose house (website) I was guest.

I don't give up on friends, either--but I certainly don't enable them in destructive habits.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #152
155. How do you know you don't enable them in destructive habits?
That is exactly what you do if you don't enable them to leave their destructive habits behind. All I'm saying is that now is the time for kindness and understanding. I know you will do the right thing, hell, you're on the left! :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #155
156. Evidently, you missed a couple of my posts in a previous thread.
ONe of the people who has been involved in the discussion had decided to start a thread to eat crow. I told her not to, that she didn't owe anyone anything. She's a fellow liberal--I have no need to beat her up for trusting Will, Jason Leopold, and Truthout.

HOWEVER, Will started this, and he should finish it with an apology to DU for his obscene posts, for insulting Skinner, and for the havoc he inspired at DU.

I certainly will do the right thing...and I expect Will to do the right thing, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #111
157. Well...it's hard not to agree with that. A personal apology
is overdue for the cursing out and belittling of those on this Board and the Administrator. The verbal abuse reigned down on us here should have been addressed immediately irregardless of the circumstances or truth of what Leopold wrote and why TruthOut stood behind it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
118. The original story has been pulled from TO
it seems. At least I couldn't find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. Here it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #119
144. Actually, that is the original revised story
The original story said nothing about "business hours".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itzamirakul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #119
172. Gosh! I was here all week and I didn't know that any of this was going on.
I mean, I missed the entire war and yet I was posting everyday.

Can you please post the link to the rant where people were called "cretins" and worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #172
203. That post was edited to nothing
by Will Pitt I assume because (as far as I know?) the mods don't edit our posts-they just message delete them. It's not deleted but edited to have the all comments removed. But some DU'er made sure to copy it and have it for all eternity. So even though he said it and I guess had regrets and deleted it-the fact that he said it will be held for all eternity against him. Yeah, he should know better. But sometimes, the place pisses me off-these are high stakes are they not sometimes-war and death and our very liberties at stake-and I could certainly call you or anybody much worse than cretins. The only thing about ME is I will never edit my nastiness because I'm not that good of a person-or I have no reptuation to care about. I want it to stand. I've told a couple of on DU to F off over the years. And I just stayed away from DU for a couple days afterwards and NEVER went back to see what they said because fire on fire is pointless. But some people will never forgive him for this.

I'm holding my never forgiving for much worse people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itzamirakul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #203
250. Thanks, Generator. I hate to admit it but I am just nosey enough to want
to read what has been referred to as a "drunken rant" by someone who is so highly revered here at DU.

How did they know he was drunk when he wrote it?

I guess I missed the flame war because I generally stay away from posts regarding the named writer. I have been snarked at least once, so I just keep my distance. It is simpler than getting involved in a cuss-out battle between people on the same side. I do read Truthout, however.

Also, I tried to find the forum that has all the threads concerning the Leopold story of Rove indictment. I remember skipping over them when they were on the General Discussion Forum, but now Skinner says they are on one Forum...so do you know where that is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #119
243. deleted
Edited on Sat May-20-06 01:56 PM by yourguide
deleted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
121. Should be alot of bridges burned by the time this is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
127. And the Chicago Daily Tribune was out front of the news-cycle too...


Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. Wishful thinking on the Tribune's part....
And to this day, it comes back to haunt them as one of the great journalistic gaffes of all time.

An issue of that paper is worth big bucks today, wish I had one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
130. Yawn
Like this is the first time a prominent DUer has thrown a I'm Leaving tantrum. Puh-Lease!

Or made a mistake for that matter.

Far be it for me to inject a little reality into this slug fest, but certain posters in this thread have called fellow DUers worse names than cretin or shitbag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #130
219. That is true.
I see you didn't get any responses either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #219
263. I didn't figure I'd get many DUers to recognize there own shadow.
The phony Righteous Indignation shown by a few posters in this thread is incredibly sad. It's almost as if the search feature doesn't work, or something?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #130
314. I'll respond - to agree with you
matter of fact, certain posters in this thread and many others, have spent a lot of time and energy on attacking other posters. They use nice words, know how to play by DU rules, so their posts aren't deleted, but they've done far more damage than calling someone a cretin or shitbag. And they're working OVERTIME doing it.

Nice words can hurt a whole lot more than words that aren't so nice, and I'm glad you tried to inject a little reality, but, really, they don't want any of THAT. I do though, I really, really wish this was over, and DU'ers could get back to doing something more productive with their time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #314
315. Well stated Laurab!
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exlrrp Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
143. Don't believe everytihing you read on the internet
Edited on Sat May-20-06 08:50 AM by exlrrp
Its only common sense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
146. Here's two differences between this and the mainstream media.
1. It's pretty rare that the mainstream media will go and insult people directly for being skeptical. Sure they're arrogant and defensive when they're wrong and you corner them and start interrogating them, but they generally don't go confronting people for a doubt that will be objectively resolved in the near future. If I'm a reporter, and I know some story is true, or in this case, that something will eventually be revealed, and someone doubts it politely (even acknowledging that it would be a great triumph if it was true), I would just let it ride out and even refrain from gloating after it was revealed that I was correct. Here, what could have been classified as a mistake transmuted into personal insults. And yes, the media - blogs or mainstream - will face scrutiny. It's to be expected because it comes with their power, and somewhat of a responsibility of journalists to handle gracefully. This isn't something I think "should" happen, it's more of a thing that has natural consequences in terms of trust and respect.

