Truth Out - The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

[kpete]

(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/2006/5/19/162339/178

[Skinner]

1. I think we should probably let this one stay open as a separate thread.

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.

[kpete]

22. I guess this is my reward for

staying away from the computer all afternoon....

What a week...

Peace, love and eventual indictments...

[midnight]

47. I think that sounds like good advice.

I'm hoping and wishing Jason good luck , and peace.

[dogday]

164. Thank you kpete for all the articles

and information you bring to this forum... Can't say it enough :hi:

[kpete]

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....

[bleever]

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.

[Protagoras]

185. Even if he did mix the two

Mythbusters proved that one wrong...won't blow up, it'll just make you belch :D

[Skip Intro]

90. That word - "permitting" -

just has a bad feel to it, you know?

[Maddy McCall]

108. .

.

[Opening_Day]

178. I believe!

He will be indicted!

[uppityperson]

2. once, twice, three times a dupe, but we lovvveeeee you

[IDemo]

3. It's beginning to look a lot like Fitz-miss....

On edit..

[Scoody Boo]

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.

[uppityperson]

6. Time to break out the disappointment whine.

patience, patience, patience.

[Scoody Boo]

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.

[uppityperson]

11. me too, I see no need to be the first to know. Eventually I will.

[Strong Atheist]

252. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[Spazito]

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.

[kstewart33]

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.

[texasleo]

9. I agree with you

we can not pretend like nothing happened.

[Tom Joad]

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.

[regnaD kciN]

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. :-(

[Ladyhawk]

71. I agree. I hold Truthout to a higher standard than the MSM.

There'd better be one hell of an explanation.

[Justice]

106. I refused to put the word News after the word Fox

how about Fox "infommercial for the whitehouse"

[tavalon]

138. The way I handle that one is:

Faux "News"

[Catrina]

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.

[WiseButAngrySara]

72. I love reading your posts, Catrina. Always clear and reasonable. ....n/t

[mikelewis]

76. I wish I could recommend a reply...

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.

[dionysus]

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.

[Sydnie]

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.

[dionysus]

237. Have I published lies and not apologized?

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

[Sydnie]

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.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

169. Journalism relies on CREDIBILITY?

Just like when the M$M pushed the Iraq war. Why is it we still find credibility with them?

[Taxloss]

206. The point is that DU helped expose those lies.

And DU has exposed this lie.

The system is working.

[dogday]

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....

[Taxloss]

212. DU's system, I mean.

For separating the fact from the f***ed.

I'm sorry to hear about your son.

[dogday]

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:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

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.

[guruoo]

319. So, who lied?

[Taxloss]

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.

[bobbieinok]

307. DRehm show Friday mentioned truthout and Leopold and the story

[malaise]

98. And all the other lies

Tell them

[Felinity]

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.

[brentspeak]

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?

[aquart]

257. What Catrina said.

[Last Stand]

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.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1236645&mesg_id=1236645

[guruoo]

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.'

[symbolman]

134. I was amazed at the "baker's Dozen Eyes" sources

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.

[MADem]

249. Ahhh, but unless they were wearing puffy shirts, they weren't real

pirates!

[Kierkegaard]

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.

[Kahuna]

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.

[Gabi Hayes]

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?

[Gabi Hayes]

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

[SPKrazy]

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.

[Gabi Hayes]

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?

[SPKrazy]

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.

[Semblance]

12. Non

It's an embarrassing non-response.

Where are Mr. Pitt and Mr. Leopold?

[alittlelark]

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.....

[regnaD kciN]

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.

[alittlelark]

33. Gee, the last 6 years of US policy/lies/subterfuge....

make me confident in your assessment...... really.



not.

[regnaD kciN]

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.

[springhill]

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.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

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. :)

[tavalon]

139. yep that's exactly how I parsed it

[alittlelark]

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.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[savemefromdumbya]

70. What if Rove WAS indicted but it was sealed

[Maddy McCall]

112. One week later, that's unrealistic.

[tavalon]

140. Not if he agreed to sqeal

The indictments might then change in number and severity.

[DS1]

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

[Clark2008]

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.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

137. I honestly believe that you have missed the point here. The point isn't

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.

[Bamboose]

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.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

232. Thank you Bamboose and welcome to DU!

[Brazenly Liberal]

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.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

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."

[i miss america]

14. What?!? Rove was indicted? When did this happen?

:sarcasm:
:hide:

[DisgustedTX]

16. As a cretin, f**kwit, and of limited mental capacity

I laugh at this atrocity.

[Bluebear]

66. You forgot "shitdog". nt

[lonestarnot]

145. OMG

:rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

109. .

