Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Truthout is "Standing Down on the Rove Matter"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:00 PM
Original message
Truthout is "Standing Down on the Rove Matter"
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:02 PM by IsIt1984Yet
http://forum.truthout.org/blog

By Marc Ash,

Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 06:52:40 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqu which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.

Reporter Jason Leopold

Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19.

Marc Ash
Executive Director - Truthout
[email protected]

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. What, exactly is "standing down"?
Backing down or standing up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah,
What the hell does that mean????

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. It's a military term: disengaging.
Not retreating, but taking a breather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Huh. Thanks for the definition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Honestly, I'm not sure how they mean it here. It can also be used
to a subordinate, "Stand down, soldier" kinda like shut the fuck up before you're thrown in the brig type of thing.

At any rate, it means to collect yourself and reassess the situation before you get into trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. Please,
Don't ever talk to me about military terms - not ever. I lived them.

I will not engage you on it.

Taking a breather - what the hell does that mean??

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. I have lived them, too.
Not sure what your problem is, but I hope it gets better. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #45
68. I hope all of our problems get better,
Vickers, the guy is not a soldier - he is some blogger that got caught up in his own bullshit.

I don't know him, maybe he thought he was right and all that -

but for god's sake - don't use military terms with me, it is a real sore point right now.

Joew
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. My apologies, Joe.
I thought your missive was directed at me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. It is cool,
No problem at all.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
129. Then why did you ask what "standing down" meant?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #129
137. Um, he didn't.
That was the OP who asked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #31
281. Yet you asked "what the hell does that mean?"
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 06:32 AM by JNelson6563
And then, "don't tell me what it means"

Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:27 PM
Original message
That's what I read it as, too.
A withholding of further action. No retreat, but no attack, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
232. Another military term: Advancing to the rear
i.e., retreat, every man for himself, Jason who?, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
529. like debriefing, delousing and dbshing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
175. It's just more bullshit disingenous obfuscation. Ash is an Ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. It means they're still not taking responsibility for their actions
But hey, keep clicking that Truthout bookmark. Tabloidism is good money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. To be clear
I firmly believe this is another serving of bullshit they're dishing out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. I'm sorry
I didn't mean for my post to imply that you personally were credulous. I've seen your posts in other threads on this matter. Obviously we concur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
65. Yep. It's just more bullshit.
"We don't really know what the hell is going on but we are kinda stand by our story and we won't reveal the 'sources' even though Leopold said he would if they burned him which they did, assuming they ever existed."

Period. This is just more bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #65
121. But doesn't it sound like they want the exact wording so they can...
...know for sure whether they've been burned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #121
132. Uh, if Rove was not indicted on May 12, then their story is wrong.
And their sources, if they had any sources and that is doubtful, burned them. Period. What difference does it make what's in the letter? (Answer: it doesn't make any difference.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #132
167. Unless the indictment, as is done in these sorts of cases, was SEALED.
I strongly suggest that the Truthout detractors who have been spun by Rove's lawyer -- via, good grief, Byron York -- with such ease read Emptywheel's elucidating post over at Daily Kos and Christy Hardin Smith's analysis of the facts.

By the way, both NBC's David Shuster and CNN's Ed Henry were CERTAIN that Rove was on the verge of indictment or had already been indicted under seal at the time Jason Leopold's Truthout article came out. Shuster reported it; Henry played his cards closer to the vest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #167
229. The sealed indictment rises again
I thought there was already a wake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #229
249. There was indeed....
Poor indictment, we barely knew ya'

:rofl:


That was a very good thread :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #167
241. Luskin said "charge", not "indict."
I read on another post that the GJ did indict, but Fitz chose not to charge.

Perhaps the indictment was incentive to get Rove to paint a more vivid picture of Cheney's involvement.

Wouldn't Rove have more credibility in front of Cheney's jury if he was not also charged with a crime in the case?

I think Rove is just enough of a snake to have "something" on everybody, (like J. Edgar Hoover did) not just on his enemies.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Sometimes you have to turn on a "friend" first before that "friend" turns on you.

If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #241
248. Huh?
Indictment = charges.

An indictment is the piece of paper that sets out criminal charges on paper.

Don't know what website you're getting your info from that says "indictment" does not mean "charges" but that is just wrong.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #248
300. can an indictment be rescinded? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #248
434. As I said I got it from another thread on DU.
As I also said, the Grand Jury does the indicting.

From what the thread said, Fitz does not have to bring charges after he gets the indictment from the Grand Jury.

Are you a lawyer or just a flamer? If you are just here to flame people, put me on ignore. If I wanted to get criticized for posting I would go to Vote.com or some other flamefest site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #434
444. Indictment = charges
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 08:30 AM by Marie26
Charges can be brought a couple ways, and one is by indictment. Once someone is indicted by the grand jury, charges have been brought against them. At that point, it's out of the prosecutor's hands. He has already brought charges against the defendant the moment the GJ returns an indictment. The defendant can later move to dismiss the indictment, or the prosecutor can agree to plea bargain the charges, but that doesn't change the fact that charges were brought against the defendant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #444
449. Marie26, your investigations and explanations
have been a tremendous help to me as I've been reading through these threads. Thanks so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #449
528. Thank you!
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 04:01 PM by Marie26
:hug: And here I thought I was just wasting incredible amounts of time. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #444
459. At what point can a prosecutor say "nolle prosequi"
and could such action be sealed?

IOW, would it technically be possible for:

1) the GJ indicts
2) a judge seals it
3) prosecutor files nolle prosequi
4) a judge seals THAT
5) lawyer of erstwhile defendent says prosecutor "does not anticipate seeking charges" and is not technically lying.

Is this legal? feasible? likely? laughable?

Please understand I'm not asserting that this has happened, I am just trying to flesh out all remote possibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #459
527. Don't think so
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 04:00 PM by Marie26
Well, IMO, it tends to go from feasible to unlikely to laughable w/each step.

1.) GJ indicts - So charges have been brought against Rove.

2.) Judge seals indictment - This always seemed very unlikely to me. There's really not a legitimate reason to seal this indictment here & it wasn't done in the Libby case. Not Fitz's MO. But it's feasible, I guess. However, TO's contention that Rove knows about the sealed indictment, and that it's still been sealed this long pushes it over into unfeasible for me. The sealed ind. is usually unsealed as soon as it's served on the Defendant.

3.) Prosecutor files nolle prosequi - That's an interesting suggestion, but not too likely IMO. AFIAK, in federal law, this is a dismissal under FRCP Rule 48(a). The prosecutor can file to dismiss after an indictment is brought, but he can't decide to do this on his own. Under federal rules, he also needs the approval of the court. So, Fitzgerald could file to dismiss, but the judge must decide whether she wants to approve the dismissal or not. In order to approve the dismissl, the judge needs to hear a valid reason for the action. The judge's role is to prevent prosecutorial abuse & ensure the dismissal is in the public interest. So, anyway, the federal judge would have to approve the dismissal & Fitz would have to supply a valid reason for doing so. Also, the defendant (Rove) would also have to know of the indictment & approve the dismissal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/NRule48.htm

4.) Judge seals dismissal - Here's where it goes to impossible. I've never heard of a judge dismissing a sealed indictment, & then sealing the dismissal. Indictments are sealed because of a pressing reason (flight, publicity) etc., usually until the defendant can be arrested. I've never heard of sealing the dismissal, too & am not even sure how that'd be done. I hope it can't be done - cause it would remove any sort of accountability that the judge's dismissal approval is supposed to provide. Also, it means Rove officially has been served the indictment, & doesn't object to the dismissal, & the judge is hearing evidence, yet, the indictment is somehow remaining sealed this whole time. Yeah - no.

5.) Lawyer of erstwhile defendent says prosecutor "does not anticipate seeking charges" and is not technically lying - Here's where it goes to laughable. First, that'd have to be what the prosecutor said, as well. If the defense lawyer lies about that, he's facing a ton of potential sanctions from the court & the bar. Based on news reports, Fitz said that "Rove won't be charged with any crimes... prosecutor called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove." So, Fitz is saying that he will not seek charges (an indictment) against Rove. It doesn't make any sense for him to say that if he'd already sought charges & indicted Rove. Cause that would be, technically, lying. And Luskin would also know about the dismissed indictment, while publically stating that Rove wasn't indicted. I can't believe Luskin would commit career suicide by lying about that letter, & also don't believe Fitz would collaborate to cover up his own indictment. (that the judge & GJ would also know about). So - that means the language of the statement is correct - Fitz won't seek charges against Rove, & he never sought any charges against Rove.

That's a pretty creative scenario, though! "Nolle prosequi" & all. It's the only remote possibility that can even hypothetically explain how an indictment could've happened here, but it's got too many holes & is way too unlikely. Fitz's statement basically sinks that possibility, IMO. Even w/o the statement, the concept of a "sealed dismissal" is completely w/o basis in the law as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #444
544. Thanks for explaining.
It is nice to know who really has the facts when you get conflicting information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #434
462. Virginian
I don't know why you think that explaining that indictment = charges is flaming.

And yes, I am a lawyer.

(Civil/commercial litigator, not crim, but I do know how the crim system works as well)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #65
173. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
282. Agreed.
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. The opposite of "noted in the building"?
...too late for that.



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. whatever.
time to get over it and move on.

Truthout should be allowed to continue their fine work, relegating Jason's unsubstantiated story to the history bin until it can be corroborated by the prosecutor's office.

Let Truthout move on. The site's not called Jason Leopold and Truthout. Countless important stories and articles have graced the pages of the site throughout the controversy. Important stories. Only a narrow mindset would detract anyone visiting the site from that effort.

Go to the site. http://www.truthout.com/

I challenge anyone to find fault with what they've offered:

from the site:

June 14, 2006 | Armed forces personnel carry the coffins of Lt. Tom Mildinhall and Lance Cpl. Paul Farrelly at the Royal Air Force Brize Norton Air Base in England. Soldiers of the Queen's Dragoon Guards were killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Basra on May 28. Like many other cities across Iraq, Basra has seen a large loss of life of both Iraqi civilians and soldiers. Last month, 11 British soldiers died and many were injured, resulting in the most urgent British calls for withdrawal so far.

Bush Acknowledges
Guantanamo Damages US Image

ACLU Sues Pentagon Over
Anti-War Group Monitoring

Baghdad Security
Crackdown Launched

Fraudulent Katrina and
Rita Claims Top $1 Billion

Reinventing
Globalization

Military Has Ordered
All Independent News Media
off Guantanamo

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Threatens to Explode

House Accepts
$3,300 Raise

Global Image of the US
Is Worsening, Survey Finds

EU and US "Partners in Crime" on
CIA Flights: Amnesty International

House Approves Another
$66 Billion for War

Attacks Aimed at
Iraqi Civilians Kill 27

First Trial in Lobbying Scandal
Goes to Jury

Farmers, Activists
Resisting Eviction at
Nation's Largest Urban Farm

State Department Tries
to Distance Itself
From Guantanamo Remark

Rival US Labs in Arms Race
to Build Safer Nuclear Bomb

Oil, Politics and Bloodshed
Corrupt an Iraqi City

5 States Hold Votes;
Dems Battle in Virginia

Congress to Debate
Iraq This Week

Judges Press CIA Lawyer
Over Withheld Documents

Nonaligned Nations
Prepare to Back Iran

Outcry Over
Suicides at Guantanamo

Religious Leaders
Urge US to Ban Torture

Florida Candidate Arrested
While Investigating Voter Fraud

Top Court: Death Row Inmates
Can Pursue Appeals

US Defends Warrantless
Domestic Spying

For Youth, Advice
on Military, and Dissent

Smoke of Iraq War
"Drifting Over Lebanon"

The Pursuit of Indecency Escalates
on American Radio and Television


Caught in the Crossfire
The Untold Story of Fallujah
A Film by Mark Manning
06.12.06


Go Tell It on the Mountain
A Film by Rebecca MacNeice
06.07.06

The Daily Astorian:
We Cannot Afford This Extra
Pollution

AFL-CIO to Invest
$700 Million in Big Easy
Rebuilding Projects

Caryl Rivers:
Newsweek's Apology Comes
20 Years Too Late

Gene Gerard:
Religion Running Roughshod
Over Cancer Science

June 14, 2006 | Baghdad's passport office has been inundated with applicants, as Iraqis seek safety from violence. An American refugee advocacy group counted 644,500 Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan in 2005. The US Congress is poised this week to conduct its most comprehensive debate on the Iraq war yet, with both Democrats and Republicans eager to delineate the parties' differences in advance of the fall Congressional elections.

Sarah Olson:
Is the US Army Trying to
Silence Lt. Watada?

J. Sri Raman:
Must India Join Bush
War on Nepal's Maoists?

Sara Rich:
Fear for My Daughter

Stewart Nusbaumer:
"Every Rocket Was a Painkiller"

Robert Dreyfuss:
The Other Cheney
Behind the Scenes

William Fisher:
Arab Voices

David Swanson:
The Iraq War as a Trophy Photo

Greg Palast:
Keeping Iraq's Oil
in the Ground

Robert Scheer:
DeLay's Mission Continues

Le Monde
Democracies:
Recovering the Flame

Cindy Sheehan:
Cure the Disease

Richard Falk:
The Death of al-Zarqawi

Brecher and Smith:
Lieutenant Watada's
War Against the War

Bill Zide:
The "C" Word

William Fisher:
And the Oscar Goes To ...

Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed:
Another US Cover-Up Surfaces

Norman Solomon:
Why Pretend That
Hillary Clinton Is Progressive?

Dahr Jamail
Ramadi: Fallujah Redux

Maj. Gen. John Batiste:
Root Causes of Haditha

Tom Engelhardt:
John Brown Helps the
President Address the Nation

Marjorie Cohn:
Spinning Suicide

Daniel Ellsberg:
Iraq's Pentagon Papers

The New York Times:
Blind Man's Bluff

Kenneth F. Bunting:
When Will Mainstream Media
Question 2004 Election?

Daniel Yankelovich:
The Tipping Points

Jackson Lears:
The American W

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
170. relegating Jason's unsubstantiated story? How about David Shuster's?
See the last question in this post -- and then think again. Methinks you're awfully eager to crucify Jason Leopold while IGNORING David Shuster, Ed Henry, and others in the SCLM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #170
195. godddam John I'm defending TO and Jason! I'm withholding judgement
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:44 PM by bigtree
it just is never enough for some people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #195
373. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Why the hardon to condemn TO w/o hard facts and concrete evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #373
374. I wonder MORE about how TO could publish a story as FACT w/o
hard facts and concrete evidence....

THAT's the bigger question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #374
377. Why should they be held to higher standards than any other
news source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #377
378. If we can't trust our "own"... who the fuck can we trust?
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:38 PM by IsIt1984Yet
We should expect more from "our own".

In addition, GiC stated it VERY well here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1429533&mesg_id=1436610

Stinky yards suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #170
275. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #275
359. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #28
286. For this to go away, one of three things has to happen, none of which
has so far:

1. Large numbers of people have to stop caring about whether truthout is accountable for the truth of its stories or not. I don't think that any of truthouts supporters want THAT to come to pass.

2. Truthout has to come clean, and explain this whole story. They have not yet done any actual EXPLAINING, which is keeping the story alive, and making them (and especially Liepold) the focus AND the story. Maybe we will learn something of actual factual value on June 19th, but given truthout's track record on releasing facts on this particular story so far, I ain't holding my breath.

3. Rove has to be indicted, with May 12 on the paperwork. Seems THAT ain't gonna happen, either...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #28
327. great job
something stinks about the Leopold thing, a trap? who knows but history will play this out.

I can't help but think that Rove tried to Dan Rather as many progressive websites as possible but many, smartly didn't take the bait as well as the MSM

although, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE LETTER

You gotta wonder, Fitz knows Luskin is full of shit but is just holding his cards and will indict when he's good and ready or they(Bush and Rove) decided that Libby was going to get thrown under the bus, Cheney should shut up and like it and wait for a pardon and Rove is 'cooperating'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #327
432. That's absolutely ridiculous.
A trap??

Are you serious?

Perhaps giving Rather and CBSNews fake documents to discredit them but nobody outside of DU, DailyKOS and a few other websites gives a flying fuck about truthout or jason leopold.

He is a disgraced "journalist" who has been fired from every job he has had and used to steal cars.

Nobody set up Leopold. He made the story up. Just like he plagiarized from the Financial Times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
114. How's about acknowledging they're being ATTACKED by the RW?!?!!
Just a possibility thrown out there,....

I will say this, "TruthOUT" will not suffer my loyalty to their allegiance to truth.

That's all I have to say about this bullshit.