2. That having been said about insulting the audience, I will now insult the audience as a third party. There really is no use in checking and rechecking all day to see if something of this nature that's projected to happen has happened in the last few minutes. If it's true, you'll be able to see it in the evening on the news. I understand that blog power is cool for doing things like bringing the Stephen Colbert routine the attention it deserved, but you need to detach yourself from this or that particular blog or reporter a little more and promote the general trend of having a media outside the mainstream to give attention to things the mainstream media is not giving attention to. Don't get involved with narrow peaks and valleys to the point where you're spending all this time arguing with people and accusing them of bringing down a movement or being dubious or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
151. It was a test of restraint. We passed the test.
If truthout honestly believed the story. Good. 'getting ahead of the news cycle', a bit risky but exciting.

But for my part I think the rest of the Lefty blogosphere's big names get much respect for not snagging and flogging the story, especially in cases where they were pestered, possibly with deception at play, to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
154. i'm a little disappointed but Fitzgerald isn't done yet so there is still
hope. I still think Rove will be indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #154
163. i know. You'd think he had plenty of ammo by now.
What gives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #163
166. the devil is in the details, i'm sure he wants everything lined up
exactly right and bullet proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
165. That's Kind Of A Step-By-Step Apology. A Half-Hearted Apology...
... that a mother forces her child to give to the next-door-neighbor. It's not given with any sincerity or genuine sense of remourse. It's only given because it's the path of least resistance. Because NOT giving it (no matter how insincere) is more difficult that just saying the hollow words and getting it over with.

==================================================================

MOTHER: "Go on... tell Mrs. Smith you're sorry."

DENNIS: "(mumble mumble)"

MOTHER: "Speak up!"

DENNIS: "(mumble)... sorry."

MOTHER: "Say it like you mean it."

DENNIS: "Okay! I'm SORRY! There! I said it. Happy? Sheesh!"

MOTHER: "What are you sorry for?"

DENNIS: "I'm sorry for stepping on your flowers."

MOTHER: "And..."

DENNIS: "... and for kicking your cat."

MOTHER: "Is that all... anything else?"

DENNIS: "... and for calling you a skanky-ho."

MOTHER: "And..."

DENNIS: "... and I promise not to do it again."

MOTHER: "And..."

DENNIS: "... and my mother says I have to pay for new flowers with my allowance money... so HERE!"

==================================================================

Dennis' only regret is getting CAUGHT... not at having been naughty in the first place.

Yeah... I get the feeling that any apology/retraction that's coming from those folks won't be terribly sincere and that it's likely not to be comprehensive. It will dribble out, in stages. A partial apology here, another justification and excuse there, another partial apology later. It will be a painful experience.

Like peeling off a Band-Aid... you can do it once... completely and quickly... and it's over with. Or you can do it slowly... a little at at time... and prolong the pain as long as possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #165
170. I am still waiting for the M$M to apologize
to Me and every other Mother whose child fights in Iraq.. I have not received even a half ass apology such as what you are speaking of at all.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #170
179. I Think...
... anyone who is seriously "waiting" or expecting such a thing to happen is only setting themselves up for continued disappointment. The "M$M" (as you call it) or corporate media isn't likely to do that.

It appears that everyone will just have to take the small apologies wherever they can be found. Even if they are late, half-assed and insincere.

I guess that's why so many people are looking forward to the next "installment" in the Truthout/Pitt/Leopold/et-al apologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #179
182. Wise Words.....
anyone who is seriously "waiting" or expecting such a thing to happen is only setting themselves up for continued disappointment--I would say that goes for every news outlet....


I am not waiting nor do I expect.. I was just pointing out that media lies on a daily basis and I don't see where we come down as hard on them....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #182
187. So Handing Out Free Passes To Truthout Is Okay?
I don't agree. Particularly when an organization such as TruthOut seeks to differentiate itself from ordinary corporate media. And particularly when that organization tries to align itself with the a progressive viewpoint and other progressive websites. They even use the word "truth" in their name and web address!

Why should we be giving such an organization a "break"? If this is the organization that so many progressives hold up as a beacon of hope, as a shining example of what other news organizations should aspire to be... then why shouldn't we come down on them as hard? Why shouldn't we hold them accountable? Why shouldn't we demand high (or higher) standards?

Or should we lower the bar?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #187
188. We have given the M$M a huge pass and
Edited on Sat May-20-06 11:23 AM by dogday
let them cheerlead this country into a false war.. My son fights in that war... People are dying in that war... Truthout and this article is so tiny in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think this is the grand fuck-up that you make it to be....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ariana Celeste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #188
193. Have we given them a huge pass?
We? Who is "We" here?

Because a lot of us on DU, and many liberal bloggers across the web, have *not* given them a free pass. But they IGNORE us, because we aren't in control and we don't have the money.

Sure this is not some grand fuck up, but you know, we talk shit about Freepers constantly on this site, and giving our own free passes just because they are "liberal" makes us no better than them. No matter how big (or small) this issue is.

(I have family in Iraq too- I hope your son makes it home safely. :()
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #193
197. They are accepted as credible sources
here at DU. I don't believe them, but they are accepted here, and people do believe whent they read their articles....

