Remember when Jason Leopold said Rove was soon to be indicted?

[mistertrickster]

And that was like three weeks ago?

What's up with that?

[Tace]

1. I Was Looking Around Yesterday On The Truthout Site...

for any recent stories by Leopold. I couldn't find anything later than May 13, the infamous Rove story.

[Hissyspit]

5. There was this one:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052906Z.shtml

George W. Bush and Kenneth Lay
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 29 May 2006

The Bush administration knew Enron was on a collision course two months before the high-flying energy company collapsed in a wave of accounting scandals that wiped out $60 billion in shareholder value and left thousands of company employees penniless.

It was August 15, 2001, when Enron lobbyist Pat Shortridge met with then-White House Economic Adviser Robert McNally, one day after Jeff Skilling made a stunning announcement that he was stepping down as president of Enron

[Indykatie]

7. Apart from the Leopold Matter

I thought we would have seen some action from Fitzgerald regarding Rove by now.

[HereSince1628]

2. Silence. Absolute silence.

Nothing's up.

[survivor999]

3. Damn.... N/T

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. They mentioned this at the yearlykos convention

and left the impression we were duped.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. One of the panelists vaguely attributed it to a Rove dirty trick. eom

[Cocoa]

6. he actually said he already was indicted

[Maven]

8. Apparently t/o still refuses to admit the story was false

They're "standing by it." I don't know why--it's already demonstrably false.

Maybe they're just hoping people will forget about it. Apparently not. :popcorn:

[mistertrickster]

11. Hmmm, I think if I were Leopold, I'd be grilling my sources by now.

Was it willful misinterpretation on their part?

Is it just Prosecutor FitzGerald taking his time to make sure he gets it right?

Was Leopold too quick to print something he wanted to be true (don't we all want it to be true!)?

Anyway, he should explain or retract or clarify or something, I think.

Otherwise, he seems to be at the level of The Weekly Standard with all their glowing reports about how the war in Iraq just turned "a corner."

[Maven]

15. I hate to say it, but

something about this smacks of Stephen Glass. What other explanation could there be for the lack of verification from other editors or contributors at truthout? To say that you're "standing by" your colleague doesn't cut it. Scientists don't "stand by" other scientists whose findings are impossible for peers to duplicate.

Re: Fitzgerald taking his time--no indictment, particularly an indictment sealed to reduce a flight risk, takes four weeks to deliver. Certain DUers have propagated a strained conception of the legal process in order to breathe life into a dead story.

[Protagoras]

40. Anyone who hasn't seen "Shattered Glass (2003)"

really should see it asap. It shows not only how some people push out stories made of vapor...but also the ways in which people can be tricked into thinking they've got verification of stories.

I have never read an article anywhere the same way since seeing that movie. I was always skeptical but now I've learned to look for a lot more when it comes to verification and sourcing.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[rucky]

10. They're sticking to their story.

and there IS such a thing as a sealed indictment, so keep waiting.

[Maven]

16. Please see my post upthread.

The fact that an indictment is sealed does not mean that it's kept in a back drawer to be delivered at some moment in the future, or that the accused is given an interminable period of repose to "get his affairs in order." It simply means that the name of the accused is kept hidden until his arrest. The reasons for sealing an indictment would, in most cases, demand faster arrest, not slower.

[Peace Patriot]

12. There's a court hearing on Monday, on Libby. A bunch of new docs

filed. That's all I know. Watch for posts by H2O man.

I figure either Leopold/Truthout got stung (a la CBS), or Rove's giving up Cheney, in an orchestrated "cleansing" to put in a fresh face as V-P, to be Diebolded into office in '08--and that stopped a public announcement of Rove indictment. Fitzgerald sure seems to have the goods on Rove, on perjury--in my humble opinion.