Carry on with the oblivious distractions, demands for perfection, character assassinations and whatnot,....all you observant, cynical, resigned participants. Carry on up river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #114
172. So why won't the right wing attack David Shuster too? Selective targeting!
And many DUers are being played like a seven-foot Steinway Model D with Billy Joel at teh keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bamboose Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #114
310. what's that mean?
>>I will say this, "TruthOUT" will not suffer my loyalty to their allegiance to truth.<<

I've read this sentence six times and can't figure out what you're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #114
360. It's called righteous indignation
I don't believe the story, but I can't seem to gather up all that indignation either... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
164. Backing up, standing down, backing down...
Gotta love english.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
237. From the Online Thesaurus
Type "stand down" and this is what you get as synonyms:

abandon, abdicate, abnegate, back down, cast, cast off, cede, cut loose*, desert, discard, ditch*, drop, drop out, dump*, forbear, forgo, forsake, forswear, hand over, kick, kiss good-bye*, lay aside, leave, let go, opt out, quit, release, renounce, repudiate, resign, retire from, sacrifice, shed, surrender, swear off*, vacate, waive, withdraw, yield

Way to go Truthout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
352. Actually it's "Standing down ON"
Like "put their foot down on" as in "sticking to their story".
They do this by calling the MSM's and Luskin's bluff. It looks like Rove was in fact indicted, then a deal was struck: Rove talks and in exchange they drop the indictment. Now Rove et all is trying to hide the (not so insignificant) details, with help from the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #352
355. WHERE do you see any proof that "It looks like Rove was in fact indicted"?
I'd like to see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #355
357. I don't need proof to say the "it looks like"
I'm not a lawyer or a prosecutor.
And i don't just pull it out of my ass, it's based on information that we've all seen. People draw different conclusions. I'm not going to argue this now. Time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Rove will do something so egregious and illegal in the coming
months there won't even need to be a trial, it will be straight to the clinker for him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. May I Have What You're Smoking?
What exactly makes you think that anything will ever happen to rove? He could do 20 illegal acts in the next 24 hours, and still would get away with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
44. I'm sure you underestimate his capacity for felonies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
55. A little birdy told me so..... tweet tweet...... I have confidence in
Rove, past performance will guarantee something equally vindictive and illegal from him some time soon.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. Hey, you should publish a news story about that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
135. Unfortunately, most or all of what Rove does...
...is perfectly legal.

But pass that pipe, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bamboose Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #55
312. but the NASD told me
that past performance is no guarantee of future results? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
78. From your keyboard to Goddess' eyes...
Although this may take pre-meditated murder on a live, nationally broadcast television news program...

Still, Karma happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Can you imagine a newspaper
or a cable outlet having to do this? People would be ruined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
87. Can you imagine
A newspaper or cable news outlet that gets it right 100% of the time?


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #87
122. I have never seen anyone blunder
as bad as TO has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #122
139. You must not read the news or watch tv much
Try to remember, Judith Miller was part of the criminal process and lied her ass off about her involvement and that of others.

THAT is bad journalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #139
154. No, I don't poison my mind with TV
You are correct there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #154
301. Thanks for proving my point
Just because you haven't seen something, and haven't allowed yourself the opportunity of same, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #122
141. Judith Miller NYT in the lies leading to Iraq
That is much, much worse both in harm done and just as bad in getting burned by a dishonest source.

I'm sick of all the TO bashing. Yes, they either fucked up or got fucked over. I don't know which, so I reserve judgement.

As for the piling on by some of you here, it just sucks. You've probably never lifted a pencil for publication and jump down the throats of somebody trying to do some good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #87
182. When real journalists fuck up they apologize, and retract. They don't say
they're just going to "stand down" on the story. Newspapers issue corrections almost daily. Of course, the NYT's rather lame apology about Judith Miller was a rather big exception to the rule. The NYT shamed itself w/r/t her. And took a much bigger beating than TO has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #182
257. Can you name a real journalist that's still reporting? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #257
259. Can't think of a single one who ever said they were "standing down"
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 02:24 AM by Jazz2006
on a story, can you?

Can't think of any news source who ever published a "partial apology", can you?

Can't think of any news source who ever published a series of "here's what we know and what we believe" stories.

Can you?

Can't think of any news source who ever said they were "standing down" on a story that they portrayed as the scoop of the decade a few weeks earlier.

Can you?

Come to think of it, can't think of a single news source who would have ever published such a ridiculous story in the first place (i.e. the original story which was rife with internal and external inconsistencies) and can't imagine how no less than a "dozen eyes" could have reviewed that story and missed all of the obvious inconsistencies and lack of substance.

Can you?


Edit: formatting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #259
261. If you don't want to answer the question
just say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #261
348. That's funny coming from you.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 12:53 PM by Jazz2006
Seeing as how you didn't answer a single one of the questions I asked above, and seeing as how your question was so vague as to be meaningless.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #348
555. Why the hell should I answer yours after you refuse to answer
Mine?

You answer questions with questions and never get around to giving a straight answer to a straight question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #182
315. the difference is...
TO still thinks they are right. I'll bet they are going to wait and see if Fitz's actual wording to Luskin can be verified before they make another comment... but let me ask:

What would you do if you had invested a couple of years cultivating a source that had never steered you wrong? Said source gives you the scoop of the century and say it's locktight, you confirm through other backchannel sources that don't want to be named... but the scoop doesn't materialise. Everyone is on your case for making things up and destroying journalism or whatnot... but your sources still say they were right... the papers were there, it happened. Would you dump your sources and name them?

btw, i think they should've held the story until they could've named a source...
but i'm not taking it personally, like some folk... shit happens, y'know?

Peace out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #315
350. Agreed that
they should not dump on their sources - and they never should have said they would.

Also agreed that they should not have published the story without anything to back it up.

Early on, I said the story was badly written and full of internal and external inconsistencies - which is why I doubted its accuracy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and they offered zero evidence in a badly written and poorly edited story. That kind of poor journalism should set alarm bells off for any discerning reader, no matter how badly we want the crux of the story to be true.

I also said that if it turned out that Rove was served with an indictment on May 12 as claimed, that I would say, "hey, great scoop, and the story was still very badly written and full of internal and external inconsistencies".

Since then, truthout has done nothing to change my opinion that it was a badly written story rife with inconsistencies, and they have still offered zero evidence of the extraordinary claims that they made.

Offering up "partial apologies" and occasional updates that serve only to obfuscate rather than to illuminate are simply further instances of unprofessional journalism.

They'd have been better off to say nothing unless and until they had some evidence to offer.

Oh well ~ I have no personal stake in the matter, either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #350
422. was hoping you'd answer...
my hypothetical, "what would you do?" question. If i were to get annoyed at anyone in this whole debacle it would be with Leo's source(s)... i think TO got shafted. But what would you do if your usually rock-solid source even at this stage insists they are right? Would you take the heat? In some respects i admire that TO/Leopold has stood by their sources (note that i don't say story) despite the pressure to issue a retraction/apology/correction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #315
430. Thank you for this post
Of all the bullshit that's been written by the circular firing squad here since the first hint of the "Rove indictment" was mooted, yours is one of the few sane ones.

I'm not taking it personally either, I'm still reading TO, and I still think Pitt knows what he's doing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #430
437. no problem...
sanity is my forte... and i still read TO and Will Pitt too. There aren't too many voices out there worth lending an ear to and i'm not going to sacrifice any of them unless someone gives me a damn good reason... being misled by a source ain't one of them.

peace out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Stands down..."
Interesting choice of words...

I just hope we find out *exactly* what happened here. Whatever it was, it can't keep happening to the liberal blogosphere without serious damage being done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
184. Don't count on TO clearing anything up. They have no integrity.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:35 PM by Seabiscuit
They're almost 5 weeks late and about a gazillion dollars short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. How cute. Protecting the sources that fucked them over
and made them look like jackasses. Well, they're definitely Democrats...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
143. Maybe somebody lied to their sources
Maybe something is going on that is not public, like Rove rolling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
177. or more likely, there NEVER WERE ANY SOURCES!
you cant out them if they did not exist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #177
189. I've gotten to the point that I agree with that - it was pure fabrication.
And a very bad sloppy one at that, showing complete ignorance of criminal investigative procedures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #177
226. That's my suspicion as well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #177
288. Agreed. It is Liepold's M.O.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 07:10 AM by Strong Atheist
Edited: Truthout was conned by Liepold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #177
427. Correct
We all know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. Weeks late as far as I can see.....
As far as standing behind their "secret sources" that falls under the same category as Drudge's "secret sources".


Their changing time lines smacks of Rove talk at it's best......

From this point on they are just another Wayne Madsen...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. read what Eric Boehlert has to say about skunks like Malkin and Powerline.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/factchecking-the-blogs-_b_21493.html

he devotes a chapter in his book, Lapdogs, to Malkin, Powerline, and the other LYING LIARS who comprise the RW blogosphere, and it's MUCH worse than you think

they routinely just MAKE STUFF UP, never admit it, then GO BACK to it when pimping their latest lies

the above post gives a great example: the Schiavo case

He also devotes a much needed chapter to the egregiously right wing tilted "The Note". If I can find a link that details his myriad QUOTED examples of the outrageous things they've said that completely toe the RW/junta line, I'll linke them here, but the things he quotes from them read as parodies, as does much of the mendacious garbage spewed from Malkin/Powerline/Little Green Footballs, and the other "estimable" wingnut blogs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. from the Huffingtonpost link: this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Conservatives thought they smelled a rat and in an effort to connect nonexistent dots they set off on an "investigation," quickly concluding the Schiavo memo was likely a farce from the get-go. Based on nothing more than their vivid, partisan imaginations, they surmised that a wily, unknown Democratic dirty trickster had typed up the memo and gotten the willing press corps to report that the fake memo came from the Republican side. Charging into battle alongside Power Line, a Minnesota-based conservative blog run by three attorneys who posted over a dozen conspiratorial reports about the Schiavo memo, bloggers like Malkin seized on misspellings in the memo as proof of deception and, relying on anonymous GOP staffers on the Hill for tips, became more certain in their pursuit of the "political dirty trick."


" does not sound like something written by a conservative; it sounds like a liberal fantasy of how conservatives talk," Power Line, March 21.
"Talking Points Story Imploding?" Power Line, March 22.
There is no evidence that this memo came from the Republicans at all," Power Line, March 24.
Will ABC News officials continue to stonewall? Or will they come clean and promptly issue a correction?" MichelleMalkin.com, March 24.
There is not a bit of evidence connecting the memo to any Republican, and, for all of the reasons we have repeatedly spelled out on this site, there are excellent reasons to believe it is a hoax perpetrated by still-unidentified Democrats," Power Line, March 26.
I still believe the has no basis for implying over and over again that the memo was distributed by Republicans," MichelleMalkin.com, March 26.
ABCNews.com still hasn't retracted its unsubstantiated characterization of the memo as 'GOP Talking Points,'" MichelleMalkin.com, March 30.


Six days after Malkin's insightful post, the author of the infamous memo reluctantly stepped forward--he was the legal counsel for Mel Martinez, the Republican senator from Florida, which meant, of course, the memo was written by Republicans, it was distributed from a Republican office and it was used for talking point purposes. The right-wing press critics though, refused to acknowledge their colossal blunder. Instead, they actually congratulated themselves for helping get to the bottom of the memo story--a story that they stitched together out of whole cloth in the first place.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #16
308. Perfect example
And no one seems to be able to answer a simple question: If Rove wasn't indicted, then why the need for a letter clearing him?

:shrug:

I'm not saying the TO article was correct, I'm just saying the arguments are flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
142. Some folks here seem to have forgotten
Perhaps they would feel more comfortable over on Malkin or Savage Weiner's web sites, where people really know how to make stuff up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #142
309. Zing!
I'm beginning to think this explains the sudden rise in population around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't see how this can deserve anything other than scathing criticism.
Again - do we have principles or don't we? Protecting the sources that BURNED you? After all the squawking we do about that? Cmon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
158. Given no one knows the real story but Rove, his lawyer & Fitz
I don't know how anyone can jump to such a ridiculous conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #158
304. They want to condemn on no evidence
Amazing, isn't it? And just because people like you and I won't jump the "Bash TO" bandwagon, we are called stupid and ignorant and are said to be in support of TO.

:shrug:

I smell a rat. I can't imagine why so many are so eager to bash and condemn, and even lie and say they are a lawyer... as if that would lend some weight to the lack of evidence.

Yep, a big, fat, swollen, rotten, stinking, bloated rat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
194. But that's the point
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:43 PM by Canuckistanian
We don't if anybody burned TO at all. They stand by their story and their sources.

And as they said and have said all along is that this has been checked and re-checked endlessly, not only by the staff at TO, but SEVERAL sources as well.

If it's a mass burning, then they should be outed. All of them.

It all depends on whom they've put their trust in.

And it hasn't failed them up to now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #194
254. "And as they said...." . Sigh. We never learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
289. But of course you don't *know* that the source was lying & not duped
We also don't know whether there was only one source or a giant misreading of signs from multiple sources. It's not just from you but from a lot of commenters in this thread making huge assumptions about the reporting process on this storoy. I'll wait for the facts to come out. I suppose I'll probably be waiting quite a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. To be fair...."Truth Out" says "More" on June 19th. So ...somethings
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:10 PM by KoKo01
in the works where they will clarify their statements.

If they "stand by their story" then lets wait and see what they have to say...:shrug: This doesn't EXCUSE their JUMP THE GUN...where they thought they had the "Scoop of the Decade" but it does say that they stand by their sources and will put out more info.

The damage to "TO's" reputation is already done...so why shouldn't we wait to see what they have to say next Monday before we "Pile On" and beat the "Dead Horse?" :shrug: GIVE THEM ONE MORE BREAK...why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Why wait another week....
They are just leading ppl on.... :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. But, they know their readers are totally "Fed Up" so if they don't have
new info then why would they want to tank themselves further with their readers?

I say...hold the fire and cynicism until we see what they say. After all...most of their readers have trashed them so bad...why would they try to do another hoax...it wouldn't make sense.

I say...give 'em one more look. And, I'm not a "TO Groupie," here...believe me..!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
82. It's just more of the same old TO stalling tactics...
...just like 24 hours became 24 business hours. It's just more of the same nonsense. On June 19th, there'll be a whole new version of the Rove indictment story on TO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. something smells here and I don't think it is TO
I don't go to TO but I think they are a scapegoat,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. They're getting swiftboated
and it's a shame to see us eat our own. Rove is laughing his ass off at us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
56. sure they are, I believe it was the plan from the start
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ktlyon Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #56
331. If so, we must really have them worried. If they would try to mess
over a blog. Lies lead to more lies and cover-ups, only time will tell. I think everyone is being played by Rove and the gang because that is what they do, have done and will continue to do. The trip to Iraq by George is prime example of playing it up. They must be laughing. They think they are so slick that they can get away with anything and they pretty much have. We must start trying to outsmart them, get ahead of them or cut them off at the pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
83. Not only are we eating our own
But we are relying on news sources who are known liars to do so, and then condemning TO for not being any better than said sources.

Looks like TO is taking the wait and see stance I've always taken in this... I'm still waiting to see something directly from Fitz. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Fitz is the only fat lady in this opera.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. The big unanswered question is... why? If they verified the facts... why
wait and see? They claim to have shown thier "cards", but they have provided no evidence to what they claim as fact.

That's just.... odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #85
94. Everything that ever came out of this administration has been...
odd to say the least. There is no history to match any of it's actions with. Speculation based on no facts is a tiring and endless and useless waist of time and energy.

When Fitz closes the case or otherwise makes a direct statement, when the fat lady sings, we will know...


To sit with elders of a gentle race, this world has seldom seen...
To talk of days for which they sit and wait...
When all will be relvealed...


Wise men wait; fools rush in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. See? You said it ALL. You did.
"Speculation based on no facts is a tiring and endless and useless waist (sic) of time and energy."

That's what the whole story is... speculation. Until proved otherwise, it's just speculation.

Also, you said "Wise men wait; fools rush in." - which one of those is Leopold?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. We won't know until the fat lady sings, now will we?
Then I'll be able to tell you. Until then, there's not enough information.

Oh, and thanks for so kindly pointing out my typo... sheesh... spell check will pick the closest thing and sometimes, no, most times I'm hitting and running here. Yes, waste...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. The fat lady did sing. There was no indictment May 12. Leopold's story has
been debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #104
255. When did Fitz issue a statement, directly from himself?
What did I miss?


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #255
258. Why would you expect him to?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #258
260. I wouldn't expect him to send a letter to Rove's attorney either
But the attorney said he did... but where is it?

Attorneys have been known to lie, ya know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #260
264. It is ridiculous to expect Rove's lawyer to produce the letter.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 02:42 AM by Jazz2006
In the real world, lawyers do not do such things.

Not even to appease a few DUers who think that the rules of professional conduct should suddenly be changed to suit their purposes.

Not even to appease a guy like Jason Leopold who, rather ironically, says that he doesn't think he should be too quick to issue mea culpas for getting his story wrong without seeing "the letter" even though he was obviously content to publish a ridiculous and unconfirmed story without seeing the non-existent indictment that he reported on. (And as an aside, doesn't it seem strange that with all of those allegedly high level sources of his, which he claims to still be talking to and still receiving info from, that he hasn't been able to come up with a single cogent provable fact for the past 5 or 6 weeks that might corroborate his story?_


It is also ridiculous to think that Luskin would publicize the fact that he is in possession of such a letter if he wasn't, in fact, in possession of same. No benefit to him, and all manner of detriment to him if he was telling porkies because you can also bet that in the real world, had Luskin misrepresented Fitz's letter, the response from Fitz's office would NOT have been "no comment".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #264
265. "No comment" is the perfect response
in an on-going investigation... happens all the time.

I'm reminded of someone who had no real evidence that Terri Shaivo was coherent... yet he did.

I'm also reminded of any number of lies from high places.

I think it is ridiculous to think that Fitz wrote such a letter anyway. What purpose does that serve... since you want to suppose so much.

The whole thing is a muddled mess and we don't know a damn thing to be the truth. Not the TO story, and not Rove's story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #265
266. It's nice that you want to believe something that is
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 02:54 AM by Jazz2006
not believable in light of the facts....

(i.e. your assertion that you think "it is ridiculous that Fitz wrote such a letter anyway"

But as much as you want to believe that, the reality is that you're very wrong.

It's not ridiculous at all, but predictable.