Thanks for the thought of my Son, I hope your relative is safe and remains that way... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #188
195. Perhaps Not... In The "Grand Scheme Of Things"...
<< Truthout and this article is so tiny in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think this is the grand fuck-up that you make it to be.... >>

So you're arguing that they should be given a pass (of sorts) because in the grand-scheme-of-things this story is only a minor blip on the radar screen?

Just because they are one-of-our-own (so to speak) we shouldn't demand the same level of responsibility from them that we'd also like to see from corporate media outlets? Is that the message we want to send? Do we want to appear to be hypocrites?

If we're going to have standards, and if we're going to hold corporate media accountable... then shouldn't the SAME standards apply to everyone?

Why should TruthOut get special treatment? It appears to me that, essentially, that's what you're arguing in favor of.

I'm sorry your son is in harm's way, and I understand your frustration and anger with "M$M", or corporate media outlets... but that's not really a valid justification for not demanding that TruthOut be held accountable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #195
198. And what would you say accountable is and
what is going to pacify you? I am not validating one news outlet for another.. I just wonder why this has you so up in arms???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #198
201. Well... I Seem To Have Touched A Sensitive Nerve.
<< And what would you say accountable is >>

First, before we get to accountable, let's start with being responsible. I think the story was ill-conceived and they made a mistake to run with it.

The next mistake was the post publication in-line editing of their original story (24-hours became 24 "business hours" or three days). That's a pretty dubious way to buy extra time, but still, a post-script or other type of editor's note that was ADDED to the original story would have been better.

If we are going to hold them accountable, then the readers deserve and explanation, an apology, some genuine sense of remorse and regret, a promise to be more careful in the future, a retraction, and (as has been promised) revealing who the unreliable sources are.

<< and what is going to pacify you? >>

See the previous paragraph. I don't think that these things are unreasonable or unfair. Do you?

<< I am not validating one news outlet for another.. >>

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. But your words and defensive posturing do suggest to me an inclination to "go easy" on Truthout.

<< I just wonder why this has you so up in arms??? >>

And I just wonder why this DOES NOT have you so "up-in-arms". :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #201
204. No nerves here
Edited on Sat May-20-06 12:11 PM by dogday
When your only son faces death on a daily basis, these postings have no affect on me.. I just want to make that clear...

I see outrage and wonder why? I was disappointed, but I can't seem to find the kind of outrage that I see posted here about Truthout, Jason and Will....

Again, I am not up in arms over this, because I direct my outrage at this illegal war and those who helped to bring about it's existence, that is where my outrage lives and will continue to grow until my son and every other soldier comes home.....

This story will pan out as it will, I cannot control it, nor can you.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #204
215. The "Outrage" You See...
<< I see outrage and wonder why? >>

... probably has LESS to do with the fact that the story was wrong (incorrect, inaccurate, unproved, pick-one) and MORE to do with the fact that the organization made their "correction" without notation, and that they stood by their story for MUCH longer than any reasonable person would. To throw fuel on that outrage were the "cheerleaders" and "groupies" on the sidelines who were accusing anyone who questioned the story of being Freepers or Rove-supporters.

<< I was disappointed, but I can't seem to find the kind of outrage that I see posted here about Truthout, Jason and Will.... >>

It would seem that through their own actions (inactions?) and attitudes, some folks have used up any good will and forgiveness that they might have otherwise received.

PLUS... I have to wonder... if we're lenient with "our own", don't we risk appearing hypocritical when we demand accountability from others?

Considering the degree of personal anger and level of animosity that you have towards corporate media ("M$M")... one might assume that you would WELCOME the opportunity for the left to demonstrate how impartial it can be. The act of holding one of "our own" accountable only strengthens and SHARPENS the sword we wield against corporate media when we call for fairness, accuracy and accountability.

Why would you oppose such a thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #215
217. I don't oppose, I never said I did
Show me where I said I opposed.. I said I don't understand the amount of acid and spew I am seeing and just cause I can't get into your anger state, does not make me opinionated one way or the other....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #217
222. Please...
Edited on Sat May-20-06 12:45 PM by arwalden
<< Show me where I said I opposed.. >>

I think any reasonable person would agree that the actual word "opposed" does not need to be used by someone to find fault with, or to express their opposition. -- It's clear to me that you DID NOT APPROVE of the way that people were reacting and expressing themselves.

<< I said I don't understand the amount of acid and spew I am seeing and just cause I can't get into your anger state, >>

I'm not sure if "anger state" is an accurate way to describe it, but I'll defer to your opinion.

In any case, I hope I've been able to give you a different perspective, and I hope you NOW have a better understanding of where all the "anger" is coming from.

<< does not make me opinionated one way or the other >>

Heh! I'd definitely be one of the LAST people to agree that you are not opinionated when it comes to this matter.

Certainly you have an opinion! People who are *not* opinionated on a particular subject rarely have as much to say about it as you've had to say so far. There's nothing wrong with being opinionated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #222
228. I am not making any judgments
I am asking why so much anger is all??? I never said anything is wrong with being opinionated, only that I wasn't and was trying to understand the anger...

You are obviously passionately angry about this as is your right...

I am obviously passionately angry about the war, which is mine....

You understand why I am angry right???

I am just trying to understand what has made you so angry is all...

I am very disappointed by this story, but angry I am not.. I will let it play out, and see what happens next, and why this all happened, and then form my final opinion..


perhaps we should not post to each other on this subject anymore, we just go back and forth and not gaining much ground on either side....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #228
233. Well, Actually...
<< I am not making any judgments >>

... yes you have been making judgments against corporate media, but none against TruthOut anyway.