My instinct about a Leftist force as powerful as Truthout, that may have been stung, is to come back with "F__ you, Criminals, Traitors and Mass Murderers!". Like that. But we need to know more about it, if they got stung, and perhaps they are waiting on developments (as per the above, Rove/Cheney), to themselves figure out what happened. (Were they lied to, or what?)

[mistertrickster]

14. Okay, thanks for the info--I just so hoped it would all be public by now.

Actually, if Bush Co. stalls this until Sept or Oct, it'd be perfect for our side, hehehe.

[cigsandcoffee]

13. I think TO should address this one way or the other.

The whole "wait and see" thing seems insufficient.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Well, they said they vetted their sources. What else can they do, if THEY

don't know what happened, and if developments in the case may yet prove them essentially--or totally--right. There could be a sealed indictment, that WASN'T unsealed because something ELSE happened to stop it. Neither they nor we can yet know. We can be sure Rove is thick in the middle of whatever IS happening. He's testified five times, one of them very recently. And Fitzgerald has him on perjury, from what I can see.

On a possible sting: it's classic Rove to test out things--like stinging T/O--as a prelim to bigger stings and press manipulations. To see how it works. To stir up trouble among us. To follow the byways and back alleys of the plant--who will dis whom? where are the strengths, weaknesses, in this increasingly powerful Leftist blogger world that dares to challenge their war profiteering corporate news monoplies? Now that they know that half of us can easily be prompted to jump on, condemn and ruin the reputations of Leftist bloggers, we'll likely see more of it (if that's what happened--a sting).

But it's equally plausible that it's something else--something that held Fitzgerald back. When you look at the bigger picture right now, the junta is proceeding with business as usual, leading up to the election--killing people, lying, stirring up racial hatred, etc. So that makes me think that Rove has saved himself from indictment somehow--and giving up Cheney makes a lot of sense as his method of doing so. It might fool Fitzgerald (whom I think is narrowly focused on the task at hand--the case--and snagging Cheney might satisfy him that he has cracked the conspiracy.)* Cheney's too old to run in '08; and he's got a worse approval rating than Bush (18%, last time I looked). So what may be going on is that the "aspens" (big-money, behind-the-scenes Repub fascists) are bargaining with Cheney to get him out. They may consider Rove (spinner of death, lies and hatred) more essential than Cheney, to the completion of whatever it is they have in mind.

-----------

*(Fitzgerald is only human. Brilliant, brilliant prosecutor, and straight arrow--but only human, like the rest of us, subject to feelings of fatigue, and needing victories to go on. This conspiracy involves all of them--possibly the most culpable being Rumsfeld, who is hardly ever mentioned--but even a brilliant, dauntless man like Fitzgerald might hesitate to take all of them on. By "fooling" him, I just mean something in that nether world of the psyche where you fool yourself, because you can't do otherwise--you've reached your limit.)

[Peace Patriot]

25. Harvey Korman is right, that sealed indictments are often used in

organized crime cases, to avoid tipping off the indicted or his associates, and that it often involves flight risks, also coverups, destroying evidence. But this is a very, very unusual case, with very, very unsual and high-placed, and very powerful suspects. They run the goddamned country. They run the FBI. They run the US military. They have secret prisons all over the world. They are spying on EVERYBODY. Rove could have been indicted and the indictment sealed to pressure him; he gives up Cheney; and Fitzgerald goes back to the grand jury and changes it to unindicted co-conspirator, or drops it entirely, in a bargain with the White House not to unseal it. That is a fair to good possibility. And Rove--who knows he's getting off--takes the opportunity to CONTINUE his nefarious political activities, and to start 'swiftboating' the Leftist blogs--the ONLY news source that has been paying ANY attention to how Bushites keep 'winning' elections.

PLEASE, keep things in perspective, and always keep the big picture in mind--because it is always there, in everything that happens in this case. Who has the power?

[cigsandcoffee]

27. OK, fair enough.

But then what should TO do? They ran a story saying Rove was indicted. He seems not to have been or the administration "undid" the indictment. Just leave it at that?