And, aside from everything else, the FACT is that if Luskin had misrepresented Fitz, you can bet with 100% certainty that Fitz would have said so when asked, and would NOT have had a representative say "no comment".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #266
267. There are no facts
On either side. Seems you are the one believing in the tooth fairy here.

Prove Fitz wrote the letter. That's all I'm saying. As much as you want to believe he did, there is no proof. Unless you want to believe Rove's lawyer... I'm shocked at the thought that anyone would believe him.


"If Luskin had misrepresented Fitz, you can bet with 100% certainty that Fitz would have said so when asked, and would NOT have had a representative say "no comment"."


You have no idea what the underlying circumstances are, so your assertion is invalid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #267
272. Nonsense.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:27 AM by Jazz2006
You're the one buying into the tooth fairy here, not me.

The story was ridiculous at the outset, and it only got worse and worse since then.

For whatever reason, which I cannot fathom, you seem to be clinging to the ridiculous belief that Leopold and truthout were correct in the stories they published about the non-existent Rove indictment. Without a shred of evidence, that is. You never asked for any, you never got any, (because they don't have any).

And here you are asking for "proof" that Fitz wrote a letter to Luskin. That tells me that you have ZERO concept of how lawyers deal with each other and how things work in the real world.

We don't publish letters from opposing counsel on any subject matter.

Not even for purposes of appeasing a few people on the internet who think it's a big conspiracy.

While we might have to sometimes produce letters in the course of discovery, etc., we fiercely guard our privileged communications and only disclose them when it is absolutely necessary.

You are truly deluding yourself if you think that Leopold and truthout got this nonsensical story of theirs right and if you think that there is any reason on the face of the earth why Luskin should publish a letter from opposing counsel on the internet to appease a few DUers who want desperately to believe that reality hasn't actually happened.

You really should do a bit of reading and research about these things if you're going to opine on the workings of the law and lawyers. Because so far, you've got it all dead wrong.

And to go back to the first paragraph, why is it that you feel justified in demanding "proof" from Luskin that the letter from Fitz exists, without ever having asked or obtained a shred of "proof" from Leopold or truthout about the allegations they've made?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #272
276. Don't put words in my mouth
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:34 AM by Juniperx
"For whatever reason, which I cannot fathom, you seem to be clinging to the ridiculous belief that Leopold and truthout were right about things that they themselves have no concept of."

Don't misquote me. I never ever said the TO story was true. I merely stated that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove.

"You're asking for "proof" that Fitz wrote a letter.... that tells me that you have ZERO concept of how lawyers deal with each other and how things work in the real world."

You are assuming BushCo follows the rules... that speaks volumes. Your assumption that Rove's lawyer is like any other lawyer is pretty funny.


"We don't publish letters from opposing counsel on any subject matter."

Well what's the difference in referencing a letter? What was the point in doing that? Just because you do or do not, doesn't mean a thing. BushCo doesn't operate in your "real world". Never have, never will.

"Not even for purposes of appeasing a few people on the internet who think it's a big conspiracy."

Then what's the point in saying anything at all about this alleged letter?

:shrug:

"You are truly deluding yourself if you think that Leopold and truthout got this right and if you think that there is any reason on the face of the earth why Luskin should publish a letter from opposing counsel on the internet to appease a few DUers who want desperately to believe that reality hasn't actually happened."

You are truly deluding yourself if you read all that into anything I've said on this matter. Seems to me a lawyer would read with a little more comprehension.

"You really should do a bit of reading and research about these things if you're going to opine on the workings of the law and lawyers. Because so far, you've got it dead wrong."

Perhaps you should do some reading so you can realize that these people don't operate within the law, because so far, seems you are dead wrong with that assumption.


"Oh, and by the way, please explain why it is that you are now demanding "proof" from Luskin or Fitz in a manner which is wholly inappropriate while at the same time, it seems you demanded no "proof" of any kind about that ridiculous, internally and externally inconsistent story the Leopold spun back around May 12, 13?"

You missed it, eh? I'm asking for proof of the assertions on both sides. Neither side has a leg to stand on at this point because, and at the risk of repeating myself, there is no proof one way or the other. If you believe one word on either side, you're not paying attention. You assume that just because I'm not jumping on the "TO was wrong" bandwagon, because I'm not agreeing with you, that I'm supporting TO in this. Boy, that is a stretch.

When the Plame case is closed, maybe, just maybe we will know something concrete. Until then, it's all speculation.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #276
277. Good god....
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 04:52 AM by Jazz2006
Let me reduce this to a couple of paragraphs because you seem to want to turn this into something much larger than it really is... and it doesn't deserve it because your posts are ridiculous on their face.

So, to summarize....

Here you go:
The entire Bush gov't sucks and is utterly corrupt.
Rove is a bad guy, a very bad guy.
Rove has not been indicted.
Rove is not likely to be indicted in the Plame case.
Fitz has said as much.
There is still, of course, the potential for same some years from now (i.e. after Rove testifies at Libby's trial) but that has absolutely nothing with the ridiculous threads and posts that are going on here and now - and which you keep feeding to DUers despite the fact that if you had a remote clue about the law, you would not be posting such drivel at all.

Yeah, your posts are included in the "ridiculous" when it comes to legal issues because it is apparent that you haven't bothered to research any of it and it appears that you are simply parroting someone you heard or read about somewhere, and that is not helpful unless you actually look for the source and can report upon it.

And now, just because you're so fond of cut and paste and of attributing to others things they nevef said, I guess I should also do this....

" Don't misquote me"

Never did. Please point out anywhere that you allege I did.

That said, you're being quite disingenuous if you're pretending all of a sudden that you haven't been all over these boards defending leopold and truthout without any evidence whatsoever to support their ridiculous stories.

"I never ever said the TO story was true. I merely stated that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove."

So, do you believe it? Did you believe it on May 13 when they first published it and do you believe it now? A simple yes or no will suffice.

"You are assuming BushCo follows the rules... that speaks volumes. Your assumption that Rove's lawyer is like any other lawyer is pretty funny.

Bullshit. I'm assuming no such thing and you are making crap out of whole cloth (gee, who else do we know around here that does that ~ Leopold springs to mind) ~ THAT speaks volumes. I was talking about the Leopold story - YOU avoided the simple straightforward question, and went off on a tangent of your own ~ hmmmm, who does that remind you of? And as for your failure to address the lawyer issue, yeah, you've failed again.

"Well what's the difference in referencing a letter? What was the point in doing that? Just because you do or do not, doesn't mean a thing. BushCo doesn't operate in your "real world". Never have, never will."

There's a big difference between saying, I've received confirmation from counsel about X and producing the actual document. The fact that you don't know that there's a difference and the fact that you pretend that it means nothing only shows your ignorance about how lawyers actually deal with these things. Again, you seem to want to pretend that you have some knowledge about things that you clearly do not. Why is that? For Leopold and truthout of all people? Strange.....

"Then what's the point in saying anything at all about this alleged letter?" :shrug:

Are you really so obtuse that you don't get that? The purpose was clear: to say, hey, the prosecutor cleared my client. Duh.


"You are truly deluding yourself if you read all that into anything I've said on this matter. Seems to me a lawyer would read with a little more comprehension."

Eh? I'll take from that the obvious that you had no legitimate response to what I said so you just changed a few words of my post and pretended that you were actually responding in a meaningful fashion.

"Perhaps you should do some reading so you can realize that these people don't operate within the law, because so far, seems you are dead wrong with that assumption."

Oh, please. It seems as though you're just spouting off because you know you have nothing of substance to say in response to what I wrote. Of course I know that these people don't operate within the law - they are utterly corrupt, evil, pathetic, horrible, etc.

But here you are attacking me instead of them because you couldn't make any meaningful response to a legitimate post.

"You missed it, eh? I'm asking for proof of the assertions on both sides.

Yes, I certainly have missed your posts asking for proof from truthout, and I've only seen your requests for proof from those who don't buy the truthout story. Please post some of those requests for proof from truthout from say, May 13 or 14 or even later if you weren't asking them back then.

"Neither side has a leg to stand on at this point because, and at the risk of repeating myself, there is no proof one way or the other. If you believe one word on either side, you're not paying attention. You assume that just because I'm not jumping on the "TO was wrong" bandwagon, because I'm not agreeing with you, that I'm supporting TO in this. Boy, that is a stretch."

Well, that would also be nice to see - can you provide me with a few links where you're asking truthout for proof of their assertions? Hey, I'm not saying you haven't, but I certainly haven't seen any posts from you at all saying, hey, truthout, show me the facts, show me proof. I've seen a whole lot of your posts saying "nobody can prove truthout wrong because it isn't over" but I don't think I've seen a single one where you asked truthout for proof of anything. I'll be pleased to be wrong about that and would be pleased to see that you actually asked for proof from them ~ so a link, please.

I have seen hundreds of threads in which you have defended them beyond reason and not a single one in which you asked them for proof, so yes, I look forward to seeing these alleged posts.


"When the Plame case is closed, maybe, just maybe we will know something concrete. Until then, it's all speculation."

And this means something... anything... because???




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #277
295. I hope you had fun chasing your own tail
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 07:50 AM by Juniperx
You make no sense whatsoever, have not addressed a single thing I've said, and the only thing you seem to have boiled down is your own anger and cognitive reasoning.

"Are you really so obtuse that you don't get that? The purpose was clear: to say, hey, the prosecutor cleared my client. Duh."

Are you really so obtuse that you don't see your own folly? If there was no indictment and no need to prove anything to anyone, including message board warriors, then there was no need for this alleged letter in the first place.

You are no more a lawyer than I'm Karl Rove.

JuniperX rule #1: Don't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Go ahead and talk yourself in circles... it is quite entertaining.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #295
321. Shorter Juniperx: "As long as it's LOGICALLY possible...
.... for truthout to be correct, I'm gonna believe it!"

Who needs stinkin evidence anyway?

Who cares about STRONG evidence to the contrary anyway?

What - did folks fall for DUers' claims to be members of the reality-based club? Boo-fucking-hoo.

:sarcasm:


Don't worry juniperx - thanks to the likes of you, it's possible I'll never fall for a DUer's claim to be reality-based ever again. They fooled me once - I won't be fooled again. This is an example of CHANGING one's belief-structure when it doesn't serve the cause of truth well. Would that DUers cared enough about truth and evidence to admit error when errorneous, and take steps to prevent in the future.

If only they so much as CARED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #321
329. That's all I'm asking for
Concrete evidence... from either side...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #295
340. In other words, Juniperx
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 12:13 PM by Jazz2006
Re your #295

You have no legitimate response so you, once again, attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Not surprising.



Edit to add message number reference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #340
412. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #412
418. Name one fact that there is to prove this story of indictment 5/12.
Just one fact... one verifiable fact.


You boldly claim to be "sticking to them"... what facts? There are none. See? That is the whole problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #418
421. There is one fact, and only one we can be absolutely sure of...
Fitz has "no comment".

Adding anything else is foolishness.

When Fitz comments, I'll listen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #421
453. Ah, yes...
The buck stops here:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #412
464. Au contraire, Juniperx
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 10:39 AM by Jazz2006
Re: your #412

I haven't "made up" a single thing.

What are you on about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #464
521. Everything you have said...
other than Rove said "no comment" is pure guessing. No proof of anything. Proof goes both ways. We won't know exactly what went down until Fitz actually says something. Everything else is guesswork and meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #255
291. Apparently, from those in the know, it doesn't work that way:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #291
323. Oh, right... a letter of non-indictment
That makes perfect sense...

:eyes:

Careful of your sources... some have been blowing hot air, and untrue, ill-informed hot air, since day one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #323
333. I am not a lawyer, nor do I know how these things work, but OLL
in another post that I could find if you want me to sys that there are horrific penalties to lawyers for making a false announcement of this nature... makes sense to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #333
337. Lawyers make false statements all the time
Be careful of your sources. The internets are an evil place... what appears to be one thing is often quite another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #85
263. No one but the Bush administration
and Fitz knows what goes on behind closed doors... unless there is a leak... and there have been leaks... that's what started this mess... leaks about Plame... anything goes with those criminals.

I think it's sort of like voting to support a president, then finding out he lied or wasn't smart enough to know he was given bad intelligence. Either way, the voter was duped.

None of us has the slightest clue as to what has gone on in this investigation. All arguments are based on supposition... no one knows enough to even hazard a guess. That is my only argument. That is why I say only the end of this whole Plame case, or a statement from Fitz, will give us enough information to make any kind of solid statement.

You can't go on history, and you can't go by laws or what has gone on in any other administration since the beginning of US history. You can't compare to what is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
146. The Dan Rather Treatment
Set up, knocked down and then their supposed friends here shit on them.

Wonderful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #146
157. So, after they took down Rather, they set their sights on TruthOut?
Considering the size of Rather's audience, I can understand why the neocons would want to take him down. So logically, the next target for the neocons is some podunk online outfit that reaches a few thousand people? It doesn't make sense - far too many bigger fish for the neocons to fry first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #146
250. Riiiight...
Like Rove etal would think Leopold and truthout a serious target for such treatment.


Get a grip.


99.9% of the population doesn't even know that the truthout site exists.


So, suggesting that Bush or Rove or others at the White House targeted truthout in such a fashion is patently silly on its face.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #250
278. correction
99.9999% of the US population doesn't know that TruthOut exists. Doing the math, this figure would allow that roughly 30,000 folks are aware of TruthOut - seems about right to me. sorry, I'm an engineer and can't help myself... ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #278
320. funny you should ay that
I am one of those people who never had heard of truthout until about one month ago.
On a few notes here:
1) I have serious doubts that Rove or anyone on the right (anyone with any real authority) would have chosen truthout as the object of their smear campaign. I mean, on the political stage truthout barely rates a blip. The only people who think otherwise are truthout followers.

2) If we decide to give credence to the theory they are a target, my question would be "Why?" What special insight do they have or report have they done that a place like MoveOn, TrueMajority or MediaMatters doesn't possess or hasn't covered?

3) When this whole story started back in May I took the approach (and posted) 'hope for the best but expect the worst' so I'm not so upset that it didn't pan out. What bothered me was the attitude that pitt and some others from truthout took towards those who questioned their story. They were hostile, condecending, etc to the point where they questioned to commitment and integrity of their detractors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #278
342. LOL ~ no need to apologize....
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 12:15 PM by Jazz2006
I like precision and I defer to your more precise calculation ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #250
294. Need some toilet paper?
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
433. Oh my god.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 11:47 PM by damkira
That is the most asinine statement I have ever read on DU in the two years that I have been here.

Swift boated? How so?

Because a shady "journalist" lied about something they are a hero??

Because some of us don't appreciate being lied to, Rove is laughing at us???

I doubt Rove even knows about DU, and if he does, I'm sure he doesn't care what is said on here.

Jason Leopold and William Pitt should resign from journalism in disgrace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
41. Thoughts on the setup theory
If the person(s) that gave them the story was setup then you could possibly see why they wouldn't out their source. Guess this is grasping for an excuse for TO, but, anything is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
428. It's ROVIAN I tell you. ROVIAN!
That plotster!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
20. Stick a fork in Truthout...
It's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. And that matters to you, why?
Do you feel you have been deliberately lied to? Do you have proof you have been lied to? Why is it very important to see TO destroyed? How will that help.......democracy or Democratic causes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #52
80. Because it has proven itself to be a useless resource.
In fact, it's worse than being useless, it's a weight on our leg and making us look foolish and sloppy.

Screw TO. It's part of the problem, not the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #80
112. Not useless to the several friends I have whose eyes have been opened
I'll judge it by its fruits, nobody is perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
115. Maybe for you
not for me. I trust them far more than I trust this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #115
188. I trust a lot of sites more than I trust this administration.
Just not TO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
145. Don't you wish, but its not likely
Liberals will continue to have their sources of news on the web whether the GOP likes it or not.

Someone has to hold them accountable. The hypocritcal whining of the GOP about TO is truly amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #145
187. Don't I wish?
I'm not GOP.

And it wasn't me who was responsible for TO's total loss of any sort of credibility and significance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. Pathetic
obfuscating "statement". And anyone who uses the argument that right wing sites and journalists do even worse, has just lost their way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
292. Agreed. They are going to have to come up with a real explanation if
they want this to go away. Maybe they will on the 19th, but I won't hold my breath. I think they were conned by Liepold, and can't admit it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. There sure are a lot of pompous idiots who spend nearly all their time
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:16 PM by w4rma
on DU attacking Truthout. Maybe Truthout is doing too good a job and some folks want to cut these fighters down some?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. There sure are a lot of people at DU
who are beginning to remind me of the knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

Talk about living in a delusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Are you one too?
Are you saying that Truthout is "dead" and should stop fighting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
54. I'm saying that I didn't find that statement
useful. It didn't clear up anything. I have is the past, appreciated the work that TO has done, but from early on I thought the Rove strory smelled fishy. Leopold's past problems with Salon didn't inspire trust in me either. At this point, TO has lost credibility as far as I'm concerned. They promised that if the story didn't pan out they'd reveal their sources. At the very least, I think they need to do a serious post-mortem and report back to their readers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
53. Thats what they say about Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:00 PM
Original message
What do they say about Bush?
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 08:02 PM by kingofalldems
He's doing too good of a job so they have to criticize him? That's the way I read your post. Am I wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
120. I've noticed that, too "nearly all their time"
Working overtime, even. Maybe it's just me, but I find something odd about that. Rovian, even. "Progressives" attacking progressives. far above and beyond the call of duty. It's been an interesting few weeks, as the attacks started the day the first article came out. I just don't quite understand the motivation.

I do know that Truthout hasn't "ruined the liberal blogosphere" or "made fools of us all". I don't think "people will never take us seriously again", or any of the other ridiculous things posted.