You've stated that you were disappointed in the story, but ONLY in the story. Your disappointment seems to be limited ONLY to the fact that the story was incorrect.

You don't have any strong feelings on how the matter was handled by TruthOut, Pitt, and the supporters... (other than to fault the people who are demanding accountability). Why? I don't understand that.

<< I am asking why so much anger is all??? >>

Yes, and I've explained why. Did my explanations make sense? There are other posts in this thread which also help to point out why so many folks here are demanding an apology and why they are so intent on holding "our own" accountable.

<< I never said anything is wrong with being opinionated, >>

That's true, you never said that anything was wrong with being opinionated. What you DID do was to deny that YOU were opinionated. I think you ARE opinionated... and I said so. I went on to say that there's nothing wrong with being opinionated either. (TO CLARIFY: When I pointed out that there was "nothing wrong with being opinionated", I was trying to let you know that I was *not* finding fault with YOU personally.)

<< only that I wasn't and was trying to understand the anger... >>

Well, you DO have strong opinions. I hope you now understand the answer.


<< You are obviously passionately angry about this as is your right... >>

Passionately angry? Well, if that's the way you see me... then I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise. (I'm "angry" and you're "opinionated", eh?)

<< I am obviously passionately angry about the war, which is mine.... You understand why I am angry right??? >>

Yes I understand your anger about the war. I've acknowledged that. I'm sorry to say, however, that your anger at the war and your concern for your son's well-being is a distraction from the issues surrounding this story.

Those things may be the REASON you're not too interested in this story (other than to find fault with those who ARE interested)... but in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty irrelevant to the story itself, and WHY people are trying to hold TruthOut accountable.

I'm not trying to minimize the importance of your son, his contribution, his patriotism, and the danger he's in... it's just irrelevant to the discussion at hand about TruthOut, Leopold, Pitt, et al.

<< I am just trying to understand what has made you so angry is all... >>

And I hope that I've helped you to understand.

<< I am very disappointed by this story, but angry I am not.. >>

I don't think there's any need for you to be "angry". I did not understand (and to a great extend, I STILL do not understand) why so many people want to hold corporate media sources accountable, yet they are willing to make excuses for TruthOut and they are (apparently) willing to give TruthOut a free pass.

<< I will let it play out, and see what happens next, and why this all happened, and then form my final opinion.. >>

Well... it's already played out. Time's up. Game over. The fact of the matter is that Rove was NOT indicted.

Even if he IS indicted in the future (and I hope he is) that will not change the fact that the original article was wrong, and that the secretly "edited" version of the article was wrong.

<< perhaps we should not post to each other on this subject anymore, we just go back and forth and not gaining much ground on either side.... >>

I didn't realize this was about "gaining ground". I thought it was about helping someone understand a different point of view.

But... if that's how you feel, then perhaps it IS best to end this.

Goodbye.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #188
199. "We"?
I'm offended by your statement that "We have given the M$M a huge pass and let them cheerlead this country into a false war". Where do you think you are? FR? Have you not seen the numerous posts condemning the MSM for spewing propaganda? You weren't here prior to the Iraq invasion, so you can't have seen all the posts opposing the invasion, pointing out lies of the cabal, etc.

IMO it's hypocritical to make excuses for liberal reporters who publish deceptive articles when we constantly criticize MSM for doing exactly that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #199
200. Do we not allow the M$M as
Edited on Sat May-20-06 11:47 AM by dogday
credible sources at DU.. If we are not giving them a pass, why accept anything they have to say???

On edit: You want to talk offended.. I am offended that my son is in Iraq, I am offended that the news helped expedite that... I know what it means to be offended for sure....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #200
205. Hell, no
we don't allow the M$M as credible sources at DU. It's just the opposite. The only way I accept anything they have to say is if it's confirmed by credible sources, and many here feel the same way.

I'm offended as hell that your son and all the rest of our military men and women are in Iraq. I'm outraged that thousands have died because of lies. I'm offended as hell that the M$M aided and abetted the lies of the cabal leading up to the invasion. I'm offended as hell that they continue being mouthpieces for the administration. I also understand that being offended does not give me the right to make erroneous assumptions and state them as fact about what people on this site do and do not believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. I endorse your offense
I apologize if I make assumptions, but again the MSM is acceptable at this site and that is not an assumption.

I also agree with your offense at the lies and deceit, and that is where I place my anger.. For every fallen soldier, every dead Iraqi, and every soldier wounded who will never be the same...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #207
305. Remember, Leopold's sources were:
"... a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee." They helped send your son off to war too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #207
323. It IS an assumption! So stop saying it isn't. FYI, before the war
started we and millions more did everything in our power to try to prevent it. Maybe you weren't here at that time. But I can assure you that DU was very vocal and active in the buildup to the war. We all wrote letters, attended rallies and sent numerous letters to our Democratic representatives asking them to vote against the IWR. So please stop assuming you KNOW what any of us did to try to prevent the war. We absolutely did everything in our power that we could think or, collectively, to prevent it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #188
322. "We" haven't given them anything. Millions of us protested before
the war started and since. So, if the media didn't cover it does that mean we weren't there??? Well, we have crowd shots so, I assure you that we really did protest. Furthermore, most of us have sent dozens if not hundreds of letters and emails to MSM, when they have failed to cover a story or covered it wrong. You're full of assumptions today aren't you?