:rofl:

[Bamboose]

160. that's funny . . .

I don't care who you are.

[Stevendsmith]

17. Where did Leopold say he would out his sources? Is there a link?

[Emit]

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

[Maddy McCall]

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.

[sam sarrha]

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:

[regnaD kciN]

34. Nice try, but...

...an indictment, once issued, cannot be delayed. And, according to truthout, one had already been issued. They were wrong. Period.

[tulsakatz]

19. thanks for the info!

I agree about the partial apology.........I still think Rove will be indicted but not today.

[enough]

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.

[jjmalonejr]

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.

[smartvoter]

41. You are dead on. nt

[ConsAreLiars]

24. The "wait and see" attitude is the only realistic one.

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)

[regnaD kciN]

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.

[ConsAreLiars]

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.

[symbolman]

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.

[Hubert Flottz]

117. See the "Shitdog"...

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 .

[jjmalonejr]

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.

[ConsAreLiars]

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.

[MADem]

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...

[ninkasi]

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.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ladyhawk]

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.

[aquart]

259. "Groupies"????????????????????

Flamebait.

[OKDem08]

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...

[SmokingJacket]

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.

[worldgonekrazy]

282. Here is a possibility

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.

[SmokingJacket]

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.)

[worldgonekrazy]

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.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

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.

[KittyWampus]

28. "just another unidentifiable piece of egotistical roadkill"-that can apply

to any number of posters on this thread as far as I'm concerned.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

36. Do you seriously think that "posters on this thread" should be...

...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".

[WillyT]

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.

[iconoclastic cat]

27. Oh, you don't want to know what I think. Now look sad and say, "D'oh..."

[Beausoir]

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.

[DearAbby]

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 :)

[grytpype]

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."

[deansyawp]

48. they are just waiting

for reality to catch up to their reporting of it.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

52. Oooh, nice one!

If it wasn't so sad, it would be even funnier.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. LOL

Indeed.

Out in front of the news cycle.

That's almsost as bad as 24 business hours...:rofl:

[Clarkie1]

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!

[Klimmer]

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.

[Klimmer]

173. Well, all you naysayers . . .

Read it and weep.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1243591

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?

[Garbo 2004]

277. And yet Masden keeps avoiding the fact that Gonzales is recused from the

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.

[jazzjunkysue]

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.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. BUUUUUU UUUUUUU UULLLL SSSSHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTT TTT

:rofl:

[oioioi]

92. absolute and unadulterated.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

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.

[demobabe]

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!

[jazzjunkysue]

313. Already did.

[symbolman]

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

[boston bean]

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.

[Karmakaze]

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.

[leftstreet]

80. Well said

:thumbsup:
Good for you!

(You cretin F^^kwit shitdog trying to take over DU)
:rofl: :hi: :rofl: :hi: :rofl: :hi: :rofl:

[hfojvt]

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.

[Karmakaze]

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.

[dweller]

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

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Very well said.

:thumbsup:

[feistydem]

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.

[smartvoter]

96. I don't get it, either. nt

[Individualist]

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.

[brentspeak]

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?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

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.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

234. Has the "Rove received a target letter" story that preceded the"indicted"

story even been verified?

[Bluebear]

65. "we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle"

Well, that's clear.

[Jigarotta]

171. TO may be testing that new 'way-forward time machine'

sounds like.

[Garbo 2004]

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/2006/5/17/125248/099

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.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

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.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

125. Well, so much for the glass of orange juice I just started to drink.

Down the drain she goes. :P

[arwalden]

158. ~

Very true.

[Awsi Dooger]

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.

[babylonsister]

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.

[nytemare]

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.

[Wheres The Beef]

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.

[nytemare]

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.

[Wheres The Beef]

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?

[nytemare]

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.

[Karmakaze]

124. Did you know Libby used a Leopold TruthOut article in one of his filings?

Maybe that has something to do with this?

[nytemare]

218. That is interesting.

I didn't know that. Good info.

:hi:

[Karmakaze]

122. The blogs?

I think the only time I have seen DUers referred as DUmmies was at free republic.

[alcibiades_mystery]

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.

[Sparkle]

285. DUmmies?

Welcome to DU!

NOT!

[Wheres The Beef]

308. Excuse Me!

I said some of the blogs out there. Go take a look, read some of the threads.

[Jersey Devil]

75. There is only 1 scenario under which TO could still be right

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.

[Sydnie]

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?

[Jersey Devil]

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.

[Sydnie]

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?

[Jersey Devil]

142. Add a 2nd scenario - Libby (or someone else) flipped

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.