[Peace Patriot]

46. If I were T/O in this situation--afte re-vetting the sources, and if

they seem to hold up (if they can't find any obvious weirdness there)--I would wait out the GJ term--because if something happened like a special Fitzgerald/WH deal to wrap up this prosecution (say, with Cheney as unindicted co-conpirator, which would then have to go to Congress; thence to the "aspen" scenario, Cheney resigns, etc.), no one is likely to find out anything about it until after the GJ concludes. Until then, I don't see what T/O can do. And if they have any doubts about their sources--unless they have "smoking gun" evidence of a sting--they can't really disclose that, at this point. They have to have some certainty about it. And they really can't have certainty, until the GJ concludes (and if Fitz goes to a third GJ, all bets are off--then we will know for sure that something very tangled is happening). What T/O needs to know is, were their sources generally right but got the timing wrong (and T/O made the unforunate mistake of going with that timing), were their sources right but deliberately gave T/O the wrong timing (in which case they could never be trusted again), were the sources providing deliberate disinformation (as a prelim sting on Leftist blogs), were the sources' errors honest or dishonest, and how did T/O fail in its vetting process, or in wrongly interpreting sources' information (if that's what happened)?

I'm sure these are not easy questions to get answers to. If the sources burned them, the sources may not care that they cannot be trusted--and may not be available for further inquiry. Another possibility: the sources themselves may be in a whole lot of trouble right now. What if their info was honest (true, as far as they knew), and they provided it to T/O with good motives--and THEY are the ones who got stung (with planted info)? If Rove is not going to be indicted, he can now destroy them--along with the damage done to T/O.

On a positive note: I've been thinking a lot about this staged Zarqawi bombing, and the timing of it. They've had this guy on spy satellite for a long time now (remember, he was the Al Q supposedly "in Iraq" on which they made the case for Saddam/9/11 conspirator, but it turned out Zarqawi was in Kurdistan, which was under US control--and they lied that he was in cahoots with Saddam.) (Hell, he was/is (who knows?) probably on the Rumsfeld payroll.) So they've had this card to play for a long time. Why now? It gives them a dead Arab on the front pages for a few days, likely to stretch into this week. Is this just November electioneering--playing the first killing and hatred themes for the phony Bush "comeback" narrative in November (the "explanation" for how they "won")? Or does it have a more specific purpose? And the one purpose that seems plausible--that they would play such an important card for--might be an imminent Rove or Cheney indictment.

I admit, there is a large element of hopefulness in this surmise. And their "sacrificing" Cheney (off to his splendiferous retirement), may just mean we get a healthier liar and crook in his place, like Ms. Happy Face Vampira (Rice--I keep trying to identify the cause of the shuddering I feel whenever she's doing her act, and I think that's it-- the tense Happy Face she would put on while she's sucking your blood.) On the other hand, the evil scenarios may just be what I'm guessing that the fascists want or are planning, not what will really happen. Got to keep the faith, and be smart and practical, no matter what happens. (Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!)

[bridgit]

18. aw, the memories...

[Sugar Smack]

20. SHWEEEETIE! Got your PM!

Will PM back shortly!!



:hi:+ :bounce:+ :hi:+ :bounce:+ :toast:

[bridgit]

21. Czarina...

:bounce: it's your afternoon so i'll say it, "good afternoon :loveya:" oh...you don't have to, just one of my tifs = you know me :rofl: but i always love it when you do :pals:

[bridgit]

23. come see my new balloons...

;-) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5254887 :rofl:

[Sugar Smack]

26. HOLY SHIT, that has got to be one of the funniest things

I have ever seen.:rofl:

[bridgit]

29. ain't that a hoot...

