5/22/06 - CBS Public Eye on Leopold Story: "Buyer Beware"

[Maddy McCall]

"Buyer Beware Applies in New Media World"

By Vaughn Ververs
12:09 PM : May 22, 2006

Last week saw another story, spread throughout the Web, that now appears to wholly untrue. The report, appearing on Truthout.org, claimed that White House adviser Karl Rove had been indicted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and had been given 24 hours before announcing it publicly. Of course, that 24-hour deadline has passed some eight times since the story first appeared, it’s particulars have been flatly denied by principles named in the story and it has been shot down by a variety of outlets, including CBS News. Here’s how Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz relays the tale today:

More at: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05/22/publiceye/entry1639586.shtml

"Rove Lawyer has a Pet Peeve"


By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, says he spent most of the day on May 12 taking his cat to the veterinarian and having a technician fix his computer at home.

He was stunned, therefore, when journalists started calling to ask about an online report that he had spent half the day at his law office, negotiating with Patrick Fitzgerald -- and that the special prosecutor had secretly obtained an indictment of Rove.

A Web site's report that Karl Rove, left, had been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald, right, prompted a slew of reporters from major outlets to check it out, even though the story was written by an acknowledged past liar.

The cat's medical tests, Luskin says, found that "the stools were free of harmful parasites, which is more than I can say for this case."

The claim that President Bush's top political strategist had been indicted in the CIA leak investigation was written by a journalist who has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny. That didn't stop more than 35 reporters -- from all the major newspapers, networks and newsmagazines -- from calling Luskin or Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, to check it out.

The reports appeared on the liberal Web site Truthout.org, run by Marc Ash, a former advertising man and fashion photographer in California. Jason Leopold, the author of the stories, directed inquiries to Ash, who says that "we stand by the story. We have multiple points of independent confirmation of what we originally reported. Our problem is, the prosecutor's office is under no obligation to go public."


Much more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101374.html

[JuniperLea]

1. I don't know what's more disgusting...

Being taken for a ride... or watching the orgasmic mud slinging that is going on around here.

Whether or not there was any truth in the stories, I hope you are all having fun.

I have this mental picture of evil little beings picking at a dead carcase and snickering.

How much longer is this dead horse beating going to continue? Seriously, how much more wood can you people get from this?

And how many more arguments can you have based on your erroneous assumption that the current administration plays by the rules?

The "fors" have nothing and the "againsts" have nothing... too weird.

[CatWoman]

2. here, here Juniperx

very well said!!

:applause:

[BlooInBloo]

3. Dunno... Until the FAUX "reality-based" folks admit their mistake?

So that mebbe we could start working on being GENUINELY reality-based around here?

That'd be good enough for me...

[JuniperLea]

6. That is sooooo high school

Can't "we" be the bigger person and stop all this high school idiocy?


SAY UNCLE!!! SAY UNCLE!!! Neener neener neener! I was right! You were wrong! Hahaha! I'm smart and you are dumb!


Disgusting. Simply disgusting.

[BlooInBloo]

8. It's hard to avoid REPEATING mistakes...

... when you don't admit to them in the first place...

I have no idea why the only reason you can think of for looking for a mistake-admission is to lord it over the loser. Lack of imagination perhaps?

In any case, lording it over the mistake-makers is NOT my purpose - no matter how much you say it is.

My purpose is just what I said: to help prevent the mistake from happening again, so that (as I originally said, and you ignored) we can move on and TRULY become a reality-based community.

What's high school in reality is to thoughtlessly ascribe the worst motivations possible to someone without even briefly considering any other motivation, directly contrary to what has actually been said. That's high school.

[JuniperLea]

10. Right... such a noble cause

You don't see the disgusting display of orgasmic deliciousness being derived here? All you can do is tell me I lack imagination? You sure put me in my place... neener.

I'm so impressed.

[Maddy McCall]

13. "orgasmic deliciousness?"

Melodrama much?

[JuniperLea]

24. I could never take that crown from you n/t

[Maddy McCall]

27. LOL. Anyone who looks at this thread can see who the drama queen is.

And it ain't me.

[JuniperLea]

33. It's not just this thread

It's the dozens before and the hundreds of posts. This one just tipped the scale after trying to avoid the entire kick-them scene.

You're the one who started with the drama claims.

[Amaya]

189. hahahahaaaa!

word

[BlooInBloo]

15. And the mistakes will just continue...

... Because people like you see no value in acknowledging them...

[JuniperLea]

25. Oh right.

Or because people like you find it so rewarding to escalate your own lofty view by crushing people beneath your feet.

And it is your moral obligation to point out the folly of others, ad nauseum. I get it.

[Maddy McCall]

28. I repeat. "Melodrama much?"

When I read your posts as if it's Kip from Napoleon Dynamite speaking, it's really a hoot. :D

[JuniperLea]

35. Too funny

And you have the nerve to berate others for reading "tone" into your posts. And you fail to see the hypocrisy. Now THAT is a hoot.

[Maddy McCall]

38. And I repeat yet again. Melodrama much?

[BlooInBloo]

52. The vitriol of the credulous is astonishing - lol

Is it because of what sometimes happens: that the only thing worse than being wrong, for some people, is other people seeing you be wrong?

So they respond by vehemently attacking the messengers? In the vain hope that if no one SAYS they were wrong, that it'll make it so that they WEREN'T in fact wrong?

CLAP LOUDER!

:rofl:

[femrap]

299. Maddy.....are you sure you don't play Erica

Kane in your real life??? lol.

[Catrina]

47. You mean the MSM? Surely you don't blindly accept anything you

read from the MSM? As I recall, Truthout's articles over the past number of years on the lies told about the war, torture, and a myriad of other important issue were right, and my memory is that it was the same media which you are now so willing to blindly believe, who got it 100% wrong.

Given the history of both TO and the MSM ~ if I wanted to make a bet right now, I'd bet on TO. Sorry to see that all of a sudden 'reporters' like Howard Kurtz, who Marc Ash says and was apparently correct, was the one assigned to write this story. A man with a direct line to Karl Rove is hardly credible.

And CBS picks up Howard's story ~ I'm convinced. If Karl says so, and tells the media to say so, it must be true.

I'll wait and see, if you don't mind. TO has one questionable article, the MSM led this country to war by publishing WH propaganda ~ which a few of them have since admitted ~ you may jump for joy at 'confirmation' from a MSM source (btw, what 'proof' have they offered other than what we already know. What investigative reporting is contained in that article? Did they check to see eg, whether any sealed indictments were filed on Friday? Or where Fitzgerald was?

I see nothing except a repeat of the work done by bloggers on this story. Nothing new, no confirmation and nothing to say TO's article is not true ~

[BlooInBloo]

68. I saw flying pigs!

Hey - there's nothing to say that's NOT true...

Hope springs eternal, eh Catrina?

[CatWoman]

93. I have to back Catrina on this one

for two reasons.

One of them is she is 100 % right.

WTF is wrong with you people?

The other is because I have a cat named Catrina, who replaced my beloved Trinity.

[BlooInBloo]

108. You know I luv ya CW.... but I guess we're gonna differ here....

... it's all about going (a) where the evidence takes you, or (b) where you want to be taken, even in the absence of publically verifiable evidence... imo...


Kitty! petpetpet

:)

[JuniperLea]

124. Not only is there nothing new....

But there is only assumption. And that assumption is based on another assumption... that Rove, Bush, et al, play by the rules. Yes, they told us something and we should believe it. Weird to hear that here from DUers.

God forbid TO should be wrong this one time! Let's grind their bones and make our bread, shall we?

[Maddy McCall]

150. The only anti-TO vitriol I'm hearing is coming from you...

when you project your thoughts onto people like me.

I don't want a pound of flesh. I don't want to "grind their bones and make our bread."

What's new is the three articles referenced above. Care to opine on those? No?

I don't have faith in any personality, whether it's Jason Leopold or Will Pitt. So drop the "you guys believe Rove but not Pitt" line.

It's just projection--and it's dishonest.

[Ladyhawk]

275. I am finally learning that placing people on pedestals is pretty stupid.

It's also dangerous. People are people. They are going to make mistakes. We need to remember that and approach everything with a dose of healthy skepticism. I'm glad some folks around here started questioning the story right off the bat. I was wanting to celebrate and at first ignored the skeptics, but pretty soon I noticed they were making a hell of a lot of sense.

I think the point is that we need to hold left-wing journalists to a high standard. We can't let them report any old thing (a la Drudge, Newsmax, Capitol Hill Blue, Prison Planet, Wayne Madsen, etc.) and let them retain their prestige. We need to be better than that. I'm 99% sure at this point that Truthout fucked up. In the past they have done an admirable job and that should be taken into account. However, if the story is bogus (as it appears to be), we need to know the details. Why did they back up Leopold? Why were they taken in? Truthout needs to report on Truthout's mistakes (and yes, it is Truthout as a WHOLE since they backed up Leopold). If Truthout explains exactly why they fucked up so miserably and how they plan to avoid doing the same thing in the future, that will go a long way toward ameliorating circumstances.

As for Mr. Pitt's disgusting personal attacks and predictable apology, color me skeptical. This isn't the first time he's had a meltdown and viciously attacked others, then offered apologies for things that couldn't be unsaid. I'm not sure an apology is good enough at this point. This has become a predictable pattern and I don't want to play along anymore.

[Donailin]

293. right on about pitt

so I won't elaborate on your point. I think the fact is this: TO/Leopold/Pitt were played like a violin, but by who?

I think it was probably some MSM journalists. The thing that Leopold said about three MSM journalists believing/confirming his story and saying "yeah, I heard that too" but stopped short of running the story because they couldn't second source it sounds like BS to me.

Perhaps Leopold or Pitt or Ash or all three rubbed some of their connected sources the wrong way. Hard to imagine. . . but still.</snark>

[demobabe]

14. Maddy posting an article isn't mud slinging

There is a seriously important lesson to be learned here - and one I was trying to warn of long before Leopold wrote the article in question. I had seriously questioned a previous story of his where he claimed Rove's lawyer received a target letter for Rove that is STILL unsubstantiated.

That story was followed by a story saying that Rove informed the WH he was going to be indicted, and that he would resign when teh indictment was made public.

This isn't just one bad story; it's actually three in a row! And the problem we're facing is that Leopold has dealt the entire left blogosphere a HUGE credibility blow. This is so much more SERIOUS than anybody here realizes.

It is because of events like this that close doors for the rest of the blogosphere to pursue independent journalism as people like Joe Wilson might not talk to bloggers/internet reporters out of fear of getting tangled in some immature and unprofessional web drama that could compromise them legally.

Leopold is a thief; he's stolen our credibility and future opportunities because he wanted the BIG story, gambled everything, without any regard for journalistic standards, ethics, or his peers. He deserves every bit that is coming to him for a mess he can't possibly clean up.

[BlooInBloo]

18. One small thing, and I'm witcha: DUers GAVE AWAY their credibility...

... truthout did NOT steal it. The credulous here GAVE it freely and happily.

We can't control what truthout says. We can only control what we give creedence to, and the reasons (or lack thereof) we do so.

Many DUers would do well to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to being "reality-based", and insist on things like publically verifiable evidence when it comes to substantial claims.

ESPECIALLY when those substantial claims appear to be on OUR side.

DUers were more than happy to fritter away their beliefs, based on ZERO publically verifiable evidence. It's truthout's fault for printing an article with no evidence. It's DUers' fault for believing it.

[Maddy McCall]

20. Hear hear.

:thumbsup:

[stepnw1f]

39. Now You Attribute this to all of DU

I was waiting for you to make that leap. It took you long enough.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Nah. Just didn't feel like expending the words to qualify properly...

... It's clear enough who I'm really talking about, imo. If I'm mistaken about that, just lemme know...

[stepnw1f]

51. surrrrre(nt)

[JuniperLea]

50. That's because we are all so inferior

And it's her moral obligation to point that out... ad naseum.

Gotta love a sore winner... NOT.

I'm not disputing that she MAY be partially right, but I swear I would just love to see the story be proved right and that BushCo was just not playing by the rules... it is always possible. I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

I just really hate all the bashing of DUers who expressed an opinion and of a publication that has served us well in the past.

I guess school yard holier than thou bitching is worth more...

[stepnw1f]

53. Why Do You Suppose they are Making Such a Solid Effort

to rub it in? I don't buy their reasons for rubbing in. I think this is a campaign to destroy people's credibilty, whether personal or political. The same people have been all over this now for over a week. More so than those hoping for a public announcement of a Rove indictment. Can't you smell that smell?

[IsIt1984Yet]

55. Maybe folks are just embarrassed by their peers and are hoping they

will... um.... face reality??

It's not "rubbing it in"... it's really more like, "HEY!!! WAKE THE FUCK UP!! THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!"

[stepnw1f]

62. What Reality is That?

All I see are people being dickheads for no reason at all.

[IsIt1984Yet]

137. The reality that Rove has not been indicted.

[JuniperLea]

119. Oh yeah, I agree

It's overkill and you have to ask yourself, who benefits?

;)

[femrap]

302. I smell it, too.

There's something more behind all of this. Is it somehow a personal axe to grind? Or are there career repurcussions involved? I don't know....but this has just gone on too long and way too loud.

[Leopolds Ghost]

376. You mean, Who gets to be the next DU Homecoming King & Queen if Will Pitt

falls out of favor??

Yes, high school backstabbing and elitism is rife in the adult world.

[Leopolds Ghost]

377. For the record, whether the story is true or fake is irrelevant

I have no stake in the success or failure of TruthOut as a media institution. The rest of us have no stake in the reputation of one or two people from a blog who happen to post here. It's their life and nobody's here to look up to someone and judge them on the quality of their scoops. This is not the Hotel Bar in some godforsaken warzone.

Karl Rove will either be indicted or he won't be indicted, simple as that. Remember, this is NOT whistleblower journalism! The only aspect of this controversy that might interfere with whether justice is done in the Fitzgerald investigation in any way, is if the controversy over a bad story becomes the story and people lose interest in the actual investigation.

If the Leopold story becomes a "tar baby", either because Leopold faked it or because Leopold mistakenly went with it, or because it was true but the facts of the matter will never be known, id does not matter because if y'all keep fighting amongst yourselves, then Karl Rove will have muddied the waters by watching the independent media create its own meta-story and forgetting about the real story, and then when Rove DOES get indicted it will be a foot-note. Classic campaign tactics.

the fact that all that matters is the actual investigation (which is merely a sideshow to the real scandals anyhow, and would not be so mportant if it weren't for the fact that an actual honest prosecutor is working on it).

[Maddy McCall]

57. So you admit that you dislike me...so it's personal for you.

Nice.

You are just some person on the internet to me. I'm the personification of evil to you. You have cast characteristics on me quite easily.

Put your imagination to rest.

I shouldn't have to say this--the mere fact that I'm a longtime DUer ought to be enough for anyone to know:

I WANT KARL ROVE INDICTED.

I'm not a "winner." We are all losers if Rove isn't indicted. But this story was bogus...and you attack me for that. It's sad that you feel that way.

But I have no interest in expending time to change your mind about me. Think what you want to think about me.

Glad to see that my posts have you so fixated on me, even to the point that you can't reply to me without using the word "orgasmic."

:rofl:

[boston bean]

80. I didn't dislike you in the past. Actually enjoyed your postings.

But I believe you are taking this a little too far.

Fer Chrissakes.

Please stop.

[Maddy McCall]

83. By posting an update that appeared on three MSM websites?

That's "taking it too far?"