So, taking your premise apart, we are only holding TO to the same standards that we wish from the MSM. And just like when the MSM LIES, and shills, we let them know in no uncertain terms, the same treatment should be given to TO, and Will Pitt. They should have anticipated our reactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
175. My faith in Truthout is unchanged. I never had any.
To take the harshness further, I am glad to see Truthout's influence on DU wane with this fiasco. It's like watching your daughter split up with a bad boyfriend. "I'm sorry, Honey. (Snort)"

Something mordant and "inappropriate" seemed to want to be said at this particular funeral. So there you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #175
180. Interesting Analogy...
<< Something mordant and "inappropriate" seemed to want to be said at this particular funeral. So there you go. >>

... and a good one too. I like it.

I've never been in that situation, so I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a parent who clearly sees the the boyfriend as being pompous and arrogant. How can they point out the inflated ego that the enamored daughter is blinded to... or that she sees as an endearing or positive trait that he's entitled to have (since he's so-o-o-o wonderful).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #175
279. Great post
You summed the whole affair up as well as could be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jigarotta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
177. proves the story has no teeth, Ash has taken out his partials. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klimmer Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
181. Hey, all you naysayers . . .
Edited on Sat May-20-06 10:56 AM by Klimmer
Others collaborate what happened on Friday 5/12. See post #173 above. Here is a link to go there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What is there to fear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #181
183. "Others collaborate [sic] what happened on Friday" ?? Really??
I think the word you're looking for is "corroborate".

However, "COLLABORATE" might be appropriate too, only... probably not in the way you intended.

============================================
Hey, all you naysayers . . .
Posted by Klimmer
Others collaborate what happened on Friday 5/12. See post #173 above. Here is a link to go there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

What is there to fear?
============================================

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_testify_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #183
190. Thank you for doing that
so I didn't have to :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #183
191. "COLLABORATE" might be appropriate...probably not in the way you intended"
:thumbsup:

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klimmer Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #191
262. Yes, meant "corroborate." Others did corroborate what took place 5-12. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #181
192. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
184. How can you get "Too far out in front of the news cycle" ????
Truthout is supposed to be reporting the facts not what they THINK will happen. I find this sentence highly suspect and not a good explanation at all.

I still like Truthout and will continue to read their stuff but I will have less faith in them after this. It may take some time for me to feel confidant in what they report after this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #184
189. It's an apology for telling a truth YOU are too dumb to recognize.
They apologize for not recognizing that you weren't sufficiently advanced for it all.

You know, these guys really need an editor, someone who can read their stuff and tell them what people are going to think when they read it. At least, if they are going to put their names on it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #184
202. A visual aid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #184
291. It's Like Getting Too Far In Front Of A Boat...
you sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #184
300. LOL - here's how I saw it described on a blog....
Edited on Sat May-20-06 07:12 PM by Jazz2006
PARTIAL APOLOGY: "I'm not sorry to be sleeping with your husband because we really love each other, but I am sorry to have hurt you."

OUT IN FRONT OF THE NEWS CYCLE: "You mean your husband hasn't told you about us yet? OOOOOP-sie!"


(okay, so it's not exactly analogous but it did make me :rofl: just the same)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
186. "Taking a wait and see approach." Thanks, Sherlock.
That sounds like a plan to me.
*******************8

With regard to what is "news": Fitz Grand Jury isn't like ANYTHING ELSE
Posted by Inland in General Discussion
Mon May 15th 2006, 09:10 AM
in DC. Here's why:

Fitz's office and the GJ are actually obeying the laws making the proceedings secret. That means that the ONLY people who REALLY know what is going on AREN'T TALKING. There's no inside info, no knowledgeable leaks, no background briefings, NOTHING from the inside.

The people who ARE talking are those who extrapolating from clues or have a personal agenda, eg, defense attorneys trying to spin and the media who are trying to read tea leaves.

So really, anything you hear about what Fitz is doing or the grand jury is doing must be discounted as coming, directly or indirectly, from someone who doesn't know or has an incentive to lie.

All you know is that you aren't getting the information from someone who really knows what's going on. All THOSE people aren't talking.

So relax, be skeptical, and wait for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
194. Could the judge of GJ have stopped it? Any lawyers out there?
I don't know what is and isn't possible. Could Fitz have suggested to the court the indictment but it was thrown out by the judge/blocked or was it sealed and a plea was occuring? Put me out of my misery!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #194
208. If that happined then I thnk TO would have that info and would have
reported it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #208
211. maybe their source only got 1/2 the story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightOwwl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
209. Looks like they are going to try to take credit for being right....
no matter when the indictment takes place. That's what the "wait-and-see" is all about. In case they have forgotten, in the article there were specific details given as to the date of indictment.

So if sometime down the road Rove is indicted and TO/Leopold tries to take credit for scooping the story, it's just another nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jigarotta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
213. It didn't have to be like this.
and I hold Pitt largely responsible.

If he had acted professionally instead of like a tantrumic child things would be a lot less nasty overall. Even in the unliklihood of the story being proven truth - the damage cannot be undone from what he has done, he made all this into yet another issue on it's own. And that could have been avoided if WP had just shut up with his gargantuan insults and acted like a grown up.

He may have retaliated from someone insulting him, but the standards are quite different. If you can't stand the heat, Will, get out of the bathroom. If you can't stand being critisized or questioned, then maybe 'journalism' isn't your thing after all.