:D

[Sugar Smack]

31. WHERE do you & I get such balloons?? Not to threadjack or

anything, but this is a BASIC NEED, like air or water or beans!!:D :D :D

[bridgit]

38. you know, you're right, a search of the title on the door of the truck...

came up with outfirs this this: http://www.inflatableevent.com/index.php?fuseaction=char don't see any missiles yet though, go to 'characters', too funny as well :thumbsup: :rofl:

[bridgit]

22. delete...

[BlooInBloo]

24. Unless I'm mistaken, that is NOT what Leopold said...

.... he said, I believe that Rove WAS indicted (1 month ago tomorrow, if memory serves).

On that note...

'morning all! Has truthout been 100% vindicated with publically verifiable evidence?

[Peace Patriot]

32. When someone who tries to do good work, and HAS DONE immense good

work, is under attack, is down, doesn't know what went wrong, can't see the enemy, maybe trips up, maybe makes a mistake, maybe not, feels attacked from all sides, may feel afraid, may see his life's work, his passion, his dedication, his sweat and blood, going up in smoke, and has been beaten to a pulp by everybody--sources, friends, enemies seen and unseen--the thing to do is to kick him hard with nasty little jabs into the ribs and groin, to finish him off. Is that what these short, nasty little posts are about, all innocently "framed" as "just wanting to know the truth"? It's ugly, BlooInBloo. And, if "memory serves," that's what mean, dimwitted, jealous little bullies do on the playground, or get their flunkies to do--they kick people when they're down.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Wah.

I'm sorry you're so hurt by the fact that so many DUers jumped on a faith-based ship that provided ZERO publically verifiable evidence for its claims.

But don't even THINK about blaming ME for that. Blame the faith-based-credulous-to-hell-with-evidence-we-were-just-lying-about-being-in-the-reality-based-community among us.

[IsIt1984Yet]

37. Are you referring to Leopold??

[johnnie]

41. What is funny is that some people need to keep on it

It was one story by one person and there are still people here who need to keep beating the horse because they must really have some issues of their own. If these people would spend 100th the amount of time going after the bullshit MSM instead of an online source we might see some change.

It doesn't take a genius to see that some people have it in for a particular person. Most of the people here have moved on to better things, but this keeps being brought up by a handful of people who haven't learned to move on. I agree with your "bullies" analogy. It was also always the bully who only bullied because no one really liked them.

[Seabiscuit]

44. Thanks for putting the groupie talking points in a nutshell.

"jealous" seems to be the operative keyword in all that mishmash. The latest theme song attacking anyone who ever questioned the story.

That's like calling someone who ever questioned or critized Jim Jones and his Kool-Aid drinkers "jealous".

This whole fiasco simply insults the intelligence of any critical thinkers around here, when some of its participants aren't busy just personally insulting them.

[BlooInBloo]

45. You want evidence??? Why do you hate America!!?!?

:rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

48. You're just JEALOUS!

:spray:

[johnnie]

49. No, what's really insulting to the people at DU...

....is the constant reminder that the story was not accurate. A month after the story was reported, people are still bringing it up to remind the "idiots" here at DU that it was reported. Do the people that keep bringing this up actually believe that the people here are too dumb to realize that the story didn't pan out as reported?

This Democratic Underground, not Truthout. If any of you want answers to the Truthout story, it would be advisable to go to Truthout and ask there. Can you tell me why people are still asking about a story from Truthout here at DU?

I have seen more about the "flaws" of the Truthout story here than the MSM reporting that there is proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Talk about insulting the intelligence of people, there is no need to inform the people here any longer that the Truthout story hasn't come out as initially reported so far. I really think that almost everyone here realizes that.

[BlooInBloo]

50. Is it *possible* to insult the intelligence of believers-w/o-evidence?

It also sounds like you're confused on *what* most important issue is.

It's NOT the actual *truth* or *falsity* of the claims truthout made. I have no position on the actual *truth* or *falsity* of the claims truthout made.