My god, you people need to examine your motives for attacking people who dare ask questions of Will Pitt, or who dare to keep other DUers updated on the story. I posted updates from CBS and WP, with ZERO commentary...and the attackers came, as usual...attacking the poster, not the story. Have you seen a single person comment on the original post? NO, they are too busy attacking the messenger.

Look at the current of this thread. It really ought to tell you who you have a beef with, and it AIN'T me. If you don't like attacks and vitriol, then you need to take your admonishments to someone else.

[boston bean]

94. That's

your problem. I wasn't attacking I was simply making a concerted effort to try and let you know that you have taken this way too far.

It seems as though you are getting a thrill out of it. You can't stop posting about it. You are absolutely 100% enthralled with it.

So some people believe the freakin story, so what? What is it to you?

You can't make people believe something they aren't going to believe. And I'm afraid to tell you that you are losing credibility because you appear to take much , too much joy in it.

Just my humble opinion.



Cheers.

[Maddy McCall]

110. You are making a "concerted effort?"

Yeah, I believe that there is a concerted effort here to attack anyone who doesn't wholesaledly fall hook, line, sinker for this story.

You admit that. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now, as to the rest of the post...I love it how people like you know that I am "enthralled" by this situation. That I'm "getting a thrill out of it." That I'm "orgasmic" over it.

You know what? I don't plan my life by whether or not what I say will be popular. I don't respond to posts based on who thinks I should or who thinks I shouldn't.

I responded to this story with skepticism right off of the bat....for that, people like you attacked me or attributed malice to my questions. For that, people like you still feel the need to attack me or to ascribe characteristics to me that just aren't so.

It's your impression. I have no desire to change that. Whatever credibility you thought I once had is lost. Whatever.

Emotion, emotion, emotion. Doesn't play with me. Surely won't stop me from saying what I have to say.

Try again.

[boston bean]

Why do you have to be like that. You can't take constructive

criticism.

And you can write your "feelings" much better than I can write mine.

What are the facts? Do you have them all 100%.

If you don't then how can anyone believe you more than you say we can believe others.

Just asking.

[Maddy McCall]

118. I'm not asking for anyone to have "faith" in me or my posts.

You can take them or leave them.

Your criticism sounds more like "shut up."

Sorry, you're talking to the wrong person.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

107. "too far"?

Who the fuck decides what's "too far"?

When you get that information, will it also come with a list of subjects we're not allowed to discuss, too? Because that kind of guide would be really helpful.

Do you decide?

No, honey, you do not. If you don't like what's being said, flip to another channel.

But, 'too far'?

Say, have you ever read "Fahrenheit 451'? It'd make you feel right at home, I bet.

Welcome to DU lite.

[JuniperLea]

158. Where did I say that?

You assume much. I am not fixated on you, only your ugly ways. You give us all a bad name. Yes the story lacked merit... but your incessant flogging is ugly and unwarranted. Your anal unwillingness to let this go and your insistence that you are owed some sort of apology or a cry of "Uncle" is ugly and childish. You make us all look bad.

[BurtWorm]

212. I think you need to look at the OP again.

There's no personal comment in there at all. It's just brief quotes from a couple of stories. You seem to have read into it all the invective you imagined was in it.

[JuniperLea]

216. And I further explained it was yet another in a long line

of threads and posts that I found disgusting due to the overkill.

[BurtWorm]

225. So you didn't have to read it or comment on it.

I don't want to pile on you, least of all because you feel piled on. But you really don't have to take a post like that personally, unless you want to.

Just my humble opinion.

[JuniperLea]

232. I don't feel piled on at all

And I'm not taking anything personally because it isn't about me. I was in the wait and see group almost from the beginning. What I am opposed to here is the constant rehashing of the issue and the "I was right; you were wrong" neener neener behavior that has gone on far too long.

This has nothing to do with me or how I feel about the TO articles. It has everything to do with my dislike of watching a) fellow DUers being constantly raked over the coals, b) the stupidity of basing the entire reputation of TO on this one issue, and c) it's really making us look bad.

I have not involved myself in this except for a few posts in the very beginning. I only do so now because the tit for tat behavior is annoying, wasteful and plain mean. Then, I call someone on it and it all gets turned around onto me. So what if Bush did it? Clinton did too... so weird.

[Bluebear]

70. And I hate us being called shitdogs, cretins & of limited mental capacity

Does schoolyard holier-than-thou bitching just offend you from one side? I was only agnostic about the news "scoop", but anyone who asked the slightest question about it was labled an 'outed freeper' by a truthout representative for even casting doubt. Did that irritate you?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

82. I was called names you wouldn't believe

My Ignore list is now longer than the official Presidential Christmas Card list.

People sure do turn ugly when they find out they've been had, but isn't it odd that, instead of getting angry with the people who deceived them, they go Fuckface Nasty on the people who are pointing out the truth of the situation?

Human nature. I'm saddened that we've seen such a damaged display of it here this past week on DU.

[Maddy McCall]

87. As have I.

It doesn't bother me, though. It's kind of amusing, from a sociological standpoint. :D

[hfojvt]

207. I refer both of you to my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5177674&mesg_id=5178504

while I sing Tom Jones
"It's not unusual ..."

but I prefer to give more credence to other responses

"What a lovely and well reasoned post. I will take something away from what you have written, thanks."

"well said, sir! You have put it very well indeed."

Plus, both types of response are the result of my explaining the truth as I see it, and not due to my baiting, mocking or disparaging of my fellows.

[JuniperLea]

149. Excuse me... that happened one night and was later self-deleted

It wasn't a two week long hate fest like what's happening here! One evening of temporary lapse of reason can hardly be compared to this hate mongering.

[Maddy McCall]

160. But, but, but...

:eyes:

You should step back and read your posts. :rofl:

[Bluebear]

165. Self-deleted but never acknowledged or apologized for.

Why does the 'hatemongering' street only travel one way?

[JuniperLea]

170. Oh. Good. God.

You cannot compare the two. And to demand an apology is about as low and as childish as it gets.

One night, deleted messages in no way compare with a hate fest that spans over weeks. That is disgusting and it makes the original wrong look tiny in comparison.

[Bluebear]

172. 'to demand an apology is about as low and as childish as it gets'

I'm not "demanding" shit. And calling me low and childish is not "hatemongering"? Good God, indeed.

[JuniperLea]

193. Then why the constant spewing of hate?

Why can't you let it go?

[Bluebear]

204. Excuse me, what constant spewing of 'hate' have I engaged in?

Are you a publicist or something?

[JuniperLea]

350. Yes, quite frankly, it did

It was self deleted and there were no more insults thrown from that side.

This is the flogging that never ends, that is ever so much more annoying.

[Bluebear]

353. So can I call you a 'dogscum brainless bag of hot air waste of a life'?

As long as I self-delete it, no harm is done of course! Do you see the point?

[JuniperLea]

360. I totally get what you are saying

What he did was wrong. But continuing the flogging ad nauseum makes the flogger much more guilty than the floggee. And to flog even more people who are honestly trying to seek a balance is even worse.

There is not a person on this green Earth who has not made a mistake or spoken out of turn.

Throwing out TO because of this incident is like throwing the baby out with the bath water, imho.



Tell me this... if TO is somehow miraculously vindicated and we find that everything that was said was true, but the current administration managed to yet again bastardize a process, do you think Will and TO deserve an apology? Remember, I'm playing "what if" here! You can't come back and say, yeah, well that ain't gonna happen! This is "what if".

So, given that hypothetical situation, regardless how likely, would Will and TO deserve apologies?

And would it be right to continue flogging those who raged against Will and TO?

Sometimes we can't see the real deal until we play role reversal... Can you give an honest answer to these questions?

[Bluebear]

367. I would be delighted if they were right.

I also would have nothing to apologize for.

[fooj]

290. Did I miss something? We've got a winner?

I don't view being a "know-it-all" as being a winner.

[JuniperLea]

42. Right

So it's your moral obligation to bash them all.

That's ok. No one says you have to take the higher road.

In case you haven't noticed, it is still a free country and people are well within their rights to "fritter away their beliefs" without being kicked when they are down.

[BlooInBloo]

49. LOL! Do you refuse to point out errors your friends make?

Because it's "bashing" them?

ROFL! What an odd way to live one's life. OTOH, it's your life to live - rock on.

For myself, I would EXPECT my friends to point out errors on my part, because I'm the LAST person who wants me to repeat my mistakes. I reciprocate with my friends. We help each other improve.

(shrug) If that's bashing to you, so be it.

[Catrina]

60. Then you won't mind a friendly suggestion that the methods your are

using to tell your 'DU friends' how wrong they were, might have driven people who were on the fence over to what you appear to think is the 'wrong side'? If you have 'noble cause' it shouldn't take so much vitriol and negative comments about your fellow DUers to explain it. DUers are pretty smart people. They get 'it' most of the time.

I hope you take this as you said you would, as advice from a friend who thinks you might not be presenting your case very well. :hi:

[stepnw1f]

63. Exactly... (nt)

[BlooInBloo]

65. I have no problem with that - thanks - got any suggestions?

... about how best to point out to people who were willing to believe a substantial claim with the weight of ZERO publically verifiable evidence behind them, that they may want to "look before leaping" in the future?

I'm TOTALLY up for any assistance in getting that point across in any effective way possible.

[boston bean]

76. There is not 0% publically verifialbe evidence. As a matter of fact

There is evidence that Rove is Official A or 1 in Libby's indictment.

Which according to David Shuster puts rove in the bulls eye of Fitzgeralds investigation. Because all of Fit'z Official A's or 1's have been targets in past investigations.

So there is some evidence to believe he will be indicted. Do you disagree with that.

[BlooInBloo]

81. I'm sorry. truthout's claim was that Rove was indicted on the 12th

(hopefully I got that right - please correct if not)

I'm open to any publically verifiable evidence OF THAT CLAIM that you may have.

Thanks! I want that claim to be true as much as anyone here, and would jump for joy when presented with publically verifiable evidence OF THAT CLAIM.

[BlooInBloo]

116. Hello? Do you have that publically verifiable evidence of TOs claim?

Still waiting....

[boston bean]

123. Hello? Do you have that publically verifiable evidence that

TO's claims are false.

I don't think you do.

Now, hear me out. I really doubt the story, but I don't 100% discredit it like you do. But where is your evidence.

Howard Kurtz? Have to do better than that for me.

TO is basically standing by the story. I am willing to wait, unlike you. Although that is your perogative.

[BlooInBloo]

134. And thus they leave the reality-based community....

... they think that all claims are to be considerd true until evidence to the contrary is presented.

This is our fundamental disagreement, methinks - who bears the burden of proof. I and others (the reality-based crowd) believe that the person making a claim bears the burden of laying out evidence for the claim. Others, the credulous faith-based crowd, believe this evidence is unnecessary, and "the writer's say-so" is good enough.

I and numerous others belief that people who make substantial claims are NOT to believed simply on the basis of "they said it", but rather on the grounds of the evidence the produce for their claim.

As I said in another thread, you credulous folks appear to be unable to distinguish the TRUTH of a claim from the EVIDENCE for a claim.

I have NO stance on whether or not TO's claim is true (or false).

I have a STRONG stance on whether or not there is any publically verifiable evidence for their claim: there is none. (I wish TO GOD someone would correct me if I'm wrong about that).

Why "because I said so" is good enough for the credulous crowd is beyond me.

But in any case, note how you've given up on the original question that the other dude at least TRIED to answer.

[boston bean]

143. I am in reality, you are in black and white. You know there are shades

of gray.

And it is insulting that you can judge me for not living in the same "reality based" environment. Everyone's reality is different. People think differently and have different ideas and possibly have thought of things you haven't. Did you ever think of that.

You and some others are not willing to listen. You are bottom line people. And that is fine, but stop trying to make others conform. That is where the real beef comes in.

[BlooInBloo]

154. Listen to WHAT? Hearsay? Or actual evidence of truthout's claim?

Simply put: Is there or is there not ANY publically verifiable evidence of truthout's claim that rove was indicted on the 12th?

That is the most basic question of importance to those who are truly, and not just allegedly, in the reality-based community.

If there is none - which seems to be the case at the moment (correct me if I'm wrong please) - then any belief as to the truth or falsity of the truthout claim would seem to be without evidence, and hence faith-based.

[boston bean]

167. I can't answer that cause I don't know what the wonderful media

might know or not know "publically".

Just because something is not public does not make it untrue or true.

No one can answer that question, it is a terrible way to ask the question. But it puts you in a position to be able to squeal it loudly in each and every post you make. How can someone answer such a poorly worded question.

I have already said I doubt the story, but I am willing to wait and see and give people the benefit of the doubt, just like Dan Rather.

I'm not at this junction ready to throw people in front of a high speed train for this. You are, fine. Ok.

[BlooInBloo]

174. Still unable to distinguish between EVIDENCE and TRUE/FALSE....

... The evidence (or more properly, it's ABSENCE) has been my problem all along.

I've never once taken a stand on the TRUTH or FALSITY of their claim(s).

I'm sorry asking about evidence is "a terrible way to ask the question" to you, but for those of us in the reality-based community, evidence is the KEY.

But rather than talk about evidence, you folks will talk about everything else under the sun EXCEPT evidence. Up to and including throwing people in front of trains.

Truthout made a very substantial claim. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. None was provided. I take issue with that, and am dismayed that so many other are not dismayed by the lack of evidence of a substantial claim.

fin

[OldLeftieLawyer]

175. So if your newspaper is delivered every day

with a blank front page, you just wait for the news to appear, no matter how long it takes, and, in the meantime, you just assume that there is no news?

Or do you think that something calling itself "news" might be right there, at the time it's reported?

The notion of something not being public isn't at issue here. What is at issue is what was reported.

And it has turned out not to be true.

Waiting for the news to appear is like eating a picture of a piece of pie and thinking you just ate a piece of pie. Not nutritious, and probably not a really satisfying experience that surely doesn't leave you knowing anything beyond the true fact that you shouldn't eat pictures and think they're food.

And who's throwing people in front of a high speed train? That's hardly friendly behavior.

Or do you see questioning the veracity of a news report the same as pushing someone to his or her death?

[BlooInBloo]

229. No Gnews is good Gnews! CLAP LOUDER!!!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

135. How about this?

There is no indictment.

There was never such a meeting as described.

Nor was there any "lockdown" of Patton Boggs in downtown DC.

It was all false.

There is no indictment.

Now, tell me what part of the story is true.

I'll help you: none.

[JuniperLea]

322. Prove it n/t

[JuniperLea]

348. Don't expect a rational answer

And if you don't include something they can make fun of, you'll get no answer at all.

[Catrina]

121. Okay, I'll try ~ :-)

First, I understand that you completely believe that Jason Leopold's article is totally wrong ~ I think you believe he was wrong about everything. Fine, I can accept that ~

You then decided that anyone who disagrees with you is also wrong.

From what I have seen several people are very upset about Will Pitt's angry posts directed at people who disagreed with HIM.

I understood the reaction to Will's posts. I don't know him, other than reading what he has posted here and from his articles. I too thought he was out of line for those comments, but didn't take it personally.

But those who were (justifiably) upset with Will's posts, are now doing exactly what he did. Slamming and attacking anyone who disagrees with THEM! They accuse all those who disagree with them of being a 'Will Pitt Groupie' eg. and it's become impossible to have a rational discussion of the subject as a result. I couldn't really understand it, to be honest. So, I decided there must be something personal involved that most of us are not aware of but are taking the hits for whatever it is. I could be wrong, of course.