Me, I'm still waiting to see what exactly this criminal mis-administration has done, NOT that they ever do illegal or underhanded things. I personally think Rove gave Cheney up, and time will tell, but damn these attacks are getting ridiculous.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
415. yep, you'd almost think they wanted to create divisiveness
or something. Odd subject to be so strongly opinionated against since, as they say, it has so little influence anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Your-Other-Right Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
534. Truthout (or lack of it)
"Maybe Truthout is doing too good a job and some folks want to cut these fighters down some?" Excuse me? Why waste ordinance on someone committing suicide?

There are clearly some folks here that value ethics in reporting. It's equally clear that most - well, don't. This Rove-will-be-indicted-on-insert-date-here nonsense is just one story, after all. Acknowledging the story to be completely bogus doesn't obligate you to stop visiting Truthout, require you to re-assess your politics, or compel you to toss Leopold under a bus. Well, OK, the bus idea has merit but, hey, it's not like when you found out that - yes - Hiss and Oppenheimer really were traitors, now is it? Course not. It's just one story, and not that important a story, right? Life goes on. So one of your favorite lefty screed-screechers has the journalistic scruples of a small soap dish? Duh. Regarding Leopold, this is not exactly breaking news, people. His personal and professional descent over the years is a sooper-classified secret known only to those who use Google.

Just wanted to clear up a couple points raised by Ash's latest ass-covering (and by some commenters):

- Rove was “formally notified” of Fitzgerald's decision. In legal terms, that precludes a phone call, a fax, an IM, an email, or numerous other types of communication. Ash's lame "wrote, or said" is just bullshit. When Rove's attorney read excerpts from a letter, its because he got a letter. From Fitzgerald. Directly. A letter I have no doubt was also provided to, if not reviewed by, District Court Judge Thomas Hogan prior to transmission to Luskin. This is such SOP it is simply unbelievable any other method would be used. What say the attorneys on my assumption?

- Some here insist that a "no comment" by Fitzgerald leaves the door open, somehow, to Rove's ultimate destruction, in the future, maybe, we can only hope. But none of you have revealed the question that elicited the "no comment". Put another way -- Fitzgerald was asked a question, and answered "no comment". Well, what was the question?

Glad you asked. By my read, there were two: First, Fitzgerald's minion Randall Samborn was asked if the investigation was continuing. Second, Samborn was asked to respond to a statement by one of Rove's attorneys (Mark Corallo) that Rove had made no deals with the prosecution in any way, and the decision not to indict was based purely on Fitzgerald's own findings. To both questions, Samborn replied "no comment". I bring this up because some here are asserting that "no comment" is actually wiggle room, a glimmer of hope, the faintest of prayers, that Rove will get his, God willing, just you wait and see, it ain't over til the fat lady....yadda yadda. Dream on, butch up, get over it. Rove has left the building. Laughing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #534
539. Ok, Mr. or Ms. one hit wonder...
Why the need for a letter clearing Rove when his lawyer already said he wasn't a target?

See the bottom of this thread for links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. So is this a retraction or isn't it?
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:19 PM by Marie26
They're "standing down" on the story, but they're "standing behind" Leopold? Ooohhkkaaayy. Lame. Not that we could expect anything different. What's magically happening on June 19th? There's nothing stopping them from giving a full accounting now. IMHO, this looks like Truthout's editors were in as deep as Leopold in whatever mistakes/fabrications were made here - they're not protecting sources, but protecting themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. No, it's more "we're gonna wait and see" shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. "deferring to the MSM"
Yet demanding to see the letter. "Standing down" on the Rove matter? That's military terminology, not journalism. A real newspaper stands behind the story, corrects, or retracts. TO creates some sort of limbo land where it's not claiming it's right, but not admitting it's wrong. Not saying it was Leopold's fault, or the sources' fault, or the editors'. Not admitting any errors at all. It's just completely dodging any accountability or responsibility for the story. Maybe they're hoping another indictment does materialize on June 19th? I just can't understand TO's actions here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #38
93. Translation: TO up Shit Creek without a paddle.
...and need more time to find a paddle. Maybe one will come floating before next Monday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
134. This statement is very understandable...
...from one point of view, at least. Ash backed Leopold, and continues to do so. If he still believes that there's any truth to the story, then this is a cry for help. IIRC, there were supposedly a couple of MSM sources for the tale, and Ash would certainly like anyone else with knowledge of the matter to come forward.

He wants to believe in his reporter, which is a good sign that Leopold has not burned all his bridges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #134
409. That's one way of looking at it.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 04:22 PM by Marie26
Here's another way of looking at it: Ash knew Leopold didn't have real sources, knew the story had errors, & decided to publish it anyway for the sake of a scoop. Then, when the indictment didn't materialize at the right time, he had a choice - to retract the story & admit it was wrong, or reaffirm it & hope and pray an indictment eventually comes. Ash chose the second option. TO quietly revised the story to "24 business hours" & crossed their fingers. 24 business hours come & go. TO tries to stretch it out a little longer w/"updates" & nonsense about "getting too far in front of the news cycle." Ash states that he has personally verified all of Leopold's "high-level" sources, hoping that will reassure readers. The whole time, they're hoping an indictment is eventually announced, they can claim victory, & hope everyone forgets about all the other errors.

4 weeks come & go. TO readers are getting restless & demanding Leopold's sources. But TO knows they can't reveal Leopold's sources, because that would mean revealing their own complicity in Leopold's fraud. They've got no choice. They have to hold on & pretend they still believe the story, because if they retract it, questions will be raised about why it was published & how TO's editor "peronally verified" the false sources. Leopold can be discredited, but if Ash is, the whole site goes under. So, they STILL stand by the story, hoping for some miracle to save them from having to admit the truth. Rumors are swirling that maybe the indictment was sealed. Leopold first says that wouldn't make sense, but then later warms to the idea because it's a possible out. He reads a Wayne Madsen rumor online how a "sealed v. sealed" case might be Gonz. v. Fitzgerald. And a lightbulb goes off - Sealed! Fitzgerald! Why not pretend that's the Rove indictment? Who can prove it isn't? He checks the court docket, finds nothing from May 12th, but he does come across a missing sealed case from May that seems to be from the Fitz grand jury. (06 CR 128). He decides it's close enough; makes up a new BS story that this missing case is actually the Rove indictment. It's sloppy - but he figures, if it's sealed, who's going to prove him wrong? He takes the BS story to Ash, who, incredibly, publishes it - for the same reason. It's an out. This case number is sealed, so they think no one can disprove Leopold's theory. They finally have an answer to quiet the critics & they think no one can prove what the case actually is. Then, the very next day, Fitzgerald announces that he did not indict Rove. Oops. They're caught; it's over. Now they have to reveal the (non-existent) sources - unless they cobble together a way to stand by Leopold, while still acknowledging the Fitz announcement. So, they announce that they're "Standing Down" while standing by Leopold & his sources. It's lame, but at this point there's not a lot of options (short of telling the entire truth).

Whew - this post got long. All that to say - it's not necesarily loyalty, but necesity that's inspiring this decision by TO. Readers might forgive an incorrect story, but not a deliberate intent to mislead people & cover up after the erroneous story was released. With each lie, they've dug in deeper to the point that they can no longer find a way out. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive," etc. They're still hoping something, anything, will happen before June 19th to make this all go away. But it hasn't worked before & it won't work now. It's over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #409
417. Nice work, Marie!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #38
283. "deferring to the MSM" = "we are less reliable than the MSM"
unprofessional
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
25. All of this is interesting.
We've got four groups here:

Nay sayers, Yay sayers, Wait-and-See-sayers and last but not least, the fuck truthout-sayers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe for Clark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
57. Cat Girl -
If there was an indictment it would be public.

There were some friendly lawyers here that said that.

I don't want to be right, I want to win - it is different.

Hell it was never about rove to me in any event. It would be nice if he were to be distracted for a few more months.

But if he is or not, same fight facing us.

Joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
73. Naw, tharz another group...
...that believe that the entire controversy is completely and utterly meaningless. Rite er wrong, nothing TO does iz gunna change squat. So far an awful lotta folks erlookin pretty silly with their panties in a wad over a single anonymously-sourced news story.

My first and last post on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
180. you forgot a group, the TO kneepad brigade
always faithful to serve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #180
338. What do you mean by "kneepad" brigade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #338
339. It is a rude childish
way of saying getting on your knees and s*ck one's d**k.... I would prefer the direct approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #339
363. Hmmm... I Do Not Agree.
Unless one's brain is already has a predisposition to assume such things... (ie: "mind in the gutter", so to speak) I don't necessarily agree that we can automatically interpret that to have such explicit sexual connotations.

Being on one's knees can also indicate general submission, prayer, or worship, or idolizing, or prostration. Unless there's a piece of the puzzle that I'm not seeing... something that I'm missing... I just don't understand why some folks jump to the conclusion that it refers to cock sucking or blow jobs. (It's ok*y to s*y th*se w*rds.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #363
367. Yes let's just have our little tea party
and not worry our beautiful minds about these ugly words that are being spoken.. You must be the only one here who does not know that republican phrase....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #367
369. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #369
371. Oh Brother...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #367
375. One Lump, Or Two?
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 03:18 PM by arwalden


Don't forget your pearls.



<< You must be the only one here who does not know that republican phrase. >>

What about catgirl?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #375
379. Catgirl was trying to get the poster
to say it like a man instead of imply it like a coward....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #379
383. So She Was Baiting Him?
Trying to get him to break the rules... I see. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #383
391. Was the poster baiting her
with the innuendo, she was trying to get clarification....

watch that premature jubilation, I hear they have a pill for that :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #391
400. I'm Not A Mind Reader... Are You?
<< Was the poster baiting her with the innuendo, >>

It's only dirty if you MAKE it dirty... or for those people whose minds automatically "go there".

<< she was trying to get clarification >>

Was she?

<< watch that premature jubilation, >>

I'm not sure I understand what specific thing that cryptic 'warning' is referring to. But it kind of reminds me of the "rove was indicted" celebrations... now THAT's some "premature" celebrations!!

Only... the party is over, the band has packed up and gone home, the fat lady has sung, the lights are on, daybreak as arrived... and they still WON'T GO HOME!

<< I hear they have a pill for that >>

Really? Which one: Lithium? Xanax? Ritalin? Prozac? Sominex? I'm afraid I don't know much about that topic so I'll have to defer to your own expertise in the matter.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #400
402. You pick
sounds like you are familiar with all of them.. Heck I don't even know the names... I don't believe anyone.. What I don't like are the snipes, the innuendos, and the ridicule...

Is there a pill for that? Cause the first round is on me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #402
406. Then It Would Appear...
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 04:00 PM by arwalden
... that for certain people with extremely delicate sensibilities and puritanical senses of propriety that a public discussion board with MORE rules and that's MORE moderated would be more appropriate for them.

Or... the just need to learn how to use the ignore button and develop thicker skin and learn to tolerate it when the object of their cult-like-worship is subjected to scrutiny, criticism, or even ridicule.



PS: Which pill did YOU have in mind? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #406
408. Thicker skin is good
Maybe some just need to develop inter-personal and social skills... It will come to them.... As they progress down the road... This is not a flame board regardless of what you think, it is a discussion board.. For discussion, not dissection.. But alas, some just want to keep their righteous indignation, or they get off on it, or they have a personal reason for doing it...

I will continue to ask why when it seems absolutely unnecessary to do so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #408
441. And That's Where YOUR Ability To Choose Comes In...
... YOU have the power to choose which people aren't up to whatever puritanical standards you use as a yardstick for acceptable inter-personal social skills.

When someone come across someone whom you find to be too abrasive and harsh for their fragile egos and delicate sensibilities... then they can make the other person vanish with a click of the "ignore" button.

The people who are SO fucking miserable and the groupies who wilt in dismay whenever their cherished idols are attacked would be doing themselves a favor if they learned the benefits of the ignore button.

<< I will continue to ask why when it seems absolutely unnecessary to do so.... >>

You also continue to fan the flames and then complain about the heat. Why is that? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #441
445. Live and learn from fools and from sages
I love a juxtaposition.

Groupies who will wilt with dismay... clearly, you haven't a clue and don't care to have one.

You want to insert your little divisions too sparingly; some of us just want to see truth, not manufactured hatred and faux standards. And some of us have the maturity and the patience to wait for it instead of making crap up for the sake of argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #441
446. Again you managed to get in personal attacks
"The people who are SO fucking miserable and the groupies who wilt in dismay whenever their cherished idols are attacked would be doing themselves a favor if they learned the benefits of the ignore button."


Whatever anyone thinks, they should not be made to feel like they cannot share it on this board... You know as well as I do, some just back off in the face of confrontation... You always find the time to put in your own personal smear touch....

"YOU have the power to choose which people aren't up to whatever puritanical standards you use as a yardstick for acceptable inter-personal social skills."


Actually you have the power on that one. My puritanical standard is asking people not to rag and ridicule on each other -- not radicals who want to ridicule others at every step.... The first week was understandable, the fifth is radical....


"You also continue to fan the flames and then complain about the heat. Why is that?"


Do not accuse me of fanning flames Arwalden, what all I have asked for is civility from everyone on both sides of this issue. Why must there be the need for this ridicule and righteous indignation and then laugh about it like little kids...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #446
448. I Predict Continued Disappointment For Anyone...
... who honestly believe that they have any chance of imposing their personal standards onto others. Such exercises in vanity seldom work out as well as one hopes. We can't all be Professor Higgins. But still... Good luck with that! Let me know how it turns out.

In the meantime, all I can do is to remind you (again) that the ignore button is there for a reason. When you tire of trying to bend other people to your will, then maybe you'll use that solution instead.

<< Whatever anyone thinks, they should not be made to feel like they cannot share it on this board... >>

Yet there you are... trying to silence the critics. Go figure. :shrug: You say one thing, but do another thing that's entirely opposite. :eyes:

<< what all I have asked for is civility from everyone on both sides of this issue. >>

No, you're trying to silence people who point out how silly it is to continue to believe in the fantasy that Rove is/was/has been indicted. You're trying to squelch all criticism of Pitt/Leopold/TO and defer instead to their groupies/fans.

These folks do and say funny things... people laugh at them for their antics, and who do you blame? You don't blame the people who are doing the funny things, but the ones who find it amusing. :shrug:

<< Do not accuse me of fanning flames Arwalden, >>

Of course you fan the flames. That's what you're doing now. The more you demand others simply shut up simply because you wish it, the louder they become. You cannot win.

For the life of me I will never understand why it is that people throw gasoline on the fire and then they wonder why the fire gets bigger? :shrug:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #448
451. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #451
460. Here's Your Reply, Dogday
<< Play coy all you want, but the ones that are trying to impose their opinions are the insulting rude crowd >>

How exactly does one "impose their opinions" on someone else? It's not "opinion" that Rove was not indicted... that's fact.

It's not "opinion" that Pitt/Leopold/TO were wrong... that's also a fact.

It's not "opinion" that Leopold said he would reveal his sources if it turned out that Rove was not indicted... yet another fact. Noteworthy is the FACT the he has not yet revealed the sources he said that he would reveal.

<< and it is a shame it has come to this... A damn shame that they care more about ridiculing then actually trying to inform and enlighten. >>

For some, the "cause" is more important than the TRUTH. For those with such a fundamentalist mindset, it is a waste of time to try to "inform and enlighten" (as you say).

<< Point your finger all you want, but make sure you point it at yourself and your own actions first. >>

Two words: "Ignore" and "button". You know what to do.

<< If by asking civility from both sides, that somehow makes me wrong, then I am wrong and I am happy to admit it.. >>

That's not what you're doing.

<< I blame anyone who wants to ridicule others... >>

These folks you defend are not shrinking violets. They just have no other cards to play... so their only retreat is to become "victims".

<<I do however wonder why the acrimony is so high...>>

You wonder? Really? :shrug:

<<I am not demanding anything, I am asking everyone to stop the madness... >>

:rofl:

<< You accuse me of imposing my standards on others while you ridicule people for not believing your standards. >>

That makes no sense either. If anyone is being ridiculed it's because of their insistence that Rove was/is/has been indicted. That's simply not the case... their refusal to let go of the fantasy is laughable.

<< I never asked anyone to shut-up, you are lying on that... >>

Are you calling me a liar? Please, don't get personal.


<< You are the one with the gas, I am the one with the hose trying to put the fire out.... >>

That's what you say, but it seems that your efforts are only making things worse. Yet you continue to make it worse, why?

<< Good at twisting people's words, but I see right through you.... >>

Are you calling me transparent? Please, don't get personal. :rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #460
466. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #466
473. Yes, You Are Getting Personal With Me.
<< No I am not calling you a liar, I am saying you lied.>>

Same thing.

<< You did, and whether you are a liar only you know that... >>

I think I should let you know that the extreme care you're taking in parsing those words and splitting those hairs only serves to convince me that your ACTUALLY DID know what you were saying.

<< I am not getting personal I am stating a fact.. >>

You may be able to point out and demonstrate where a *mistake* was made, but in order to use the word "lied" or "lying" then you would have to be able to prove that I knew a statement was incorrect. Can you do that?

<< Show me where I said to anyone to shut-up.. >>

One doesn't have to use the words "shut-up" in order to convey their desire that they would prefer someone's silence... or that they actually want them to "shut up". Your vanity challenge will not be addressed. You know what you're doing and so do I.

<< I have asked and asked nicely for the rhetoric to be tuned down and I freely admit to that... >>

Nicely?