The biggest issue is the readiness of DUers to believe said claims IN THE UTTER ABSENCE OF PUBLICALLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. This readiness means specifically that a lot of DUers were simply "mistaken" when they claimed to be members of the "reality-based community" - because the reality-based community requires, among other things, EVIDENCE for the claims it believes in.

The faith-based-credulous-don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence members here still don't recant their evidence-free ways - that's likely the largest reason why the horse continues to get beaten: it's ain't dead yet.


The zero-evidence-but-believe-anyway thing is the biggest issue for me at any rate, I suppose I shouldn't presume to speak for everyone else...

[johnnie]

51. I get it now

Your purpose is to educate the members of DU because we obviously are not as keen to reality as you are.

As for the horse not being dead, that's true. Every few days someone posts a thread about it asking why it hasn't come true yet. I guess that is what's considered "continuing education".

[BlooInBloo]

52. Why do the credulous REFUSE to address the issue?

It's NOT about "reality" - that's *truth* and *falsity* stuff - which I've CLEARLY said wasn't my concern.

It's abouve EVIDENCE.

The credulous-don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence crowd here was, a week before the evidence-free truthout story, proudly waving their "reality-based community" flags, berating republicans for THEIR faith-based-hope-IS-a-plan belief in dear leader. Then the truthout story comes out, and suddenly those reality-based flags DISAPPEAR, and DUers became every bit as faith-based as the reddest republican.

It's the evidence-free attitude I take issue with. I make no claims being any more "keen to reality" than anyone else.

I just care about evidence. I criticize those who don't.


Ok - you can continue misrepresenting my concerns now! :)

[Rex]

54. Just the facts, Jack.

"The credulous-don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence crowd here was, a week before the evidence-free truthout story, proudly waving their "reality-based community" flags, berating republicans for THEIR faith-based-hope-IS-a-plan belief in dear leader. Then the truthout story comes out, and suddenly those reality-based flags DISAPPEAR, and DUers became every bit as faith-based as the reddest republican."

:rofl: :rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

62. Their evidence is their sources--sensitive insider sources. They can't

out them--if it was a sting--until they know for sure, and sting sources may not be returning their phone calls. If the sources were merely wrong--misunderstood conversations or whatever--it would be unfair to out them, especially if their careers are at risk (which sounds like it could be the case). And if the sources are half-right (say, they overheard a threat to Rove--i.e., "I will indict you tomorrow and give you 24 hours to get your affairs in order, unless you....." --but they didn't hear the "unless you..."), and they swore up and down that's what they heard (but only heard half of it), would you rely them? And then, after you relied on them, if it didn't pan out, would you out them as liars? How would you know if they were lying? Neither you nor they know about the "unless you..."

We rely on news reports all the time. And news reports often rely on sources with no verifiable quoted source or any verifiable information given. We have to judge the news organization and the reporter. And we've certainly learned over the last 5 1/2 years to be cautious and skeptical. We have to judge content, we have to judge motive--often with very little or no verifiable evidence to go on. And the best strategy--besides analysis of what you read--is to seek out a variety of news and alternative news sources. I would tend to trust TruthOut--because everything I've read there has been truthful and has been corroborated, as far as I can determine. And at some point, you just have to make the "call." Do you trust this information source, or not? I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I have never had any reason to doubt them. But I am not a faith-based reader. ANYBODY can be bought. ANYBODY can lie. No exceptions. And ANYBODY can make a mistake. And it is theoretically possible that they just made the whole thing up. But it would surprise the hell out of me if they did. It doesn't seem at all likely to me. So what DID happen? Well, I've gone through some of the possible scenarios in other parts of this thread. Those who keep ragging on this point, over and over--they were wrong, they were wrong, they were wrong, wrong, wrong, where's the evidence?, where's the evidence?, where's the EVIDENCE?--seem to be implying that the theoretical possibility that they made it all up is the likely thing. Why else would someone demand "evidence" when they KNOW that the evidence came from sources, and that that makes this situation extremely difficult and dicey for T/O-Leopold. Did their sources lie? Did they half-lie? Were they wrong? Were they half-wrong? What were their motives? And--most compelling of all (as to T/O Leopold not offering further explanations), they DON'T KNOW, and can't find out, and the gist of the disclosure, an indictment of Rove, is still possible (which would mean that only the timing was wrong--or that the timing got changed, and the sources didn't know).