Which reminds me of a question I have about journalism. Isn't a true journalist one that is 'supposedly' unbiased - reporting on news from a neutral standpoint?. (yah, right, like the NYTs, sure, I know - just going along with some quaint definition of it that I heard somewhere). Isn't Pitt and anyone who is obviously on one side of the political fence, Opinion Writers, or some other definition, but not journalists in the true sense of the word? Anyway, going off track here.

""But I have a million seller book! - I am king of the world and who the hell are You to question me, peasant?""

That did it for me. No matter what the outcome is.
The man has got major problems and he is part of the cause for other problems right now.

I think Ash's partial birth apology would have had a different wording if Pitt hadn't stirred up this hornets nest with his big polky expletive stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #213
216. I can't believe that that is a direct quote from Will Pitt.
Tell me it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ariana Celeste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #216
220. Not a direct quote but it's pretty close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #220
225. Thanks
I've been off DU since this whole thing broke, due to work and personal priorities. I've just been dropping in occasionally trying to get updates. Looks like I missed a lot, and I think I'm glad I did. ;(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jigarotta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #216
221. not direct, no. but the same message.
i've lost track of the original fit fight, but that is generally what he said.
I'm published in 12 languages, are you? if not, shut up.

is basically how it came across.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #221
224. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #224
227. Who's his exorcist?
:wow: Someone should call him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #224
229. Well, that's very informative.
It's not the rant of a guy who expects to be proven right. It's the rant of a guy who expects to believed, and puts our belief in his story as the acid test, regardless of whether he's proven right or no.

I didn't take the test, but my feeling is that I still failed. Oh fucking well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #216
223. Sunday night...
it got really ugly.

What Will said was actually much worse than what is quoted in the post above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #213
226. Well, he was not the only one making this a huge stakes matter.
Edited on Sat May-20-06 12:43 PM by Inland
There were those who made it an issue of standing with liberals, those who described the skeptics as "anti rove indictment", those who made those who question into dupes of the MSM (ironically enough).

In my mind, everyone, like Pitt, who couldn't simply shrug at one more news report that might NOT be true, made a mountain out of a molehill.

Pitt, at least, I can understand deflecting from the issue of the truth or falsity of the matter: I understand it because he was involved and was going to get a smacking career wise if it turned out false. I understand it because it's all too common in the MSM world and the career world. He's in the business of scoops. I don't like it, but I understand it.

The rest of DU is simply a puzzlement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
230. after another day of consideration, this stinks of 100% GRADE A bullshit
TO had zero buisness running this story and I'll tell you why. The story is irrelevant.

If Rove is indicted and I'm pretty confident he will be, what is the point of reporting it before he is officially indicted?

THERE IS NO PUBLIC SERVICE SERVED AND EVERYTHING TO LOSE BY TRUTHOUT.

Why not wait for the real deal and report on the actual indictment? Goin out on a limb was foolish, amateruish and irresponsible.

They should never have run the story which appears now to be completely wrong. And what did TO and Jason Leopold gain for their troubles? Noone is going to forget this.

TO has it's place and is a valuable source of information for many. This does not help their credibility or serve TO's readers in any kind of positive fashion.

Larissa of Raw Story correctly identified that there was nothign to be gained by running this story and that it is better to take a wait and see attitutude without staking a position on events that appear not to have happened.

Just fucking stupid.

TO should pull the story until they get some real confirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
231. A partial thanks for a partial apology but an entire NO THANKS!
The nerve of this guy pulling our chains like this after a week of Leopold's and Pitt's insulting BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #231
235. Well... You OBVIOUSLY Have NO Appreciation...
... for EVERYTHING that Pitt has done for us. Why he's a HERO! How DARE you try to hold one of OUR OWN accountable! Who do you think you ARE in holding TruthOut to the same high standards that you expect from M$M! I mean... REALLY, now! What kind of person would withhold good will and benefit-of-the-doubt from someone just because of insulting "BS" (as you call it)? You're being completely UNFAIR!! Why are you so ANGRY? Why do you SUPPORT ROVE? Now is the time for us to STAND TOGETHER!!

Just you WAIT AND SEE!! This will all PLAY OUT!! One day Rove will be indicted and THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY! When that day comes you'll SEE the actual date!! And if it doesn't match the date I said it would be... well then... it's OBVIOUSLY been forged.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #235
238. I can't believe he called me a cretin.
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #238
244. I sell real estate.


:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #244
246. Omigod!!
:spray: Maybe being a cretin will pay off for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #246
248. LOL
It's a real estate company in the NOLA area. Every time I pass one of the signs, I fall out laughing... Now, after this DU saga, I'll think of Will Pitt every time I pass one. :D

Seriously. It's really a real estate company:

www.cretinhomes.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #248
253. And a great line to use to pick up guys- "We have GREAT PLANS
Edited on Sat May-20-06 02:24 PM by Sugar Smack
for your property." :D

You know though, as to your second paragraph quote about "I am the magic man", I remember being at a kegger in college way back. And I remember how after a combination of beer and purple stuff out of the trashcan with fruit in it- I began talking like I was a pirate. I met Will in person and he was sweet and seemed almost docile. But that's the way I was before I went to that party. You would not believe what words came out of my mouth then. Thank God I wasn't online then. Or famous. :wow: Someone even told me I swung a guitar at someone's head and missed. :blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #253
265. OMG!
:spray: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Habibi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #248
258. When I lived in St. Paul, MN
I used to giggle at the fact that there was a "Cretin High School." Of course, it's Cretin-Durham these days; somebody (cough) wised up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #258
266. Now THAT'S funny!
"Did you learn how to be an asshole at Cretin High School?"