The second thing, more important really, is that several people here have really followed this case and may have more information that they wanted to consider in relation to what Jason Leopold claimed, than those who have only a peripheral interest in it. That is why some of us were less likely to assume the article was totally wrong, even though there were some details that were definitely questionable.

For example, a lot was going on in DC last Friday related to the Plame affair, not all of it related directly to Karl Rove. For example, there were filings in the Libby case which revealed some interesting information, that some people might have felt gave a clue to Rove's current situation.

Some people who are following this case, might have wanted to try to absorb all of that, (and other events that took place that day) and compare it to what Jason Leopold had to say before deciding there was zero possibility that he was right.

But the atmosphere became so polarized that there was simply no way to discuss these things rationally. Had you been willing to do that, you might have helped me with some of the questions I had after reading the Libby documents, eg. You might have persuaded me that those events proved nothing regarding a Rove indictment on Friday ~ I thought there were some clues that could have led to Jason Leopold being right but wasn't sure.

I admit I am not willing to dismiss or accept anything in a 'black/white' way anymore. But if someone is willing to point out something I'm not seeing, I will listen.

Iow, this could have been a very informative discussion ~ and I noticed that the most knowledgable people stayed away from it, which was too bad, because I for one, had a lot of questions I would like to have discussed with them.

Sorry to make it so long, but you asked ~ all I'm saying is that I did read the posts, and some statements made by posters were proven to be false. Mixing that with the nastiness, name-calling etc. all that happened was people ended up taking sides.

I'm still not sure about TO's article. I have dismissed some of the claims made, but not all of them yet ~ and I know more about JL than I did before but sometimes it takes a person like that to go out on a limb (a little crazy) when other more cautious people may know something, but won't take a chance. Which may be why those wanting to get info out, would go to someone like him. There are many things to consider.

I hope that answers your question as to why I, at least, have not decided one way or the other and thanks for being willing to discuss it all rationally at least ~ if you end up being right, I will say so ~ no problem, but try have patience with those of us who still have reservations ~ I think for good reason ~

Finally, imo, when people become too extreme in their defense of a position, even if they are right, they simply turn others off. And that's what I see happening here. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say! :-)

[boston bean]

128. Well said. Thank you. nt

[BlooInBloo]

142. Your belief is completely mistaken, and I've never said it.

"First, I understand that you completely believe that Jason Leopold's article is totally wrong ~ I think you believe he was wrong about everything."

That's just plain false, and I've been SOOOO clear about the falsity about that in the past that I question whether or not it's an honest mistake. I'm willing to at least play along and suppose it is.

Here's the truth, in case anyone cares:

(1) I have NO opinion whatsoever on the truth or falsity of the truthout article's primary claims (1st among them that rove was indicted on the 12th).

(2) I have a STRONG opinion about whether or not there exists any publically verifiable evidence for tyhe truthout article's primary claims: there does not exist said publically verifiable evidence.

I and others like me find it bizarre that people would have an opinion on (1), given that (2) is the case.

Now that the opening falsehood in your post has been corrected, how does that affect the rest?

[Catrina]

155. So, I was wrong and you are open to the possibility that JL's

article may be right? Just that there's now way to verify it? I'm trying to understand. I agree with that, if that's your position. But are you saying that there never will be proof, or that there isn't proof right now?

And again, since you said you don't mind being told you are wrong, you are wrong. That was not a falsehood, or a lie. I may have made a mistake, but I do not lie, for the record. I will refrain from making such accusations against anyone on DU and assume they were most likely mistaken and it would make things a lot better if you did not jump to conclusions like that.

[BlooInBloo]

161. Believing either way w/o evidence = faith-based community

That's been my stance all along.

It's been more of an ACTUAL problem with believers of one sort, but my stance applies equally to evidence-free believers in either direction.

[Catrina]

177. Since most seem to DOUBT either way, I don't think you need to worry

about a huge faith-based community here ~ I haven't seen anyone say they BELIEVE JL's article over the past week ~ just that they are not sure one way or the other, since there's no evidence either way.

I have, however, seen many posts such as OLL's, who is completely certain about many things (one of which certainties she has since been proven wrong about btw). You don't seem to have a problem with her certainty which is why I more or less thought you agreed with her. My mistake, apparently you disagree with her ~

[BlooInBloo]

191. Reason for lack of issue with OLL....

... is simple: too-much-skepticism and too-little-skepticism are both mistakes, but it's my opinion that the latter mistake is typically far more damaging than the former.

So while I wouldn't go with OLL so far as to say that TOs claims are FALSE (assuming for the sake of argument that's what s/he says, I haven't checked), I think it's a less harmful mistake than those whose err in the OTHER direction.

To say nothing of what OLL might adduce as his/her evidence for believing that the TO claims are actively false. But I'll leave that for OLL to discuss if s/he so pleases (I can guess, but it would really just be putting words in his/her mouth).

Maybe you any I just don't run in the same circles. I see what strike me as jillions of people saying things like "I'm with Pitt" and the like, which clearly to my eyes means "evidence-be-damned-his-say-so-is-good-enough". That's what I take issue with.

The idea that "truthout's claims haven't been proven wrong" is SO MUCH AS RELEVANT is another howler.

[Catrina]

220. You'll have to point out those who are 'with Pitt all the way' because

I haven't seen them. I find any kind of absolutes without something concrete to back them up, risky at the very least.

Maybe I don't run in your circles as you say, but I've read many, not all, of these threads and what I see is people not willing to make a decision yet, and being slammed for taking that position with statements like 'how about this, there IS no indictment'. I don't know how anyone can be that certain. When asked to prove their point, they attack. That's what I've observed ~

Anyway, have to run ~ at least I know where you stand ~

[BlooInBloo]

223. I didn't make a "blacklist".... nor do I plan to... just don't seem right.

If there are no more credulous-i-don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence folks out there, then that's WONDERFUL!

[JuniperLea]

318. Riiiiiiiight

Oh brother.

[BlooInBloo]

144. re: the rest of your post, after the error...

... you didn't even so much as attempt to find a better way to talk to people who are happy to believe things without a shred of publically verifiable evidence.

"I hope that answers your question as to why I, at least, have not decided one way..."

It doesn't for the simple reason that THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

Since it would be insulting to suppose you are unable to read, I can only assume that you simply don't wish to help with WHAT I ACTUALLY ASKED FOR, despite your alleged "hope" to the contrary.

That's fine - no one is obligated to help anyone else - though it would be nice if alleged help actually dealt with the topic that was being asked... But maybe that's just me...

[Catrina]

208. Your question was to ask what I thought was wrong with the way

you communicate. I answered that, and gave you some information as to why I took the position I did, which was to 'wait and see' since there is no evidence available either way.

I have spent four years on a particulary vicious rightwing board, sort of like bootcamp for liberals, so I'm not easily insulted anymore, as you can imagine. I'm also familiar with the 'hidden' insults, like 'if I weren't such a great guy I'd say you're pretty stupid' ~ :rofl:

I made another mistake, *sigh* I thought you were serious when you said you were open to some friendly suggestions. Oh well, as I said, I tried.

Well, it's an absolutely beautiful day here in the NE and time to go out and have some fun! Try not to let things get you so upset, life is short, this too shall pass and no one here is your enemy ~ :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

219. Cool. You're completely unwilling to read what my actual question was.

I can live with that.


It's raining here unfortunately :(

[Amaya]

218. Well said

Thanks.

[northamericancitizen]

228. Great post. Thanks Catrina.

[JuniperLea]

122. There is a HUGE difference

Between politely pointing out the error of a friend and beating them over the head with it for a week and snickering because you think they are so stupid.

Clearly you have no compassion for a friend if you think the necessary action is to beat them with their errors non-stop... and you have the nerve to say "what an odd way to live your life" to me? That is pretty telling, imho.

What are you getting out of this anyway?

[BurtWorm]

214. You need to read the OP again.

There's no snickering in it.

[JuniperLea]

222. You need to read the contents of the conversation wherein

I say it's just another in a long line of slam fest posts and threads.

[BlooInBloo]

230. The WHAT of the WHAT?

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

Were you on In Living Color back in the day?

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

233. DAMN! I was gonna screenshot it! I figured you might change it...

... without saying anything...

You beat me to it - kudos!

[JuniperLea]

236. That is so telling

You are out for blood and you don't care where it comes from. You would rather make fun of a typo than respond in an honest manner.

You are so much smarter than me. Gosh. Typos are so human.

You aren't hurting me in the least you know.

[BlooInBloo]

240. ROFL! "honesty"....

Ya got me tho - I didn't screenshot it, so you're free to hide it under the rug rhetorically.

"continence" v "contents" - that's not standardly considered a typo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typo - just fyi.

But I didn't screenshot it, so I got nuthin... (hattip)

[JuniperLea]

242. Ouch. That hurts

You are so much smarter than me. I should just shut up and believe every word you say. Boy, you sure told me off. I should just go hide my head in shame.


You can't disprove your schoolyard behavior with more of the same.


Typos is all you have. Pity that.

[BlooInBloo]

246. I only wish truthout had evidence. Or that the credulous cared...

Your writing ability is just the halftime show :)

ROFL!! "the continence of the conversation". Cmon - wasn't that just a LITTLE bit funny to you? I know I'd be giggling my ass off if I'd written that... 'Cuz the conversation needs to POO! :rof: :rofl:


EDIT: There's at least one typo in this post, which I'm leaving, in case you'd like to have some fun with it. If I were to remove it however, I would put an EDIT remark in the post, much like in this one. Because of the "honesty" thing. Like truthout DID NOT do with their "24 hours" bullshit.

[JuniperLea]

256. No thanks.

It would have been funny in other circumstances I'm sure. In this instance it looks like a blatant attempt to ignore what was said and point to someone else and laugh.

You don't have a clue as to what that 24 hour deal was. It could have very well been the truth at the time. You assume BushCo isn't above screwing with the law.

I'm not defending TO. I'm just saying you can't have a valid argument unless you know all the facts. You don't.

[BlooInBloo]

262. ROFL! Ahhh... the "impossible" defense.... Genius!

After all, NO ONE has ALL the facts EVER, do they?

Ergo, it's impossible to knock truthout.

Genius!

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

265. Knocking and endless flogging are two different things

Go ahead. Laugh it up. I guess that's all you have.


#1144014

[BlooInBloo]

266. The story is THEIRS. Theirs to begin. And theirs to END.

Let me know when they do.

Until then, I'm happy to keep flogging away in favor of EVIDENCE.

[JuniperLea]

284. Thanks for proving my point.... n/t

[BurtWorm]

239. I see it as a skeptic throwing more food for thought, more evidence

for her argument. To be honest, as a skeptic myself, I'd welcome more evidence from anyone who believes Rove was indicted on Friday May 12. I think it's safe to say that anyone who was skeptical of the original report that Rove "had been" indicted would have welcomed more evidence to that effect, and I think I speak for more than myself when I say it was a key cause of my own agitation when that evidence wasn't forthcoming.

I'm not going to go into how people behaved toward each other. I'll just say that I strongly believe that this whole ugly episode would have been over much sooner if faith in the word of Truthout hadn't been held in higher regard than responsibility to the truth--or to thinking for oneself. To me, that's what it boiled down to.

[BlooInBloo]

244. I take it you're being generous when you say "more evidence"?

EDIT: I mean in the body of your post, not in the subject, btw.

[JuniperLea]

245. I agree to a point

But you cannot ask for a retraction or an apology when you don't know the entire story. Only a hand full of people in the world know the entire story. Everything else is assumption. And to continue flogging a group of fellow DUers, many of which I totally disagree with by the way, is ugly and uncivilized.

[BurtWorm]

249. With all due respect,

this thread didn't have to go where it did, but it did go there in post #1.

Your point is well taken that there's no need to rub people's noses in their being wrong. That point could have been made better, is all I'm saying.

[JuniperLea]

253. I tried to make the point in other threads

And was ignored. I took the opportunity presented when a fresh thread appeared.

At this point, any new thread on the topic is pure flame bait. In fact, I'm surprised the moderators let more and more threads appear after saying they were going to confine it to one thread at a time.

[Maddy McCall]

273. So you admit that you didn't want to discuss the topic, but wanted...

to make a point that had been previously ignored.

Congratulate yourself. You made this thread ugly--you started the ugliness and that's what you meant to do.

When you are ready to discuss the original post's content, I'll be eager to listen.

[BlooInBloo]

279. CLAP LOUDER so juniperx won't be wrong! CLAP LOUDER!

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

283. I didn't start the ugliness

It has been going on for weeks. I just chose this spot to voice my opinion of it... on, what, your and other's bazillionth thread/post on the subject?

[BlooInBloo]

287. Good point juniperx! You only started the ugliness in THIS thread....

... It was wrong for people to blame you for the ugliness in every thread every created in the history of humanity.

Bad people! Bad!

[JuniperLea]

289. Sorry I got in the way of you and the axe you have to grind

carry on

[BlooInBloo]

291. No worries. It must be hard when all ya got is faith-based....

I don't envy your side...

[JuniperLea]

300. I have no side

This isn't a football game. I'm not a Christian either, so the other little barb doesn't bother me in the least. That's all ya got, huh? hmmmm..

The only thing I know is that none of us knows a damn thing. Yet many of us are so sure of ourselves. Frightening, really.

[BlooInBloo]

303. Don't have to be xtian for "faith-based" to be apropros....

... you only have to not care about the existence of evidence.

[JuniperLea]

304. Evidence based on what?

Your assumption that BushCo will follow the law? You have no idea what went down yet you have the nerve to base your arguments on these assumptions. I just can't fathom.

Now THAT is faith based thinking.

[BlooInBloo]

305. Whoa.

[JuniperLea]

306. ???

Am I to fill in the blanks or what?

[BlooInBloo]

310. If it floats ur boat - I have no idea what you're talkin bout now....

I think your boat left me at the dock. I'll take the train, thanks very much!

[JuniperLea]

313. Snappy comeback

You can't answer a simple question, so I must be nuts. Brilliant.

[BlooInBloo]

315. Nah. You're nuts regardless of my ability to answer a question... :)

[JuniperLea]

320. Riiiight

That's your snappy comeback, huh? When in doubt of your own opinion, slam the other person.

You have no interest in having an actual conversation about this.

[Maddy McCall]

288. This is the first thread I've started on the topic...

and when you get ready to respond to the topic, I'll listen.

Until then, it appears that you have nothing to say.

[Common Sense Party]

132. Absolutely right. "We don't get fooled again!" should be the motto

Trust, but verify, and all that.

Just because you really, really, REALLY want something to be true...doesn't make it true.

[Maddy McCall]

19. I know that, and you know that. But some don't know that.

They are so fiercely protective of Will Pitt that they are blinded by the truth.

The truth? Leopold was wrong.

[King Coal]

125. Maddy, Will was wrong, Leopold was wrong, but you are joining them

Let it go. Quit kicking people when they are down. It gives you too much pleasure to watch their pain. Be nice and cool it. You're get Lefty all worked up and you're making some of us sick.

[Maddy McCall]

215. Did you say something?

/ignore

[JuniperLea]

309. That's what I'm saying

It's damn unattractive and the psychological implications are truly frightening.

[Maddy McCall]

358. The only "psychological implications" one can glean from...

perusing this thread is that you talk too much about orgasms and me in the same context.

:silly:

[JuniperLea]

361. Don't flatter yourself

[JuniperLea]

29. And it is your and Maddy's moral obligation

to put them in their place, ad naseum.

Thanks for the recap. Um... I think we all get it by now. That isn't what I'm protesting here, but thanks anyway.

Gotcha.

Let me know when it's time to move on and when the bandwidth wasting has lost its ability to arouse.