You want them to disclose their sources--to YOU? To us? To the public? When they don't know yet what the upshot will be--or what happened with these sources? Why should they give you or anyone their sources? So you can lynch them? Or Karl Rove can?

I presume that, if and when they know for sure they were stung, they will tell us so.

But say the sources gave them bad information--but not with ill motives. Possibly the sources themselves were stung--were used to pass sting info. In that case, T/O-Leopold would be in a bind. They can't provide us the evidence--without harming well-meaning people. Or, in some kind of mixed or confused situation, they may want to keep those sources.

Really, whoever said here that we should expend our mental energy on the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and their blatant, pervasive, evil, death-dealing lies, and not on T/O-Leopold--who probably, at worst, made an error of judgment--is right. There is little to be gained by engaging this kind of bullying, repetitive post, except to observe the way that the discussion is degraded and turned off point.

The OP asked if anything was happening on Rove: The answer--possibly--lay with that corpse in Baghdad. We shall see.

[earth mom]

63. Who's gonna give you that evidence, hmm?

The corporate media whores?! The same media that won't report one honest word about the stolen election of 04? Or the truth about 9/11?! Or anything that doesn't benefit themselves?!

Yeah, let's get our "evidence" from those greedy twisted propaganda spewing bastards! :eyes:

BTW-Do you even get what Bush, Rove & Co are capable of? Or do you need more "proof" of their evil intentions?

I sure as hell don't! Truthout got screwed over, but that does NOT make them wrong!

[arwalden]

34. You're Correct...

... but don't forget the 24 "business hours" to get his affairs in order. But what do mere cretins liks myself know? The fact that it's taken THIS LONG to be made public only PROVES that he was indicted, eh? :shrug: :eyes: :rofl:

[DancingBear]

56. The indictment is sealed - on the 4th floor of Patton-Boggs

Locked down.

Guarded by Secret Service agents.

Yeesh - don't you know anything?????????? :)

[arwalden]

58. I'd Be More Impressed If It Has Been Hermetically Sealed...

... and kept in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls front porch since NOON today!

[porphyrian]

28. Are we sure he hasn't been? - n/t

[WA98296]

30. I'm holding out hope for Leopold's story.

[RandomKoolzip]

33. ....

"Be right back. Wait here.

-Godot"

[IsIt1984Yet]

35. Yeah, I remember.

good times...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. No One Knows For Sure Yet.

Things have been eerily quiet ever since. Could the indictment be under seal due to involvement of higher-ups that got involved? Who knows. The whole situation is odd and the sudden quiet surrounding the Rove case is even more odd.

Sad fact is none of us have any idea what the truth is in the matter.

[bridgit]

42. perhaps, but one thing that should be abundantly, mind-nummingly...

clear; is that you hand this gang of thugs any proper stick in the form of one (1) dropped stitch, and the cheney/nixon's ghost/bush/rove/matalin/bfee admin will...this you can believe it with a quickness; be beating us and the entire rest of the world over the head with it for the next 12 years and counting :thumbsdown:

there is no room for error

[Peace Patriot]

53. And so OUR response to THEIR creating a world in which "there is no

room for error," is to take the stick and beat our own to death with it? T/O-Leopold CANNOT admit error yet (IF it was an error on their part), because they DON'T KNOW. That seems obvious to me--and it makes sense, as I explained above. It may be only a partial error (trusting their sources on the timing). It may be they got burned. It may be they could have avoided getting burned, or not. Or, if Rove gets indicted, or we find out he made a deal, then their sources were right, but maybe weren't aware of the other circumstances (that a bargain was in the works). They don't know--we don't know--and the jury is still out, so to speak.

What appalls me is the mob psychology that gets up steam here at DU. The snideness, the smallness of mind, the glee at tearing someone to pieces--by repeating the same derisive remarks over and over and over again--adding NOTHING to our understanding of this or any other situation. It is very like being on a playground and seeing a bully at work--where someone's weakness is continually picked on, hardly a cut above, "Hey, boogerface, your Mama put boogers in your lunch again today?" That's the tone. Over and over and over again.

And I don't see these kind of posters doing any kind of investigative work on this matter themselves. They never contribute anything. They don't add information or assist our thinking process. They just create dissension and bad feeling. And they furthermore create a climate in which the victim cannot recover--in this case, valuable, long time bloggers whose reputations are continually sullied, by sniper posts--when all the facts are not in, and cannot be in, at this point., and when we KNOW--we've had experience of--disinformation, Rovian stings, swiftboating, and all kinds of other devious tactics against those who oppose the Bush junta, and especially against those who are dedicated to their demise, and have gained any power at all to speak the truth about them.

We're going to concentrate on one mistake--ONE mistake--that we don't even know yet WAS a mistake--to the exclusion of all else that Leopold and Truthout have done for the good, and to the exclusion of what the corporate news monopolies have done to harm, and to the exclusion of the import and the details of this case and what we should be prepared for, and how to read events surrounding it? Over and over and over again--that one mistake that we don't know yet was a mistake.

It's STUPID to be ragging on this one point, over and over. Stupid, harmful and unfair.

[BlooInBloo]

59. Not me. I concentrate on the don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence DUers....

... I don't even mind truthout making a mistake (if they have). It's the credulous-to-hell-with-evidence believers here that need to be focussed on. They don't even admit that faith-based-to-hell-with-evidence is a BAD way to go. When it's on our side, of course.

I think it would be good if DU was TRULY the home of the reality-based (and hence EVIDENCE-based) community. At the very least, we shouldn't claim we are, if we aren't gonna live up to its standards.

Unfair? Au contraire. It was faith-based-credulous-i-WANT-to-believe-it DUers' CHOICE to be credulous in the absence of evidence, or not. Their choice. There's nothing unfair about criticizing the hypocrisy of somebody's free choice.

Just care about evidence. That's all that a TRUE reality based community member needs. Just care about it.

[bridgit]

61. there it is cheers...

:toast:

[bridgit]

60. my point is made here: they will be ragging on "one point", if that...

is all they have to rag on they will, they are mobilizing as we type these things; make no mistake. in either case...why be seen as appreciating whatever process yields that "one point", assuming of course, as you have done, that is it is a point at all

what can be your issue, with respect to getting it just right when the balance of the world is at stake? if their ends do in no sense justify their means, are you suggesting that somehow our end will be justified by similar means just because?

[Justice Is Comin]

43. There is one thing that speaks

louder than anything else, bar none, that Rove is still squarely in the vice. Fitzgerald has not come forward and cleared him publicly.

Even the Kos panel said that is the first thing he would do as soon as anyone is not in legal jeoparday anymore. Christy said it is almost unheard of not to do that. In her words, "left to dangle on the end of a string."

Rove will be in the news again in the near future and his smiles right now are all forced.

This investigation is ON going!!

[Seabiscuit]

47. Precisely. That's the one thing left that gives me hope.

But I won't celebrate until I see with my own eyes Rove doing the frog march and hear Fitzgerald publicly announce the indictment. I'm not about to fall for any more bogus blog stories about it all by a handfull of clowns obsessed with the attention that comes with scoops.

[dogday]

57. That is one thing we know for sure

Rove has not been publicly cleared by Fitz, and until that happens, we shall wait and see....

[troubleinwinter]

55. Grow up

[pinto]

64. Locking.

Still flamebait.