<< I still wonder why the acrimony is so high, you did not answer the question, so I will assume you do not know either... >>

You want philosophical answers to rhetorical questions? Sorry, I'm not here to entertain you.

<< You take a post apart, and post cute little phrases and icons that mean absolutely nothing, and again are meant in your own way to inflame or incite... This is your calling card and your give it out frequently... >>

:shrug: :hi: :silly: :crazy:


<< So you believe it is your job to ridicule others who want to believe something other than you than so be it. >>

I cannot account for the people who continue to believe in the fantasy that Leopold wrote about. Nor am I able to account for their insistence that traditional media outlets be held to the highest standards of journalistic integrity... yet, they fail (miserably) to demand that progressive journalists be held to the same standards of accountability.

Weird. :shrug:

Again... what we're continually witnessing from this claque is that the "cause" is more important that the TRUTH. :crazy:


<< You are good at your job, you can take pride in the fact you have ridiculed so many.... >>

You're getting personal again.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #473
474. You can't answer the question
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 11:27 AM by dogday
I never said that and that is what you stated, now you try to twist and turn the meaning.. I am not buying it or any of your dissection posts...


On edit there is a difference between someone who is a liar and always telling lies. And someone who speaks one lie that is caught, and asked about... There is a difference in my mind, maybe not yours, because you are putting that label on yourself....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #474
477. True... I Do Not Know The Answer To Your Question...
... if you think that you're scoring "extra points" by repeatedly asking a philosophical rhetorical question, then knock yerself out. :eyes:

Whoo-hoo! :shrug:

Who knows why people do what they do? :shrug:

Who knows why people believe in make-believe fantasy "news" accounts of Rove's "indictment". :shrug:

If you want to spend your time figuring it out... then enjoy yourself. Be sure to report your findings back to us when you've finished your analysis and research. I'm certain it will be a page-turner.

If you want me to entertain you by pondering your questions, then you'll be waiting an awfully long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #477
480. Scoring points
Are we in a match? I did not know that.. You said I was telling people to shut-up. I deny that, and ask you to show me that statement, you cannot.

Don't make a statement unless you can back it up... That simple...


This is not a game, I am not in it to win.. There is no prize.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #480
487. ~
<< Are we in a match? >>

That's rather up to you, isn't it? :shrug:

<< I did not know that.. >>

An understatement if I've ever read one! :eyes:

<< You said I was telling people to shut-up. I deny that, and ask you to show me that statement, you cannot. >>

You're splitting hairs, and that demonstrates that you're arguing from a very weak position.

Fact is that you don't have to say the words "shut-up" to someone in order to indicate your desire that they do so. Stop playing word games. You'll never win.

<< Don't make a statement unless you can back it up... That simple... >>

Don't try to impose your will on others. Also simple.

<< This is not a game, I am not in it to win.. There is no prize..... >>

So why do you treat it as such? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #487
492. And it continues and we could do this
all day long.. Back and forth like a ping pong ball... Funny how you still don't address the issue of the false statement you made.

I am not the one posting about scoring points, you are, and not just in the post to me, so again, I will ask you, is this all a game to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #492
497. What False Statement?
<< Back and forth like a ping pong ball... >>

Ping pong is a game. So by making that comparison, you clearly see it as being a game. :rofl:


<< Funny how you still don't address the issue of the false statement you made. >>

I don't know what you're talking about? What false statement?

<< I am not the one posting about scoring points, >>

No, you're talking about playing ping-pong. :rofl:


<< you are, and not just in the post to me, so again, I will ask you, is this all a game to you? >>

No. It's not a game. I'm dead serious, lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #383
392. No, I was not.
The poster didn't have the balls to say what he really wanted to say. That figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #392
397. i guess the poster knows joking DUer give blow jobs is okay ....
but anal sex, well that's offensive.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #392
401. Oh Pshaw...
<< The poster didn't have the balls to say what he really wanted to say. >>

I doubt that. The poster was CLEVER enough to say EXACTLY what he wanted to say. That poster knew enough to stay WITHIN the DU rules. And obviously that perturbed you.

So... you wanted to draw him out and make him explicitly BREAK the DU rules. You're just mad because he spotted the hook in your bait and didn't rise to take it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #401
404. Oh now you know what the poster is saying
because up-thread, you had no knowledge of what he meant... It is not ok to ridicule, I don't care what terms you put it in when you insult someone, the thought is layed out there just as sure as if he had said the actual words and I will repeat the message as long as it takes to sink in....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #404
419. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #404
438. Actually, I Was Giving You The Benefit Of The Doubt...
... by agreeing with and following your premise and assumptions for the sake of this discussion. And STILL you're not happy??!! Good lord, Lady... :eyes:

<< It is not ok to ridicule, I don't care what terms you put it in when you insult someone, >>

As I said before... some people are simply too delicate to be out in public (as it were) and are so easily "insulted" that the very act of challenging their ideas (or heroes) is an affront to their sensibilities. Coddle them if you like.

<< the thought is layed out there just as sure as if he had said the actual words and I will repeat the message as long as it takes to sink in. >>

Some things are ambiguous enough that they are only obscene to those who choose to MAKE it obscene. I didn't find it to be obscene. Why did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #438
455. There is no benefit of the doubt
the intent was clear.. I just ask if someone is going to post the innuendo, to be brave enough to follow through... You had it to do it for that poster and I give you kudos for trying every which way to Sunday to explain it away, but it is what it is, an insult....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #455
465. Yes There Is... I Gave It To You And You Fault Me For It...
... and try to score points with it. :eyes: Not everyone thinks as you do, and not everyone shares your worldview. It's only as dirty or obscene as someone wants to interpret it.

Your actions certainly do not match your rhetoric when it comes to

<< There is no benefit of the doubt the intent was clear.. >>

Clear in your mind, perhaps. I see it differently.

<< I just ask if someone is going to post the innuendo, to be brave enough to follow through... >>

In other words: you want them to break the rules. Well, that's not very nice.

<< You had it to do it for that poster >>

I had it to do it for that poster... huh? :shrug: (Proofreading is our friend.)

<< and I give you kudos for trying every which way to Sunday to explain it away, but it is what it is, an insult.... >>

Apparently the moderators did not agree or they would have taken action on that post. It appears to me that your beef is with the moderators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #465
468. They have removed those posts before
They are common here, because like I said mentality falls by the wayside, when insults and ridicule begin... It is that simple..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #468
475. Here's What's Simple: You Want To Impose Your Own Standards...
... and people resist you. You don't like it and you try harder, but it makes things worse. So you continue. :shrug: Go figure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #475
476. Same could be said about you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #401
407. Clever? Pshaw!
We shall see if the poster stayed within the DU rules. I plan to use that phrase in the future minus the TO. And no, it didn't perturb me. You do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #407
439. I'm Afraid Your Denials Are Inconsistent With Your Actions.
And everyone knows that actions speak louder than words.

If you're concerned whether or not a poster stays within DU rules, then you should alert. If nothing happens, then the post you alerted on was within the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #439
447. Boy! Did you miss the entire point or what!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #447
450. How So?
I can think of no finer example of someone's actions NOT matching their words. She claims not to be perturbed by a particular phrase, yet the evidence throughout this thread (and separate thread started by her) we can clearly see that this is not the case.

So where exactly did I "miss the entire point or what"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #450
452. You're trying to read between the lines
What's your "evidence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #452
456. Stop Playing Games.
<< What's your "evidence"? >>

And open your eyes instead. The abundant evidence you seek is throughout this thread. Just look for the catgirl posts and you're likely to stumble upon them. --- You strike me as being competent enough that you can handle your own searches (or just visually scanning the threaded subject lines/links).

And then there's this separate thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1435794

... in which she admits that she was perturbed enough to alert on someone using a phrase that she found offensive.

Pretty odd behavior that directly contradicts any claim of not being perturbed. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #450
457. I am not perturbed at all by that phrase.
After all, the OP didn't accuse any individual posters of this. If I was perturbed, I wouldn't have it in my sig line.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #457
461. Your Sigline... ROFL!!
You were perturbed enough to alert on the post, perturbed enough to complain that your alert wasn't acted upon, and now you add it to your sigline?

That's hysterical!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #461
463. I'm glad I made you laugh.
Although you're still wrong, brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #463
467. That's Funny Too!!
<< Although you're still wrong, brother. >>

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #467
471. Okay. Let me rephrase...
Although you're still wrong, sister.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #471
478. Frankly...
... that one missed the mark. You should have quit while you were ahead. But feel free to try and score more points. You might accidentally come up with SOMETHING that tickles my funny bone. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #478
481. I wasn't trying to tickle your funny bone.
You're the one that's always :rofl: at posts that isn't warranted for that type of reaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #481
485. So You Disapprove Of My Sense Of Humor, Too?
<< I wasn't trying to tickle your funny bone. You're the one that's always (rofl) at posts that isn't warranted for that type of reaction. >>

That anyone would be concerned about such a thing is astonishing. :shrug:










And it's also HYSTERICAL!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #485
489. Why on earth would I be concerned about anything you say?
I am responding to your posts but I am not concerned about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #489
495. Another Funny One!!
<< I am responding to your posts but I am not concerned about them. >>

Oh yeah... I see how "unconcerned" you are. The same way you weren't perturbed with that other poster. -- I see your many denials, but the evidence speaks for itself.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #495
496. So you rather I ignore your posts and not respond?
I'm not the type to post and run....like that other kneepad brigade poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #496
498. "like that other kneepad brigade poster"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #498
500. Glad I made you laugh again.
Well, I gotta go, sweetie. It was fun chatting with you. And since you like posting pictures, enjoy this one. I enjoy it quite a bit. :hi:

:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #379
394. or play stupid and selectively blind.....
to commonly used derogatory terms (involving various acts of sodomy) often used against gay men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #379
440. No. She Was Playing Games...
... and the other poster was too clever to fall for her trick. It happens all the time. Nothing new. She tried. She lost. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #440
454. We all lose when someone post crap
like that, that simple.. This whole forum loses when intellect falls by the wayside and insults take over... WE ALL LOSE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #454
469. Face It... Some Folks Are Not As Puritanical As Others Are.
There will always be a certain element that is capable of taking offense at damn near anyone who disagrees with them. Whether they use humor or logic to refute the fantasy that "Rove was indicted"... there will always be those folks who refuse to let go, and who become indignant at anyone who contradicts the world (and the "facts") as they see them.

<< This whole forum loses when intellect falls by the wayside >>

Indeed it does.

One person's "crap" is another person's humor and debunking a myth. You can't silence someone just because you think their that viewpoint--or how they express it--is "crap".

But what you can do is use the ignore button and they disappear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #469
470. No one is trying to silence anyone
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 11:12 AM by dogday
the purpose is to get the people who are trying to silence others by ridiculing them.. That is the type of silencing going on here....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #470
482. So You Approve Of Hypocrisy?
Is it not hypocritical to demand a HIGH journalistic standard and a HIGH level of accountability for traditional journalists and corporate media... but then to have ANOTHER standard that applies only to progressive journalists and non-traditional media?

I think it's very important to silence hypocrisy. How do you feel about that? Why are you defending the hypocrites?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #482
488. Sure it is
But you or I don't get to decide who is a hypocrite and silence them, we are not the judges. All I can ask is that when people discuss it, they try to "maintain low tones" as the cone-heads used to say...

I am madder at the M$M for cheer-leading us on to war. My only Son, my first born child, is in that War and I guess that is where my acrimony lies.. That is something I get angry about... Articles that cause the deaths of thousands...

TO has been a good news source and has never had a blemish that I know of, to throw them out with the trash seems like the wrong thing to do.. To demand accountability of this story is well-placed, they should tell it all and it looks like they are working on it... Not as fast as I would like them to though, cause I too want to know what in the world and why in the world this story broke in the first place...

Honestly, when I heard Jason on Schulz, I just did not believe any of it, he was erratic and had no answers for what has happened...

Maintain low tones should be the mantra of the day here... I understand everybody's point.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #488
494. I Was Wondering How Long It Would Take...
<< But you or I don't get to decide who is a hypocrite and silence them, we are not the judges. >>

I think it's extremely important to silence the hypocrites.

<< All I can ask is that when people discuss it, they try to "maintain low tones" as the cone-heads used to say... >>

What's to "discuss"? :shrug:

What middle-ground do you think can be reached? Some maintain that Rove WAS indicted, others know the truth. Should we "compromise" on the truth to reach some middle-ground and everyone agree that he was slightly indicted? :eyes:

<< I am madder at the M$M for cheer-leading us on to war. My only Son, my first born child, is in that War and I guess that is where my acrimony lies.. That is something I get angry about... Articles that cause the deaths of thousands... >>

Irrelevant. You often do this. We're all concerned about your son. I'm very sorry about the danger your son is in, and I've told you so before... but you can't keep trotting him out whenever you feel like you're losing an argument.

<< TO has been a good news source and has never had a blemish that I know of, to throw them out with the trash seems like the wrong thing to do.. >>

They are the ones responsible for maintaining their own reputation. That's rather THEIR decision to make whether or not they want to have a good reputation or not. -- At this late date, it would seem that the harm to their reputation and credibility (at their OWN HANDS and with their OWN NEGLECT, and the OWN stubborn defiance) their credibility is permanently tarnished.

Pity. But who is to blame? They are.

<< To demand accountability of this story is well-placed, they should tell it all and it looks like they are working on it... Not as fast as I would like them to though, cause I too want to know what in the world and why in the world this story broke in the first place... >>

Okay.

<< Honestly, when I heard Jason on Schulz, I just did not believe any of it, he was erratic and had no answers for what has happened... >>

I was equally unimpressed and suspicious.

<< Maintain low tones should be the mantra of the day here... I understand everybody's point..... >>

Understanding their motivation is one thing. Permitting hypocrisy and coddling their insistence that the fairy-tale is true, well... that's quite another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #494
499. It is not irrelevant if you ask me to
hold TO to the same standards of media and yes I do that because of that statement in itself.. To hold truthout to those standards is to say what the M$M are doing, and what standards they themselves are presenting, and I don't see the difference there.....

You think it is extremely important to silence the hypocrites, and there is where we disagree. Not on the meat of the subject, but the way it is approached. I cannot sit in judgment of anyone and I don't understand where you can justify your actions of judging anyone..

As to trotting out my Son....(make sure you read this part)

Shows me ignorance is only exceeded by rudeness. I tend to trot out my Son on most of my posts, do a search and you will see, that I bring his name up a lot, so does another mother on this forum.That is why I am here, it is because of my Son.

Seems to me you are the one losing the argument if you even have to make those kind of statements about my Son. You have to dig pretty low to of posted that and that just shows me I am getting to you.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #499
501. Trust Me...
... you're not "getting" to me at all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

<< Seems to me you are the one losing the argument >>

If it seems that way to you, then your perceptions are skewed.


<< if you even have to make those kind of statements about my Son. >>

No, that is untrue. It is false. You are wrong.

Actually, the TRUTH is this: (and make sure you read this part) other than to express my concern over the danger he's in, I've made NO statements "about your son".

What I *did* do was to point out that *your* trotting him out had absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. It's obvious that you simply did it for the sake of doing it or for other tactical reasons. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion/argument.

What did you hope to accomplish? :shrug: Creating an off-topic diversion? Congratulations on your success in that regard.

Score a point for you! :eyes: Whoo-hoo!

<< You have to dig pretty low to of posted that and that just shows me I am getting to you. >>

Believe what you will. My criticism was of what YOU were doing, and not about your son.

Do you see any similarity between what you're NOW doing (what you're accusing me of) and those who say "if you don't support the war then you don't support the troops". -- I do. It's very similar.

It's NOT "low to of" pointed out what *you* were doing. You're just pissed off because I called you on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #501
506. Sorry to disappoint you
I am not pissed off, I am disappointed that anyone would make that kind of statement... I feel sorry for you... I don't think I have indicated anywhere in any of my posts that I was angry and I am not...
Your are stating I was using my Son's duty in Iraq to win an argument, and if that is not a low blow sir, I don't know what is.....

You thought you knew exactly what you were doing by saying that I trot out my Son when I am losing an argument, you were trying hard to hurt and that is so sad that you could stoop so low...

I am pissed off at President Bush, and The Iraq War, and I am angry my Son is over there and everyday I wonder is this the day? When someone knocks on my door, my heartbeat goes into double-time... Oh yes, that makes me so angry I could spit nails...

Justify your actions all you want, you said what you said and now you have to live with it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #506
510. ~~
<< I am not pissed off, I am disappointed that anyone would make that kind of statement... I feel sorry for you... >>

You're getting personal again.

<< I don't think I have indicated anywhere in any of my posts that I was angry and I am not... >>

River in Egypt.

<< Your are stating I was using my Son's duty in Iraq to win an argument, and if that is not a low blow sir, I don't know what is.....>>

Then clearly, you don't know what is. :shrug:

<< You thought you knew exactly what you were doing by saying that I trot out my Son when I am losing an argument, you were trying hard to hurt and that is so sad that you could stoop so low... >>

You're getting personal again.

<< I am pissed off at President Bush, and The Iraq War, and I am angry my Son is over there and everyday I wonder is this the day? >>

Yes, yes. There you go again. We all are mad at Bush and we're all concerned for your son. But that doesn't have anything to do with the make-believe indictment, or the Pitt/Leopold/TO fiasco.

<< When someone knocks on my door, my heartbeat goes into double-time... Oh yes, that makes me so angry I could spit nails... >>

My heart goes out to anyone who has to endure such fears. But again... it's irrelevant to the make-believe indictment, or the Pitt/Leopold/TO fiasco.