The only thing I'm learning from the incessant preaching is that LWers can be every bit as ugly as RWers.

[Maddy McCall]

40. Don't like it? Consider it bandwidth wasting? Don't post in the thread.

It's really not that difficult to do.

It's called self-restraint. Exercise it, if you're so frustrated.

:eyes:

[demobabe]

338. Look, if you don't like the thread

...there is a little X box next to it on the discussion board.

Click that, and the entire thread will be hidden so it doesn't waste your bandwidth.

For someone who protests much about wasting bandwidth, you're doing an awful lot of it yourself, and it is clearly intended to stifle discussion and bully other DUers.

There is a thing called the First Amendment, and this applies to the opinions you don't like as well as the ones you do. We respect your right to speak here as well, but you're going to have to come up with some better arguments than trying to get us to shut up.

I could understand if we called you a name or other personal attack, but that is not happening here.

There are many other threads on the DU; I suggest you go find one that makes you happier. Life is short. Don't waste it on us, because that would appear to be masochism.

However, if you're a masochist, feel free to stay and I'm sure we'll delight you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

67. That's a major issue

Beyond the absurdities they tried to pass off as some kind of journalistic "scoop," the newly-born integrity of the blogosphere has now been called into question in a major way, and everyone is a lot farther back than they were before this story was posted.

That's so unfair and unfortunate, but it's happened, and all people involved in these pursuits can do is continue to hold themselves to an even higher standard of journalistic professionalism and standards, and hope that others follow suit. What Leopole et al. have done to this fragile system in which people are just beginning to operate with some degree of credibility can't yet be known. But, you do know that the names Leopole, Pitt, and Ash are now marked down for all time as scoundrels without ethics.

And still there is silence, beyond that half-assed and desperate plea for help that was disguised as some sort of "what we know/what we believe" nonsense, which only compounded the sin.

I don't think people who are still caught up in the cult of personality and who are still taking the notion of not believing any of the story as some sort of liberal betrayal don't understand that the story is not about them and their beliefs, but about how bad people do bad things and hurt good people, who then have to do the cleaning up after them.

I am so sorry about all of this. It was all so stupid and unnecessary.

And, again, I must ask, what sort of idiot hires someone like Leopold, knowing his history, and lets him write such a patently ridiculous story? What a bunch of amateurs.

[JuniperLea]

139. So throw them under the bus

For one mistake. How gracious.

I was never caught up in the cult of personality, in fact, I believe I was one of the very first to point to the fact that some people would rather kiss Will Pitt's ass than take a good hard look at a situation. I went on to say, almost from day one, that this is a wait and see situation if I ever saw one.

The people here who are out for blood and some sort of apology while they flog the dead horse hourly are not helping. In fact, they are making us all look like school yard bullies with nothing better to do than to sling mud and attempt to make themselves look better than the rest because their view is so lofty... as would anyone's who stands on the back of the downtrodden.

I think it is disgusting and unnecessary. It makes us all look like fools.

[zippy890]

31. 'dead horse beating' is right

Jeebus its a carcass by now and people are still beating it.

good post

[Blue_In_AK]

100. Thank you. n/t

[ChiciB1]

140. Howie's A Jerk... And Getting Worse All the Time...

but even I said from the get-go, I believe NOTHING until I see it! Been down the road too many times, and think HOPE is a FOUR-LETTER word!

We've speculated ourselves to death over far too many issues and I can't "go there" anymore! I have no doubt Truthout was being very honest and up front, I when HOWIE calls them LIARS I kind of become unhinged because we ALL know who the REAL LIARS are.

But I'm just to completely fed up with so much, and even more fed up with so little ACTION from our LEADERS and our side in general.

[savemefromdumbya]

159. ABC news thinks ROVE was at O'Hare on Friday

The Fitzgerald investigation:
Keying off of recent court filings, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports that Patrick Fitzgerald plans to argue that Libby knew Plame's CIA employment was classified, giving him a reason to lie to the grand jury. LINK

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports that the recent untrue claim that Rove had been indicted was written by "a journalist who has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny." And yet, that didn't stop "more than 35 reporters — from all the major newspapers, networks and newsmagazines — from calling Luskin or Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, to check it out." LINK

A Note Notebook to the first person who can tell us why Karl Rove was at O'Hare last Friday afternoon around 6pm ET. Karl Rove and members of his staff are not eligible. :shrug:

Isn't that in Chicago? Was Fitz in Chicago?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

[JuniperLea]

307. Did he have....

A passport, tens of thousands of dollars in cash and an Afro wig?

I smell a rat.

[savemefromdumbya]

382. Heh heh

[Amaya]

182. bingo

very sad...

[femrap]

296. Well said....thx. nt

[Mr_Spock]

311. "or watching the orgasmic mud slinging that is going on around here"

OMG - tell me about it.

There is no commentary accompanying this story - is this an in your face type of deal?

[Maddy McCall]

4. National Review today--yeah, I know. Uggh. But read it anyway.

The Internet Search for the Rove “Indictment”
It was sealed…yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.

By Brian York
NR White House Correspondent
May 22, 2006, 7:59 a.m


It has now been more than a week since the website Truthout.org reported that top White House aide Karl Rove has been indicted in the CIA leak investigation. According to the scenario described by Truthout writer Jason Leopold, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent the better part of a day and night on Friday, May 12 with Rove and Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, at the Washington offices of Patton Boggs, where Luskin is a partner. In a radio interview last week, Leopold said, “there were plea negotiations going on that were ultimately rejected outright, at the end of this marathon session Karl Rove was given an envelope which had the indictment in it and was told he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order.”

All that happened, by Leopold’s reporting, in the early morning of Saturday, May 13. But now, more than 200 hours have passed since the 24-hour deadline which Leopold says Fitzgerald gave to Rove, and there has been no public notice of Rove’s “indictment.”

During that time, Rove spokesman Mark Corallo has flatly denied Leopold’s report. Fitzgerald wasn’t at Patton Boggs on that Friday, Corallo says. The two sides didn’t meet at all, either at Patton Boggs or anywhere else. They didn’t communicate in any way. Fitzgerald did not give Rove an indictment. Fitzgerald did not notify Rove of any change in Rove’s status. It just didn’t happen.

Yet Truthout is sticking with its story. “We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13,” Truthout editor Marc Ash wrote Sunday. “We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about.”

But how to explain the absence of an indictment? The indictment was, it turns out, a secret. “We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed,” wrote Ash. “Rove may be turning state’s evidence.” Indeed, some other anti-Rove commentators have also suggested that the indictment was sealed. Wayne Madsen, another Internet writer who has claimed that Rove was indicted, wrote on Saturday that, “With a sealed indictment in hand, the special prosecutor could have been negotiating a plea agreement with the Rove camp during the last week.”

MUCH more at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjYwZWJmNDkwZTJhODhjNWZjYWM4ZmY4YTM2MmY3MTM=

[JuniperLea]

9. This is getting ridiculous

I don't even care anymore. I'm just disgusted at the tarring and feathering going on here. It truly sickens me. There's no proof the articles were correct or incorrect, yet the mud is being slung in such frothy fervor from all directions. It sickens me that so many here are getting their rocks off over this slam fest.

What is truly troublesome to me, other than the repulsion I feel over Will Pitt and TO being dragged through the mud, is the clear and undeniable fact that so many here are basing opinions on nothing, and expecting this administration to actually play by the law or by the rules. Unfreakingbelievable.

When will the evil little urchins stop picking at the festering carcase?

[Maddy McCall]

12. When the "festering carcase (sic)" retracts the story, perhaps?

[JuniperLea]

23. Yes, I see how that is your moral obligation

To make sure they do that... and to point out honest typos as well. I'm so embarrassed. You sure put me in my place!


Apparently your giddy and orgasmic pleasures derived from beating a dead horse and placing your trust in assumed "facts" just goes with the territory wherein your moral obligation to tar and feather lies.











We are all so lucky to have you.

[Maddy McCall]

26. Touchy touchy.

I post several articles on a hot topic at DU, and you assume I'm having "orgasmic pleasure" over it.

It's you who brought up the sex parallel. Does that tell us more about me, or about you?

:eyes:

And I agree...DU is lucky to have me. And you. And anyone else who regularly posts here. So what's your point?

Really. What's your point? And can you make it without using the word "orgasmic?"

[JuniperLea]

32. That was one little word in an otherwise straight-forward post

And yet you chose to latch onto it and disregard the rest. Just like you chose to point out a typo instead of responding to the post in which it was so cleverly found.

You can only be so right. This is getting to be a bad winner slam-a-thon and it is ugly on many levels.

[Maddy McCall]

36. It's a word used consistently in most of your posts in this thread.

And what you consider clever, I consider bullshit=ill founded accusations. Ok?

[JuniperLea]

45. And the one you chose to harp on

Instead of taking the sum of the parts for what they are worth.

I've never seen anyone be so bitter about being "right".

[Maddy McCall]

48. LOL. You see it your way. I see it my way.

And never the 'twain shall meet.

You don't like me? And it's obvious that your first objections to this thread's original content are more about not liking me than about the original post's content...so, you don't like me? Put me on ignore and end your misery.

It's that easy. Your attacks on me began immediately after I posted this. You have some kind of personal issue with me--I've never had any dealings with you, so it's obviously YOUR problem.

End your agony and put me on ignore.

Buh-bye. Signed,

The Evil Urchin. :D

[JuniperLea]

126. Right... you can't see what you are doing

So it must be all my fault. I explain myself, you don't listen, so naturally this is some private problem I have with you personally. Uh huh.

Unbelievable.

[Maddy McCall]

365. I posted two articles without commentary. You turned into a rabid attack

hound in your first post.

You came unglued. And you are STILL fixated on a thread on which you won't comment on content.

Your response has been quite entertaining, I'll give you that.

:D

[theboss]

56. Will flung the first mud...

When a few posters said, "Hey...this story makes no damn sense," Will attacked and attacked nastily.

At this point, the whole thing is just a facce. If TO would just say, "we were wrong," the piling on would end.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. Yep,

it's that simple.

Oh, and the piling on is only coming from the defenders, I might add.

Digging in and flipping out seems to be the style - but, what would you expect from amateurs?

[Snivi Yllom]

151. and then he took his marbles and went home

'I'm not playing with you anymore'

very professional

[BlooInBloo]

292. In fairness, he was nice to me when I expressed skepticism...

... I'll find the post n his reply if anyone cares...

[arwalden]

58. So We're To BELIEVE The Article Because It Can't Be Proved Wrong?

<< There's no proof the articles were correct or incorrect >>

I don't know about you, but I tend to only believe things that can be proved to be TRUE. Why would anyone believe an article BECAUSE it can't be proved FALSE??

One would think that the lack of an actual indictment would be enough to prove that the story was flawed.

<< What is truly troublesome to me, other than the repulsion I feel over Will Pitt and TO being dragged through the mud >>

Normally I might agree with you... but when one considers the sanctimony displayed by some folks... it can only help to have their egos deflated and to be dragged down a couple of pegs.

<< When will the evil little urchins stop picking at the festering carcase? >>

That might happen when others stop insulting their intelligence. Perhaps a retraction and an apology might be a good start.

[Bluebear]

But they issued a "partial" apology!

So for all 'intensive purposes' the matter is settled. :eyes:

[arwalden]

157. So With A "Partial" Apology, We're Expected To FULLY Forgive?

But now I have to wonder... where ARE all the "I-STAND-WITH" folks? Hmmm? :eyes: The usual cast of characters (or at least the most ubiquitous ones) seem to be noticeably absent.

Even if a "full" apology and retraction is forthcoming... I think the damage has been done. Other mis-steps, snafus, and insults may have been forgivable... but I think this one (and all the pompous arrogance that accompanied it) will not soon be forgotten.

[Common Sense Party]

148. "Evil"? "Urchins"??? Some undies are definitely in a tight twist, eh?

I don't know what's so hard for them to simply say, "Dang! We got screwed. We were gullible, we were fooled, and next time we'll be more careful."

But no. Someone posts a couple of mainstream stories about how foolish truthout looks (which it absolutely does to any objective person), and suddenly they're "evil urchins, picking at the dead horse's carcass with orgasmic delight."

[Jazz2006]

184. Unbelievable, isn't it?

It seems apparent from reading this thread that the OP simply linked to stories about something that has been a big topic here and got leapt upon with an inordinate amount of personal abuse.

I don't understand it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. I can't stand it anymore

It's 'carcass,' for god's sake. That blatant error offends my eighth grade spelling bee champion sensibilities.

And if you don't care anymore, as you say in your first line, why keep on with what looks to be some attempt to stifle discussion and free speech about a subject that obviously causes you discomfort?

If you don't like what people are saying about a terrible, harmful, and shameful incident that has yet to be fixed or addressed honestly or even admitted to by the peope who perpetuated it, then tell them. Your anger, while understandable, is not at the people who are pointing out that the story was ridiculous from the beginning, but at the people who lied to you. I'm not sure you realize that yet, but when you do, you might feel better.

While you might enjoy the specious characterizations you've posted so far, and while I'm sitting here laughing at them, I think you owe DU more respect than to demand that people silence themselves because you don't like what they're saying.

That's not what free speech is about, and if you don't know that, then it makes your blind defense of the discredited and deliberately deceiving Leopold article even more bizarre, because you're claiming that he has the right to free speech, no matter how he lies, but those who disagree with him (and you) do not.

Go read the Constitution. The First Amendment, in particular. And, if you don't like what people are discussing, go away from that discussion, because your griping sure as hell ain't gonna shut us up.

[Goblinmonger]

85. The question is still valid, though.

When Will Pitt and others from TruthOut were telling all of us that didn't believe Leopold's story that we were shit bags, that we were bringing down the party, etc. ad nauseum, DID YOU STAND UP FOR US AND TELL THEM TO STOP IT? No. Then cork it. You are just pissed because you were wrong and need to face that daily. I, personally, have not posted a single "told you so" until just right now. But your attitude sure called it out of me.

[JuniperLea]

130. I wasn't wrong

I never stood up for either side. I was a wait and see person almost from the very beginning.

So, Will Pitt and TO make one mistake so you guys feel the need to throw them under the bus. How nice.

You don't find it one bit odd that this keeps going and going?


"You are just pissed because you were wrong and need to face that daily."


Thanks for so eloquently proving my point.

[Goblinmonger]

138. Then why the hubris.

There were a lot of people that were wrong. They were vile and horrible to people that said Leopold was full of it. They clearly didn't want us exercising our free speech. To date, there has been NOTHING in the form of an apology from TO, Will Pitt, etc. Until that comes, this is not over.

[JuniperLea]

145. Because it is disgusting!!! This whole public flogging is so freaking

Freeper worthy it isn't even funny! Why the need to flog for over a week? Why the need for an apology? We are not school kids who need to be told to shake and make up! If anything, I would seriously look into why the TO story might still be correct after seeing this behavior here! It is so low brow I cannot sit by and let my fellow DUers be stomped on in this ugly manner, even though I was not "on their side". This isn't football! No one has a moral obligation to flog another into submission! Yet, this is what this crowd of holier than thou, self-righteous bone pickers is doing and it is disgusting! Honestly, I care more about this ugly behavior and how it reflects on the rest of us than I do the original issue! I'm appalled!

[Maddy McCall]

153. Slow down and take a breath.

You don't want to discuss the articles. So why are you in this thread. The only "flogging" going on in this thread is from you.

Examine yourself and your own anger. It would serve you well.

[JuniperLea]

224. I have found my anger

And have explained myself well. You choose to ignore that. It's your business.