[KoKo]

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.

[Jersey Devil]

174. Yes, you're right

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.

[TahitiNut]

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.

[Jersey Devil]

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.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

294. Keep in mind one salient fact

The Presidential pardon power is absolute.

[opihimoimoi]

83. I guess the Luau is Postponed...sigh

[cigsandcoffee]

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.

[jbnow]

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.

[Branjor]

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?

[Karmakaze]

116. Bingo! Why AREN'T the sources telling Leopold anything now?

Maybe because there aren't any?

[slay]

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.

[symbolman]

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.

[Obamarama]

100. PARTIAL apology? WTF is a PARTIAL apology? Sounds like Bush Speak.

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.

[Maddy McCall]

123. ...

:thumbsup:

[Cooley Hurd]

103. GJ proceedings are fluid - Leopold could've been right about it...

...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:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cooley Hurd]

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:

[Karmakaze]

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.

[Cooley Hurd]

129. Larry Johnson DID, right here on DU, and yes, it really was LJ...

...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.

[Karmakaze]

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.

[Cooley Hurd]

135. My bad - it wasn't on his blog, but on TalkLeft itself...

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:

[symbolman]

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.

[Jersey Devil]

148. Symbolman, why didn't anyone see this long ago?

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.

[DisgustedTX]

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.

[alcibiades_mystery]

167. You're joking right?

True believers...no fact pattern can dissuade them :eyes:

[saracat]

107. It just doesn't make any sense that they ran this story if they

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.

[charlie]

110. Lol. The "pitt" of unreliability?

You still have time to fix that if it was unintentional :D

[saracat]

325. Oops. It was not deliberate. Sorry Will!

and good catch Charlie!

[Maddy McCall]

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.

[_testify_]

147. oh my.

:thumbsup:

[King Coal]

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.

[Maddy McCall]

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.

[King Coal]

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:

[Maddy McCall]

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.

[KoKo]

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.

[Kingofalldems]

118. The original story has been pulled from TO

it seems. At least I couldn't find it.

[Skinner]

119. Here it is

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

[Jersey Devil]

144. Actually, that is the original revised story

The original story said nothing about "business hours".

[itzamirakul]

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?

[Generator]

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.

[itzamirakul]

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?

[yourguide]

243. deleted

deleted

[mmonk]

121. Should be alot of bridges burned by the time this is over.

[SidDithers]

127. And the Chicago Daily Tribune was out front of the news-cycle too...

Sid

[greatauntoftriplets]

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.

[LincolnMcGrath]

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.

[Sparkle]

219. That is true.

I see you didn't get any responses either.

[LincolnMcGrath]

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?!?

[Laurab]

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.

[LincolnMcGrath]

315. Well stated Laurab!

:hug:

[exlrrp]

143. Don't believe everytihing you read on the internet

Its only common sense

[LoZoccolo]

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.

[NastyDiaper]

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.

[AlCzervik]

154. i'm a little disappointed but Fitzgerald isn't done yet so there is still

hope. I still think Rove will be indicted.

[npincus]

163. i know. You'd think he had plenty of ammo by now.

What gives?

[AlCzervik]

166. the devil is in the details, i'm sure he wants everything lined up

exactly right and bullet proof.

[arwalden]

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.

[dogday]

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.....

[arwalden]

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.

[dogday]

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....

[arwalden]

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?

[dogday]

188. We have given the M$M a huge pass and

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....

[Ariana Celeste]

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. :()

[dogday]

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:

[arwalden]

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.

[dogday]

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???

[arwalden]

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:

[dogday]

204. No nerves here

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.....

[arwalden]

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?

[dogday]

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....

[arwalden]

222. Please...

<< 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.

[dogday]

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....

[arwalden]

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.

[Individualist]

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.

[dogday]

200. Do we not allow the M$M as

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....

[Individualist]

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.

[dogday]

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...

[sheelz]

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.

[Kahuna]

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.

[Kahuna]

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.

[gulliver]

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.

[arwalden]

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).

[worldgonekrazy]

279. Great post

You summed the whole affair up as well as could be done.

[Jigarotta]

177. proves the story has no teeth, Ash has taken out his partials. nt

[Klimmer]

181. Hey, all you naysayers . . .

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.php?az=view_all&address=364x1241124#1243783

What is there to fear?

[arwalden]

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?
============================================

[_testify_]

190. Thank you for doing that

so I didn't have to :)

[brentspeak]

191. "COLLABORATE" might be appropriate...probably not in the way you intended"

:thumbsup:

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

[Klimmer]

262. Yes, meant "corroborate." Others did corroborate what took place 5-12. N/T

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quixote1818]

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.