<< Justify your actions all you want, you said what you said and now you have to live with it... >>

Live with what? :shrug: I've done nothing to be ashamed of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #510
511. My deepest sympathies
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #511
515. Here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #499
503. PART II
<< I cannot sit in judgment of anyone and I don't understand where you can justify your actions of judging anyone. >>

How's the view from up there?

<< You think it is extremely important to silence the hypocrites, and there is where we disagree. >>

Well then... just continue to defend them. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #503
508. You tell me
seems you are the judge of us....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #508
513. "You Tell Me"???
Is that the equivalent of Bart Simpson's "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #513
514. That line has been used to death
get some fresh material if you are going to keep this up...:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #514
516. ROFL
So why did you use it?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #516
517. Tag
your it :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #517
519. "your it" ??
YOUR??

OMG! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #494
507. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #507
512. But it is not personal ya know
who needs republicans when we have these kind of Democrats, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #512
524. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #469
502. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #502
505. Heh-heh! You Said "But Butt"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:08 PM
Original message
Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #505
509. dupe
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 01:10 PM by bettyellen
no point in getting deleted twice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #440
458. The other poster did not act cleverly.
In fact, it cut and ran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #458
525. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #525
530. That is really weird
why would anyone do that????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
32. That Was A Great Statement And I Respect The Hell Out Of It.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:18 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
I look forward to the additional details on the 19th and am proud of them for standing behind Jason. They are an organization with integrity and I think they raised a great point about having Fitzgerald's words be released in their entirity to show the whole picture, rather than just choice phrases that are no doubt spun by the likes of Luskin and the MSM.

Rock on T.O., and keep doing the great service to this country that you do. Even if in the end this story turns out to be proven wrong and with bad sources, so be it. One mark on an otherwise impeccable record is not worthy of any outrage from me. By overwhelming numbers T.O. has always provided an amazing contribution to real journalism and the progressive cause and I remain proud to have T.O. on our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Why wait for something that is more BS...
Their changing definitions of the dates was my first clue that they were BSing ppl...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Since they've lost their credibility ...why does it hurt to wait and see
what they have to say? They have NOT Retracted their original story.

If they had...I'd say PILE ON! Obviously they think they have some leg to stand on or they wouldn't keep at it since they've already lost their credibility with most on the "Internets." :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. I really think that they are HOPING that something...anything happens
between now and the 19th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
99. Yep.
Maybe Rove will rob a bank during the next 4 days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. I Find No Reason To Believe Whatsoever That They Were BS'ing Anybody.
Maybe in the end their sources were wrong, but the end isn't here yet. We don't know if their sources were wrong or not, or if there was some other shit going on behind the scenes that none of us know. Lord knows the way this administration works and that sneaky pig Rove works that can't be out of the realm of possibility. But regardless, if it becomes known that Rove didn't deal at all and he simply was exonerated due to innocence or not nearly enough evidence, then it would be the sources that were dishonerable in my opinion, not Truthout. I have read them for quite a while and have always found them to be valuable and of the utmost integrity. I see nothing in this situation that given their past would lend credence to the possibility that they intentionally misled. The fact some are so readily trying to make it like they had bad intentions and were out to BS is perplexing, but lord knows to each their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. B.S. does not have to be "intentional" to BE B.S. It's the job, dare I say
the primary responsibility of a journalist to verify facts that they claim as facts. All signs point to the reality that they did not do this.

That's my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #34
63. Yes, of course. Why wait. Trash now.
I'm sorry, but the value of that eludes me.

What it does do is remind me of the storm surge of protest over "Rathergate," which decided that the letters were fake when there was not and never has been any proof that they were fake. The distorted focus on the "24 hours" is exactly like the distorted focus on the "th" in the letters.

Don't wait to examine the evidence, condemn now.

I don't think I plan to condemn them. I'm simply fascinated by the people who feel a screaming need to, however.

What, precisely, is the time necessity for a stampede?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. The main problem with your statement... pssst... there IS no evidence
that any of that story was true. None. Nada. Nothing.

If there were, I'd love to examine the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #66
361. Like that little lie the administration
told about Uranium? Or the one about the miners being alive? A lot of shit isn't true, but as long as I have been here, I have never seen the outcry for justice louder than this one....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. OK, another problem... when a "journalist" publishes stuff as "fact", it's
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:47 PM by IsIt1984Yet
the journalist's job to verify that; not the reader's job to DISPROVE it.

That arguement completely baffles me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. OMC, Why?
What do you think that statement is trying to say? Are they affirming the story, or denying it? Are they admitting it was wrong, or still claiming Leopold's story was right? Do they still believe the sources are correct? What does "standing down" on the story mean, exactly? I'd respect the statement a little more if it actually gave us some information. Sorry, maybe I'm missing something. What is the status of the story at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. I Think They Made It Pretty Clear,
that they will elaborate more on the 19th. As far as standing down, it means they are not going to go into the forefront and declare against a horde of MSM that Rove was indicted and not fully exonerated. It means they are going to take the backseat right now while the MSM has their field day with choice snippets from a Fitz letter, fax, phonecall, smoke signal, heiroglyph, or whatever the heck it was. They know they are way too outnumbered right now to compete so they are standing down for now, while they investigate what's going on or what happened that made the outcome so contradictory to their expectation.

They are standing behind Jason and that's respectful as hell. They are all in it together. At this time they still trust their sources and firmly believe in their story, but now must believe that some underhanded dealings must've taken place behind the scenes that turned everything around. They are trying to say that their reporting was thorough, Jason was thorough, their sources seem reliable, and that on the 19th they'll clarify more their feelings on the issue.

And even if in the end they were totally wrong, like I said in my post they have an impeccable record of valuable progressive reporting and action and I'll be damned if I am to erase all that due to one big miss.

I enjoy reading truthout and they have always been one of the best journalistic outlets for our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #58
69. OK
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:53 PM by Marie26
Thank you for explaining some of the reasons for your position. You've confirmed my impression that this post is not a retraction of the original story. It does seem like they're simply regrouping while they do more inquiries, or whatever. Truthout's done good work, but IMO they've damaged themselves w/this story. But I've said that already. They did make it clear that they'll make it clear on June 19th. I guess we'll just have to see what they end up elaborating on later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #58
124. Many TruthOut Admirers Have Extraordinarily Low Standards...
... when it comes to their evaluation of journalistic capabilities and responsibilities and accountability.

<< And even if in the end they were totally wrong, >>

Uh... hello? The end is already here. They were wrong.

<< like I said in my post they have an impeccable record of valuable progressive reporting and action and I'll be damned if I am to erase all that due to one big miss. >>

"Impeccable?" Not exactly the word I would have chosen, but then again... I suppose many people are more easily impressed than I am. --- And actually, when you think about it... their record and reputation is their own to protect, discard, or "erase"... not yours. You really don't have much to say about that one way or the other.

It probably wouldn't have been so "big" if they hadn't tried to be so stealthy with their undocumented post editing and so stubbornly and defiantly "standing by" their story when all evidence indicated otherwise.

But what do I know... I'm just a fuckwit.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #124
149. "But what do I know... I'm just a fuckwit."
Fair enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #149
156. ~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techno Dog Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #156
192. It seems
this guy/girl doesn't understand Ash HAS to stand behind Leopold becuase he said he verified the sources. William Pitt too.

Now whowhatwherewhenwhy it went wrong isn't the point. They HAVE to stand behind Leopold.

Pity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #192
208. Verified? What Does This Mean... In Real Terms...
... how does one go about "verifying" the source? I keep hearing this term used, but I don't fully understand all that's involved. Is a verified source more credible than any other type of source?

<< Now whowhatwherewhenwhy it went wrong isn't the point. >>

I think it's a point they want to avoid dealing with, but it's certainly a valid point that people are justified in being curious about and in wanting explanations regarding those things.

<< They HAVE to stand behind Leopold. >>

Only if they don't want to come clean. Only if they don't care about their credibility.

<< Pity. >>

I reserve the right to make that determination at a later time.


PS: WELCOME TO DU!! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techno Dog Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #208
238. Thanks
The time for "coming clean" was before Ash and Pitt went on the record as having spoken to the sources.

So they made themselves part of the story, they can't come clean about Leopold without coming clean about themselves.

That doesn't mean they feel they have anything to come clean about, I'm just pointing out the guy/girl that seemed to be giving you attitude doesn't realize TO "standing by" Leopold is a red herring and has nothing to do with honor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #238
245. You hit the nail on the head with that insight.
A lot of the TO defenders argue that Leopold must have been set up or lied to. Now since every reliable journalist & his/her editor will require at least two reputable sources, that means TWO sources lied to, set up or misled Leopold. When the TO editors jump in and say the story is valid because they also spoke to or in some manner validated the source(s), then if the story collapses, the editors also are shown to be incompetent and unprofessional.

I find the phrase "stand down" to be so bogus - quite macho and military - and what you'd expect from someone who is incapable of admitting error. Was Ash ever in the military? Or Pitt? If not, the phrase is as out of place as Bush prancing around in his pilot's costume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techno Dog Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #245
246. There is a lot of victim language
in there. I think the militarism you noticed in the "stand down" comes from the siege mentality that sets in when under attack. It is also, as you note, a very macho statement that says in effect "you win because there are more of you, but I'm still right".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #246
287. "you win because there are more of you, but I'm still right".
Excellent way to describe & explain it. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #192
297. Welcome to Du.!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #192
435. They don't have to stand by shit.
The story was wrong. It had so many inaccuracies and contradictions that the average editor of a high school newspaper wouldn't have published it.

When Rove was NOT indicted, Pitt and Ash should have retracted the story.

What did they do?

They insulted those who questioned it with extreme arrogance.

Pitt and Ash have the same credibility as Leopold. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
90. It means what many of us have always said
There isn't enough information, so let it rest until there is.

When the fat lady sings, the opera will be over, the curtain will close on the final act and all will be known. Until then...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #90
243. The opera's over.
But I'm done arguing over it. People will believe what they want to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #243
256. When did Fitz issue a statement?
Or is the case closed? What did I miss?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #256
269. Rove certainly hasn't been indicted if that's what you're after....
And, unless things change in the future, he won't be.

Was there something else that you were getting at?

If it was about the Leopold story - that's in the past tense as truthout claimed he'd been indicted more than a month ago, and obviously, he wasn't.

But if you're talking about something other than that, do tell.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #269
414. Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to read between lines1
Because there is nothing there.

When Fitz makes a statement other than "no comment" I will listen to that statement.

I will not make up things like you seem to like to do. I will not see things that are not there no matter how hard you try to will me to do so.

No comment means no comment. Law 101... no comment means no comment. Fitz has no comment, therefore, he said "no comment" and until he says something other than "no comment" there is nothing further to discuss.

Go read your fairy tales elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #414
472. LOL
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 11:21 AM by Jazz2006
I haven't made up a single thing.

As for fairy tales, the most recent fairy tale I've read is the truthout story that Rove was served with an indictment on May 12.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #90
343. The fat lady
has already sung, removed the costume, had supper, been laid, and smoked the post-sex cigarette. But you keep hoping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #343
347. Hee
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #343
423. Cool! Fitz said something more than "no comment"???
Did I miss it?

Because until that time, this opera is still playing. You must be in the wrong opera house on the wrong side of town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #423
518. It ain't just a river in Egypt, my friend.
It's over. Leopold was full of shit (AGAIN) and this time it was TruthOut that was on the supportive side of his crap. He has a history of making shit up and it looks like he done it again.

If you are the only one sitting in the opera house, there are no lights on, nobody is on stage, there hasn't been anyone on stage for an hour, the orchestra is gone, and the ushers are staring at you like you are a maniac, the opera is over my friend. And sitting in your chair telling yourself this is just a REALLY long intermission (24 business hours is a shit load of time according to Leopold) doesn't make it so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #518
520. It may very well be that Leo was full of crap
But to believe Rove's lawyer is just stupid.

Like I said, when Fitz actually says something, then there will be firm evidence. Until then, everything is speculation. Everything.

Fitz has said nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #520
532. I'm not believing Rove's lawyer.
My bullshit meter red-lined on the following two phrases.

"we meant 24 BUSINESS hours"
"standing down"

Both of those are complete crap. There is no business hours in the legal world and they are just using military jibberjabber to sound tough. EVERYONE'S bullshit meter should have gone off at DU with those two. If either of those had come out of the mouth of someone in the Bush administration, we would have called them on it here at DU. Shouldn't be any different for Leopold, Ash, Pitt, et al.

And me being called a cretin fuckwit shitdog for having a bullshit meter only made me more willing to voice my opinion more loudly.

Do I want Rove to be indicted? Fuck yeah. TruthOut just wasn't right about it and has handled it very poorly since their 24 business hours were up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #532
533. Things change
That could have very well been the truth at the time and we won't know until we hear something real... not imagined. All Fitz will say is "no comment". That's the only concrete thing we have.

Sounds like you have your own personal axe to grind. So be it. It's your right. I don't think it does you any good or makes your arguments any more solid, in fact, it makes all your arguments and reasons for not liking TO nothing more than sour grapes. Just my opinion.

My bullshit meter went off when I heard that Rove got some letter clearing him. Clearing him of what? What's the point in getting a letter clearing him if he had not received a much different letter to begin with? Do they hand those letters out to everyone? Can I get one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
49. Yep, those additional details will be w/in "24 business hours" of the 19th
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:31 PM by bluestateguy
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #49
298. ROFLMAO! Good one!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #49
431. Are those Pluto business hours?
Because they sure ain't Earth business hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
150. So do it
And I anticipate they'll still keep following the story, seeking the truth.

We've lost enough good independent journalists to Rove's dirty tricks, its time to stand up and not cave in to the GOP dirty tricks campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
274. You respect people blowing smoke up your ass?
Kinky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
37. That statement is completely incomprehensible
I literally cannot figure out what they are trying to say.

Truthout is now in the same category as Newsmax, WordNetDaily and the Drudge Report.

I also hope the Administrators will take notice and ban the use of Truthout as a legitimate LBN source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texasleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. they're allowed in LBN? wtf?
no effing way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Ban posting stuff from truthout all together
not only in LBN, but this whole forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
151. Another Rove talking point
Can't you folks come up with something more original?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #151
178. Not everything bad that happens is a Karl Rove masterminded conspiracy
It's getting old real fast, and making this site look silly and moonbatish. I would dare say that Rove is less powerful than he was a few years ago anyway.

TruthOut fucked up and they need to do what we would expect of any reputable news source when that happens: apologize, hold the incompetents accountable and take systemic steps to prevent the screwups from happening again. So far, TruthOut has not done any of that.

And before someone replies to this post by whining that the New York Times, or Fox News or whoever has not owned up to their mistakes, that is not my concern. The fact that the NYT or FOX or ABC or whoever fucked up does not excuse TruthOut from being held to the same standards. If that publication wants to be taken seriously then they will have to act like a real news organ with real journalistic standards. The fact that ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN and the NYT fucked up at such and such date on such and such story is not an excuse. Standards should not be dumbed down just because we have been let down by corporate media organizations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #178
280. Stop making sense.........
making sense isn't widely accepted around here lately. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #178
302. Well said!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #178
326. How can you say that????
Don't you know that rove has been given all omnipotent powers? I have heard, maybe it was read (or I just made it up) that he has the power to stop the Earths orbit and stop the sun from shining. That devious rove is so smart that he took a website that a huge majority of people never heard of (including me, that is until May 12) and used his all omnipotent power to bring them down. He didn't target MoveOn, or TrueMajority, MediaMatters, or any group like that because truthout must have special insight into the administration or they must have written stories that the other three groups I cited missed (not to mention HuffPo, Salon, Crooksandliars and a slew of other organizations).

On a serious note:
I agree with you. Everytime something doesn't go the way we would like it's not always bevcause of Rove or Diebolt or any other special circumstances. Sometimes bad things happen -- it sux, but the conspiracy whining does need to stop, it detracts from when shady things happen that are real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #326
328. I'm sure you're right
Rove would never involve himself in any scheme related to saving his own ass from going to jail. How silly of me to assume he would pull a dirty tricks campaign in order to avoid going to jail. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #178
426. Do you doubt his ROVIAN powers?
He attacks the unknown and releases his ROVIAN wrath!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
48. Good.
I can appreciate why TO is standing down on the Rove report.
I stand with TO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #48
59. Thank you, H20 Man, for that succinct response
So do I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
61. Hi H2OMan
Just wanted to tell you how much I admire all the work you've done on the Plame story. In your post today, you stated "However, Karl Rove is not facing indictment at this time. And there is no reason to expect that will change anytime soon, if ever." If this is true, why hasn't TO retracted the story that Rove was indicted? Why is the story still linked to the TO front page? Do you believe that affects their creditability in this issue? Do you believe it's still possible that the TO story was correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #61
84. I think
that at very worst, TO made an error. As I noted in my essay, I also am wrong from time to time. That may cause people to conclude that I'm not credible. That doesn't concern me. I'm an old man, and have met thousands of people in my life, and have yet to meet anyone who has not made mistakes.

Many years ago, a friend taught me that there are three types of people: smart people learn from others' mistakes; most of us have to learn from our own; and some folks just never learn. One thing I've learned is that things are not always what they appear to be. Another is to trust people to do what is right when it comes to things that are important to them. I have enough respect for Will Pitt that I have no problem applying those two things to this situation.

Could the TO report be correct? I do not think that it will turn out to be accurate in every sense. Great if it is -- I certainly wouldn't mind being wrong on that. But I will say this: other people believed that something was going on. That includes David Shuster, who I think is a very good journalist. And there are others, too, who aren't on record, but who were hearing similar things.

The Plame investigation is an iceberg. We see the surface, floating above the water .... but the vast majority of what is happening lies below the surface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #84
105. Thanks
for answering my annoying questions. I do agree that trust is something that is earned, but TO has lost my trust over this issue. This seems to be a situation where they are not learning from earlier mistakes, but making them worse by reaffirming Leopold's inaccurate story. It does feel like there's a whole lot going on beneath the surface in this case, though, whatever that turns out to be. Life in general is like an iceberg - we're only seeing the tip of what TO's actions are here, & can only guess at what's motivating them. Some people believe they have good motives, some believe there are self-interested motives, most don't care. But I can see why someone could choose to believe that they have good intentions here, especially based on prior experiences. Maybe we'll eventually find out the entire truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #84
197. Thanks, H2O Man, as always, for your succinct comments
"The Plame investigation is an iceberg. We see the surface, floating above the water .... but the vast majority of what is happening lies below the surface."

Indeed, the vast majority of what is happening is below the surface which we cannot see nor know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #84
354. Here's my version of those three types
1) Those that notice something's wrong and try and fix it

2) Those that notice something's wrong but just want to get on with their lives

3) Those that prefer to sit around tearing down the efforts of type 1)

We probably each have a little of each of those in us - the proportion we act on each says a lot about us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #48
67. I agree..it's better to
"stand down" now and live to fight another day. Truthout is strong and they will bounce back from this alleged rove, temporary, "victory".




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #48
332. Nice post.
I agree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
50. Cowards Stand Down Mr. Ash, Patriots Stand Up! You are no Patriot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. I admire your Pluck.......
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:52 PM by KoKo01

But, you'd be more believable if you toned down your rhetoric. Being Partisan.
is a good thing in some situations, but you need some experience to "pick and choose." Being a Cheerleader 24/7...kind of put's you in a rut...

I admire your "Pluck" but sheesh...it's so predictable.

Peace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #71
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #81
97. I understand the outrage of some DUers about this story
But piling on is too much. No one here knows the whole story. The sad thing is they have lined themselves up with a couple freeper disrupters IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #81
126. My only real problem with TO on this:
Sure, they made a simple mistake (not so simple to some). They made a prediction, based on word of mouth from someone, and ran with it. Then nothing occured. And still nothing.

Ok, I can give em that. Crap happens. They did what they thought was right, and ran with a story they believed to be true. But - and there is always a 'but':

Their communication abilities seem somewhat lacking. When three business days had passed and nothing they should have issued a simple apology for the furor they knew the whole thing would cause. And they had to know something this big would get all kinds of people talking, writing, spending hours of their time online discussing, blogging, etc.

-----
A real simple worded - 'It appears our sources were wrong on the time, which implies that they may also be wrong on the indictment. We believe our reporter has good sources but it appears that they were mistaken in what they heard. Should the story change, or we get new information, we will get it straight out to you. In the meantime, we are unable to verify the original facts and apologize once more for stating something that at this time appears not to be fact (at the minimum, the timeline).

We believe our sources DO have it right that there was an indictment, but until such a thing can be proven we will move on to other items. Thank you for understanding.
-----

I think - once again - the rub is NOT that they were wrong, but in how the PR of it all unfolded. One story does make or break the credibility of a site, nor does it diminish their hard work. It is hard to move on from a story when things keep lingering like this.

Just my 2 cents.Well 3 cents, with the tax cut and all...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #126
305. VERY well said! nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #126
344. So you're saying
that when it seemed clear the story was wrong, coming on DU and calling people that thought the story was wrong "fuckwits" was not a good move? :rofl:

I'm sorry I keep going back to that post, but, damn, it's such an easy target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #344
351. Stop that, you cretin!!
heee :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #351
381. Don't forget shitdog!
Can't pick which one is my favorite. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
60. Monday, June 19
what year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
76. the year you evolve
unless you believe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #60
306. .
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
74. This is nuts! What is to be gained by Luskin lying about the letter?
Let's assume for a moment that the 'Fitz letter' is simply some kind of neocon misdirection... If so, it seems to have worked splendidly, because 'the letter' has been the top news item in every media outlet. And even Bush joined the chorus, stating at today's presidential press conference that he was happy the Rove issue was behind him.

Now, what would happen if Fitz were to suddenly announce an actual Rove indictment? The ensuing media shit-storm would make Bush's Whitehouse look something like Dorthy in the tornado during the Wizard of Oz.

I can't imagine this administration assuming that kind of risk just to make KKKarl look good for a little while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. It's textbook "straw man".
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 07:57 PM by IsIt1984Yet
Person A: ROVE WAS INDICTED ON MAY 12!! I'M SERIES!!!!11!!

<chirp>

<chirp>

<chirp>

<chirp>

Person B: We received a letter from the special prosecutor stating that we do not anticipate an indictment for Rove.

Person C: Show us the letter!!


BULLSHIT! Prove why you stated as FACT that he had been indicted on 5/12!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #79
100. So...
....you would out a source? A source that might be in grave danger if he were known to have said something?

Just so you could get some internet warriors of your butt? No, I don't think you would, or should. Definetly it would be your last time any one ever trusted you.

'Course, rove would love to know that source, eh? Why do rove's bidding? Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. No, see - I wouldn't have published the story unless I verified facts.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 08:19 PM by IsIt1984Yet
And... I will turn a portion of your argument back on you... if you were Luskin/Fitz, would you go out of your way to make public a private letter "Just so you could get some internet warriors of your butt? No, I don't think you would, or should. Definitely it would be your last time any one ever trusted you."

These are attorneys in legal matters.

And, seriously, don't try to thinly veil a "troll" accusation at me with the "Why do rove's bidding? Why?" bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. So...
...what is it you want?

And why wouldn't Luskin tell the world his boy was off the hook? You make no sense.

What is it you hope to accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. Huh? Luskin DID tell the media of the letter. He is not obligated to
share its contents.

And, as a lawyer, he's obligated to protect his client, no matter how large of an icky scumbag the client is.

I'd like to see TO cut the cancer that is Leopold from their staff and admit that they fucked up and didn't properly verify the facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. What you want
You ain't gonna get.

And if you did get what you want, so what? It wouldn't make a difference in the world.

Glad to see you backed off from wanting the source exposed, that's wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. Psssh. You make me laugh.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 08:36 PM by IsIt1984Yet
Show me where I stated that I wanted sources revealed. ooo... you can't, cuz I didn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. Well, you said
"
BULLSHIT! Prove why you stated as FACT that he had been indicted on 5/12!"


The only way to prove it is to expose the source. So you wanted the source exposed so you would get what you want. And rove would like that too, please, don't claim rove wouldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. I did not say "expose the source". Did I? You THINK that's the only
way to prove it? I don't know and neither do you. I would assume that journalists require evidence... proof, even when someone makes a claim.

I should call Jason and tell him I saw the Boogie Man. I bet he'd write all about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. You don't know?
I don't either. But lets consider this... TO says their source is a good source, and I guess they wouldn't have done the story if they didn't trust the source. So, as far as we know, outting the source is the only way to get your proof.

Or, you could say they made it all up. I doubt they made it all up, but who knows? Who cares? You do. You ain't gonna get what you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #123
125. Consider this. I'm a reporter and you're my pastor's wife. You're WAY
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 09:11 PM by IsIt1984Yet
credible, completely honest and I'd trust you with my life.

And... you tell me that you saw TinkerBelle. You give me a fabulous description, meticulous details and a plausible time line.

I, as a reporter, would push real hard: "gee, BeFree, do you have pictures? Any pixie dust she left behind? some shred of evidence?"

If you couldn't provide me evidence... that I could VERIFY I'd - guess what... NOT publish your story as FACT.

But, that's me. I took journalism when I was a freshman in High School and got that much out of it.

On edit: Do you see how silly it is to publish a story without evidence; based SOLEY on the word of someone, despite how trustworthy they may be? So, I go back to saying that they either A) have some evidence and are holding out or B) did not GET evidence

If they HAVE the evidence, then they ought to come clean and prove it up. Did they SEE the indictment? Do they have a COPY of the indictment?

And, if they haven't any evidence, that speaks volumes to their journalist integrity. Even Rather had SOME evidence, faked as it may have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #125
133. Tinkerbell? WTF?
Yes, it is silly, unless that someone was very highly respected. And I guess TO doesn't respect that source as much, nowadays. But that doesn't mean they should expose him.

Did TO screw up? Duh. Big deal. It happens.

The thing is, Rove is a crook and he needs to be indicted, and he may yet. Lets hope he does get indicted, yes?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #133
140. I REALLY hope there's an indictment. My criticism of how TO and JL
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 09:38 PM by IsIt1984Yet
handled this debacle speaks nothing of my contempt for the man.

Yes, I hope he and the whole administration are held liable for the mess that they've made and every life lost in 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanastan. With every fiber of my being, I want this administration gone and called to the carpet for every wrong that they've done.

And, I am working everyday (among other things) to make sure that we get out of the Middle East, women's rights are protected and that afforable healthcare is avaiable to EVERYONE.

I am sickened that criticism and questions of TO and Leopold over this dumb-ass story make people throw around these fucking "troll" comments. It's ridiuclous. I am a life-long Democrat, rasied by 2 incredible bleeding-heart pinkos (love ya, ma!). I have voted Democratic in every election since I was able to vote, I volunteer, donate blood and raise a HELL of a lot of money for charitable organizations.

It feels like some WANT me to what... vote Republican so that can whine and cry about being oppressed?!? Fuck that, I am a Democrat who fights for the TRUTH and what's RIGHT. We must stop speculating and start demanding the truth... even from our "own". FUCK, especially from our own!! If we can't trust them, we're seriously fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #140
159. The Truth is Out there.
Good on you. I'd of never expected that you were such a good Dem by the way you ranted.

Still, to the troll issue you are so injured with: I implied that if you wanted rove to succeed in any endeavor he might have to injure someone on 'our' side, this is one way to go about it.

Because that is the end all of all this: rove wins as we go down fighting amongst ourselves over a relatively minor matter. That's how I see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #159
163. Don't you see though... your rush to judgment is a HUGE
problem. Search my posts, read my journal - but don't call me a troll or imply that I am a "Rove operative based on my opinion of THIS issue. That's a joke.

You know what prompted me to register here after lurking for eons? Women's Rights. Specifically the ruling in SD. I was sickened. Like most great Democrats, I am passionate about issues in which I believe. Truth being a big one. Like I said, search my posts, read my journal, you'll see a few of other issues I am passionate about - Feingold, human rights, women's rights, outrage at the war.

Don't judge people on a single rant or their views on one - admittedly STUPID issue (is TO full of shit or not?).

That's just... wrong.

We're on the same flippin' team... we're just debating a topic.

Note: this is not directed to you, necessarily, but a general "get it off my chest".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #100
199. Because that's what TO said they would do?
But at this point I'm not at all certain that they even bother with sources. And I certainly no longer trust them as a news source anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #79
127. Exactly - with a duplicate "editor" in defense
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #79
223. I think you mean a "red herring."
But otherwise, excellent point. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #79
240. But that's NOT what 'person B' (Luskin) said at all! He said that the
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 12:52 AM by Catrina
prosecutor told him that he 'did not anticipate any charges against Rove. You said 'indictment'.

That leaves open the possibility that there was an indictment, but that Fitzgerald is not anticipating acting on it by 'charging' Rove. This may or may not be the case, but Luskin never said there was NO indictment, just no charges.

In all the research that was done over the past few weeks we discovered that:

1) There is such a thing as 'Sealed V Sealed'...(despite the legal certainty of some DU lawyers to the contrary)

2) That a sealed indictment may be shown to the indicted individual, if the judge permits it.

3) That if that happens, all parties are forbidden to reveal it, which means the public will not be aware of it.

4) That a sealed indictment may remain sealed for over a year, at the least, which was demonstrated by DU researchers by looking at other cases.

5) That an indictment (again contrary to the legal certainty of some DU lawyers) is not sealed ONLY because of a risk of flight. Since the Patriot Act went into effect, there have been many more instances of totally secret sealed indictments, even secret trials and convictions that the public has been unaware of.

With all of that information, it's entirely possible that there was an indictment and that something happened to cause Fitzgerald to decide not to file charges and that TO was right.

Otoh, it's also possible that there was no indictment.

I believe that TO has integrity, that they are stunned at the outcome BECAUSE of what they know. This can happen to anyone. I doubt very much they would stand by this story if they didn't have a good reason for doing so.

If Luskin will not reveal the letter, he will perpetuate the idea that he is hiding something. TO is right to challenge him to reveal it.

Patrick Fitzgerald has NOT cleared Karl Rove ~ and the question is, why not? That would be the right thing to do if indeed, Rove is innocent.

Rove would be demanding such a statement if he were in a position to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
86. Oh please
Assumptions, assertions, wild imaginings and claiming to have not enough imagination...

:eyes:

If Fitz announces or denounces a indictment, aka the fat lady sings, it's over. Until then, this is all a bunch of wasted energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #86
110. You're right - in due time, everyone will know the truth of the story
...even TruthOut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #110
262. Yep
That's what I'm saying... no one knows a damn thing right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
77. I Have Plenty of Time
While I wait I'll keep working.... ahhhhhhhh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
88. I honestly hardly ever went to Truthout
Unless someone posted a link here to something that sounded interesting, I never really went there.

I consider them to be just one of the many places on the internet with some sort of news. It doesn't mean I think any less of their writers than I do any other of the millions of writers around the country, just that there are thousands of places for me to read what I want.

As it stands right now, I think they have handled this whole thing quite well and I have yet to lose a wink of sleep over their Rove story. After a month of reading the posts on DU and reading what Truthout has to say, I have concluded that Truthout has handled this much better than a lot of the people here have.

It sucks that so many people have so much anger inside of them, but that is just the way it is I guess.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
89. Why Do They Use This Terminology?
Is that the same thing as admitting that they were WRONG?

<< We defer instead to the nation's leading publications. >>

Does that mean that the "leading publications" are RIGHT?

This reminds me of when Walmart settles on a slip-n-fall liability case but admits no wrongdoing.

What happened to the previous emphatic declarations of Leopold revealing his sources? Is that still an option that's on the table? Or will TO weasel out?

This recent announcement does NOTHING to improve my opinion of TO, it's "journalists" or its defenders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. Why? It's elusive and romantic sounding... Oh, that and
it pretty much says to the reader, "ok, yeah... be a moran and believe what THEY tell you.".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #92
107. It's manipulative. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #92
116. Alternatively
"We disagree, but we can't show all our cards right now"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. They were just ahead of the news cycle, remember.
The nation's leading publications evidently were not. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #95
345. They were SO FAR ahead of the news cycle,
that the space-time continuum had time to change and create a different reality. Come on, didn't you watch Back to the Future? Pay attention here and stop dragging down those that speak truth to power :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #89
155. It's snarky. They were better just to say "we'll have more on X date" than
this thing about "deferring to the leading publications". WTF is that supposed to mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #155
161. Reminds Me Of The Language MATT DRUDGE Used The Other Week...
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:58 PM by arwalden
... when he "deferred" to the denials of the DNC (rather than issuing any sort of formal retraction or apology).

It's sleazy. It's cheap. Their careful parsing of language only confirms and validates my worst feelings about TO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
207. "We defer instead to the nation's leading publications."
To me that's a sarcastic statement which really means "You guys in the MSM think you know so much? Then go ahead and publish your bullshit. We'll be vindicated in the end. In the meantime, we'll enjoy our popcorn."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
91. "We weren't right or wrong but standing down on the matter for now."
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #91
96. uuhh yeah...
:crazy: is right!

What a big middle finger to their readership. Bye bye TO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #91
118. But but but...
Just yesterday, they were standing behind their story and Leopold was on the radio saying that he was working on it "24 hours a day" and promising to continue to "get to the bottom of" it, even while saying that he was no longer claiming that Rove would be indicted. Talk about bizarre.

Sheesh.

Not to mention the irony of Leopold saying that it would be premature for him to start issuing mea culpas until Luskin produced the letter from Fitz ~ it seems apparent that if Leopold had exercised the same restraint when he had never seen the non-existent indictment before writing a bogus story, he and truthout wouldn't be in this predicament.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #118
314. Agreed. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DancingBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
103. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
"I don't know, officer, that phrase just popped into my head."

"You've been looking at those 'updates' again, haven't you?"

"Well....."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
109. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
128. Wow!
Some moderators have itchy trigger fingers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
130. K&R! for big effort to bury Kool-Aid stories
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
131. Small contradiction here.
"And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold....Truthout has never compromised the ident{iy}y of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story...."

When Leopold promised to out any sources who lied, he contradicted that policy.

While I'm not pleased with the vagueness of "standing down" (they've remained pretty silent for weeks), I'm glad to see any update, and a promise of more substantial reporting/"accounting" sounds hopeful. They seem to be endorsing Leopold's honesty in this matter. I hope that we'll learn the full story of the story, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
136. I trust them, not a problem
Truthout has a record of being responsible and reliable, Rove, not so much. Kudos to them for holding their ground and not going the scapegoating route. That's credible journalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #136
144. And Leopold? Hmm... not him so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #144
152. Leopold vs Rove? Leopold any day, TO any day
Rove - nope, doesn't fit my values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. It's not a "versus" question. Leopold is a known fuck-up among fuck-ups.
Where have you been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #153
160. Your opinion
Sorry, but I'll reserve judgement. TO has been just fine so far and I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #160
316. Liepold makes s*** up. It's what he does. Especially to hawk his
new book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1415027#1417248

Many other source about Liepolds' lying, if you bother to google it....

Truthout was conned by Liepold...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #153
186. Leopold is a known "I admit I was wrong" among journalists.
That's more than I can say for Tony Snow, Byron York, Robert Novak, Elizabeth Bumiller, Judith "Monica" Miller, Lisa Myers, Rita Cosby...

You sound awfully like the unforgiving, rigid moralist scolds who got all upset that Bill Clinton got a hummer from a zaftig intern. I'll bet you also wonder why Clinton's so popular with big women...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #186
190. Don't play the "I bet you think..." game with me. Soooo 4th grade.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:41 PM by IsIt1984Yet
If you think I am a "Rovian plant" come out and say it, you wouldn't be the first. However, that doesn't make it any more accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #190
201. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #201
206. Saying Leopold is a fuck-up makes me sound like a Rovian plant?
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 11:10 PM by IsIt1984Yet
Huh...

on edit... wait, no ... you think it makes me a "Clinton hater".

Super huh.... that makes even LESS sense.

I voted for him a couple times, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #201
209. The way that you are turning this so personal and divisive is far more
suspect than my calling Leopold a "fuck-up".

Don't you see though... your rush to judgment is HUGELY divisive! Search my posts, read my journal see if you really think that, then make that claim if you see fit. But don't call me a troll or imply that I am a "Rove operative based on my opinion of THIS issue. That's a joke.

Like most great Democrats, I am passionate about issues in which I believe. Truth being a big one. Like I said, search my posts, read my journal, you'll see a few of other issues I am passionate about - Feingold, human rights, women's rights, outrage at the war.

Don't judge people on a single rant or their views on one - admittedly STUPID issue (is TO full of shit or not?).

We're on the same flippin' team... we're just debating a topic, and you have to ACCUSE people of being "less liberal" than you? Get over yourself, chief!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #209
215. Now you're gettin' paranoid, guy.
Grab a beer, relax... here's my take in a nutshell (and please, no rude comments about "nuts").

First, TO's latest move is in my opinion prudent. They should take a day or two, regroup, strategize, tacticize, and decide their next move.

I think Jason was right (or 95% right, which is more than I can say for CNN) about Rove being indicted. I suggest you give THIS and {link:www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/|THIS] a good read. Now, do the math: sealed indictment + "24 hours" to get your affairs in order = opening salvo in prosecutorial graymail negotiations.

And those negotiations don't happen overnight.

I agree with Christy and with Mike Mazur at NLJ, who posits this theory from the known facts:
-- Rove was in fact indicted under seal;
-- Rove's people and Fitz's people cut a deal over the last 3 weeks;
-- the White House has SUDDENLY said they're not going to fight prosecutorial requests for evidence;
-- Fitz is going after Cheney's crew, and the Bush-Bolten axis are throwing their biggest liability of all, the Office of the Vice President, over the side--starting with Scooter---and Rove's going to be a witness for the prosecution...

My advice: grab the popcorn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #215
218. I'm no "guy".
You accused me of sounding like a "Clinton hater".

I still don't believe this TO story has an ounce of credence.

And you know what? I am still a Democrat and I still liked "Big Dog". Nothing you think or say will change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #218
290. Hey, laaaaaady
I compared you in a specific way to moralist scolds -- y'all still sound like you're on a jihad against Jason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #290
299. You sure are good at "stretching" the facts and make silly speculations.
No wonder you're such a cheerleader for Jason.

Gimme a J! Gimme a A! Gimme an S.O.N.!! Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Jason!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #299
319. Who says I'm a cheerleader? And Jason...
... wasn't the only person reporting either an impending or actual indictment of Rove.

I think Jason, Dave Shuster, Mike Mazur and others were right: their sources ALL said the grand jury delivered an indictment of Rove.

And frankly, hon, your constant harping on Jason based primarily on a SINGLE-SOURCED story originating with Rove's lawyer and originally flogged by a Neocon toady make YOU a cheerleader for Karl Rove and Byron York.

Send me your address, I'll buy you some slightly used pom-poms on eBay and havethem shipped to you. RED pom-poms, sweetie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #319
322. Could you be ANY more condescending or divisive?
Come on, tell me how YOU really feel!

Stop being a chauvinistic PIG with the "hon" and "sweetie" shit.

I repeat, your divisiveness and bullshit accusations are far more suspect than my calling Leopold a fuck-up! Careful, your colors ars showing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #215
268. thank god, a voice of reason...
I have read for hours tonight, and on many other nights, all the hoopla about the Rove indictment/TO/JL, and said nothing....I will finally comment....I think YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!

I believe there WAS a sealed indictment for ROVE...
Leopold stated, that IF he/we were burned, he would OUT his sources....and the reason those sources won't be outed, is because they WERE CORRECT...

I admire TO for standing behind their reporters....I tell ya..wouldn't we all want our employer to stand behind us, and refuse to just throw us out to the dogs....???Does it occur to any of us, that they must have a good reason for doing so...even when it's caused them no end of grief over the last month?? I have found the venom aimed at everyone involved, amazing...I swear we don't need enemies...we are our own worst ones...to the absolute delight of all those that get enjoyment out of our ranting and raving.....how they must be laughing their asses off at us...
windbreeze

ps: one thing is for sure, with "Operation Forward Challenge 06" taking place on June 19th...maybe we'll be forced to think of something different on that day...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
138. Interesting statement: So truthout is going into the fertilizer business?
Did not know journalists were so good at helping farmers, things that make you go, "hmmm." You learn something everyday, don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #138
147. Correct. The ground and this continuing "story"
have an odor - a BAD odor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #138
162. The lack of an indictment does not indicate an abundance of innocence
It looks to me that Rove is back to work with a vengeance. He's got you guys slashing at each other's throats like frightened prey encircled by a Mongolian hunting party.

True, Jason and TO walked the line, and odds were they would slip eventually, but who has been in front of this story from the door? Who broke Libby's implication? Who kept the drumbeat going on the CIA leak case?

It's a dangerous game we play. This is not some pick-up game of RISK for who's buying the beer. Their are actual lives at stake here. Millions of Americans are counting on the work done by people courageous enough to search for the truth. How many families have lost loved ones due to the lies and deceptions perpetrated by Bush and his band of thugs?

Jason Leopold and Truth Out may have dropped the ball on THIS ONE story, but what have they contributed? Look at the poll numbers. They may have been played, but haven't we seen this happen before with other outspoken journalists?

The more people within the progressive movement attack and condemn TO and Jason for a considerable, yet insignificant chink in the armor of a profound body of work, the more the movement will suffer.

All of this bickering is tantamount to cutting off our collective noses to spite our mildly embarrassed faces. I'm not here to start a fight, just to remind all that this plays right into Turd Blossom's hands.

Rove still walks the streets a free man. That's not Jason's fault.

Let's keep that in mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #162
227. At Last !
Somebody injects some mature thinking into this silly assed conversation.

Thank you. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #162
233. What Jaysunb Said !!!
Thank You!!!

:toast::yourock::toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
148. They have other things to report on - dropping Rove for now makes sense
The Plame/Rovergate story is not over by a long shot.

They made a mistake, got burned or whatever.

They stand down and I stand by them as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
165. What is this???...A High School Newspaper ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #165
166. Gawd, no. In High School they teach you not to print as fact unless
you have evidence of fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #166
181. Love it !!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #166
317. Lol! nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
168. Holy S***
This is getting curiouser and curiuoser.

Nice job of throwing it back in Luskin's court (if he's even paying attention at all).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
169. "Standing down" my ass. Can you spell "retraction", Mr. Ash?
WTF is the matter with you, you phony wimp?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #169
174. Yawn...
This phony outrage is getting so boring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #174
191. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #174
234. Didn't take long...
whine, whine, whine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #234
296. As opposed to bitch, bitch , bitch
I am either seeing one or the other
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #169
176. I don't see MSNBC retracting David Shuster's reports, Seabiscuit
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:30 PM by johnfunk
Why are you ONLY calling out Jason and Truthout? What about the mainstream journailsts / outlets that were simultaneously saying that Rove was facing indictment, and talking about a sealed indictment? Where in the wide, wide world of sports do you get your "facts"? Newsmax?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #176
193. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #193
200. So we're only allowed to bash Dem news sources
and ignore the GOP controlled news media, which lies daily?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #200
203. You can do both. It's not an either/or situation.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:53 PM by Seabiscuit
TO fucked up and behaved just like the GOP controled media by lying and obfuscating just like them. If people like you on DU can't see that, we're all in serious trouble.

Stop insulting my intelligence the way Marc Ash just did.

Why don't you start your own thread about your MSNBC gripe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #193
212. You completely missed my point, and drop the cheap shots
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 11:00 PM by johnfunk
TO's latest move is in my opinion prudent.

maybe you should read THIS and THIS before you continue your hissy over JL and TO. It's looking more and more like Jason was in fact right: sealed indictment plus "24 hours" to get your affairs in order = opening salvo in prosecutorial graymail negotiations. And those negotiations don't happen overnight.

I agree with Christy and with Mike Mazur at NLJ, who posits this theory from the known facts:
-- Rove was in fact indicted under seal;
-- Rove's people and Fitz's people cut a deal over the last 3 weeks;
-- the White House has SUDDENLY said they're not going to fight prosecutorial requests for evidence;
-- Fitz is going after Cheney's crew, and the Bush-Bolten axis are throwing their biggest liability of all, the Office of the Vice President, over the side--starting with Scooter---and Rove's going to be a witness for teh prosecution...

My advice: grab the popcorn.

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #212
216. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #212
221. You should take your own advice upthread regarding the "cheap shots"
Just sayin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #212
235. Didn't take long...
Pounce, pounce, pounce, then whine, whine, whine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #212
247. FDL does not support the claims that Rove was indicted. FDL steered
clear of the TO story and did not support it as credible fact at the time it first was published and certainly not now. And emptywheel also was and is not among TO's supporters on this story. Her comments at the Plame panel made that clear IIRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #176
228. Dang Strait!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1429533&mesg_id=1430949

This is like the icing on Rove's Cake.
The way I remember it, Luskin was the only one saying he'd get off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #176
244. As I recall, neither Shuster or Merritt claimed that Rove had been
indicted. Merritt, a defense attorney not a journalist, looked at the sealed indictment issue simply because TO had said sources told them that Rove was to be indicted under seal and then later claimed that Rove had indeed been indicted. An indictment that was not sealed would be public record. As Merritt noted, the sealed case TO specifically mentioned this week could, for all we know, be a garden variety criminal case unrelated to the Plame matter. And as she also noted, it was filed May 17, not around May 10 as TO reported on Tuesday. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html .

Lots of people, media and otherwise, thought Rove would be indicted as far back as Cooper's testimony in July 2005. Even Bill Kristol predicted a Rove indictment in October 2005. But only TO publicly asserted that Rove had been indicted on May 12th, 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #176
273. It is not THEIR job THEY didn't break the story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #176
353. I watched Shuster's reporting, and Tweety's heavy breathing, too
They filled their commentaries with caveats. They covered their asses with "mays" and "coulds." They reported it as chatter, which is all it was.

The rumor was clearly circulating around DC with a vengeance. We don't really know who started it. The error that TO made, and it was a grievous one, was to print rumor as hardboiled fact, with dramatic details that did not come to pass. They compounded the error by refusing to correct their mistake, by parsing (the business hours nonsense) once it became evident that they had been duped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
171. so no outing of the sources huh? TRUTH OUT THE WINDOW
"Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published."

So when Jason Leopld said he wpuld out his sources he was lying right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #171
179. Maybe because they weren't lying -- ever heard of a SEALED indictment?
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:32 PM by johnfunk
...or graymail? READ THIS. That could account for why Jason AND Rove's attorney may BOTH be telling the truth (albeit with plenty fo spin coming from Luskin.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #179
217. come on
use your brain

it did not happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
183. At least Mark Ash is consistent.
He posted 100% support for this story.

He then posted a partial apology.

He just posted a non-statement and a "stay-tuned" teaser.

Following his consistent trend, the next installment must be partially negative. I hope it doesn't meet up with his earlier positive statements or there could be an explosion. Or a whimper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
185. it appears to me that, unfortunately...
...they've already been decimated by it, at least temporarily. Not saying that is right or fair or not, but it appears to be the way it is. Standing down when you've already been run over by the truth train is a tad - uhh. Late?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #185
196. They've been decimated by righties who hate Truthout and suckers...
... who bought a single-sourced report that Rove was off the hook.

FACT: The single source for this story is Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin -- first channeled to the press via Neocon operative Byron York.

FACT: Luskin's claim to the press is in the best interest of his client -- and not the press or the public.

FACT: truthout.org says Luskin's claim is directly contradicted by multiple-sourced information; yesterday morning they said they are standing by the story, and tonight they're taking a breather given the unfair hammering they've gotten -- in comparison to the SCLM who ran with a single-sourced story tailored to fit the Bush/GOP/Neocon narrative.

FACT: Luskin, a mob lawyer who has mastered fighting for his clients in the court and the press, had been spinning nonstop since Rove clearly became a "person of interest" to Fitz; now, suddenly, and well before Truthout decided to take a break from the story, Luskin says he's not going to be discussing the matter -- clamming up, in effect.

Luskin is trying to "close" this story with one (hopefully, for him) last spin. Don't get spun the way the so-called "liberal media" did!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #196
242. What is with this shouting in bright red oversized letters?
One of the first rules of internet etiquette I learned was not to "shout" by typing in all caps. Are you a believer that whomever screams the loudest wins the debate? What visual chaos would ensue if we each posted in different colors and took up more thread space with oversize type face. Guess it would be green for envy; blue for sad; yellow for pissy; red for enraged?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #196
252. TO IMO needs to go back & consult its legal experts on the likelihood that
Luskin would publically claim that Fitzgerald told him that he didn't anticipate seeking a Rove indictment unless that was the case. Perhaps they can get some of their legal experts to go on the record for attribution this time.

FDL and Talk Left, for example, have already weighed in on the matter. They believe Luskin. There may be some fine points on the matter that Luskin doesn't want or isn't allowed by Fitz to disclose, but such a statement is of such legal magnitude that it is highly unlikely (and others would put it more strongly) that Luskin would put himself or his client in jeopardy by making such a statement if unfounded.

TO asserts that it believes that Fitz would publically contradict their story if it wasn't true and yet apparently believes Fitzgerald would let Luskin make such a statement, if it weren't so, without a quick public correction and/or serious consequences to Luskin and perhaps his client? Luskin's not a complete idiot and the consequences for him and potentially his client would be legal suicide if he did not in fact have Fitz's approval to release such a statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #196
356. Well, there could be more than one source on that story, with only one
named. Rove talks to the press all the time, on background without attribution, or as a quoted but unnamed "senior administration official." No doubt he, as the client, has also seen the letter. Odds are good to excellent that someone asked him the question, as well.

Remember, it was Rove who called Tweety to tell him that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." That generated Tweety's call to Wilson, and got the whole game afoot. I know that wasn't the first time Rove picked up the phone and called Tweety. Rove's probably got two thirds of the DC press corps on speed dial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #185
198. OH MY GOODNESS!!!
what does it take to make people see your point! so many are saying "well, we don't know all the facts".... um, there were NEVER any!

Truthout.org is totally 100% a load of crap in my book for the hit they've done to the liberal blogging community. if in the 1 in a million chance they aren't full of crap, we'll all chip in and buy them a card, how's that? LOL...



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <--- CHECK THESE TOP STICKERS OUT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #198
202. See the directly above, Martyred
Don't play into the right's disinfo attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
204. Truthout...
..must have as their "source" someone that they just can't accept would burn them this badly.

I suppose it's Leopold's "source", but one that Ash and Pitt somehow became comfortable with.

Giving Truthout the benefit of the doubt - they may now sortof understand that their story was crap, but they can't understand how it turned out this way since they still apparently have faith in the "source".

Leopold has a sketchy track record to start with. The first question that jumped into my mind when this entire episode began was, why the hell would anyone with these kind of inside details of Fitz's investigation give the story to Jason Leopold? I mean, in the world of journalism, Leopold was already a nobody writing for a tiny Internet news outlet. So if you've got this sort of information to shop, why would you give it to Leopold of all people in the first place? I dunno if I'm even right with this line of thinking. It just seemed odd to me from minute one.

Either way, the "Rove was indicted stuff" was bogus from day one. This latest Truthout explanation is pretty pathetic. Truthout still doesn't accept any responsiblity for trying to pass off this stinkin' pig of a story. It's hard to admit your wrong. It seems Truthout is flailing away trying to avoid the inevitable, but eventually they are gonna have to bite the bullet and admit to have made a major mistake.

Hopefully in their June 19th installment, Truthout will admit they made a colossal error, apologize to their readers, fire Leopold, hire a journalist with a track record of integrity to replace him, resolove to learn from their mistakes, and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #204
236. Your initial suspicions were entirely logical
In a city brimming with well-respected journalists and their bona fides, how could it happen that only JL has reported this story? Weeks have elapsed since the first TO report, and still, no one else in the press corp managed to crack the 'Rove indictment' story. How could it possibly be that TO has exclusive access to the sources and/or evidence supporting the biggest story in recent years? There's just too many talented reporters in DC, all of them aware of Rove's legal jeopardy, for a story this big to escape their collective attention - it just isn't plausible that JL could hold a monopoly on this story if it were true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #204
325. Very well said.
Stonewalling and cover up is always what gets people in the most trouble. Truthout should have come clean on this a long time ago. They are making it worse (making THEMSELVES and their reputations/integrity) the continuing story by not explaining things. The way you phrased things would be the perfect way for them to talk (or how they should have already done.)

I think they were conned by Liepold...
Printer Friendly |