[Goblinmonger]

156. So, a psuedo-journalist

with a history of plagiarism and falsifying sources makes the liberal blogosphere out to be a laughing stock, and, in the process, his editors and friends specifically call anyone on DU that disagrees with the article a shitwad. And your problem is with those people that were right actually asking that something be done about that. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.

[JuniperLea]

164. You miss the point entirely

The only laughing stock I see are those who continue to flog the dead horse instead of taking a higher ground. If you are truly above all that you should at least behave as such.

[Goblinmonger]

169. We need to learn from this mistake.

The lack of an apology from TruthOut and the people on DU that defended Leopold with blind ambition is evidence of the fact that we have not learned from this mistake. If we do no learn from it, we are destined to repeat it.

[JuniperLea]

238. So it's your responsibility to beat it into people?

You don't see that as divisive behavior?

Honestly, had I not known a thing about this core issue, I'd be siding with the ass kissers because of the ugliness and self-appointed do-gooders!

[Goblinmonger]

364. Well, you know what

if you really want to publicly state that you are on the side of a journalist who has plagiarized, falsified sources, and who seems to have repeated those past mistakes, then go ahead.

As for me, I think we do a disservice to liberals if we don't come down hard on this asshat for what he has done just so we don't look like we are divisive. Since you seem so concerned about it, what message do you think it sends to the moderates and conservatives when we become apologists for a second-rate journalist? Don't you think it is a better message to say that we are better than that, we expect more from our journalists, and we will call out our own when they do something shitty?

But, hey, you go right ahead and defend a "professional" journalist who plagiarizes and falsifies sources. That sends a GREAT message.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

171. I love the word "should,"

especially when it's coming from a common scold with an axe to grind.

Nice that you think you know how people "should" behave, while you're behaving so badly.

[JuniperLea]

190. How am I behaving badly?

And what axe do I have to grind?

[arwalden]

168. "Why the need for an apology?"

<< Why the need for an apology? >>

The arrogance of those involved positive demands it, that's why. No free rides.

<< No one has a moral obligation to flog another into submission! >>

No one has the "obligation" to genuflect to those whose groupies demand it either.

<< Yet, this is what this crowd of holier than thou, self-righteous bone pickers is doing and it is disgusting! >>

Holier than thou? Self-righteous? Oh good grief? --- More groupie-speak.

<< Honestly, I care more about this ugly behavior and how it reflects on the rest of us than I do the original issue! >>

I think you have exceedingly odd priorities. I think a reexamination of the things you care about is in order.

<< I'm appalled! >>

Work on those coping skills.

[JuniperLea]

221. You assume much

I was one of the first to warn people not to assume anything just because they have the need to kiss Will Pitt's ass.

This has nothing to do with the core issue; it has become it's own issue and you completely missed the point.

I ask for civil behavior and I'm told I have odd priorities. Nice.

[arwalden]

231. Juniperx... Here's Your Reply.

<< I was one of the first to warn people not to assume anything just because they have the need to kiss Will Pitt's ass. >>

And still there *your* lips are... firmly affixed.

<< This has nothing to do with the core issue; >>

What would that be? Belief in a fantasy? --- The level of one's desire to actually see Rove indicted will in NO WAY make the story come true.

<< it has become it's own issue >>

And a very valid one. The thing is that Pitt (et al) have thrown gasoline on this fire... and the groupies are right there on the sidelines fanning the flames until it turns into a complete conflagration. You know it, I know it, and anyone who's been following recent events also knows it.

Stop pretending that it's something else. Time to grow up and face facts.

<< and you completely missed the point.>>

No... I've got a pretty good handle on what the "point" is. Not much gets by me.

<< I ask for civil behavior and I'm told I have odd priorities. >>

No you're not asking for civil behavior. You're asking people to drop it, to move on, to forget about it, to give FREE PASSES where none are deserved.

That entirely different than "asking for civil behavior".

<< Nice.>>

Charming.

[JuniperLea]

234. You keep putting words in my mouth and then slamming me for your choices

I've never kissed ass and I never will. I'm not defending TO or Pitt here. I'm just asking that the flogging of fellow DUers end.

How can asking that a week long flogging end be the same as asking for a free pass?

There is nothing valid about this kind of behavior.

[arwalden]

248. Why do you fan the flames and then complain about the HEAT???

<< I've never kissed ass and I never will. >>

Yet there you are... defending him.

<< I'm not defending TO or Pitt here.>>

Uh... yeah, right. :eyes: What-EVER!

<< I'm just asking that the flogging of fellow DUers end. >>

Yeah... like that's NOT defending. You're intervening on their behalf. I don't know how things are where you come from... but around here, that looks a lot like DEFENDING to me.


<< How can asking that a week long flogging end be the same as asking for a free pass? >>

Well you don't have to actually use the words "give him a free pass" to indicate that you'd prefer it if everyone just shut up and gave him a free pass.

It's clear to me that you're much too smart to be as OBVIOUS as to demand a free pass outright. --- But I'm also smart enough to be able to figure out the (likely) intent, but the DEFINITE effect that your demands will have.

For all "intensive purposes" it has the same effect, so it's the same thing.


<< There is nothing valid about this kind of behavior. >>

Well, that's groupie-think if I ever heard it.

[Maddy McCall]

250. She's acting disinterested...

but she isn't. She's posted in many, many of the Rove/Leopold threads, defended Will with the ol' "hate to see him dragged through the mud" line, and also agreed that he was right to call DUers "cretins."

Just so you know who you're arguing with. :)

[arwalden]

286. Yep... I've Figured Out The Games.

It would appear that many others have figured out the same thing.

[Name removed]

312. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

321. Temper, Temper... Juniperx.

No-no!

[JuniperLea]

323. Condescend all you like

That doesn't make the lies any less lies.

[arwalden]

330. I Highly Recommend...

... that you familiarize yourself with the DU rules of conduct. I admit that everyone makes mistakes from times to time... but honestly now! :eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

332. Over half the posts in this thread are hers.

I've moved onto discussing the upcoming hurricane season.

What can I say...she's fixated on me. All her talk about orgasms must have excited her.

:)

[arwalden]

333. It Certainly Seems That Way...

... there are an awful lot of them.

Heh, groupies! Go figure.

[Maddy McCall]

336. The funniest ones are the ones...

who try to disguise themselves as disinterested. But they always show their colors, and colorful colors they are. LOL.

And she works in PR! :scared:

[Bluebear]

324. You forgot "shitdog" and "fuckshit". nt

[arwalden]

331. Oh Bluebear... You Kill Me!!

[JuniperLea]

344. I never said anything that shows I'm all for Pitt or TO

Prove it.

[JuniperLea]

251. You make no sense whatsoever.

I work for a PR firm... trust me, you spin.

[arwalden]

282. If It's Too HOT For You... Stop Fanning The Flames.

That's my advice for you. I recommend that you take it.

<< I work for a PR firm... >>

And this is supposed to impress me.... how? This is relevant.... how? :shrug:

<< trust me, you spin. >>

Now, now... let's not get personal.

I think by now you've figured out that I'm on to you and the games you're playing. (I think most of the rest have figured out the games too.)

[JuniperLea]

295. Hahaha!

Oh brother. I never said it was too hot and I never complained about anything with regard to myself.

I merely mention my PR experience because I recognize spin when I see it, and boy, can you spin.

On to me? That is rich! What game would that be? Can you give me a hint? Boo! You'd better put on your tinfoil hat! hahahaha! You have no idea who I am or what I'm about yet you can claim to know something like this? Hahahahahaha!

I've said it before, the only reason I say anything at all on this topic is because I'm tired of seeing my fellow DUers bashed, flogged and made fun of because they simply voiced an opinion... an opinion to which they are entitled.

[arwalden]

317. I'm No Fool.

<< Oh brother. I never said it was too hot and I never complained about anything with regard to myself. >>

I think it's pretty clear to any reasonable person... or to anyone who's been paying attention... that you want things to cool off. Try to deny that.

It's also pretty clear that your efforts are only stirring up feelings of resentment and anger. Try to deny that.

Yet throughout all your complaints, you still continue to fan the flames and make people angrier and more determined that ever. Try to deny that.

If you find anyone that believes your denials, then you've found a fool.

But... Like I said... I'm no fool.

<< I merely mention my PR experience because I recognize spin when I see it, and boy, can you spin. >>

Nope... I'm still not impressed. It's not about me, it's about what you're doing.

<< On to me? That is rich! What game would that be? Can you give me a hint? Boo! You'd better put on your tinfoil hat! hahahaha! You have no idea who I am or what I'm about yet you can claim to know something like this? Hahahahahaha! >>

Yes... I'm on to you. That's precisely it.

I must say... that's not a very convincing denial either. Your "who-me?" game is obvious to anyone who's played it... and if I may say, there's plenty of room for improvement.

<< I've said it before, the only reason I say anything at all on this topic is because I'm tired of seeing my fellow DUers bashed, flogged and made fun of because they simply voiced an opinion... an opinion to which they are entitled. >>

Nobody is denying anyone of having an opinion. But when certain people who are held in high regard and high esteem (for whatever reason?) take ADVANTAGE of that goodwill, and take advantage of the respect that others have given to them... then I have a problem with that.

This pompous, know-it-all, bow-down-to-my-greatness you cretins ("by-god I'm a published author dammit, I've written a BOOK!") type of attitude that some have taken is just beyond the pale. And still there are a flurry of sycophants defending the indefensible, and pleading their case (yes DEFENDING THEM) and begging for people to cease the (well deserved) assault.

The parties involved could have long ago put an end to this. They have had many opportunities to rescind, retract, and apologize for their (likely) drunken and boorish behavior. Yet, they chose to ignore those opportunities, and instead they chose to imitate one of Bush's flaws. Namely: having a plan-B, or refusing to accept the fact that they just MIGHT be wrong.

And even at this LATE date, such an acceptance has been insincere, half-hearted, and in large part sought to place the bulk of the blame on someone OTHER than themselves.

Please don't lecture me on their having a "right" to their opinion. That's NOT what this is about and you damn well know it! Such arguments are strawmen, smokescreens, red herrings. Irrelevant games.

And you have the gall to sit there behind your keyboard and smugly tell me that you're NOT playing games??

<<Hahahahahaha!>>

My thoughts exactly.

[BlooInBloo]

285. ROFL! Like the provervial little kid...

.... empty cookie jar, and chocolate-smeared face.

blink. blink. blink. It wasn't ME!

[JuniperLea]

314. Prove it

You have nothing.

[BlooInBloo]

316. Post #1. QED. Best. Proof. EVER!

:rofl:

[arwalden]

319. Oh Dear... That's Hysterical

<< QED. Best. Proof. EVER! >>

[Bluebear]

326. The last time I saw anything like this....

JOHHHNNN!!!!! PAULLLLL!!!!!!! Skreee!!!!!!!

[BlooInBloo]

327. The Truth really deserves all the credit... not me... (blush)

[Maddy McCall]

366. The last time I saw anything like this...

it was something along the lines of "Crash is better because more people can relate to it."

Riiiiight?

:toast:

[JuniperLea]

325. No, it's not proof at all

You need to read again.

[arwalden]

335. It's The Equivalent Of Sticking Out Your Tongue...

... and shouting neener, followed up with the ever popular "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

Snap! and B-u-u-u-urn!

I think you've lost this round Juniperx.

[JuniperLea]

347. Like I care what you think.

This isn't a game. There are no sides, no teams... but plenty of cheerleaders...

[arwalden]

352. Of course you do...

<< Like I care what you think. >>

Clearly you do... otherwise you wouldn't be so intent on responding or getting in the last word. (Go ahead... stick your tongue out once more... that will teach me, eh?) :eyes:

<< There are no sides, no teams... but plenty of cheerleaders...>>

And even more flame fanners and gasoline pourers. You know all about that don't you, Juniperx?

<< This isn't a game. >>

So why do you treat it like one? :shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

356. Ppfftgaaaagh!

B-u-u-u-urn!

I haven't heard that since I was, what, 12?

"Burned that head!"

:rofl: Thanks for the memories. :yourock:

[Jazz2006]

372. Indeed, BlooInBloo

It couldn't be any clearer.

QED. Best. Proof. Ever.

[Miss Chybil]

237. No proof, correct, or incorrect? That sounds like "No proof of no WMD."

I have been sitting on the fence on this one, but I'm getting off. Twenty-four hours has come and gone many times since the supposed deadline for Rove to "get his affairs in order." That's all the proof I need right now. That part of the story is definitely incorrect and thereby casts serious doubt on the rest of the story.

[JuniperLea]

241. You assume Rove, Bush, et al

Play by the rules. We have no idea what, if anything, went on. Not one bit... not one way or the other.

All I'm saying is that the constant flogging of fellow DUers is disgusting and small.

[Miss Chybil]

272. I don't assume anything.

24 hours has come and gone. That's all I KNOW. Period.

[JuniperLea]

280. You are assuming the 24 hour deal wasn't ignored by the administration

or Rove or his cronies. You know nothing except that someone mentioned a 24 hour period. We know it didn't happen within the 24 hour period, but we don't know anything else. For all we know it was the real deal... it could be right, it could be wrong.

[Miss Chybil]

370. Could be...

Anything's possible.

[sendero]

5. Oh lookie..

... at the brave pundits coming along 10 days later! If they were so fucking connected, and so fucking sure they knew what was happening they sure wouldn't have waited 10 freaking days to come forward.

Yes, like the gutless lapdog MSM, now that the carcass is well cold and there is no personal risk involved, everyone's a god dammned genius!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

211. But, but, but,

the MSM just did what the True Believers here on DU are doing:

They waited, and maybe they even hoped that the story would be true.

So, they just did what the DU TBs did.

Why excoriate one set and not the other? Seems mighty unfair to me.

[sendero]

263. Bullshit..

... if they were "journalists" - they could have done their own research, and came out and categorically said the story was false. But they didn't, did they. Wonder why not?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

269. They weren't reporting on "the story"

They were reporting on what truthout had done.

You surely can tell the difference. Or can't you?

Yeah, that "Bullshit" subject line indicated I'm giving you credit for far too much intelligence.

Of course you can't tell the difference.

<click>

[sendero]

277. Yeah..

... another sensitive soul who gets misty in the face of "bad words". Apparently, YOU didn't understand the point of the post you responded to.

Let me simplify it for you: everyone is willing to blather and speculate, but nobody is willing to put their balls on the chopping block. Out of the entire MSM, and most of the blogosphere - how many "journalists" came out and flatly said "this story is not true"? Please give me link to stuff at least a week old. Sure, now that it (almost certainly) isn't true, everyone is full of courage.

Fuck the meta-story, that is nothing but masturbation.

[robbedvoter]

7. So, dear MSM, who won the 2000 election? Where are the WMD?

Why are we in Iraq? Were any warnings about OBL's plans to attack? Were the Clintons ever officially exonerated of the Whitewater charges the NYT reporter Gerth was instrumental in launching? Is there such a thing as Hookergate?
Did Bush have any warning about the levees impending break? Were the Bin Ladens ushered out of US? Was Bush sr in business with the Bin ladens as of 9.11 2001? Where was Saddam exactly captured? Who won the 2004 election? Where is Osama? When did the recession started? What's the real unemployment figure?

One more question - this one for some of the usual suspects in these threads: how comes in the past 5 years I am on DU I didn't see most of you asking THESE questions if your passion for truth is so all consuming?
Mind you, not all of you are asked that - symbolman being the notable exception that comes to mind.

[Maddy McCall]

11. You missed me on the Bev threads, evidently.

I was attacked just as viciously. I still spoke my mind.

Calling me an "evil little urchin, a "shitdog" or a "fuckshit" won't stop me from saying what I think.

In this thread, though, I merely posted articles--not my opinion.

Why not take your vitriol to LBN, where there are many DUers posting MSM articles...or are they not equally deserving of your rhetoric?

[robbedvoter]

16. Know the Bev threads.. I didn't call you those names either - you did

While I was always on the same side as you on the Bev threads, sorry to say, there is one common trait in your two claims to fame on DU: personal attacks - whether deserved or not. Not very sterling credentials in my book.

[Maddy McCall]

17. Personal attacks?

Such as?

I didn't "attack" Bev. I didn't "attack" Will.

You need to get your story straight.

BTW, I have no need for a "claim to fame."

[robbedvoter]

21. Other DU-ers are activists. They are known for issues such as war,

election robbery, civil rights, media, a certain candidate - or whatever other injustice focuses their attention.
You, by your own self introduction, are at your best in the personal melees. Cat fights and brawls. Nothing higher. Sad.

[Maddy McCall]

22. I don't wear my activism on my sleeve.

But if you want credentials of REAL LIFE activism, I got 'em. I don't need to flaunt them to be appreciated on the internet, though.

As a result of MY activism, the Attorney General's office in Mississippi now persues cybercrimes against children.

As a result of MY activism, fora were held around Mississippi for women to tell the state government what their needs are.

As a result of MY activism, the sheriff in my county now gives domestic abuse victims information on where they can seek shelter and legal aid.

As a result of MY activism, five Mississippi senators held their ground in opposition of a law banning abortion in my state.

As a result of MY activism, our County Democratic Executive Committee initiated and funded a Democratic Youth Organization.

As a result of MY activism, Mississippi's former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove asked for and received legislation to found a state women's commission.

As a result of MY activism, an access road was built to our local community college.

As a result of MY activism, our town council is 100% Democratic--with a black mayor, four black councilmen, and one Democratic councilwoman.

Would you like to know more? There IS more, but I really am not one who likes to toot my own horn about my political accomplishments.

[King Coal]

194. Whoever told you that was lyin' to ya.

[Maddy McCall]

201. Your response to my post makes absolutely zero sense.

What's new. :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

260. So anyone who was skeptical about the Leopold story

wasn't skeptical about why the US is in Iraq? Except for Symbolman, of course?

If you wonder why this thing doesn't stop percolating, it's partly because of groundless broad-brush painting comments like this. Your post essentially says, if you didn't believe the Leopold story, you're a freeper. Isn't that what you're saying?

PS: In light of the passive-aggressive nature of that post, your dove with an olive branch seems out of place.

[robbedvoter]

308. I clearly said "some of" those

Symbolman came to mind as he has a website "Take back the media". You are not one of those posting almost exclusively on this topic - so you were not even considered.
I was addressing some of the "this topic only" posters
My dove signature represents my opposition to war - has nothing to do with this issue.

[BurtWorm]

342. I didn't take your remark personally.

I just think it's off-base generally. This topic has been around only a couple of weeks, so if there's anyone who's been posting exclusively on this topic, they haven't been around long enough to know how they felt about the war. And if they were around here during the war and were not skeptical of the official information around it, chances are they're not around here any more. DU has been, for as long as I've been here, virtually in total agreement in its skepticism about the case made for the war.

The disagreement over this story is not political. The issue at stake is the credibility of the media--in this case, of members of the left media. Some people seem to think the fact that they're "left" media has greater weight than whether or not the story they're selling is believable. Others of us think any member of the media has a responsibility to tell the truth and show that they're telling the truth. My feeling is no one in the media deserves a blank check of my trust.

[RandomKoolzip]

30. Okay, so: is there a lesson learned here? Anybody?

How about this: take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt.

I find it funny how so many people are so indignant with honest skeptics like Maddy MCall or alcebialdes_mystery, imagining sinister motives that aren't there, yet if this had happened to a rightist journalist/website, these same people would be demanding rolling heads.

Look, people, truth is truth, and bullshit is bullshit, even if it comes from political allies.

[Maddy McCall]

34. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

When you take the emotion out of this situation, it's apparent, isn't it?

[RandomKoolzip]

37. Exactly:

Step back, be objective, and you'll see that OUR side makes mistakes too. It's best to acknowledge them when they happen, too. How else do you grow?

[Maddy McCall]

43. By not acknowledging it, it still grows.

It grows and grows and grows into a much uglier mess that will be much more difficult to clean up.

Hubris got in the way of professional honesty. That's sad.

[IsIt1984Yet]

44. You hit the nail on the head. Emotion is driving these threads into flames

People are not being rational enough to understand that when others are calling BS, they are doing so because of common sense, critical thinking, not emotion. Otherwise, all of us would be suckered into this. I think we all WISH this were true. That's clear in the 400+ original threads on the topic. We all WANT it to be true, but wishing and wanting doesn't make it any less bullshit or any more real.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. Kudos to you, Maddy,

I'm happy just to have you go on and on, pointing out the obvious to the True Believers, who would rather silence people like you, simply because they're either embarrassed they got caught trusting and refuse to admit it, or who somehow have the notion that if they just hang on long enough, the story will miraculously turn into truth and then they'll be able to be lifted up by their own personal Rapture.

Bullshit. The story was bullshit from the start with the ridiculous and fictional scenarios it laid out. It was bullshit, and those of us who saw it and knew it and called it bullshit got called lots of other things by people who knew nothing but chose to believe because that was what pleased them. There were some terrific folks who said, after a while, "You know, now that you put it that way, it doesn't make sense," and they are the ones with open minds and functioning belief systems, the kinds of people who respect the ideas and opinions of others.

You keep on, Maddy McCall, and don't you stop for one minute - as if you would - because if we were to allow DU to fall all the way into the hands of the people who would want us to stop talking about anything, that would be as good as handing everything over to Fuckface's White House.

They don't like people saying unpopular things about them, either. They'd be so proud of the True Believers here, whose efforts to insult and stifle speech with which they don't agree must bring a tear of joy to the cast eye of Karl Rove.

Talk, baby. Talk.

[Maddy McCall]

84. OLL.

:hug: :yourock:

[greatauntoftriplets]

41. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

54. Some will hate you for spreading that message.... watch it!

They will say of one who cares simply for the truth, that they seek only to "lord" their "victory" over the credulous.

All we care about is the truth. Would that everyone so cared.

[patcox2]

69. I stand by those who speak lies to power!

And I will stand with them whether the secret indictment is ever made public or not. I will stand by them with every fiber of my being. So help me, I will see Rove indicted and frogmarched off to be tried, even if it is in an imaginary court. I will never go hungry again!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. What "secret indictment"?

It's ten days. Do you honestly believe a "secret indictment," whatever that is, really exists?

Wake up.

it's not about Rove, by the way, and that tired old Joe Wilson phrase. It's about truth and irresponsible "journalism" and truthout taking responsibility. The whole Fitzgerald investigation continues, and has nothing to do with this story.

There is no indictment. Please try to understand that. You were lied to. We all were.

[patcox2]

106. But can't you see, Rove was indicted, just as Will Pitt said.

But the indictment was quashed by Gonzalez, and the Fitzgerald had to bring a sealed suit against Gonzalez, and its all being hushed up in the interest of national security. Gonzalez was able to argue, using the unitary executive theory, that while the nation is at war, Rove can only be punished by a military tribunal. In the interest of national security, Rove being Bush's brain, it would jeapardize our safety to indict Bush's brain, leaving him dependant on his own nitwit brain. So the court has ruled that the Rove indictment must remain sealed.

Its all plain as can be. And Occam's razor proves it, too; after all, which is more difficult to believe; the simple scenario I just laid out, or the possibility that Will Pitt is a mere mortal?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

109. Oh, you were kidding

I get it now. You were making a joke.

Whew.

For a minute there, you really had me believing someone could actually be that nuts.

Whew.

Good one. ;)

[patcox2]

112. Oh, some are that nuts. Its hard to satirize.

Because you cannot exxagerate it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

114. Hold me

You really scare me.

Be my friend. Please?

(You're good.)

[Iowa]

362. Ha! I recognized patcox2's name from another thread...

...and saw it coming. Good one. You almost got OLL going there.

[Common Sense Party]

199. "I'll never go hungry again." ROTFLMAOAPMP!!! nt

:rofl:

[Jazz2006]

210. "even if it is in an imaginary court"

:rofl:

:hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

98. Yeah, some "victory"

Nobody won. We all lost.

We were cheated, lied to, insulted, and played for stupid fools. When some of us objected, we were defamed.

The lies still stand, and the perpetrators are in hiding, inside their cocoons of perfect silence, but you bet they're watching all these threads, and probably taking a perverse pleasure just in getting the attention.

Fuck 'em all. They know what they are and what they've done.

We all lost, and that's the worst part of this whole, sorry, sordid, and ever-so-unnecessary saga.

Now, will someone just put Jason Leopold in a jar and screw the cap on good and tight?

[BlackVelvet04]

254. I admit I wanted to believe the T.O.

article, but it didn't make much sense and after I read a few of your posts I realized it made no sense.

One of the reasons I have such a low post count is I can't agree with the "yippee, yippee, we got them this time mentality" I see on DU so much. I read a lot and post little.

Right after the 2004 election, day after day there were those that thought the election would be overturned at any minute. Kerry would somehow ride in on a white horse with Bev and slay the evildoers of the bush administration and all would be well.

The hero worship gets to be rather disgusting after a while.

Truthout OWES it's readers a full apology and quite a few DU members owe the one's who were skeptical or downright unbelieving of the article, an apology. Hopefully some lessons have been learned. When it comes to politics and journalism NOBODY is a saint. Actually, when it comes to LIFE nobody is a saint. Not Kerry, not Clark, not Colbert, not Leopold and not Pitt.

It's time to grow up and realize there aren't any knights in shining armor. (Except for my husband, of course ;-) )

[johnnie]

61. It's one thing to be an "honest skeptic"

It's another thing to actually think you are above everyone and attempt to berate them for what they believe. I think people have the responsibility to be a bit skeptic, but I see no reason to continue to attack other DU members because they refuse to believe what you believe. Not you RKZ, I'm talking in general.

[BlooInBloo]

77. How do you propose we avoid the i-don't-need- no-stinkin-evidence...

... problem in the future then - if the don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence folks steadfastly refuse to admit that their position is erroneous?

And they view any criticism of their erroneous position as "berating" and as critics being "superior"?

I'm open to any suggestions about how to get the who-the-fuck-cares-about-evidence crew back into the reality-based commiunity...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

92. We can't, they won't, it'll always be like this,

because people with value systems that rest on such a fragile and easily threatened foundation will never be strong or secure enough to judge the merits of a situation on their own. They want to believe, so they attach themselves and their own sense of self-worth to something they think "might be right someday" and if someone whose name they recognize is involved, it gives them a feeling of being right.

So they dig in, without thinking, and they blindly attack all who might question the situation, because that is - to them - the same as questioning them.

What they don't understand is that their behavior, by its censorious and personalized characteristics, effectively precludes them from ever having any credibility in anything they express ever again. They have, in fact, given up the right even to criticize Fuckface In The Oval Office because they're the blind followers, the same kind of folks, who are still giving him 29% approval.

That crew has its own community, and they'll stay out there no matter what.

Perhaps that's better. Maybe just the strong and informed should, after all, be in forefront. We've shown that we can take the hits and continue. The others, they're only able to call names and complain and not offer anything of substance.

Maybe that's their role, so that we can be sure we're not slipping. They're sort of our bad examples.

[Maddy McCall]

97. What's especially telling is that not a single one of them commented...

on the content of the original post. Not a single one.

In their mind, their icon has been threatened, and they must lash back at anyone who, in their perception, has "attacked" their icon.

It's evident...they don't want to discuss the content of the OP. They just want to attack the messenger.

Let 'em attack. Unless Skinner tells me otherwise, I ain't leaving DU.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

102. They make it personal, and then they attack,

because that's all they have. They don't dare comment on the OP because it points out that they've been had.

They know it, though. They know it. Otherwise, why get so het up about it and come after you in such an ugly and meanspirited way?

They know it, and it's killing them.

But, like the good Republicans who still think Fuckface is a great President, they dig in and sling mud.

As I said, Karl Rove would just love them.

[johnnie]

96. I think that letting people think for themselves is a good start

798 posts on how wrong people are isn't going to do it. I learned a long time ago that you are rarely going to change a person by trying to make them look stupid. Taking the time out to intelligently discuss something or provide information is a good start. Typing "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...RFLMAO" or other absurd childish replies over and over has probably not changed one person's mind.

There has been a lot of people that were skeptical in the beginning, thought this story was wrong and through it all have come to their own conclusion that the story wasn't correct that have been able to discuss it or just plain leave it alone for now. There are others who have been on it like flies on shit and I don't think they have added very much to the conversation, just a lot of keystrokes.

[Individualist]

101. no confirmation = no credibility

But that's something I adhered to before Leopold publicized his "scoop".

[Bluebear]

297. IOW

Standards are standards. With ya.

[Common Sense Party]

166. "truth is truth, and bullshit is bullshit, even if it comes from political

allies"

I thought that deserved to be read again.

And I will also repeat myself: Just because you really, reall, REALLY want something to be true, doesn't mean that it is.

[Jazz2006]

203. Indeed. And worth repeating again.

"Truth is truth, and bullshit is bullshit, even if it comes from political allies"

:hi:

[Cameron27]

247. Indeed. And worth repeating again and again

"Truth is truth, and bullshit is bullshit, even if it comes from political allies":toast:

[BlooInBloo]

294. Truth is truth, and bullshit is bullshit....

even if it comes from political allies.

:toast:

EDIT: And even if those allies are otherwise good people. It's still bullshit. And those folks are still good otherside. Not that anyone's said different - just don't wanna lose track of that. Bullshit is still bullshit tho :)

[BurtWorm]

276. Those two phrases keep going through my mind

and coming out through my fingers when I think or write about this incident. Truth is truth. Bullshit is bullshit.

Nuff said.

:toast:

[DancingBear]

64. Another "wood yearner" here

In case those of you who are still waiting for the TruthOut moment to occur (you know, the one where <pick one> 2 months, four months, five years from now somebody somewhere gets indited and you all grant sainthood to you-know-who) let me just try and explain why this whole thing matters.

Credibility. Ever hear of it? it is what we here on the left have been striving for. With the right having a lock down on the MSM, both print and radio/TV, the progressive left began to slog its way back into relevance via Internet sites, discussion boards, Air America, etc. We had a nice little run going - the MSM was beginning to notice, bloggers were getting credibility, we were (for the most part) dead on nuts when it came to ferreting out the facts that The White House won't let the media lapdogs play with, etc.

So what do we do with this good will? In one fell swoop, we provide - free for the asking - one of the sorriest excuses for a "scoop" that anyone has ever seen. So desperate was TruthOut to get a seat at the table, and so monumental were the egos behind it all, that they brought forth an un-sourced, poorly researched, we-know-but-we-can't-tell-you piece of garbage reporting that took EVERY bit of credibility that we had garnished and pissed it away.

It has been 10 DAYS since Karl Rove was supposedly indited. TEN freaking days. When the article first came out, TO had 9 corroborating sources, As of the update yesterday, they had three. Supposedly, the fourth floor of Patton-Boggs was locked down all day Friday, with Secret Service, no less. In the update yesterday, the Secret Service had mysteriously disappeared. Supposedly, TO had an exclusive on this, but the update yesterday mentioned two other news crews there at the time. C'mon people, do the math. TruthOut was wrong, and this story sits squarely in the chapter entitled Made Up Out Of Whole Cloth. Right now their staff is sitting with their fingers crossed, hoping Fitzgerald will bail them out. Sorry kids, three strikes has come and gone. You're out.

Why isn't EVERY member of the progressive community all over TruthOut? Where are the calls for explanations? Did anyone here actually read the pitiful "update" that Ash put out yesterday? If you didn't (and why you would comment on this if you haven't is curious in its own right), let me summarize: we think we're right, maybe we got something wrong, I doubt it, hang on.

This community is right there to condemn the right when it tries crap like this, and we are right there with the facts to prove it wrong. Why, when some of us here try and keep our own house in order, are we attacked? This is not some minor error, and what we DON"T need are sycophants who sit and wait at the foot of magic man, willing to wait for eons until chicken shit turns into chicken salad.

We will CONTINUE to stay all over this, until TruthOut gives us the answers that we deserve. I for one am not willing to let liars like Leopold (and I BEG you to check out his resume) or ersatz journalists like Ash et al off the hook. They took my trust and shit all over it, and they will not do it again.

I will not click my heels three times and hope anymore. To those of you that still want to, I hope you have lots and lots of shoes. If you hitch yourself to TruthOut, you're gonna need them.

[patcox2]

72. Will Pitt vouched for Truthout with every fiber of his being;

And thats good enough for me!

[DancingBear]

74. Tell that to the cretins

Or the fuckshits.

Or the pilots.

I vouch for the fact that I am Yul Brenner's long-lost son with every fiber of my being!!!

OK?????

[OldLeftieLawyer]

104. Then you are blind,

and that's really, really sad.

To trust an individual over readily verifiable truths is a sign of a cult follower, and I lament your blindness.

You have a good mind. It's a shame you refuse to exercise your good judgment and witness the situation objectively and intelligently.

Following anyone blindly leads you right into Baghdad. Again.

My sympathies. Seriously. Your post is the saddest I've seen in the thousands that have been put up here on this subject.

[patcox2]

111. I am proud to be blind, if I can be led by Wil Pitt!

I let him do all my thinking, as well as my seeing. He is the only person in the world who has had the courage to stand up to power with every fiber of his being, and to stand with Cindy with every fiber of his being, and to stand against Bush with every fiber of his being. He has done more standing up, for, with and against, than anyone and he deserves your respect and unquestioning worship and adulation for all the ways he has stood in conjunction with various prepositions (He has stood on, over, beneath, by, near, in, and against so many things). I am proud to be blind and unthinking, and I will continue to hero-worship him with every fiber of my being!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

113. OK,

now you're scaring me ............


heh heh heh

[DancingBear]

162. Now I got it

To the barricades!!!

"Can you here the people sing..."

heh, heh, heh for me too

:)

(I made up the whole Yul Brenner thing, BTW. Just don't ask about Ed Ames).

[Cameron27]

227. Oh My Sweet God

I'm stunned. Completely, knock me over stunned

[IsIt1984Yet]

255. This is a joke, right? UNQUESTIONING WORSHIP?

Is Will your personal Jay-sus? Infallible?

"he deserves your respect and unquestioning worship and adulation for all the ways he has stood in conjunction with various prepositions"

You assert that he deserves MY "respect and unquestioning worship and adulation"!!? Seriously? UNQUESTIONING WORSHIP? ADULATION??

Hey, you can be Will's "disciple" if you choose, but don't you dare try to act as though others should be as well.

That's just fucking creepy.

[Jazz2006]

264. Er, yes, it seems apparent that it IS a joke.

:hi:

[IsIt1984Yet]

268. When "adulation" is taken literally, perhaps.

"servile flattery; exaggerated and hypocritical praise"

Yup... that's exactly what we're seeing; exaggerated and hypocritical.

:hi:

[Jazz2006]

371. Well, I also recognized the

poster's name from other threads on the subject, so I recognized the satire right away :D

:hi:

[Cameron27]

375. Ohhhh God

Like I said, I stun myself. I absolutely stun myself

Thanks for the info :blush:

[CTyankee]

95. This is what I don't get: why has TO dragged this thing out so long?

This is the piece of the puzzle that just doesn't seem "right" to me. Which is why I have believed for awhile that TO was set up in order for just this situation to happen, resulting in the alternate media Left looking ridiculous. Dan Rather/memogate all over again.

BUT, let's not overreact. This is one story. TO is one site. They don't represent everybody on the left. We'll get our black eye and bloody nose and then we'll come back to fight another day. I've lived long enough to know that this is true.

[RagAss]

66. Listen Up...we better drop this shit.....

Bad story...not confirmed... and let it go...

We've got shit coming over the wires now that we need to devote our attention to....

Stuff far more critical than whether or not a piece of shit has been indicted......

[Maddy McCall]

71. I think that most DUers are wise enough to attend to more than one story

at at time.

[likesmountains 52]

75. Amen! This horse is deader than Franco but continues to whip folks

into a nasty frenzy...

[Maddy McCall]

78. When did the horse die?

Was it when Truthout retracted the story and issued a formal apology? Was it when Will Pitt posted on DU that Leopold had made a mistake, and he was wrong to vouch for the story and attack people who asked questions?

Hmmm...I must have missed those announcements...because the horse doesn't die until the horse's masters say it's dead.

[BlooInBloo]

115. Good point. It's THEIR story - it ain't dead til THEY say so....

... don't blame the I-want-evidence crowd for not dropping it.

It's our INTELLECTUAL RESPONSIBILITY to demand that EVIDENCE be the standard, at least until they drop the story. Or until said evidence is provided.

[Opening_Day]

73. I dunno.

Are we sure the 24 Venusian "business" hours are up? There's still hope.

[Jazz2006]

217. LOL

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Roon]

86. Hmmmmm...

Where's Pitt?

[Maddy McCall]

89. If history is any indication...

watching this thread, holding himself back from gracing it with his presence, all the while gleeful that his sycophants are keeping the homefire burning.

That's my guess. :)

[garybeck]

88. TO should fire Leopold, apologize, and move on.

This will remain a story until they do it.

[DancingBear]

90. See how simple that is?

Exactly.

In order to regain credibilty, one must first admit that one has lost it.

Here's hoping.

[Maddy McCall]

91. And that's exactly why it isn't a dead horse yet.

The horse is crippled, haggard, wounded, in much pain. But it ain't dead until the originator of the story admits his own folly.

[likesmountains 52]

103. I'm going out on a limb here..but I think that when TO admits its

mistake the horse will be put on life support so it can be beat to death a second time:)

[Maddy McCall]

117. Not by me.

I didn't have an initial emotional response to the story. When he admits that the story was wrong, I'll respond with no emotion--indeed, I'll thank him for his admission that it was wrong, and that'll be that.

And if people want to attack me for that, then I'll respond to them individually.

The horse is already on life-support. It's up to Pitt and TO to pull the plug.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

120. This just occurred to me

Do people think that indictments have an indefinite life, that they're just sort of pieces of paper that are put out there, and can be whipped out and used whenever the prosecutor thinks they might come in handy?

Because the notion of a ten-day-old "sealed indictment" is so far beyond the pale, I never thought that people might believe that.

An indictment is sealed most often when there's a chance that the person upon whom it's going to be served is going to flee the jurisdiction.

Anyone see Karl Rove make a break for Brazil recently?

I rest my case.

There was never any indictment, the whole truthout story was nonsense and false, and the people responsible for it should be menschy enough to come forward and admit their errors and offer an abject and heartfelt apology to the entire community.

Then, they really should disappear for a good long time.

[King Coal]

127. Promise Lefty? Do you promise you rest your case?

I hope so. You're letting yourself get too worked up over this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

129. Honey,

you haven't recovered, have you? Yeah, having your head handed to you is always an enlightening experience, isn't it, sweetie?

I guess that polygamy show didn't do a thing to reliieve your tension.

Pity. Maybe you should watch it again, and take notes?

That might help.

[King Coal]

147. No, I did watch the show and it was great.

Having my head handed to me is always great, yes. But, Darlin', why are getting so fired up over this? Leopold is unethical. Pitt bought into his bullshit, got drunk and posted and made a fool of himself. It happens. That doesn't mean Will is a bad guy. It just means he's human. Will's on our side. He got too fired up. Don't let it happen to you. It's not that big of a deal.

[Maddy McCall]

131. So that's the new meme.

That people who discuss the story are "getting too worked up by it," or "are thrilled by it," or are "orgasmic" over it?

Don't project--it's obvious that that's what you are doing. You know that the Pitt sycophants' initial emotional response was wrong, so now you want to project that onto the people who asked sane questions and expressed well-founded skepticism.

It's easy to see where you're coming from. Try again.

[Opening_Day]

301. The voice of reason.

I've been reading your posts for quite some time.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

355. Best Dylan anti-war song ever

Eddie Vedder's version is beyond anything ever heard. Amazing.

Welcome to DU.

[Opening_Day]

363. Thanks

I didn't know Vedder made a version, I'll have a look.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

369. It's on the CD of

Dylan's Anniversary Concert (25th? 30th?) at Madison Square Garden - there are some fine, fine musicians on that 2-CD set.

Enjoy.

[IsIt1984Yet]

133. It keeps going and going and going and going and going and going

I'd love to hear Will Pitt's thoughts on this today.

[King Coal]

152. I think Will put Maddy up to this. He doesn't look so bad

compared to her. And I'm sick of that damn frog!

[Maddy McCall]

179. It's either Will or Rove. God knows, I can't think for myself!

Keep repeating that meme.

[IsIt1984Yet]

180. It's only continuing because people are buying it as truth.

It's not.

[IsIt1984Yet]

185. Then ignore her if you'd like. But, the emperor STILL has no clothes

and Rove was NOT indicted on 5/12.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

202. At least the frog has good manners,

and doesn't go around asking for favors while being a suckass.

The frog's not ever going on Ignore, either.

But, KC, you just couldn't help yourself, could you?

<click>

[garybeck]

205. there's a reason why it keeps going

because TO still hasn't admitted they f'd up, fired Leopold, and apologized.

when they do that, the story will go away. until then, sit back and watch.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

136. The final sentence in the summary of the article resonates with me

"And all good reasons for news organizations to be more transparent and open with readers -- and harder on ourselves -- than ever."

Indeed, while that's true there is also good reason for we the consumers of their "news" products to be more critical and not accept anything, from anyone, without question.

Hopefully, when all is said and done, both consumers and news providers alike will have learned a bit from this incident.

[Jazz2006]

243. Well said,

and that's a GREAT garden smiley, too.

:hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

334. Thank You

I didn't realize I was posting in a thread on the front lines of a battle field when I replied. I've been on holiday and was unaware of all the collateral damage that taking place here on DU due to this story.

I don't think I've properly welcomed you yet either... Welcome to DU! :hi:

Feel free to use the garden smiley in the future. :)

[Jazz2006]

354. Thank YOU

For the welcome and the generous offer of the garden smiley, which I will cheerfully take you up on!

I trust that your vacation was superb ~ ~ (if for no other reason than missing the, er, storm here)

:)

[dpbrown]

141. The same thing Rove said about J.H. Hatfield

After Rove released Bush's cocaine arrest history to J.H. Hatfield and the story ended up in "Fortunate Son" Rove sought to discredit Hatfield through his former arrests.

The purpose is to soften the eventual impact of a reported truth by releasing it earlier and impeaching the source.

[bleever]

146. And the Rather story on TANG.

The story was factual, but the documents were fake. Bush gets a second term, Rather gets an ignominious heave-ho.

Standard Rove M.O.

[foo_bar]

176. self-impeaching in this case

From Chapter 2 of "News Junkie", "The Scoop":

A scoop is a scoop. In my opinion, as long as you are the first one who reports the news, you own the story. It doesn’t really matter how you get it. Other journalists will whine about ethics, but that’s a load of crap.

...

That bitch. It all makes sense now. Motherfucking unbelievable. She’s trying to stop the other papers from picking up my story. That’s it. They’re trying to discredit me. You don’t need to be Woodward or Bernstein to figure out that there’s probably some truth—or maybe something bigger—to my story if the press office is going to such great lengths to stop it from being picked up by the Los Angeles Times. Man, I thought, if I could only control my drinking and coke habit, I’d pour myself a tall glass of brandy and snort a line or two off my desk.

...

When Arden called to tell me about my award, I thought she was going to say, “Jason, we’ve figured out you’re a complete fraud. You’re fired.” Doesn’t she know that I have no idea what I’m doing? Am I that good of an actor?

You could say that I got many scoops through unconventional means.

http://processmediainc.com/press/mini_sites/news_junkie/media_files/newsjunkie_chap2_thescoop.pdf

[OldLeftieLawyer]

192. Thanks for that

Not only is Leopold a really bad writer, he does appear to have a whole lot of serious emotional problems.

What trash. What ugliness that man displays. What contempt for everyone.

He's no journalist, and he sure ain't no writer.

Icky stuff, and barely readable.

But, thanks for linking that.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

270. Wow, that's damning (and damnable) writing.

From the same chapter:

I hate thin-skinned crybaby reporters. Journalists are supposed to be tough, like overcooked steak, thick enough to deflect all the harsh criticism. That’s what every editor tells you when you start out. But most of the reporters I know can’t take a beating, especially if it’s from a competitor, like me.

I'm no writer, but that last comma in the last sentence made me read it as saying that he too can't take a beating (especially from a competitor). Probably not what he was trying to say.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

178. Where's the indictment, then?

How do you soften the blow of something that never happened?

Gullibility got Bush a second term.

[dpbrown]

186. It's coming

I believe Rove is going to be indicted. I think that this is being staged to take the burn out of it when it happens.

Cry wolf, cry wolf...then when the sheep are all dead, no one's paying attention anymore.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

198. No, it was supposed to have been issued on the 12th

Saying "it's coming" betrays your lack of information. That's like saying the sun will rise tomorrow, although odds are better that the sun will rise tomorrow than Rove will be indicted - that's my bet.

No one knows anything.

Faith ain't knowledge, and there is no indictment.

[Bluebear]

226. It was GUARANTEED to be dated 5/12, no? nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

235. So they reported........

But, maybe it was the 13th?

Or the 17th?

Maybe they just left the date blank, and they'll fill it in later?

<snort>

[dpbrown]

259. Yippie, Rove might NOT be indicted, right?

Yeah, that's worth rejoicing about.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

271. What rejoice?

I just don't give a damn if he's indicted or not.

There are far more significant things going on that have my interest.

[dpbrown]

278. I'm sorry to hear that

Since bringing justice to the door of a White House that has brought ruin and damnation to a nation ought not to be trivially dismissed whilst one rearranges the deck chairs of their own private Idaho.


I love mixing socialphors!


:P

[dpbrown]

258. Who cares when?

It's BS to stand on ceremony when the real issue is leaking the information to a source that can be discredited to soften the blow when it does come.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Rove will be indicted. Nearly as much as that the sun will come up tomorrow.

The only reason this was allowed to come out through Truthout is because Rove thought he could discredit the source.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

267. "... stand on ceremony........."

I can't believe you actually wrote that.

You cannot be serious.

You simply can't be serious.

OK, thanks for the laugh.

[dpbrown]

274. You're welcome, and thanks to you, too

I absolutely can't believe that someone could be so obtuse as to condemn an outlet so obviously being used as a cushion to blunt the blow of an indictment that is so obviously coming because they used the date they were "leaked."


Thanks for the laugh. Pedantics is always such a gut-buster.


:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

281. So is ignorance of the law

Man, I hope you live a clean life, because what you don't know about the Constitution is scary.

Best of luck to you, though.

You need it.

[dpbrown]

368. So is ignorance of the proper use of the "red herring"

The indictment or non-indictment of Rove has nothing to do with the Constitution.

The Constitution has no effect on my clean life. The hijacking of the Constitution by the nutballs in control of the government might, but again, since their seizure of power and usurpation of the Constitution bears no relationship to anyone's guilt or innocence, that doesn't bear on my clean life either.

In fact, the liability or lack thereof of Truthout has nothing to do with the Constitution, either. Defamation, maybe.

Counselor, I'm afraid you're the one in need of "luck." No, actually that would be your clients ....

Then again, you're the one trying to wield the "pithy" put-downs to some anonymous person in the middle of a nonsensical thread on a message board in the middle of nowhere in cyberspace.

Happy (chem)trails to you.

:rofl:

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

357. "being used as a cushion to blunt the blow of an indictment" ?

Could you please explain this further? In particular, I would like to understand:

1) How a media outlet like TruthOut could be used as a "cushion" in this manner.
2) Who is being "cushioned" from "the blow of an indictment"?

I really can't formulate an answer to those questions. Thanks in advance.

[katinmn]

257. "impeaching the source"

Sounds plausible, Dan.

Haven't they attacked the messengers of the spying stories, all of the whistleblowers, etc?

The story about the story has lately overshadowed Rove's offenses.

And with Leopold's background so public, and his willingness to jump in feet first, it will be easy to discredit him.

I just hope Fitzgerald is able to nail Rove and Chenney both.

[dpbrown]

261. Taking down Rove sends a signal to the public

About how deep the corruption and lying go in this administration.


I am hoping that Fitzgerald has found the evidence he needs to bring justice to a White House that sorely lacks it.

[Julius Civitatus]

329. This trick is a favorite among Rove's "greatest hits"

and people keep falling for it.

[jazzjunkysue]

359. Right. Why did Miller rot in jail for months? Just for Libby? No. For Chen

Cheney and Bush, too.

I really don't believe she sat in prison for Libby, alone. She knew they would all go down when Libby's case started.

Add that to the fact that Rove plays all kinds of games like this, diluting the punch by compromising the messenger.

I still say no GOP pundits are out sticking up for the Rover, because he's toxic.

It's not Leopold I believe, it's the rest of the history and landscape.

To me, Leopold is only the messenger, and not the point.

I think they're all at risk, and if Fitzgerald is as good as he seems, he'll get them all.

[savemefromdumbya]

163. ABC News thinks ROVE was at O'Hare on Friday?

The Fitzgerald investigation:
Keying off of recent court filings, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports that Patrick Fitzgerald plans to argue that Libby knew Plame's CIA employment was classified, giving him a reason to lie to the grand jury. LINK

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports that the recent untrue claim that Rove had been indicted was written by "a journalist who has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny." And yet, that didn't stop "more than 35 reporters — from all the major newspapers, networks and newsmagazines — from calling Luskin or Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, to check it out." LINK

A Note Notebook to the first person who can tell us why Karl Rove was at O'Hare last Friday afternoon around 6pm ET. Karl Rove and members of his staff are not eligible. The Fitzgerald investigation:
Keying off of recent court filings, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports that Patrick Fitzgerald plans to argue that Libby knew Plame's CIA employment was classified, giving him a reason to lie to the grand jury. LINK

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports that the recent untrue claim that Rove had been indicted was written by "a journalist who has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny." And yet, that didn't stop "more than 35 reporters — from all the major newspapers, networks and newsmagazines — from calling Luskin or Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, to check it out." LINK

A Note Notebook to the first person who can tell us why Karl Rove was at O'Hare last Friday afternoon around 6pm ET. Karl Rove and members of his staff are not eligible.
:shrug:

Isn't that in Chicago? Was Fitz in Chicago?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

[King Coal]

173. Rove went to Schaumberg to talk to Motorola about bugging

Maddy's frog.

[IsIt1984Yet]

188. It's Schaumburg. Or did Leopold report it was spelled that way?

[King Coal]

197. Thanks for the spelling check.

[IsIt1984Yet]

200. My pleasure. You give snark; you get snark.

:hi:

[Maddy McCall]

195. Obsess much?

My frog says "bite me."

[King Coal]

206. LOL! I think that frog is related to the terrible republican lady

at the NYC convention with the purple bandaid on her chin. They have the same dentures. Yikes!

[Maddy McCall]

209. Your meds are in the cabinet behind the mirror.

Might want to take them now.

[eggman67]

252. I STAND WITH THE FROG!!!!

And so does my unicorn. I've got at least 52 independent sources that verify my unicorn's existence and I've had 6 gibbons and a cyclops check them out.

Prove I didn't. :)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

181. "... thinks ........."

Oh, who gives a rat's ass?

Someone thinks someone was at an airport.

So?

It's a big airport. Sometimes there are more than two people there at the same time.

No, really. It's true. I've been there.

And what does it matter where Rove was?

Fitzgerald lives in Chicago.

[King Coal]

213. Yeah, I'm obsessed with that frog.

He called me a shitdog when he was drunk. I'll never let it go. :sarcasm:

[savemefromdumbya]

381. sniff!

[greatauntoftriplets]

183. Rove was in the Chicago suburbs to attend fundraisers....

one each day, Friday and Saturday.

No big mystery.

[Maddy McCall]

187. Bush is there today to speak to the National Restaurant Association

convention.

I think that he thinks he's speaking to the NRA--National Rifle Association, though.

:rofl:

[greatauntoftriplets]

196. Yeah, I am surprised that Chicago isn't under a dark cloud today...

The triplets' parents usually attend the show on the Monday. This year, he is attending tonight's White Sox game instead.

[eggman67]

374. No, no, no....

Bush is in Chicago to pick up his super-duper-secret-sealed indictment. You see, Shrub has been indicted too, and he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order. Of course, business hours only occur when the moon is in Uranus so he should be able to get things sorted out with plenty of time.

[Bluebear]

379. Heh heh you said uranus. nt

[Geek_Girl]

298. I read the Washington-post story this morning

and couldn't help but thinking that Jason Leopold is either a stark raving lunatic to makeup a story like this and flush his credibility down the toilet or he took bait that may have been intended for some bigger fish.

Either way I don't really know what the truth about this story is. I'd like to know but I don't. What I do know is, I miss the days when DU was a bastion of investigative blogger types who's mission in life was to seek the truth and share ideas and theories about what is going on in the world. Now a days it seems DU is full of bloggers who are only interested in trashing others.

[eggman67]

373. He'd need something to flush...

"couldn't help but thinking that Jason Leopold is either a stark raving lunatic to makeup a story like this and flush his credibility down the toilet"

What credibility would that be?

[earth mom]

328. The MSM is nothin but whores-I don't believe 99.9% of what they report

and so I'm really finding all this ad nauseum ragging on and on about Truthout totally ridiculous to the point of being freeper like in it's intensity.

Hell, the majority of us REAL LIBERALS at DU know Rove is guilty as hell.

I don't need any "proof" for that. :eyes:

'Nuff said.

[KoKo]

337. Deleted Post..with Replies, here!

KoKo01 (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:37 PM
Original message
Which set of lawyers fed "TO" the information they "RAN ON?"

Edited on Mon May-22-06 06:55 PM by KoKo01
Was it Rove's, Cheney's or Libby's lawyers...who fed stuff to Leopold and "Truthout" and if they "took the bait" does it mean that they are "HEROES" because they knew they would put PRESSURE on ROVE to divulge more info to keep from being indicted...once again?

Those who've followed this will understand that Fitz might have been getting ready to indict Rove with Libby until Rove divulged all those "e-mails" he'd been saving.

But, now that the Libby case is "ongoing" and we know that Cheney and Rove have "high powered lawyers" along with Libby who has kids and is looking at some "time in the "Federal Spa" then what are we to make of this.

I don't doubt that Leopold had some "buzz and chatter and that David Schuster heard the same and reported it to Matthews who was the only M$M to seem to think...something was coming.

But...in THIS CASE we have HIGH POWERED LAWYERS on Cheney/Rove/Libby's SIDE who have MILLIONS to support their Client.

The Public Relations SPIN must be INCREDIBLE given that amount of money.

So ...TruthOut get's the shaft as a TOOL in this whole process. They became an "outlet."
HOPE is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul,and sings the tune without the words,and never stops at all-- Emily Dickinson (1830–86)
Alert | Add to my Journal | Hide Thread | Recommend Topic for Greatest Page (0 votes) Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

Replies to this thread
good question grasswire May-22-06 06:43 PM #1
Sow chaos, Rove says. Hosea says .. DemoTex May-22-06 06:50 PM #4
Who are the leakers? Go ask Alice... TorchesAndPitchforks May-22-06 06:47 PM #2
So let me get this straight... Scoody Boo May-22-06 06:48 PM #3
everything Clovis Sangrail May-22-06 06:53 PM #6
are you ignoring the fact Jason Leopold has a history of lying? RDU Socialist May-22-06 06:51 PM #5
I don't think TO was "Rathered". I think the story was cooked up. Taxloss May-22-06 06:57 PM #7
You have a point Vinnie From Indy May-22-06 07:27 PM #8
I don't think ANYONE fed him ANYTHING... ShaneGR May-22-06 07:29 PM #9
It's likely quite that simple; any extra energy unexpended. n/t jarab May-22-06 07:35 PM #10
Locking. pinto May-22-06 07:36 PM #11

grasswire (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. good question

It seem pretty obvious that TO was "rathered" in this episode. Just as James Hatfield and so many others were the victim of gutterball politics. Sow chaos, Rove says. Sow chaos while you perform dirty deeds. They've been trying it on Fitzpatrick, too.
Emily, get out of the way!
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemoTex (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sow chaos, Rove says. Hosea says ..

Sow the wind; reap the whirlwind. Hosea 8

There is a shit-storm brewing for Mr. Rove. The Perfect Shit-Storm.

But then I sigh and, with a piece of scripture, Tell them that God bids us do good for evil;
And thus I clothe my naked villainy with odd old ends stol'n forth of Holy Writ,
And seems a saint when most I play the devil. William Shakespeare, Richard III
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

TorchesAndPitchforks (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who are the leakers? Go ask Alice...



Its hard to trust anything unless its written down on paper by Patrick Fizgerald. It all sounds so plausible. Will we ever know?
“To initiate a war of aggression is . . . not only an international crime, it is the supreme crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains the accumulated evil of the whole.” Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Scoody Boo (84 posts) Mon May-22-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. So let me get this straight...

Leopold was FED something. I guess he probably was. The story he pulled out of his ass had to come from somewhere.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Clovis Sangrail (593 posts) Mon May-22-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. everything

comes from somewhere

even scoodies
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

RDU Socialist (167 posts) Mon May-22-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. are you ignoring the fact Jason Leopold has a history of lying?

are you ignoring the fact that the story said Rove was indicted and it would be known by wednesday of last week? if fitzgerald was getting ready to indict rove, that's different from actually indicting him as the story claims.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Taxloss (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't think TO was "Rathered". I think the story was cooked up.

Let's face it, TO isn't that big a blog. Why on earth would Rove focus on it and try to discredit it in this manner? Why not go for a bigger prize, like KOS, which has international recognition?

That aside, there's the mechanics of the story. If TO was "Rathered", by now you would think that they would know about it. They could disown the story, name the sources (as Leopold promised) and make the Rathering the story - it would be a good story.

But they haven't. Instead, they've sort of stuck by the story in a half-hearted manner.

Frankly, I think that Leopold cooked the story. He had some tidbits of gossip from a couple of people, he's an ambitious guy, and the story grew like topsy in his head. Once TO found itself defending this concoction, it couldn't stop - it's awful hard to back down from something like that. So they were backed into this netherworld of "partial apologies" and "clarifications" that simply contradict earlier versions.

We now know that scarcely a detail of the original story was accurate. If it was a set-up, it would at least have been more convincing.

"Don't be misled by the British tendency to be soft-spoken and polite. If they need to be, they can be plenty tough." - Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain, 1942.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Vinnie From Indy (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. You have a point

If this were a "Rathergate" operation by BushCo or other GOP operatives, there are certainly larger fish in the liberal blogosphere to hook. I think that KOS and Atrios etc. should reveal whether they were fed this story and declined to run with it. Targeting Truthout with a disinformation campaign hardly seems worth the effort. I do tend to believe that Leopold was prompted by something or someone to gamble on this story. I would advise Leopold that his reputation has taken such a large hit that he might want to consider a complete expose on the origins and timeline of this story. The expose might want to include the outing his sources if he feels they have lied to him. He should tell his sources that unless they can provide convincing evidence that they were merely pawns being duped by someone else, they will be outed. It is his decision and not one to be made lightly. He is in a difficult spot because he is through as a credible journalist until he explains what happened and he can't really explain what happened without revealing his sources which will have ramifications on future sources trusting him enough to talk.

That being said, it is mildly amusing to read the apocalyptic predictions of doom for the liberal blogosphere because a single blogger on a small web site gets a story wrong. It is really a tempest in a teacup. There is a benefit to this event in that ALL bloggers should realize that properly sourcing a story is a vital way to protect their reputation and credibility. Leopold's fate will hopefully be a potent reminder of the importance of professionalism.

I am still a Will Pitt fan and I will wait for a pattern of misjudgements and sloppy journalism by TO editors before I judge them to be without credibility. They do need to come forward at some point and explain this story.
http://www.indynewsblog.com
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

ShaneGR (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't think ANYONE fed him ANYTHING...

I think it was a fishing expedition, and they caught a used tire.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

jarab (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. It's likely quite that simple; any extra energy unexpended. n/t

...O....
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

[DancingBear]

339. Let's have fun - list all the things us pro-evidence folks don't want

So far, we:

Don't want TO to survive

Don't want Pitt to return

Don't want Rove indicted

Don't want to believe in anything good

Don't want to trust in anyone

Don't believe that Rove is behind everything

Don't believe in sealed indictments


Add to the list, please.

We all want to know how bad we truly are.

[BlooInBloo]

341. I... I.... I....

don't think kickball players should be allowed to live past the 3rd inning!

heeheehee

And I don't even think it's appropriate to call my views "anti-TO". I just think they should shit-or-get-off-the-pot. They make a claim, either show us the evidence, or take it back.

Either way is good with me - upon being shown the evidence (assuming it's good), I'll be the first to jump to their support.

[DancingBear]

345. I absolutely agree with you

I would offer "I was wrong" until the cows came home if I thought there was a chance that the TO story was legit.

I used "anti-TO" in quotes because that's how I (and others) have been branded.

The 3rd inning????

You're much too kind. :)

[BlooInBloo]

346. Fuck that - start a new brand: we're not anti-TO... we're PRO-EVIDENCE!

bam.

[DancingBear]

349. Your wish is my command

Look above. :)

[IsIt1984Yet]

343. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy,

Bigfoot, Unicorns, Loch Ness, Scientology or the Leopold Report.

[Maddy McCall]

351. Don't want to be uncovered as a covert, paid GOP operative.

[meganmonkey]

340. Good lord, you people must be bored

How about you turn off the computer, write NO WAR on a pice of cardboard and go stand on a corner or something?

Sheesh.

[Left Coast Lynn]

378. What would help this die...

is TruthOut issuing a thorough and genuine explanation of what happened.

If that happened, will someone link me up? Thanks.

[Maddy McCall]

380. If that happens, I'll PM you to let you know.

:hi:

[Left Coast Lynn]

383. Is Will posting?

I hate the thought of him feeling he can't be around because of this.