Not you, habibi--I'm just thinking of the possibilities of put-downs that one could use towards someone who graduated from Cretin High. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #266
268. Is this our official cretin-check-in sub thread?
Where's OldLeftieLawyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #268
270. Check in, shitdog!
:rofl: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #270
281. "I can out[fuckwit] all of you just by getting up in the morning!"
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #281
288. EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME?
If I weren't positive that it would be deleted, I would greet you peasants wearing my new



and allow you to call me by my Proper Name, which will not be mentioned here, thank you very much.

So, for now, you will have to be content with kissing my



So, how's your Saturday been so far? Any good death threats?

heh heh heh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #270
304. I'm here, of 'limited mental capacity'
Edited on Sat May-20-06 07:34 PM by Bluebear
I was only agnostic about the story and was waiting to see what happens. Then we all got insulted as simpletons by the "magic man". It was not necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jigarotta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #266
274. i'm googling for Fuckw*t HS or Real Estate.. no findy. ;) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Habibi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #266
276. Honestly,
there was a freeway exit sign that said: Cretin High

Used to crack my visiting dad up no end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #238
295. He called you something else
I can't say what it was because it was so nasty, it'll get deleted.

But, it got me a tiara.......

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #295
306. Oooooooh. Pretty.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #235
251. arwalden...
And you forgot! There hasn't been one pic of Rove since May 15th!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #235
267. Your post took the wind out of my sails and left me speechless...
Except to say:

"FUCKING GROUPIES!" :rofl:


:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
239. NAME YOUR SOURCES. They duped you and are obvious plants!
If Rove is acquitted of any charges, I would hope that Truthout would reveal their sources so we can get a better idea of how things became so FUBAR in this supposed scoop.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
240. Flash! Bush says Iraq war not a mistake
He just got "too far out in front of the regime change cycle."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chomp Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
241. Whatever happens,
outing of sources would be a disaster to trump them all.



Also, who outed Valerie Plame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
245. possible fly in the ointment???
Edited on Sat May-20-06 02:17 PM by yourguide
not that wayne madsen is credible (mods, I did not link back nor am I claiming he is DU worthy however this is an interesting point that should be brought up) but an excerpt from his news posted today states...

The Grand Jury was apparently not in session yesterday but that does not mean the Rove matter was off the agenda. According to the daily docket in the Clerk's Office, two US District Court judges were deliberating cases in which there were potentially sealed indictments. Judge Alan Kay heard a case titled "UNITED STATES v. SEALED." Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated a number of cases titled "SEALED v. SEALED."

again though, to be noted, he could just be reading tea leaves...

*edited to include snarky comment about tea leaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemInDistress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #245
298. that's the most intriguing post I read in this thread..sounds
possibly ominous. I particularly like the "Sealed vs. Sealed" could be anything and could also be the "United States vs. Karl Rove aka "Turd Blossom" ..
Thanks for you intriguing post !! Welcome to DU !! :hi: :dem: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
254. You're doing A HECK OF A JOB, Jacy and Willie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
261. The Facts
There will always be questions and second-guessing of the motives and methods of those who reported the indictment. But as the facts are revealed, they may not all lead to the same conclusions. More light will help, but may reveal more contridictions, more ambiguity. It's good to look, but there will likely continue to be disagreement about the process that led to the reports and other matters related to the journalism. There's a need to scrutinize the prosecution as well.

Much less disagreement on the complicity and guilt of Rove.


true facts

In a world where all facts really are true, true facts is a redundancy, but, alas, in our world many things alleged to be facts turn out not to be factual after all, so sometimes a distinction and an additional emphasis may be required to help sort out the true ones from the false ones.


Kenneth G. Wilson (1923). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #261
271. Another appropriate quotation: Never attribute to malice...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

--Napoleon Bonaparte
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #271
275. Did he really pull it apart?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #275
278. No, he just pulled till he had a premature eFitzulation. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #271
280. very compelling Maddy
as are the rest of your queries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
284. I knew nothing about truthout before this fiasco....
I had NO ax to grind... I'm solid now that I'll never read or link to them now... With the my-readers-are-so-fucking-stupid-they'll-believe-the-change-to-24-business-hours, the non-apology, the 100% lack of ANY proof whatsoever of their primary claims, etc.

Fuck that shit.

Still love Pitt's editorial writing tho - I'll read that stuff any day of the week. Just on some other site.

Flame away :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #284
299. they publish other articles. I don't see the point in a viewing boycott
Edited on Sat May-20-06 07:14 PM by bigtree
you might miss something valuable that isn't available on other sites. That's why it's not the right course to tear TO to the ground. We need all of the progressive friendly sites we can get. There's the editorial side to TO and there's the presentation of other's articles which have to be judged on their own merits, apart from whatever advocating by the editors. Good news sources get bogged down sometimes, fumbling responsibility for some stories they promote. We bang away at the editors, yet we don't necessarily ignore a subsequent story just because they fumbled a previous one. NYT is the first one that comes to mind in this. Stop reading NYT and you may lose the threads. TO is no NYT, granted, but they are our source for the opposition voice, and others. They need to straighten this mess out; they will, I think. But their actions don't necessarily impune the rest of the stories they provide, even though some will certainly take that tack. Understandably so due to a viewership who's numbers are still struggling to achieve parity with the readership of the well-oiled network sources. They are still working to establish themselves as an institution. That will take much care, and I think, an emphasis on harvesting the support rather than digging more furrows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #299
301. (shrug) we're all free to make our own decisions....
... I only related *mine*...