[Inland]

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.

[Bluebear]

202. A visual aid

[Tace]

291. It's Like Getting Too Far In Front Of A Boat...

you sink to the bottom of the ocean.

[Jazz2006]

300. LOL - here's how I saw it described on a blog....

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)

[Inland]

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.

[savemefromdumbya]

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!

[Quixote1818]

208. If that happined then I thnk TO would have that info and would have

reported it.

[savemefromdumbya]

211. maybe their source only got 1/2 the story?

[NightOwwl]

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.

[Jigarotta]

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.

[senseandsensibility]

216. I can't believe that that is a direct quote from Will Pitt.

Tell me it's not.

[Ariana Celeste]

220. Not a direct quote but it's pretty close.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/15/33446/1501

[senseandsensibility]

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.;(

[Jigarotta]

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.

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sugar Smack]

227. Who's his exorcist?

:wow: Someone should call him.

[Inland]

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.

[Maddy McCall]

223. Sunday night...

it got really ugly.

What Will said was actually much worse than what is quoted in the post above.

[Inland]

226. Well, he was not the only one making this a huge stakes matter.

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.

[Snivi Yllom]

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.

[Seabiscuit]

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.

[arwalden]

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:

[Sugar Smack]

238. I can't believe he called me a cretin.

:wow:

[Maddy McCall]

244. I sell real estate.

:D

[Sugar Smack]

246. Omigod!!

:spray: Maybe being a cretin will pay off for me.

[Maddy McCall]

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

[Sugar Smack]

253. And a great line to use to pick up guys- "We have GREAT PLANS

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:

[Maddy McCall]

265. OMG!

:spray: :rofl:

[Habibi]

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.

[Maddy McCall]

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:

[Seabiscuit]

268. Is this our official cretin-check-in sub thread?

Where's OldLeftieLawyer?

[Maddy McCall]

270. Check in, shitdog!

:rofl: :hi:

[Seabiscuit]

281. "I can out[fuckwit] all of you just by getting up in the morning!"

:evilgrin:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

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

[Bluebear]

304. I'm here, of 'limited mental capacity'

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.

[Jigarotta]

274. i'm googling for Fuckw*t HS or Real Estate.. no findy. ;) nt

[Habibi]

276. Honestly,

there was a freeway exit sign that said: Cretin High

Used to crack my visiting dad up no end.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

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.......

[AspenRose]

306. Oooooooh. Pretty.

:-)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

251. arwalden...

And you forgot! There hasn't been one pic of Rove since May 15th!

:rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

267. Your post took the wind out of my sails and left me speechless...

Except to say:

"FUCKING GROUPIES!" :rofl:


:toast:

[NoodleyAppendage]

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

[ruggerson]

240. Flash! Bush says Iraq war not a mistake

He just got "too far out in front of the regime change cycle."

[Chomp]

241. Whatever happens,

outing of sources would be a disaster to trump them all.



Also, who outed Valerie Plame?

[yourguide]

245. possible fly in the ointment???

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.

[DemInDistress]

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:

[meisje]

254. You're doing A HECK OF A JOB, Jacy and Willie

[bigtree]

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.

[Maddy McCall]

271. Another appropriate quotation: Never attribute to malice...

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

--Napoleon Bonaparte

[OldLeftieLawyer]

275. Did he really pull it apart?

[5X]

278. No, he just pulled till he had a premature eFitzulation. n/t

[bigtree]

280. very compelling Maddy

as are the rest of your queries

[BlooInBloo]

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 :)

[bigtree]

299. they publish other articles. I don't see the point in a viewing boycott

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.

[BlooInBloo]

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.

[bigtree]

302. gotcha

understandable.

[Garbo 2004]

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/

[5X]

289. I decidered they already look stupider. n/t

[tishaLA]

310. WTF?

This sounds even worse than the half-assed (non-) apology.

[Snivi Yllom]

311. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider an

"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

[Jazz2006]

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".

[Ksec]

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.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

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...

[noamnety]

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/2003/04/03/MN306918.DTL

[MDiaz]

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

[oioioi]

317. Big time journalists don't need to explain themselves...

See Novak, Miller et al.

So why should a blogger?

[pinto]

324. Locking. Update discussion continues here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1251997&mesg_id=1251997

[Jazz2006]

326. Testing the lock :)

: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:

[arwalden]

328. ~

Oh... you! :rofl:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

329. update: we apologize b/c either we might be sorry or you might be sorry.

[oc2002]

330. Seems like reasonable approach to the story.

Fitz is very slow in bringing indictments, and waits to the last minute.