I'm convinced that truthout, with all of the shenanigans associated with the rove-has-been-indicted article, believes that I (the reader) am a fucking idiot, and that they can say any fucking thing they want to me, and I'll blink my doe-y eyes lovingly and say "rock on!".

Well I won't. I know what "24 hours" means.

If they were concerned about winning reader support, I might suggest that they refrain from treating their readers like punkassbitches in the future.

All IMO, of course. Other people will differ.

Just to be clear: My issue is NOT that an honest mistake was made (if it was). Rather my issue is with what I pereceive to be deception, goal-post moving, and the like from them on this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #301
302. gotcha
understandable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
286. Tim Grieve at Salon spoke to Marc Ash and he reports:
...So is Truthout saying that Jason Leopold's reporting was wrong? We put that question to Ash this morning, and his answer seemed to be a pretty unequivocal no. Although Rove's lawyer and his spokesman have both said that Leopold's story was false, Ash said that Truthout still believes that Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove and Rove lawyer Robert Luskin participated in a 15-hour plea-negotiation session at Patton Boggs last Friday; that Fitzgerald gave Rove's lawyers a copy of an indictment charging Rove with perjury and lying to investigators; and that Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyers that their client had 24 hours -- or 24 business hours -- to get his affairs in order.

So why apologize for the story? Leopold's story quoted "sources close to the case" who predicted an indictment announcement last week, and Ash told us this morning that Truthout "hoped and felt strongly" that Fitzgerald would announce Rove's indictment on Friday. That it didn't happen was a cause for concern, Ash said.

In addition, Ash said that he's uncertain about some of the events leading up to and following the meeting that supposedly happened last Friday at Patton Boggs. Ash said he isn't sure now when the grand jury voted to indict Rove, although he said he remains confident that it did so before last Friday. He said that he isn't sure what's going on now to warrant keeping the alleged indictment under wraps, although he suggested that it must mean that Rove's team is cooperating with Fitzgerald somehow...

...So, once again, why the "partial apology" now?

Ash said that Truthout needs to "cool down the reactor a little bit" as it tries to learn more about the "cycle" on which Fitzgerald's legal team is working. "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation," he said. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."

Full article here: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #286
289. I decidered they already look stupider. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #286
310. WTF?
This sounds even worse than the half-assed (non-) apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #286
311. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider an
Edited on Sat May-20-06 09:28 PM by Snivi Yllom
"Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."

that's the first thing TO has gotten right on this story so far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #286
327. Stupider and stupider...
and not only that, they buried the thing on a blog page but have still left the modified original story on the front page.

(The modified original story being the one that they changed without posting anything on its face that it had been changed, so that to anyone who doesn't happen to read DU thinks that it was the original story, etc. etc. etc.)

Can you say, "zero credibility"?

I can, in two syllables: "truthout".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
296. well, I believed them
I guess I was wrong to believe them.

Hope they out their sources for this. If not then I dont believe they had sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #296
303. I suppose their official position is still that the story is correct, but
that their error was in airing it more than a week before any verification of it could occur, thus raising a tempest with no resolution.

That's what being "too far ahead of the news cycle" instead of "we were wrong" means, as far as I can see...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
297. Heh, came across a CNN prediction today
while I was surfing for something unrelated to this at all:

"While a lot of news organizations were guessing when the war would start -- the better to get correspondents and equipment in place, keep anchors close, work out prime-time takeover details with the entertainment side, etc. -- CNN might have had the best guess. And an early one at that."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MDiaz Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
309. PLEASE READ, MR. PITT
This has been a very big disappointment as I tried to give William Pitt the benefit of the doubt. I even signed up here to defend him but I have learned more about the situation now too. I hope he does the right thing before it is too late, if it isn't already.

If I were Mr. Pitt, I would write something like this:


"I trusted what I thought were trustworthy sources, but as we can see that was and is a problem. I made matters worse by lashing out at my biggest supporters; I was angry that I got screwed over and angry at myself for using less than stellar judgement. Instead of railing on the culpable parties (myself included) I ripped many of you and Skinner a new one. There is no excuse for that. I take full responsibility and I apologize profusely, and beyond that, I vow to never repeat any of the above."

I also think a statement about the story itself is due. Mr. Pitt, you ask us to believe in you. We are asking you to believe in us and set things straight.


Manuel

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oioioi Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #309
317. Big time journalists don't need to explain themselves...
See Novak, Miller et al.

So why should a blogger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
324. Locking. Update discussion continues here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #324
326. Testing the lock :)
Edited on Mon May-22-06 01:57 AM by Jazz2006
:D

Ahhhh, it appears that the lock was sort of like the "lockdown" at Patton Boggs ~ without the Secret Service detail ~ but just as easily permeated.

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #326
328. ~
Oh... you! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnarchoFreeThinker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
329. update: we apologize b/c either we might be sorry or you might be sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
330. Seems like reasonable approach to the story.

Fitz is very slow in bringing indictments, and waits to the last minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar 19th 2019, 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC