The Post's Curious Interest in Leopold and Truthout: By Marc Ash

[kpete]

The Post's Curious Interest in Leopold and TO
By Marc Ash,
Wed Jun 21st, 2006 at 06:42:38 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


On Monday, The Washington Post published an article titled, "My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'" by Joe Lauria. It's a hit piece, plain and simple.

For the record, Jason Leopold is not acting alone on the Rove indictment story. All of TO's senior editors are participating in interviewing sources, verifying facts and vetting every sentence published before the story goes live.

We find it curious that The Washington Post has taken such a keen interest in Jason Leopold and TO. The Lauria piece is only the latest in a series of pieces published by Post editors attacking - in a very personal manner - Jason Leopold and TO. But there has been no critical assessment of the facts we have reported. Why? Who is directing this smear campaign at the Post and why?

A Rather Backhanded Assault

The Post published Lauria's article as an opinion piece, but Lauria used that platform to present fact - fact without documentation. In reference to our report that a grand jury has returned an indictment of Karl Rove (a report that we do stand by), Lauria writes, "The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only ... it wasn't true." He is stating - as a fact - a premise that he does not even attempt to document or substantiate, and the Post is a willing host.

..................

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

[Kagemusha]

1. Little question.

Since when do press secretaries lie about personal matters to journalists? They spin, spin, spin all day about their work, but since when do they make lies about phone numbers one digit off and things of that nature? Is there some history of press secs doing that? Did Mike McCurry do that? Did Ari Fleisher? Scotty McLellan? Where's the history of these guys blatantly lying about personal media relations issues and falsely claiming that a reporter checked with him under a false name?

And well, I don't see a statement that TO editors called Corallo about this either. What's the next step, seeing if the NSA can spare a phone record or two or what?

[Garbo 2004]

30. Corallo isn't a press secty. He's a PR guy hired by Rove's defense team.nt

[H2O Man]

43. Right.

He was hired last fall as a "crisis manager." That is similar to a "case manager" in mental health.

Also, it's a darn good thing that Scotty M. never lied to the American public about personal matters, such as if Rove or Libby were involved in the Plame scandal. The public could easily have been fooled otherwise into thinking these fine protectors of democracy were involved.

If one wants to get some serious background on the extent that press secretaries lie, they might read the book "Hold On, Mr. President!" by Sam Donaldson.

[dogday]

46. Read Up on Mark Corallo

http://www.corallomedia.com/pages/aboutm...

Crisis communications:
CMS understands what it takes to navigate through the global, 24/7 news cycle under intense pressure.

National security/Homeland security/Law Enforcement:
CMS is a leader in communicating the solutions to the threats we face in the post-9/11 world.

Federal litigation:
CMS takes "lawyerspeak" and puts it in English to effectively communicate your message to your audience.

Congressional affairs:
CMS knows Capitol Hill and how to use the media for maximum effect on the legislative process.

CMS leverages extensive contacts and an established reputation with the national media and a proven track record of crafting the message, developing the strategy to implement that message and executing the strategy to maximum success that can be sustained over time.

[Techno Dog]

47. Do you understand what would be involved

if Corallo lied about the "Joel..917"?

It would mean Rove set up surveillance on Leopold and they knew he had the meeting with Joe three days before the indictment story.

Pure delusional fantasy to think Corallo made the phone call up to smear Leopold.

Even if he is a RW hack. Lauria is not. You don't have a single shred of evidence Lauria is anything other than a credibly, ethical, left leaning writer.

Is he part of some journalist sleeper cell called out of hibernation to take out Leopold?

Hardly

[dogday]

49. I justed posted information about Corallo

I believe him not at all... His job is to spin, that is what he gets paid for.. Funny how you take up for him....

I don't know about the phone call, I wasn't there, I am not taking anyone's word on it right now....

It is called Media Strategies, Is Corallo acting in a capacity as a lawyer or a strategist?

also see this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1479720&mesg_id=1482063


on edit:

I am correcting the link



http://www.corallomedia.com/

What I posted on the above post comes directly from the main page...

[Techno Dog]

53. I'm not taking up for him

I'm challenging you on your efforts to smear Lauria.

Because you ARE doing that by saying you don't believe Corallo received a call from Joe...917.

You already called Lauria a Bush shill but had to delete it quickly and claim you didn't when the article you said made him a shill was a damning critique of the Bush Admin.

So, all of your posts relating to what a bunch of liars Rove’s team are is irrelevant because THIS part of the story is a call out from credible lefties.

[dogday]

62. Rove is a liar

I posted nothing but Corallo's information, another poster questioned his credibilty..

Is he acting on the authority of an Attorney or not???

I have called Lauria nothing, daydream much????

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

70. If the shoe fits

:shrug:

[Techno Dog]

72. Pathetic

[dogday]

73. That's what I am saying

:shrug:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

79. Not only are your facts wrong

You have broken a DU rule of calling names... Angry much :shrug:

[Techno Dog]

80. Which facts are wrong?

And yes I am angry that you malign honest people and defend liars. Angry but not surprised. If you think calling me a Republican is within the rules you shouldn't have a problem with me pointing out your lies.

[dogday]

81. There were several post that were deleted

because you went on a rant.. I made a mistake, and reposted, and even one of my post said Lauria was ok. But because they were deleted by your once again angry rants, I cannot show it...

I made a mistake, I am not a liar.. I owned up to it and I explained it... Yet you still follow me from post to post with this garbage.. You are stalking me and I think that too is against DU Rules...

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

83. You bet there was one that I posted that said

he was ok, let the mods bring them up... I did explain why that happened, let the mods bring that up, and then them also bring up the other post about Leiberman where I posted he was a cheerleader for Bush.. HELL YES, LET THEM BRING IT UP... I AM DAMN SURE!!!!!

On Edit: Let them bring up the post where I explain all of it to you as well cause I am tired of this same old game... This was about Corallo, and you never answered the question of whether he is acting on the official capacity of an Attorney for Rove or a mouthpiece....

[Techno Dog]

87. Obfuscation and non sequitur

You tried to smear Lauria, you defend Leopold, and you cast aspersions on those who dare to question your logic.

Who, and what Corallo is has no relevance unless you think Lauria, Merrit, and Rove are in cahoots to nail Leopold.

[dogday]

89. Show me where I defend Leopold

Cast aspersions on who? Show me... Come on, you have a star.. Show me these posts...

You said Corallo would not lie

"Do you understand what would be involved
if Corallo lied about the "Joel..917"?"

I ask in what capacity is he serving Rove? As an officer of the court or a mouthpiece for his side.... I also post direct comments from his page..

I don't cast aspersions, I defend against those who have though... Is that kind of like staying at the Holiday Inn? :shrug:

[Techno Dog]

95. On Lauria and Me

"if the shoe fits" is right above. It's the only post you calling me a troll that remains un deleted.

You must live in 180 world.

The only way Corallo could be lying to Merrit, is if Lauria is lying to all of us, and is working in cahoots with Rove.

So, EVERY time you ask whether Carello could be a liar, and by inference lying about this, you ARE calling Lauria a liar.

To answer you question directly, Yes Corallo could be/is a liar, but not about this.

Sorry.

[dogday]

98. Show me the post where I call you a troll

post it or shut up... I don't call names, if you have gone through my posts you will realize I don't call names.. If saying the shoe fits, it means if someone is acting that way, it is possible... If you get the words you are a troll from that then Troll complex much?

Corallo's statements made are not in question here, in what capacity does he make them was the only question I asked?

Corallo is a liar but in this he is truthful? Leopold is a liar but , he is not truthful.. Why one and not the other? Now asking this question is not taking up for anyone but asking why both people who are public liars are not taken the same way? So try not to interpret your thoughts into my questions... It is a valid question....

[Catherine Vincent]

88. umm, why are you wasting your time with this?

No matter how much you clarify yourself, this poster continues to jump down your throat for no reason. You should alert his/her posts.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Garbo 2004]

91. I already have. I know who he is. He was DOJ spokesman under

Ashcroft and left around the time Gonzales was confirmed as AG. Barbara Comstock, PR flack/fundraiser for Libby's defense also was part of Ashcroft's DOJ. Small world.

[Catherine Vincent]

96. More on Corallo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1200613

[dogday]

99. Yes but somehow it is ok

for him to lie and we are supposed to not question that??? We need to question all angles of this story.. I have said that from the start.. Too many liars in the game, yes, so how do we sort through to find out the truth??

[Garbo 2004]

100. Again, I know who he is. I already checked up on him some time ago. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

101. Oh, sorry.

I was looking for a spot to post that link.

[Techno Dog]

109. In order to cast aspersions on Lauria

and to sow doubt for Leopold. That much is obvious, the question I have is why?

What evidence can you provide that would make anyone believe Leopold is a progressive worth defending?

[BuyingThyme]

2. Let's see...Who works at the POST. Ahh, yes...

Bob Woodward: The creepy, traitorous hunk of stool who conducted a cover-up aimed at protecting Libby and Cheney.

Let's see... What could their motives be now?

[Norquist Nemesis]

61. Specifically, he's Asst. Managing Editor for Investigative News

and a blackberry hot-linked to the WH.

[Generic Other]

3. The more noise the other side makes the more I think TO hit some nerve

Much too much spinning going on from the other side for there not to be something to TO's story.

[kpete]

4. curiouser & curiouser

[Karmakaze]

10. What spinning?

Point to some spinning for me - I'd like to see it.

[Techno Dog]

31. me too.

[JuniperLea]

104. If you can't see it, you must be blind to it

It's blatant...

There are no facts and yet so many are convinced... think about it.

[Techno Dog]

113. There are plenty of facts

all of them lead to one conclusion. Leopold wrote a bogus story. Again.

The most damning fact is that Luskin would face severe penalties and stigmatization if he lied when he said he had received communications from Fitzgerald saying his client was off the hook.

[JuniperLea]

125. And what penalties would that be?

Can you cite a law?

I've read everything I can get my hands on and I see no facts whatsoever.

[Techno Dog]

127. If you don't see any facts

at this point a silly book full of them isn't going to make you see that which you do not believe.

[JuniperLea]

129. You can't answer a straight question, can you? n/t

[lildreamer316]

12. EXACTLY.

especially how they keep trying to tell us here that the story is false; and to drop it; but yet some irrelevant hack like Mann C. warrants thread after provocative thread.
Really makes one think.

[Techno Dog]

32. who's they? n/t

[JuniperLea]

103. Gosh, dog, give it a ponder....

It's pretty stinking blatant.

And I do mean stinking...

[Techno Dog]

115. So "they" = the "other side"

Fine, where is the other side spinning and telling "us" we're wrong?


What is the "spin"

[JuniperLea]

102. I agree... there is no other reason many of us can think of

for this venom...

:shrug:


If people were so upset about lies, perceived lies, and outright lies, there would be no room left at DU for anything else because it would be full of how the mainstream media lies for it's daily bread.

The thing that really sent my antenna up was so many calling for confirmation by that same lying mainstream media.

Makes no sense at all.

There are no facts that can be called concrete, yet there is a group of people who are out for blood.


Very, very interesting indeed.

[Techno Dog]

117. So you are out and out

saying there are trolls in these leopold threads and they are all on the side of rove?

And Kos, TNH, FDL, TalkLeft, and every other left leaning site that has thoroughly denounced Leopold behavior and TruthOut's incredulous reporting are working for the "other side", and TruthOut and DU are the only places that can see the "larger picture" that has Leopold and TO playing a crucial role in getting Rove to co-operate with Fitzgerald.

Unbelievable

[JuniperLea]

123. You assume much

And you put words in my mouth. We aren't talking about Kos, TNH, FDL, TalkLeft, and every other left leaning site. We are talking about a conversation here and now. I don't let those sites influence my thinking any more than I allow TO to do that. I've taken issue with Kos and many other left-leaning sites in the past when I thought their view was askew. That doesn't stop me from reading them. And I certainly would not spend this much time trying to smear them. That is the question... why all the effort to smear? If what you say turns out to be true, they will get what they deserve. Why do you feel the need to hasten that?

[Techno Dog]

131. Who is trying to smear?

I have explained to you people on 'our' team that righteously want to see Leopold account for his behavior and people like you are making that more difficult.

It is like an abusive husband being supported by his friends because it isn't their wives he is beating.

You stand back saying there are no facts when a clearly bloodied victim is pointed out to you.

There is no "smear", only facts about Leopold's past, and present abusive behavior, and disregard for the truth.

You shouldn't be proud of your neutral position.

[JuniperLea]

138. Au contraire!

I am very proud of my neutral stance, despite your straw man arguments. Your analogy is far from fitting. I liken the situation more to someone with a checkered past who may or may not be guilty but is being persecuted, not for any evidence that a crime has been committed, but because of the aforementioned checkered past. Oh, wait. That is exactly what is happening.

How, pray tell, are "people like you", ie, me, making anything more difficult?

I want to see the truth. There's nothing but honor in that. Leopold will get his due regardless of any message board arguments. Either we will get some sordid tale of basic BushCo behaviors that exonerates Leopold, or he will be shown to be a fool. There is simply not enough evidence to prove either regardless of the assumptions you tout as fact. We don't know jack. We know that certain claims in a breaking news story apparently did not come to fruition, but we have no other details or explanations. It very well could be that BushCo played dirty, and who would be surprised at that? It is also possible that Leopold is a lying sack of crap. I see nothing but assumptions claiming that is true.

I'll take the high road, the most honorable road, and wait until this scene has played out. There are too many unanswered questions, such as, why the need for Fitz to send Luskin a letter exonerating Rove if Rove had never received a target letter, which is what Luskin claims. That makes no sense at all. Luskin obviously lied in one, or both, of those statements.

And you still have not answered the questions I've asked, even though I continue to be polite and answer yours.

Why a letter saying Rove is clear when there was no letter saying he was a target?

Why do you care so much about this?

I'm very proud of my stance. Damn proud. I demand facts, not assumptions. There is nothing but honor in that stance.

[Techno Dog]

143. You need to start reading these threads

Because the jury is NOT out on whether Leopold is a liar.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/03/why_didnt_libby.html#comment-15559664

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008130.php#813352

Those ARE NOT assumptions.

You keep acting like this is about Leopold's past when his current behavior is what is demonstrable offensive, and UNETHICAL.

You also need to look up straw man it seems if you think I've used any. My analogy is on point.

Leopold has threatened SEVERAL people in the past three weeks.

You have been shown the truth but refuse to except it. Why , I can only guess.

Standing back while someone is abusing another is not the high road.

This is absurd logic...

"Luskin obviously lied in one, or both, of those statements."

You say that based on your assumption that Fitzgerald would only send Luskin confirmation Rove was out of jeopardy if he had received a target letter, but how do you know luskin didn't phone up and ask if Rove would be needed for any future GJ appearances?

Certainly a reply clearing rove from any further role in the investigation would be an appropriate response.

Why don't YOU care about this? Wait, you obviously do because here you are. I care about seeing wrongs committed against respected progressives being addressed and accounted for. Why do YOU care so much?

The notion that Leopold is being persecuted is tragically absurd and revoltingly insulting to those on the receiving end of his lies and abuse.

Be proud of your defenses, but know what it is you are defending

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Techno Dog]

147. Me?

Where did I say he threatened me? What kos posting of mine are you talking about. Are you calling me this Anonymous Army guy again?

How is it an assumption that leopold admitted to going around the internet under the guise of Harry Shep applauding his efforts and berating his critics.

Is Armando lying as well as Anonymous Army, as well and Lauria and Merritt, as well as DHinMI and EmptyWheel? Are they ALL lying and Jason is telling the truth?

What you don't get is; I don't care whether I change your mind. You obviously don't care about the truth and obviously think everyone on "our side" complaining about Leopold is working with rove.

I'm willing to have our arguments judged on their merits by interested by-standards that find this thread.

And BTW if you'd actually read the posts you would have seen me answer your simple question several times.

I'm still waiting to see where I "dogged you" about a typo as you claimed much earlier.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

178. excellent!

The only thing I have to say is keep it up. :)

The curtain revealing the tools of the administration will be removed, and the truth will be known. :evilgrin:

[kma3346]

214. I don't understand either

What I don't understand is the total and utter belief in something that nobody knows anything for sure about. Until we hear something from Fitzgerald or see this so-called fax to Luskin, nobody can say that Truthout purposely lied about anything. Another thing I don't understand is the depth of the indignation and animosity toward TO when there are so many other things (lies from the administration/republicans, horrible laws passed, people dying in a senselss war, us being spied upon, etc., etc., etc.) that are even more "rage-worthy." It's perplexing to me.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Techno Dog]

221. That's because

all you think TO and leopold have done, or acquiesced to, is a few bunk stories posted on a crappy little website.

If that were all then you would be absolutely right.

However it is far from all.

[kma3346]

213. That's for sure

You can just feel the desperation!

[Pithy Cherub]

5. WaPo where the truth is in the deep freeze.

Bob Woodward - Cheney cabana boy, Scooter's pal
David Broder - has a Hillary underwear fetish
Debra Howell - The ombsbudsman who never read her job desription
Steno Sue - Bush's note taker....
Ben Domenech - the professional plagiarist hired by a publishing company
Joe Lauria - professional Jason stalker
Collectively, did mau mauing for Bush's war as a professional propaganda unit.

Yep they're a totally credible journalism outfit...:sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

26. All the while playing good cop/bad cop

The WaPo is the original Jekyll and Hyde of the publishing world.

Lately, they been doing sterling service as the purveyor of accurate intelligence (Zarqawi, et al), not exactly complimentary to the Bunnypants regime.

[Imajika]

6. More nonsense from Truthout...

"The basis for Lauria's complaint is that Jason Leopold reportedly used Lauria's name to get Karl Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo on the phone ... according to, you guessed it, Corallo."

Ummm, so did Leopold do this or not? A simple statement refuting what Lauria said would have been sufficient.

"For the record, Jason Leopold is not acting alone on the Rove indictment story. All of TO's senior editors are participating in interviewing sources, verifying facts and vetting every sentence published before the story goes live."

Okay, what does this mean? Does it mean that Truthout gave tacit approval for Leopold to use Lauria's name to get Corallo on the phone? Does it mean Truthout approves of such tactics?

"But there has been no critical assessment of the facts we have reported."

Perhaps because Truthout has NO facts? Why would the Post critically assess what by any measure appears to be a "story" dreamed up from some fantasyland?

Leopold has made claims about Target Letters, Indictments, sealed cases - all based on what exactly? There are no facts of any kind. There is nothing for the Washington Post to assess.

So not only is Truthout an unwitting hero for forcing Rove to squeal on Dick Cheney, but there is now some great conspiracy to smear Jason Leopold of all people?

More food for the gullible I suppose.

[Generic Other]

8. Don't you find it odd how hard the other side is working to discredit TO?

Something is going on behind closed doors and you label as "gullible" all who are curious as to what it might be? Whatever is going on, some high profile folks are spinning like crazy. If TO and Ash were the losers they have been painted as being around here, why would the other side care what they said? Especially if they were blowing smoke? Whatever the story, I am curious to see how it ends. If TO is so far off base, why would the likes of Rove's lawyer or the WP respond to their report at all?

I remain interested in seeing what develops.

[Karmakaze]

9. Good lord.

Something is going on behind closed doors and you label as "gullible" all who are curious as to what it might be?

Well personally, I would like to see evidence that "something is going on behind closed doors" apart from the wishful thinking of TO supporters, and the lame CYA's by TO.

Whatever is going on, some high profile folks are spinning like crazy.

In what way. I have not seen any evidence of this. Perhaps you could actually cite some examples?

If TO is so far off base, why would the likes of Rove's lawyer or the WP respond to their report at all?

Are you serious? How about the fact that TO claimed Rove had been indicted??? You don't think that would be important enough for people to pay attention, even if it was only to prove that it was false?

I remain interested in seeing what develops.

So do I, but I have a feeling you are NOT going to like what does.

[Generic Other]

16. What? You're a mind reader too? You know how I am going to feel?

How fascinating.

All I have is the hair on the back of my neck to alert me when I am in the presence of someone I can't trust.

I have that reaction to Rove and anything that has to do with him everytime he opens his mouth. If TO accidently stumbled on to info or not is irrelevent to whether they provoked reaction from Rove's people. They did that. Strong reaction. Too strong for the weak little organization so many here say TO is.

I remain a TO reader.

[Karmakaze]

19. Huh?

How did my saying I had a feeling you weren't going to like the outcome translate into me "knowing how <you> are going to feel"?

I have a feeling it is going to rain tomorrow - doesn't mean I'm a meteorologist. I simply made a predicition that you wren;t going to like the outcome.

Secondly, what "strong reaction" I mean if I called YOU a criminal you would deny it right? So what is this supposed "strong reaction" you are talking about?

I remain a TO reader.

Im not surprised - based on your ability to read what I said.

[Generic Other]

22. I am not talking about your strong reaction

I'm talking about the WP and Rove's lawyer. Not everyday, you see cracks in these folks' facades.

[Techno Dog]

54. And what "cracks" do you currently see?.

[Karmakaze]

65. Rove's lawyer denied a claim...

that Rove had been indicted - thats not a "strong reaction", thats HIS JOB.

As for the WP the only strong reaction I have seen is Lauria's and I would have a strong reaction too if an apparent con man was using my identity for one of his cons...

[JuniperLea]

105. That's ridiculous

If the story were so false, why would they respond? Should the White House respond to the many Bat Boy articles in The Enquirer where he is shown on the front lawn?

You are chasing your tail and making no sense.

[Techno Dog]

122. lol

As someone says below...

If the Lauria story was so false why did TO respond?

[JuniperLea]

126. When you play David and Goliath

You answer to the bigger guy. No surprise there.

If I were Rove, et al, and some little gnat was buzzing my head I'd show them how insignificant they really are and not respond at all. I wouldn't dignify them with a comment at all. Not that anyone in this administration has that much sense...

[Techno Dog]

133. They did that don't you remember?

Merritt, called his home at 10pm on a Saturday to get the very first comment. How many comments do you think have been made by Corallo, and Luskin in total?

[JuniperLea]

139. I don't give a flying rat's ass how many times they open their vile mouths

To believe them is utterly ignorant. Corallo is a paid PR guy and Luskin is Rove's attorney... get a grip. Is that what you are basing your "facts" on? Lord, have mercy.

[Techno Dog]

148. You can't be serious

That's your response?

[JuniperLea]

189. You want to hang Leopold on his past

But you are shocked at my mentioning the present regarding others. Interesting tap-dance.

[Techno Dog]

202. Jason's present is the issue on this thread

Not his past.

Which others are you mentioning and what relevance do you think they have?

[Imajika]

11. There is a story here...

...and it's not a good one.

The story is how egregiously wrong an online only news source was. The print media loves that. The big media considers themselves the custodians of the news (and reasonable opinion). They don't want the competition. They love seeing Truthout blunder so badly (and continue the blunder into the realms of bizarre silliness).

High profile folks aren't spinning the TO story, they are LAUGHING about it.

There is also a side story here which is also sad. It is a story about how so many people will put faith in virtually anything reported if it confirms their world view or tells them what they want to hear. This is a story of a fundamental lack of critical thinking. A story about people so blinded by ideology that they will believe near anything about the other side regardless of whether evidence or proof exists to support it. A story of gullibility. A story about purported news outlets taking advantage of this gullibility. It's just pathetic.

[Generic Other]

17. Like I said above, TO provoked reactions in high places

When was the last time you did that?

[tavalon]

37. I'm with you

I've stayed out of the various discussions here but it is getting curiouser and curiouser. The response was, and continues to be, too loud from the mainstream.

[OzarkDem]

52. Agree, why should they care about a small online news source?

The fact that they do, and the fact that they're going to such great lengths to try to discredit them certainly raises a red flag.

We haven't seen the end of this by any means. Something has the folks at the WaPo and in the WH worried and its no coincidence that parties in both places are under investigation for their role in outing Plame and covering it up.

[Techno Dog]

55. Yesterday,

and it's your job to prove I didn't.

[rinsd]

50. Nail meet head.....

Most of the online community spends its time ripping MSM for sloppiness, bias etc.

Whenever a blogger has messed it up the lords on high at MSM get a chubby and disdainfully rip the online source mostly in a "that's what you get with some guy in his mom's basement" vein.

[OzarkDem]

51. You seem worried by these developments

Who are you trying to protect?

[Techno Dog]

56. Did you respond to the right post?

If not, who needs protection?

[OzarkDem]

67. No, I replied to the correct one

I'm curious as to why you feel the need to defend the WaPo, when a number of them were actually complicit in the Plame betrayal and subsequent cover-up.

[Techno Dog]

69. I'm defending Lauria

and the truth. Do you deny WaPa could have published a story about this by a RW hack that didn't give the left as much credit as Lauria's did?

[robinlynne]

29. exactly.

[rman]

35. yep, and the usual suspects are all over it.

[H2O Man]

44. With this post,

you show us the power of an open mind. I thank you for that.

Other posts on this thread display the weakness of a closed mind. It's sad, although they do not seem aware of that weakness. They believe that closed minds are a sign of strength. In that sense, I suppose a closed mind is much like a closed room: they both become stuffy mighty fast.

[Techno Dog]

48. Have you researched Leopold

on other sites? I'm not talking about the regurgitation of Leopold's more unsavory traits that he detailed in his book, I'm talking about his online behavior.

It seems an 'open mind' in this case is actually a call to leave people open to abuse and disinformation.

You are probably the only credible commentator of note that is even hesitating to condemn Leopold's behavior and encouraging those who would look past it because they want the underlying narrative to be true, and it's a shame.

edit to add:

Here is this from Swords Crossed.

And indeed I have been contacted by one of the bloggers I debunked
regarding the Rove indictment story where this blogger promises to
write about my personal circumstances. This same blogger also promised
to reveal his sources if his story was wrong. He has not done that so
it is possible he won't write about me either.

Armando, is Not part of the bfee's plan to nail Leopold.

http://www.swordscrossed.org/?p=182

[H2O Man]

84. I am aware that

over 2500 Americans have died in Iraq since the OVP's lies brought us to war there. Each weekend, I read about some of those young men and women, who gave their lives for Cheney's lies.

I am also aware that thousands more have been seriously injured. And that is not to mention the untold thousands of innocent Iraqis, who were minding their own business, trying to live their lives and to take care of their families before Dick Cheney's lies caused their deaths.

I spend time each weekend praying for them and for their family members. That is the research that I find important. That is the issue for me. I am not particularly interested in what "sins" Jason Leopold may have commited years ago in some blogger's mind. I do not have the time to dedicate to what I consider foolishness. I do not say that disrespectfully to you -- I believe that you are sincere in your concerns about the issues with TO. But I am not able to share those concerns to the extent you and others do.

[Techno Dog]

92. thinking of a good subject line is hard werk!!

With all due respect, ones concern about the thousands of dead because of this criminal administration is only relevant as far as asking why Jason Leopold and TruthOut were ambulance chasing instead of trying to use their investigative talents uncovering some of the countless atrocities committed in the past five years.

Jason hasn't only committed sins years ago, his latest transgressions happened this week when he, through the use of admitted sockpuppet email addresses, sent threatening emails to top progressive bloggers and random critics on random message boards for daring to debunk his 'work'.

My interest in this story began AFTER the TruthOut team started inexplicably dragging credible sites and bloggers into a mess they could have cleaned up with a simple retraction.

Instead, they have now stooped to accusing well respected writers of collusion with dark forces aligned against them.

I would argue their belligerence and the suspension of disbelief it inspires in those who want this story to be true more than they want truth to prevail is a hindrance to our shared goal of ending the nightmare in Iraq, and the dismantling of this criminal administration.

[H2O Man]

120. It would require

the most tortured of logic to assuime that there is any responsibility on TO's part and the deaths of the 2500 Americans. That responsibility belongs to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

[Techno Dog]

124. H2O

I have respected the rigorous effort you have made to faithfully report your impression of the developments in this case. I would ask that you take the same care when responding to my posts if you are going to.

Because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt I will assume you misread my post above instead of purposely mis-characterized it.

I clearly said "ENDING" the war in Iraq. Not anything to do with how we got there or how the war is being waged.

In that light it is not tortured logic at all to conclude truthout, Leopold, and the legion of supporters who continue to insist people live under the illusion that an indictment of Karl Rove is imminent, are in fact hampering our efforts to END the war.

How much is a matter for debate, but imo any amount is too much considering the stakes.

[H2O Man]

132. As I am unlikely

to put the same effort into responding to posts that attack TO as I do in writing an essay on the Plame scandal, I will stick with what I said. If you don't agree with my impressions, that is fine. I do not agree with yours, and I think the continued focus on TO while ignoring the crimes of VP Cheney requires my most honest response. As I said, though I am convinced you are sincere, I think that there are people on the internets who are attempting to distract people from what is important about the Plame scandal and lies that brought our country to war. Any harshness in my statement is directed entirely at those folks. I think everyone who is focused on the TO issue should move on, and focus on what is important. Each one of those 2500 dead soldiers is much more important.

[Techno Dog]

136. Sorry

We will have to disagree. Some of us believe we can walk and chew gum, and other even think the TO/Leopold situation, and the dead soldiers are symptoms of the same disease. While the degree's vary greatly there is little doubt that selfish opportunism, and belligerent pride are common traits in both of the underlying causes.

If you were to say that while you believed TO, and Leopold had acted irresponsibly the level of outrage did not in your opinion fit the offense I would respect the position far more than your encouragement of those who refuse to condemn actions you surely find offensive.

[H2O Man]

141. If you wrote

as many posts on DU that addressed the crimes of VP Dick Cheney, as opposed to being focused on TO, I would consider it progress. We face serious problems today. TO is not one of them. I am concerned that there are people on the internet that seek to lead us astray by pretending TO is the central issue in the Plame scandal. I think confronting that lie is an important step in re-focusing people on what is important.

[Techno Dog]

145. You may very well see that soon

It was the TruthOut, Leopold story that brought me to DU so once I get a feel for the place I may choose to engage posters here on other issues. I have other places for that currently.

I am deeply troubled by the Plame scandal and have been reading your work cross posted all over the net, I even received two mass emailings that contained links to your work.

Where we part company is our observations of TO, Leopold, and our ability to hold these criminals responsible with people and groups like them trying to position themselves as authorities.

I'm of the opinion that a quicker route to ending our national nightmare is gaining subpoena power this november. That being said we are going to have to convince moderate republicans to stay home or vote for democrats. Allowing people like Leopold to go uncontested opens ourselves up to having people like him publish stories that make rooms full of democratic lawyers stand and appalled false stories of administration indictments.

We allow ourselves to be set up as hypocrites when we complain about the msm's lies and manipulation in their coverage of the 06 and 08 campaigns.

Even if you believe TO is being set up a) To appear more important than they are, and b) Discredit the lefty blogisphere, imo we must respond. We can't tolerate such irresponsibility and shoddy practice because TO isn't significant in our efforts. It is being made out in the WaPo to be a leading left leaning source. Until we can demonstrate we expect the same from our own as we would any other, media outlets less friendly can always point to examples like this to ignore our complaints, and highlight our weaknesses.

None of this even broaches Leopold's behavior. His lies, sock puppets, threats, and intimidation tactics.

Armando, your fellow Kossak was threatened by leopold, he warned Armando he would write a story outing his real name and where he worked if he didn't stop debunking his stories, days later after debunking Madsen's Sealed vs Sealed exactly that was done to him, and he has now quit blogging because he worries about his clients getting caught up in this vicious behavior.

Armando was no ambulance chaser, he was a strong progressive voice, if we let people like leopold go unchecked we risk losing even more voices and we are left with increasing levels of disinformation foisted on us for a variety of reasons non of which include the advancement of our shared goals.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

146. Try not to muss the flag as you stand on the coffin.

Your post was a shameful non sequitur. Those words may be apt on a thread about deaths in the Iraq invasion, but are completely inappropriate on a thread about Leopold and the WaPo. I didn't know Red Herring season was open.

You also claimed: "I am not particularly interested in what "sins" Jason Leopold may have commited years ago in some blogger's mind. I do not have the time to dedicate to what I consider foolishness. I do not say that disrespectfully to you -- I believe that you are sincere in your concerns about the issues with TO. But I am not able to share those concerns to the extent you and others do."

That claim strikes me as disingenuous, as you have spent a lot of time since this story broke posting on DU threads about "this foolishness", all in support of TruthOut and Jason Leopold. Furthermore, Jason Leopold's "sins" are not relegated to "years ago" nor just in "some blogger's mind". They are recent, recounted by more than one blogger, featured in an Op Ed in the WaPo (the topic of this thread, by the way) and even Leopold himself writes about them in his autobiography (which was previously withdrawn from publication due to legal threat over inaccuracies).

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[Techno Dog]

163. How the fuck dare him?

Maybe you should explain what you had a problem with.

Are you taking offense at H20 being called on his comment about dead soldiers which appear to be intended to deflect criticism of TO and leopold?

What exactly is "total bullshit"?

[Generic Other]

165. How the fuck dare you speak to the mother of a wounded vet like that?

Maybe you should just take a deep breath and lighten up.

[Binka]

171. Thank You

I will not respond to that poster.

[Techno Dog]

172. What?!?!

Is that what this has devolved to?

This is a political message board. Not a group therapy session.

Where is your phony outrage over H20 using the 2500 dead soldiers as an excuse to forgive Leopold and truthout's sloppy and sensational ambulance chasing of the investigation which might eventually lead to some justice for the 2500 American grieving mothers or the 100 thousand grieving Iraqi mothers and fathers?

Where is your outrage for Leopold getting these mother's hope up that justice was finally being served when in reality all he was doing was lying to them as well as everyone else in his junkie obsession with getting the scoop?

You aren't dealing with someone that buys into emotional arguments designed to guilt the opponent into concession. If you can't evenly distribute your outrage to all parties involving the soldiers in this discussion you betray your opportunism and bias.

[dogday]

184. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard....

Last I heard it was the administration and Judith Miller and friends who were responsible for both Binka's and my Son being in this war... Bush and friends lied and several hundred thousand have died....

To even blame this on Leopold shows the true colors of your posts....

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

191. Well here's a bucket

why don't you go ahead and :puke:

[Techno Dog]

193. because I have more respect for readers of this thread

than to fill it with vomit.

You seem to have no such reservations.

To say I'm blame Leopold for a single troop death is an example of such a spew.

[dogday]

194. Well you said

Where is your outrage for Leopold getting these mother's hope up that justice was finally being served when in reality all he was doing was lying to them as well as everyone else in his junkie obsession with getting the scoop?

Leopold getting these Mother's hopes up? Are you kidding??? Leopold couldn't touch the pain and fear these Mothers feel because of the lie that this administration fed us, helped by the M$M...

That was a ridiculous statement and I stand by my post....

[Techno Dog]

196. And YOU said

"To even blame this on Leopold shows the true colors of your posts...."

Shifting the goal posts, and pretending your words mean something different once called on them is much easier than owning up for your mistakes.

You are good at that. Did Jason pass on his tricks?

If Jason's reporting could bring a room full of Democratic lawyers to their feet in applause is it really a stretch for you to think Binka and other mothers were similarly taken for an emotional ride?

A rational person arguing in good faith can obviously see the correlation.

Can you?

[dogday]

197. You made it sound like Jason was upsetting the Mothers

of soldiers with his story and I let you know that was a load of crap...

There is no goalpost with you, you have been up and down the field of this thread trying to block and spear everyone who does not agree with you...

Since I am one of those Mothers, I don't find it to be a stretch at all to state a Mother's feelings and you have already seen Binka's thoughts on this, which was deleted cause she let you have it both barrels...

A rational person could, so why don't you try to be that way?

[Techno Dog]

201. Again you are WRONG

Bing didn't let me have it at all. Look again.

And what I said was Jason's story, when it became PAINFULLY obvious it was a piece of crap, did in fact take grieving mothers aware of the story for a ride.

Maybe if you would read posts carefully you wouldn't find yourself in a position to have to retract your words as often.

But since you never do retract them even when shown how fallacious they are maybe you just don't know how.

On this I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.

[dogday]

203. I don't retract the truth

And you can keep your benefit of the doubt..

My posts still stand, yours seem to get deleted a lot....:shrug:

On edit: I invite Binka to come and settle that particular point....

[Techno Dog]

208. Settle what point?

Binka hasn't responded to me once. Look again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1479720&mesg_id=1489154


You really don't care about the truth you should stop pretending.

You have also had many posts deleted btw.

[dogday]

212. All I see are my post then deleted post

Gee I wonder who that was? :shrug:

Binka can tell you how she feels about Jason's article and you...

The truth is all I care about and I will continue to seek it. I am surprised you can even spell the word, or even know the meaning of it...

Now hurry along and find someone else to bother.. You seem to have enough to keep you busy...

[Techno Dog]

215. You hope so don't you

You keep saying I have a problem with the truth? Is that the same thing as calling someone a liar, something you said above was a violation of the rules?

I guess after 1000 posts I'll learn the tricks to game the system.

We have now been going back and forth about the invocation of the troops by posters in this argument. We've even had a visitation from a grieving mother who let out a torrent of abuse at one poster's OBJECTION to having the troop brought into this argument, but the person who brought them up remains unchallenged by that same mother.

Similarly, the only people on the receiving end of vitriolic tirades based on the use of the troops in their posts are critics of Leopold. People that find it appalling the troops were even mentioned at all are the ones being singled out. Shocking.

To deflect from this reality you have dragged this sub thread down to bizarre claims that prove you can't even read a thread order properly.

For posterity and clarity here is the thread order.

Try not to muss the flag as you stand on the coffin. Wrinkle_In_Time Jun-23-06 01:50 AM #146
Deleted message Name removed Jun-23-06 05:09 AM #161
How the fuck dare him? Techno Dog Jun-23-06 05:17 AM #163
How the fuck dare you speak to the mother of a wounded vet like that? Generic Other Jun-23-06 06:00 AM #165
Thank You Binka Jun-23-06 06:52 AM #171
What?!?! Techno Dog Jun-23-06 06:53 AM #172
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.... dogday Jun-23-06 12:03 PM #184
you couldn't Techno Dog Jun-23-06 02:58 PM #190
Well here's a bucket dogday Jun-23-06 03:11 PM #191
because I have more respect for readers of this thread Techno Dog Jun-23-06 04:15 PM #193
Well you said dogday Jun-23-06 04:20 PM #194
And YOU said Techno Dog Jun-23-06 04:34 PM #196
You made it sound like Jason was upsetting the Mothers dogday Jun-23-06 04:43 PM #197
Again you are WRONG Techno Dog Jun-23-06 04:59 PM #201
I don't retract the truth dogday Jun-23-06 05:02 PM #203
Settle what point? Techno Dog Jun-23-06 06:04 PM #208
All I see are my post then deleted post dogday Jun-23-06 06:17 PM #212

So where exactly is Binka's double barrel blast directed at me?

What is perplexing is the "Thank You" reply you received from Binka for ripping in to me. In it she say "I will not respond to that poster"

Yet the ONLY post I had made regarding the troops was this one.

Techno Dog Donating Member (264 posts)

163. How the fuck dare him?

Maybe you should explain what you had a problem with.

Are you taking offense at H20 being called on his comment about dead soldiers which appear to be intended to deflect criticism of TO and leopold?

What exactly is "total bullshit"?

Since Binka had no problem double barreling the peron who made the comment, and I hadn't mentioned the troops other than to ask her what exactly she found objectionable, I think it's safe to say she had an opinion of me based on my position on TruthOut and Leopold.

As she refuses to answer me, and you seem to be leaping to her aide, I'll ask you whether or not it's acceptable behavior to demand respect by paid to your grief when you only demand it of those taking opposing views to your own on issues totally unrelated to the topic being discussed?

Is it manipulative?

[dogday]

216. Ba-bye

On edit: you won't make it to 1000 posts....

[Jazz2006]

235. TechnoDog, there are some posters here who

can't and won't actually respond to facts such as those you set out above which prove them wrong about their typical knee jerk reactions and who then say silly things like "ba bye" instead.

Usually, that particular brand of poster goes off on tangents designed to draw you into a lengthy discussion about things they know nothing about while pretending that they do, eventually evolving into a long sub-thread full of vitriol which ultimately gets deleted, and then they pretend that they never made the same "troll" accusations over and over and over again because they have succeeded in getting the sub-thread deleted.

It's a game to some of them.

But don't sweat it. Lots of people read the sub-threads before they are deleted and know that certain posters toss out "troll" accusations against just about anyone who dares to disagree with them, and particularly against new posters in an effort to intimidate them.

[Techno Dog]

238. Well I'm a quick study

I have received a warning I had to click with a message from a moderator telling me I had many post deleted for calling people trolls. It also said I wasn't allowed to call anther poster a liar but I am able to link to the "untruths" and explain where the poster has erred.

I guess that explains everyone saying I don't post, or know what truth is. See things like that are learnable. I will not however use that shrug icon which is used in such a condescending fashion most often that just seeing it now turns me off the argument it's trying to mask.

Thanks for the encouragement.

[dogday]

242. I wouldn't waste my time calling you a troll....

I am assuming others have because you keep bringing it up.... PROVE IT OR SHUT UP... I don't call names except for the administration and the warmongers who brought us to war...

[Techno Dog]

252. "if the shoe fits" n/t

[dogday]

254. If is the key word

If it does, it does, if it does not, it does not...

I did not say the shoe fits, that would be calling you one.. I say If it fits...

If does make the difference in the sentance...

[dogday]

241. It also a known fact

that I have not ever called Techno Dog a Troll.. I don't call names... Why the attack Jazz? I have never attacked you???

[dogday]

243. self delete

[dogday]

244. And then there are those who are just posting crap like

this poster... Thanks a lot for the shit smear, even though I have never called this guy a troll and I mean ever.. Name calling of posters is not my thing.. You can't prove that I have and I have asked mods to show one where I outright call this guy a troll.

Wow I thought you dealt in fact! Because whether you are an attorney or not, your slip is showing.. You have no proof to say what you just said...

If you look, this guy keeps following me around.. I don't respond to him, he attacks me every chance he gets....

I will never believe anything you ever have to post again, funny, I used to admire you... Now I feel only pity for someone who states this without even knowing the full story or all the facts....

[Techno Dog]

260. "outright"

"can't get fooled again"

[dogday]

262. That's what I am saying

I won't be fooled by post of ridicule and innuendo.. And I won't submit to those who do it...

[Techno Dog]

265. Facts are facts

Too many are indisputable for your defenses to appear rational.

All you have done is insinuate those that aren't as naive as you have an agenda when trying to seek redress for Leopold's behavior.

It's truly arrogant in the extreme. Sybolman has been called a troll by people acting exactly like you who demand he sit back incredulously as DU becomes a site where one must never examine evidence of malfeasance as long as the perp applies a veneer of progressiveness that immunizes him from criticism from our side, and allows him/her to outright ignore criticism from the opposition.

I now know how your type operates here. I will not make the mistake of calling you a liar again. I will however help you find the truth within your posts whenever it seems you have lost it.

Have a nice day.

[dogday]

269. Attack

Attack attack attack... Where have I heard all of that before:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

272. You haven't posted an indisputable fact in this whole thread

When you do, I'm sure there will be some discussion.

[Techno Dog]

274. You seem to desperately hope so.

Just because you say the sky is silver doesn't mean it's blueness is in dispute.

[dogday]

251. WRONG WRONG WRONG

You say Lawyers don't lie, they take the truth and stretch it till it is no longer recognizable as facts... Prove any of what you just said..... No game to me...

[Techno Dog]

280. Stop putting words in people's mouths

And start reading posts properly. I didn't say Lawyers don't lie, and either did jazz.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Techno Dog]

200. H2O officially

Jumps the shark.

It is not an either/or, black/white issue as you have tried to frame it several times now even after having it explained to you in such a way you have agreed.

It really is a shame you would drag our troops into this debate. It is very rovian. You are implying those that would criticize TO hate the troops.

It's a repulsive argument when the repubs use it, and it is an obscene argument when one of the leading progressive voices on this issue use it.

It means you have run out of intellectual rationalizations for your position and are desperately trying to invoke emotionalism.

This anonymous army everyone here cites when they no longer have answers to the questions being asked is the biggest red herring I've ever seen on a progressive message board.

You will one day soon look back on these posts with a sense of shame, that is of course if you have been posting in good faith when defending Jason Leopold behavior.

Why may I ask haven't you made these feeling known on the many Kos threads discussing the same topic?

You are an active member there and if your position was genuine you would be making it known to as many people as possible.

That you haven't, is one to conclude you feel DU, and DU alone is capable, with the right focus, of taking cheney down for his lies?

Why is criticism of leopold worth a response from you on one board you post at and not another?

I can't stress enough how much respect I have lost for you with this transparent attempt to drag the dead soldiers into any defense of Truth Out or Jason Leopold.

Hopefully soon you will see the error of your ways and apologize to Leopold's critics for using a tactic against them they have come to expect from the "enemy".

Some might call what you have done here a rear guard attack.

[dogday]

186. If anyone is standing on coffins, it is the President

and Rove and the Republican party who want us to Stay and Pay.....

Let's try to break this down, because the story was about Rove, he is included, the story is about Leopold, he is included, add the side players:

Luskin, Corallo, Pitt and Ash:

Now we know Rove is an admitted liar.. We know Corallo is an admitted Liar. We know that Leopold is an admitted liar...

I cannot question the truthfulness of Luskin, Ash and Pitt....

How could anyone have any conclusions about this story, when the all the players involved have lied in some way, shape and fashion?

I am looking for an honest response, not a flame, I have had enough.. We have liars from both sides of this story.. How can we really know the whole truth?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

233. Thank you for this thoughtful and honest post.

I don't and won't disagree with any of the points you have made in this post. I have formed some opinions about the veracity of the "side players" you listed (all of them) but that's just me. I understand you reserving judgment on them and I'm not going to be arrogant enough to bother you with my opinions, since they are not verifiable facts.

We don't know much of the "whole truth" at this point. This is why I find the speculation passed off as "fact" by Leopold (with some help) to be worth my time to challenge and to support those people who can actually debunk the spurious claims and blind faith with facts (e.g, the brilliant work by a few DUers on the "Sealed vs. Sealed" article). Hopefully we will all learn more in the future from more factual sources (e.g., announcements from Fitzgerald) rather than from the admitted liars that you correctly cited.

By the way, my reference to "standing on coffins" was not about responsibility for those unnecessary deaths, it was about what I saw as the inappropriateness of one poster citing those tragedies on a thread about Leopold and WaPo with no other purpose than to quash criticism of Leopold and TruthOut. I found that disgustingly cynical.

EDIT: typos... it's been a long week.

[dogday]

250. Thank you for an honest thoughtful

response.. I wish that we could discuss all of this in a reasonable fashion. :hi:


on edit: both side of the story are tarnished... see post #239


We know there are enough liars in this story, how do you dissect the facts?

[H2O Man]

264. It's a fact

that the lies of Dick Cheney & Co are directly responsible for the deaths of over 2500 soldiers, thousands more injured, and untold dead Iraqis. That is the most significant thing involved in the Plame scandal. Joe Wilson has said the same thing. I question how anyone could find that offensive, or think there is a larger, more significant story to be found in a disputed internet report.

[dogday]

273. This is the reason for outing Plame in

the first place.. To try to cover up a lie that led us into a thoughtless, senseless, unplanned war.. Everything they have said about this war has been LIES... That it would be a short conflict, that it would pay for itself, that the people will greet us as Liberators....

[Techno Dog]

282. Simple,

listen to the people with a history of telling the truth, and who are well respected by people you find credible.

If you do that this story is Crystal clear, and Leopold, Ash and TO made a big mistake calling Lauria and Merritt liars.

Even if you are now looking for the needle in a hay stack that will exonerate Leopold and indict Corallo for trying to further discredit a hack who had zero credibility 24 business hours after his "scoop" broke.

[Generic Other]

75. Right or wrong, I stand up and speak out when my friends are attacked

In the old days, a hundred DUers would have been all over the details of this story rather than ragging on other DUers or on TO. They would have parsed Luskin's words, not mine.

The utter obsessiveness coming from naysayers at DU who feel the need to abuse and bully those whom they disagree with is astonishing. Their tone is simply astonishing. I have not once questioned their intelligence, their reasoning ability, or even their argument. I have simply stated that TO's involvement in this developing story has sparked my curiosity and prurient interest. The doggedness of their responses questioning my "gullibility" have simply made me more curious. I don't think I am alone.

Lots of oldtime DUers have been reading TO since its inception. Suddenly, they have been attacked for stating so publicly. Why? Simply because there's the possibility that TO got something wrong? That's a lousy reason because if I held the rest of the MSM to that standard, I would not read a single publication printed in the USA!

I say this story isn't over until TO says it's over. No matter what the incoming zeroes have to say.

Thanks for your words of support H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

85. Write on!

Thank you for the words which are absolutely worthy of that support!

[Techno Dog]

110. Some of the critics

were around in the halcyon days you describe.

I would be interested in seeing a link to anyone being attacked for simply stating they have read TO since day one as you claim.

There isn't a possibility TO got it wrong they DID get it wrong and their belligerence is insulting. Insulted people tend to react in less than congratulatory fashions.

You don't even mention Leopold and Pitt's behavior when you breathlessly proclaim your allegiance to an attacked friend. Which of the actors in this drama is your friend and are his actions above reproach by those of us without the sense of loyalty you feel you must display?

Leopold threatened to out one of the left's leading bloggers if he didn't stop debunking him. He also went around the internet using the name Harry Shep to tell everyone what a credible reporter he was.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Techno Dog]

118. Obfuscation and non sequitur

I didn't say I'd been around that long.

Try answering some of the other points.

[Generic Other]

121. Am I being interrogated?

Okay, I confess. I'm TO's dog. Whose dog are you?

[Catherine Vincent]

114. All of what happened was before you joined DU.

Were you lurking? Or were you a member before but was banned?

[Techno Dog]

119. Obfuscation and non sequitur

I looked at the profiles of several of the enablers and the critics because I really thought only a troll could defend this kind of behavior trying to make this site look bad. DU because this kind of loyalty oath requirement or troll charges fly is only present here and on the TO blog.

But sadly some of the more credulous have been here a very long time.

[sheelz]

78. Some posts on this thread display enabling minds.

Sometimes 'helping' doesn't help at all.

[Generic Other]

86. What are you implying? That I have a psychological disorder?

Why don't you just come out and say it?

[Techno Dog]

162. ok

I will. It's getting to the point where anybody believing that Rove has been indicted as reported by Leopold and truth out on May 12th is suffering from one of many applicable mental/psychological disorders.

There isn't a shred of evidence that he has been indicted. None.

[Generic Other]

164. deja vu all over again

I recognize in the shrill responses the same voices who fume whenever Michael Moore is praised by anyone on DU. The same voices who scream for Cynthia McKinney's head if her name is ever mentioned. The same voices who spout off about Cindy Sheehan's actions hurting the left whenever she makes the news. Whenever any of them makes the news. The voices sound a lot like those presently howling about Truthout.

It gets old.

[Techno Dog]

166. HA!!!!!!!

You really are a twisted sister if you put Leopold in the same category as true American HEROES like the three you mentioned.

You can't even point to a single article written by Leopold that showcases his progressive values. He has reported on republican crime for the past 5 yrs because there is plenty of it. And a market for it.

He wrote a book about what an unethical sleeze ball he is.

The people you mentioned work night and day to affect change in our country. Leopold did what exactly with this series of stories for truthout? Nothing other than ambulance chase an active investigation spreading gossip and rumor like porn for progressives.

[Generic Other]

169. I'm not talking about Leopold, I'm talking about you

n/t

[Techno Dog]

173. It is disgraceful the way you try and

dismiss arguments by grouping them in with common enemies. It really is poor form. I could as easily say your argument sound exactly like those kool-aid drinkers that called abu-gharib a frat hazing, but I have to much respect for the rest of the people reading this to insult them with such sophistry.

[Generic Other]

206. Your dogmatic tone is what is really disgraceful

I have encountered it before as have many at DU. As I have said over and over, I don't have enough information to have drawn a conclusion about what's happening behind the scenes with the investigation. And in spite of all your bombast, you don't know either. Instead you have fumed and flamed, ridiculed and mocked. I ask myself "to what purpose"? I am nobody. Just like TO. So why the hysteria to discredit? Why the vitriole? The louder you screech, the more I ask myself why.

I am not a kool-aid drinker, I'm not gullible, I'm not stupid. And neither are any of the other folks on this board who have expressed an interest in seeing how the TO story develops. Many of us were highly puzzled and even skeptical of details of this story from the beginning, but its unfolding has piqued curiosity. Nothing you say will change that fact. Continuing to insist that curiosity is somehow gullibility or complicity is silly. Continuing to insist that TO and its editors must be drawn and quartered is silly. Orchestrating a lynch mob over a newspaper article is silly. Hounding the good citizens who don't fall in line with your thinking is pathetic.

American soldiers are dying because of the actions of Rove and Cheney. 10 died while you spent your day defending their outrage at a Truthout story.

[Techno Dog]

236. 10 troops died

while you defended a piece of shit who, with the help of people like you, is single handedly giving the msm ammunition to dismiss our criticism of their reporting.

You saying you don't have enough information to judge is like a cop telling a store owner he doesn't have enough evidence the store has been robbed to investigate while the owner is pleading with him to look at the security video he refuses to.

Hopefully soon all of the whys you ask yourself will actually force you to seek out the evidence to stop the ringing in your head the repeating questions are causing.

10 troops died while you defended an admitted liar, drug abuser, and convicted criminal, who as recently as this week threatened to out one of our leading progressive online voices for question the "facts" in his stories.

How many more troops are going to die while you continue to defend this guy and cast aspersions on others who refuse to tolerate his behavior. You are making a choice to spend your time here instead of spending your time fighting to end the war. I have already said I think people like leopold make it harder for us to end the war because he and his attack dogs hurt our credibility.

Even if you disagree with me. I at least think I'm actively trying to save lives posting in these thread. Can you say the same thing?

What has Jason ever done that he deserves your valuable time instead of the troops?


.
.
.
.
Next time please think twice before accusing people of not caring about the troops, or not defending them appropriately.

[stepnw1f]

231. Thank You

Don't let the assholes stop you from asking questions. Weird how some here seem intent on drawing conclusions for everyone without having all the facts. Same people too...

[lynne]

240. Working to discredit TO?

They've done that themselves - no need for anyone to lift a finger to help. TO and their blunder have now become a story in and of itself.

[JuniperLea]

107. If Rove didn't receive a target letter

Then why would Fitz give him a letter of exoneration?

Seems one would have to go before the other.

[Techno Dog]

140. It would only seem like that

to someone that has no understanding of how a Federal investigation works, or the nature of the communication he received.

There is no proof of a target letter, indictment, or any co-operation re cheney.

There is evidence however that Leopold has threatened critics, lied to his editors, and manufactured stories.

You have been shown this evidence and you are basically saying you don't care what he has done to others that are fighting on our side.

[JuniperLea]

142. You see evidence where none exists...

It only looks like evidence to someone without the basic understanding of how the law works. There is solid, concrete evidence, and then there is circumstantial evidence. Most of yours isn't even circumstantial, but assumed. It wouldn't fly. Sorry.

Right, there is no proof of a target letter... so says Rove's lawyer. Yet the same lawyer claims he got a letter from Fitz saying Rove is in the clear. You can't even answer my basic question! Why the need for the second alleged letter when there seems to have never been the first alleged letter? You can't have it both ways. Either Luskin lied the first time, the second time, or both.

Your circular arguments do you no good. Until you can answer a direct question with a direct answer, how can you possibly think anyone will take you seriously?

[Techno Dog]

158. yawn

I have answered every one of your questions except the penalties for Luskin lying about his communications with Fitzgerald. I haven't answered that one yet because I like seeing you make a fool of yourself insisting their must be target letter based on this latest communication.

One you have denied existed.

Keep up the good work marginalizing your position. Soon there will be three of you left defending this loser and the fools that enabled him.


BTW still waiting for that link to me "dogging you" for making a spelling mistake.

[JuniperLea]

188. Only three?

If you keep pushing people off the fence onto the TO side, and I can't imagine you accomplishing anything else, there will be plenty. We are making it harder for you, remember?

You haven't answered on direct question; tap-dancing doesn't count.

I'll not search through a week's DU to find that. I never said I would.

[Techno Dog]

195. LOL

No, it's obvious I haven't pushed a single person to TO that wasn't already there but pretending otherwise. Like you for example. There isn't a single post of yours in this thread that could honestly be characterized as fence sitting, even though we have both pretended as much for the sake of argument.

Now that you have demonstrated your inability to argue in good faith we might as well drop the pretenses.

As for the typo...

You mocked me for the your=you're contraction and when I pointed out how petty that kind of comment is, you claimed you were only getting back for a similar pettiness I supposedly offered you.

Then you linked to a thread proving how you abhor such behavior, but it's obvious you don't abhor it enough to refrain from it yourself.

To top that steaming pile off you refuse to link to the example that justifies your childish remark.

I categorically deny calling you out on a typo. So like Leopold you make wild claims about the integrity of others, yet you refuse to provide evidence of the claims, or refrain from the behavior you are complaining about yourself.

Well played. Jason would be proud.

[ShaneGR]

116. Ya, its funny watching people twisting their tinfoil hats....

You'd think people would figure out TO has taken them for a ride by now. I'm amused that TO feigns anger at not having any of their "facts" checked by WaPo. What facts?

[Karmakaze]

7. A lame non-defence!

No denial of the claim just weasel words like "factually uncorroborated" and "poorly defined".

Funnier still is TO demanding that Lauria prove his claim. Well, he has done far more than TruthOut has to prove theirs: He named his sources! So all TO has to do is ask Corallo and Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft whether they said what Lauria claimed they said. If they did, then it's not Lauria's fault because he was simply reporting what his sources told him, right?

This is an amazingly silly post by Ash. I mean he has done a better job of highlighting just what was wrong with Leopold and TO's reporting than just about anyone.

They demand that Lauria "document and substantiate" his claim. Yet we are still waiting for TO to "document and substantiate" THEIR claims! Then, while accusing Lauria of writing a "hit piece" as part of a "smear campaign", they accuse him of basically working for Rove! All I can say is WTF? That seems to be a common theme nowadays - if you criticise TO or Leopold you must be working for Rove.

That guy must have some enormously deep pockets.

[Imajika]

13. That's the first thing I noticed...

"No denial of the claim just weasel words like 'factually uncorroborated' and 'poorly defined'."

Is Truthout really denying Lauria's claim or not? A person would assume they are, but a close reading of this contains no denial.

I'd also like to know how Ash expects the Washington Post to "critically assess" the "facts" Truthout has reported? Truthout has no actual facts supported by anything the Post or anyone else can review. Truthout has made lots of claims about Target Letters, Indictments, Sealed vs Sealed, evolving business hours, ever changing numbers of sources, etc, etc. The problem is, they have no evidence to support any of it. So what is the Washington Post supposed to "critically assess"?

[Karmakaze]

15. Good point.

In fact, it seems to me that TO would be far better off if no one critically assessed their article, simple because to do so raises issues of honesty and accountability that I think TO would much rather avoid.

Notice their poking a finger at the Washington Post's ombudsman? Doesn't that just highlight TO's LACK of an ombudsman?

Or is that yet another area where TO should not be held to the same standards as the mainstream media?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

14. Ash's impotent sputtering does nothing positive for TruthOut.

Lauria ran journalistic circles around Leopold with that piece and also implied that TruthOut is weak editorially. Ash's response reinforces that implication. Leopold, for a welcome change, has been quiet.

Lauria was also obviously pissed that Leopold was impersonating him. Fair enough too. Lauria still has a reputation to protect.

[Snivi Yllom]

24. TO's editor is now as lacking in credibility as Leopold

down down down down down

[tavalon]

38. You don't think it's strange

that the Washington Post is sparring with a tiny, unknown website based news outlet? I do. I think it's at least curious. That's the one word I would use to sum up my reaction to this latest wrinkle - curious.

[Techno Dog]

59. What wrinkle?

WaPo did our community a Favor publishing that piece. They could have let Byron Yorke or some jerk write a piece calling us all idiots. Instead they let a credible left leaning writer tell his story, and discuss online ethics.

Anyone that thinks this is any kind of 'hit piece' is a fool.

[JuniperLea]

108. Indeed

Why the game of David and Goliath?

It seems to me they would have ignored the whole thing if it were in fact, not fact at all. Why is it worth their time? And why is it worth the time of so many here to argue the non-points over and over?

[Snivi Yllom]

220. not at all

If this reporter was impersonated by someone else to promote a dubious story it's news.

It's not like the WAPO had this on the front page. The reponse seems proportional to me.

[autorank]

234. The Post organization is vile not stupid (well not really stupid)

Of course there is some motivation for this. Whatever it is will become more apparent soon.

They reach down into the internet sector at theiri own risk. Their last foray with Mr. Right
Wing Red State blogger didn't quite work out. This one won't either.

What is with all the people going after TO? What record do these folks have going after
Corporate Media?

Strange brew.

[Jazz2006]

18. No denial, no request for retraction.

Odd, since they insinuated in one of their earlier statements that a failure to ask for a retraction was somehow proof of the veracity of their claim that Rove had, in fact, been served with an indictment on May 12.

I believe it was, "We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone."

[Karmakaze]

21. bingo - another way Ash has pointed out their own failings!

I forgot about that!

[Techno Dog]

60. As some moron on this site replied

to another moron that thought they had me all figured out....

OH SNNNAAAPPPP !!!!!11

[JuniperLea]

106. Why do you care so much?

You go on and on and on... and you do it on nothing at all.

There are no facts, and yet you go on.

What's in it for you?

[Techno Dog]

128. There are plenty of facts

namely....

Karl Rove has not been indicted. How can you possibly conclude otherwise? What fact could possibly exist to claim otherwise.

It is after all incumbent on those who say he is, could be, or may be to prove it.

Until there is proof otherwise IT IS a FACT that Rove is not indicted, and was not indicted on may 12th.

The rest is bullshit, in particular Leopold's behavior.

[JuniperLea]

137. And still you fail to answer a simple question

I hope it doesn't hurt too much when you catch that tail.

[yodermon]

20. There is a term for this type of response to accusation.

I believe it is "non-denial denial".

[Jazz2006]

23. Yes, that's one term for it.

The more common term, though, is "bullshit".

:D

[yodermon]

25. ba DUM bum

[Jazz2006]

33. boom tish

even

:D

[Jigarotta]

28. or * shit, and I know I've had enough of that.

even tho TO hasn't killed thousands, same shit, smaller pile. start fresh with no bull.

[Jazz2006]

34. Just more of the same

shit, different day, from the truthout group.

Nothing to see here, move along, eye rolling smilies if I knew how to recreate them.

[Jigarotta]

27. pardon me? what Facts?

"But there has been no critical assessment of the facts we have reported."

color me stupid with a dull crayon.
What FACTS??????

[autorank]

36. Post as in Pornography as in MonicaGate Coverage. They are repellent.

CONGRESS STALLS VOTING RIGHTS ACT RENEWAL
Link to number to call on Voting Rights Act Renewal:
www.electionfraudnews.com
Link to the Voting Rights Act
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/voting_rights_1965.htm

[Techno Dog]

63. What's shocking

is how few people realize WaPa did the liberal bolgisphere a favor publishing Lauria's piece instead of one of the many RW hack pieces I'm sure they had to choose from.

[robbedvoter]

151. Do you EVER post on any other topic?

It's a big forum and reality, ya know...

[Techno Dog]

222. A bit but not much

I've been kept busy my time here debunking fallacious arguments from people like yourself who refuse to hold Jason accountable for his abusive and unethical behavior.

You refuse to acknowledge the harm he has caused not only individuals dedicated to our cause, but also our credibility as a whole.

[robbedvoter]

257. A job is a job is a job.

[Techno Dog]

263. What exactly are you saying

Are saying I'm a troll, paid by someone to defend Armando, Lauria, Merritt, DHinMI, and EmptyWheel, all of whom have called Leopold a liar?

Who do you think is paying me, and why?

How do you think your posts here contribute to the impression of DU gathered by those who find this thread?

Do you think public accusations like the ones you make without a single shred of evidence bolster the site's credibility?

Do you care?

Why is it people like you refuse to answer questions you think have ill motives behind them?

Motives are subjective, questions substantive. Do you think perhaps that misidentifying motives leaves you open to ridicule and suspicion when you refuse to answer questions which on their face seem perfectly reasonable?

Even more puzzling is why people like you think defending inexcusable behavior is a credible response when you think the person asking for redress holds opinions ideologically opposed to your own. If you were to extrapolate this into a larger community you would soon be swamped with liars cheats and fraud, all because you think trying to kick sand in the eye of your opponent is more important than protecting the values that define your cause.

Truly bizarre.

[robbedvoter]

277. None of the people you named need defense. We know who does.

The so called "cleared" ones.

[autorank]

174. The Post lied us into a war; they collaborated with the WH in this

process. It's hard to imagine them doing anything to compensate for that. Sadly, there are fine journalists like Al Kamen trapped in that journalistic purgatory.

I had not been very interested in Leopold v. whomever until I perused this thread. What it tells me is that the guy is probably on target. Why? Because, out of nowhere we get a series of posts that lack any real pertinence to the critical issues; unless you define pertinence as a means of avoiding the issues.

You make one stunning allegation about the coercion of this individual. If that's true, then there is a huge problem. However, it's important for you to understand what we here know; namely, that there is no way to prove the charge since the individual threatened can't affirm it for fear of having the previous consequence attached. Given that your one notable argument is constructed in a way that eliminates verification, I have to say that this debate has all been "sound and fury.. signifying nothing."

[Techno Dog]

237. how does it eliminate verification?

I posted you the link to Armando's own words, on his own website where there is no disputing it was him that said it.

Leopold hasn't asked for a retraction from him or the others claiming to have been threatened. So according to Truth Out no retraction request means you can take it to the bank that the threats were sent.

It is not a matter of speculation whether or not Armando's life was exposed the day after he debunked Sealed vs Sealed by the very user that posted Madsen's article.

So I would urge you to look past your feelings about Armando's opinion on a single issue you hold dear, instead think about all the opinions you share and ask yourself if you can count as many for jason and if Armando did anything you don't do when analyzing election fraud related data.

[rucky]

39. Didn't they just hire a RW blogger busted for plagarism? n/t

[Garbo 2004]

42. They fired him. n/t

[rucky]

45. You think they wrote an op/ed piece about that debacle?

I doubt it.

[Garbo 2004]

76. The Exe Editor of the WaPo website posted an article on their blog.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/03/ben_domenech_resigns.html

[Senator]

40. Beyond the "Curiosity" ... Is the Bottom Line

I don't think there's anyway to know at this point whether it's Leopold, Lauria, or anyone who has done anything unethical.

But I do think the unnecessary ad-hominem overkill from Lauria, and the necessary and unnecessary backpeddling and over-parsing from TruthOut have gone a long way to obscure both of their bottom line positions.

And what is that currently for "each side?"

TruthOut and Leopold:

However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.

Note the desire for more information.

WashedupPost and Lauria:

We may never know what really happened.

Strikes me as a "tell."

--

[Techno Dog]

68. Sure is a 'tell'

One is based in reality, the other is delusional ass covering. Demanding to know details of an investigation in which the prosecutor is ethics bound NOT to divulge information about people not indicted is grotesque grandstanding hoping to deflect criticism.

[Senator]

175. I generally agree...

...about the "grandstand" nature of TO's bottom line. Though I don't see anything grotesque or delusional about it. Rather it's a fairly mundane, boilerplate statement in a situation that's reached a informational dead end. Far from satisfying, but not particularly "telling" in itself.

Trouble is, it only needs to look good by comparison. And for the moment it does.

--

[Garbo 2004]

41. TO's updated to say Leopold denies that he impersonated Lauria.

"UPDATE:8:23:pm:pdt:06.21.06

Sorry for the confusion, yes Jason Leopold categorically denies identifying himself as Joe Lauria. Other hysterias will no doubt evolve by morning and we'll do our best to address them as they surface. Good night folks." http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/21/184238/308

Problem is for TO, Leopold even earlier this year apparently continued to dig his own hole in terms of his own credibility. He seemingly was busted sockpuppeting over at Next Hurrah blog, one presumed persona representing himself as a reporter from a Brit periodical. And apparently Leopold himself subsequently fessed up there to at least one persona ("harry shep" at harrisonshepard @ yahoo.com). Does Leopold now deny that? Was he also the "harry shep" praising Leopold at the Washington Monthly site: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008130.php#813352 ?)

Recently a Pulitzer prize winning LA Times reporter/columnist/blogger was busted doing the sockpuppet thing. He was suspended and the Times discontinued his column and blog. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/technology/01blogger.html?ex=1304136000&en=1b43bbe8d2b00624&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

What's TO policy on sockpuppetry by its writers?

TO's editors may have personally checked out and spoken to the sources of the "Rove indicted" story. If that's the case, then it isn't simply a matter of Leopold making that all up (unless one believes TO itself also is making it all up to cover for him, and TO would be nuts to do that). But when Ash starts talking about Lauria presenting something as fact without documentation I can't help but think that TO has done the same. At least they publicly have provided no documentation to support its Rove story. TO has reported the claims and assertions of anonymous sources, not documented verifiable "facts." TO may believe in the sources' veracity and credibility, but I as a reader have no basis on which to reach that conclusion or assess it for myself.

Has TO been so captured by their own story that they do not see that to many readers they are, as they accuse Lauria, presenting something as fact without documentation? To date none of the major points of their Rove story has been independently verified and substantiated. (Yes, there is a sealed case, but there is no indication that it has anything at all to do with the Plame matter except the suggestion of one source that it does and "belief" on TO's part. And it wasn't filed around May 10th as TO reported, but May 16 or 17.)

As to the matter of Leopold's denial that he represented himself as another reporter, absent documentation or substantiation, it's just his word. And maybe "Harry Shep's".

[OzarkDem]

57. Sock-puppeting vs. Outing a CIA agent for political revenge...hmmm

Let's keep some perspective here.

The media suspects in the Plame investigation are at the WaPo, not TO.

[Karmakaze]

74. Yeah and lets not foget who killed Kennedy!!!

Wait, what were we talking about again?

[Garbo 2004]

97. The issue is credibility of Leopold's denial and conduct. Which is what

Lauria raised and TO chose to respond to in this manner. TO talks of high standards, well that's part of it. TO's had to emphasize repeatedly that their editors have worked the story themselves and it's not solely based on Leopold's word alone. They did that because of course, when it comes to Leopold's own personal credibility and conduct there are issues, not all in the distant past. Why aid in distracting from their own story by engaging in this kind of response to Lauria?

TO's lost perspective, IMO. They took two days to issue a slam at Lauria/WaPo and then tacked on a denial by Leopold? They could have just added a paragraph to their Monday piece and include Leopold's denial FWIW. They could have instead better spent their time IMO focusing on their reporting of the Rove story, breaking it down and explain why they place so much confidence in it, even without revealing sources.

For example, the activity they said was observed by many around Patton Boggs the weekend of the 12h, 13th and reported to them. The media stakeout and sources who they say observed the activity. IIRC Leopold has cited on radio ABC, MSNBC and Knight Ridder. If Rove showed up with a Secret Service detail, who noticed, if anyone? TO has stated that media sources have told them things that seemed to confirm their reporting, including that they had a single souce asserting the Rove indictment but couldn't get confirming sources. Can they elaborate on what their media sources have told them? Larisa, for example, said she had someone tell her on the 13th that Rove had been indicted, but she couldn't get a second confirming source. Was someone flogging the story that weekend to other reporters and only TO bit? That would be interesting to know.

Still no luck in confirming, independent of their inside sources, whether Fitzgerald was even in DC on May 12th? No one in the media staked out his office, the courthouse or the Starbucks he goes to nearby?

And TO could admit and take the hits for sloppy reporting on actual matters of fact that can be independently verified. The sealed indictment they "point" to, was filed around May 10, according to their single "credible" source on that matter? Apparently not and that can be independently checked. And their anonymous legal experts provided them info regarding "sealed vs sealed" that turned out to be not very expert information.

Stuff like that. TO's response to the Lauria/WaPo piece doesn't add or aid TO much and succeeds in still making Leopold the story. It's obvious without Lauria vs Leopold that the Rovians used their usual cutouts in the media (NY Sun, WSJ, NRO and Howie Kurtz) and fed them the TO story. What their readers would like to see and what would serve them better IMO is a better explanation of their reporting on Rove story and why they believe in it and their sources so much. Nothing prevents them from doing that after more than a month has passed, not even the WaPo.

[lala_rawraw]

152. If I may make a suggestion...

http://www.mollyivins.com/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=398

just my two cents...

[Truthiness Inspector]

157. Thank you

Great article. Anyone who thinks the Rovian tentacles are not far-reaching is deluding him/herself.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[Garbo 2004]

167. Not sure if your point is the general nature/tactics of Rove of if there's

something particularly specific I should note. (Like, for example, Rove's previous chumminess and use of FBI agents/investigations when it suited his goals and that reporters often refer to "federal law enforcement sources" when its the FBI.)

Thing is, Leopold and TO to date have said they don't think they've been set up, although claiming so would perhaps be a relatively easier path for them rather than holding to their story as they have. Instead, TO still appears to think they're right, that their story is true and the events they reported actually happened.

Are you suggesting they've been set up so good that they don't even know they've been set up? Or am I just being obtuse, which is entirely possible? ;)

[Euphen]

177. They can't say they were set up, because then they would have no reason

not to reveal their probably nonexistant sources.

[Marie26]

205. Exactly.

The course they've taken is the only one available if they want to keep the "sources" secret. They can't claim it's a Rovian set-up (though they'd probably like to), & they can't claim that the sources mislead them. They've just got to hang on & keep claiming that their sources were correct. It doesn't really matter, maybe, if 80% of people believe it's BS, as long as they can keep that 20% believing & contributing. Kind of reminds me of the philosophy of our national leader. "You can fool some of the people all of the time - and those are the ones you have to concentrate on!" - George W. Bush

[H2O Man]

183. Thank you, Lala Rawraw!

As always, you hit the nail on the head.

[myrna minx]

187. You rock lala.

:toast:

[Catherine Vincent]

225. Great article, Larisa!

Thanks!

[Beelzebud]

58. People that believe Leopold remind me of that poster from Mulder's office.

In the X-Files:

I WANT TO BELIEVE

[ariellyn]

134. When WaPO assaults a small-time online blogger, it's not about "believe"

The chasm between the two is vast--and yet the WaPO BLAMES somebody from the "wacky web" for their mistake. The question is: WHY are they targeting this individual? There is an ulterior motive.

[Techno Dog]

153. WaPo

didn't assault Leopold they printed a progressive writer's account of how Leopold used his name, the underlying ethics of online journalism, and journalism as a whole.

If they were truly trying to assault Leopold they would have run one of the many pieces sent to them by RW hacks.

[deaniac21]

66. Mr. Ash is going to show the world just how long it takes to

dig a hole to China.

[theboss]

71. The problem is Leopold has done this sort of thing before

That's what TO doesn't seem to get. If you hire a reporter with credibility problems, you have nothing to defend him with when his credibility is challenged.

Frankly, a lot of these problems could have been avoided just by assigning another reporter to the story.

[Marie26]

199. He's actually reported a Rove indictment before

I'm just reposting this cause it's too good to pass up. In Oct. 2005, Leopold wrote a story for "Raw Story" reporting that Fitzgerald had asked the GJ to indict Rove. This story has since been quietly removed from their website. So, which Leopold Rove indictment story was right? They can't both be right. Leopold has peddled this exact same story before & he's doing it again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/26/1370/2123

The history of falsifying identities is also pretty well-documented, which makes it even harder for Leopold to deny Lauria's allegations here.

Another interesting DailyKos diary - Jason Leopold, Sockpuppet Extraordinaire - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/15/184318/243

[robbedvoter]

94. All Washington Post's Men

The other day, I was watching All the President's men. In the beginning of the movie, heroic Woodward/Redford is just getting intrigued by the professions of the burglairs and he makes a few phone calls leading to Hunt, Colson. In each of the calls - purely of assessing connections nature, he pretends to be the person spoken to before.
As a paralegal I had used the tactic many times for such trivial purposes as assessing who's who in an estate administration or a corporation BOD. It's just a short cut, and it's done on daily basis in this country.
Which is why, for this to be used as an accusation by a WaPo shill was more than ridiculous, and spoke more to me about the strings being pulled for the perception of this story than anything else.

[Jazz2006]

111. "As a paralegal I had used the tactic many times"

As a paralegal, you assumed someone else's identity in making phone calls?

In a reputable law firm, that would get you fired.

[robbedvoter]

149. It was one of the top firms in the country. THEY TAUGHT ME to use

these short cuts. Not for interviews, just for locating, establishing who's who part of the research.
Again. Wa Po's knoght in shining armor Woodward is written to have done it - in the first part of my post that you conveniently ignore.

[Jazz2006]

159. You call lying a "short cut"?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I am a lawyer at one of the most respected firms in Canada and engaging in the behaviour that you presented in your prior post would have you turfed out on your ear in a nanosecond. I find it difficult to believe that firms on the same level in the U.S. would actively encourage paralegals in their employ to not only lie but to falsely identify themselves as other actual and identifiable people.

As to your other point, I am not "conveniently ignoring" anything ~ I don't doubt for a second that *some* journos misrepresent themselves all over the place to try to get stories and I know that *some* journos just make things up - (In my view, they should be upfront, but I'm not naive enough to think that they are not always so) - I was responding to your assertion that it's commonplace in law firms for paralegals to be encouraged to lie and conceal their identities as a matter of course.

My point is just as I said above, i.e. that in any reputable law firm, people would be fired for misrepresenting themselves in the manner you described.

And, for the record, I also think that Lauria's piece was not properly sourced and was not particularly well written. I suspect that he responded the way he did because he felt some personal affront, which is understandable in the circumstances.

[robbedvoter]

207. Maybe "reputable" in Canada is different than "reputable in the US

I let you ponder that.
Any way, Leopold DID NOT LIE. Woodward did. So, chew on that.

[Jazz2006]

217. Clearly.

Reputable here does not include lying about your identity.

And, perhaps in your haste, you did not notice that I have not said that Leopold lied?

He may have. I don't know. But I most certainly have not written that he did.

[Techno Dog]

223. How can you say

Leopold did not lie?

What does woodward's lying have to do with your assertion that leopold didn't lie.

Because our enemies are liars our so called friends are all truth tellers?

[robbedvoter]

256. Because you are paid to post here on Rove vs Leopold

I am not gonna bother with your "arguments".

[Techno Dog]

266. haha

Please see my reply to your idiocy below.

[Cameron27]

268. It's more than just idiocy

This poster has flagrantly disregarded DU rules. Alert worthy, but better left for all to see.

[dogday]

245. All Lawyers lie

even in Canada... Don't be so above it all, you do what you can for your clients..

[Jazz2006]

276. That is not true.

Of course, we do the best that we can do for our clients.

But that does not include lying.

[dogday]

278. I don't accept that

yeah, stretching the truth... but never lie.. oh no, too ethical...

[Jazz2006]

279. That is, of course, your choice.

However, you are still wrong.

Most of us take the rules of professional conduct and the canons of ethics that we swear to uphold, very, very seriously.

[dogday]

281. Ok

:rofl:

[KoKo]

130. Both WaPo and NYT's have an interest in shutting down anything about

Wilson/Plame. The WaPo could have ignored the whole Leopold/TO frakas and no one would have cared a bit. The fact that they went after the story...says to me that it was in their interest to do so.

Why? Wouldn't it have been better to let a little "Lefty Internet Site" like "TO" be hung by the Lefty Internet for jumping the gun on a story with a reporter who had known problems from his past? Why not let us all eat each other up until the story died with us trashing "TO" and Leopold.

Instead the WaPo's article gave more life to the story...saying that there's more there than we know.

As much as I wish "TO" hadn't jumped the gun with this and that one of their editors hadn't caused alot of animosity by foul comments to folks on this site that questioned the article when it didn't seem to pan out...I still think that maybe we ought to pull back and not keep dancing on "TO's and Leopolds" GREAT DEMISE over what they wrote.

The very trashing by a powerhouse MSM site...does make one wonder....WHY? WHY? WHY? :shrug: my humble 2 cents.

[H2O Man]

135. Well said. n/t

[robbedvoter]

150. Ex knight in shining armor, Woodward had to testify on the Plame

affair himself - and in between testimonies, he was badmouthing Fitz on Larry King show et al.("partisan witchhunt" and the like) Of course Wa Po has a personal interest in this as well - and let's just say it's not opposite to Rove's.

[Techno Dog]

154. Many contradictions in your post.

First you say it's in WaPo's best interest to shut down anything Wilson/Plame then you say they gave the story more legs.

You say it would have been better to let the little site be hung by the left but you said they are saying there is more than we know.

BTW where did they say that?

And finally to answer your WHY? WHY? WHY?

Does the name Ben Domenech mean anything to you?

Does WaPo have to be in bed with Rove re Plame in order to want to take a swipe at the left blogisphere?

No way.

Where do you think Lauria came into this?

Occam's razor tells me that WaPo was sent the OP/ed by Lauria and they relished the opportunity to get back at all of us for nailing their new golden boy.

Rove hasn't been indicted and there isn't a single shred of evidence suggesting otherwise. All of this is ridiculous.

Ben Domenech Resigns

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/

[autorank]

179. KoKo!, Rove's indictment is the great unraveling to the WaPost and NYT

They're toast and they know it. The NYT has a strong publisher in place to come in an clean house, the International Herald Tribune publisher/editor (from the outre faction of famiglia Sulzeberger). He's the "man on aw white horse" who could re-invent the paper and start to reclaim its integrity. The WaPost has had the life sucked out of it by media vampires Downie and Woodward. They'll go down hard, there's no "brain trust" in waiting, just journalistic pall bearers. The Post will go down fighting, in total desperation, as a result of their identification with the * scandals.

As for beating each other up over anybody over "inside baseball issues" and some obvious bad blood,it's not very productive.

[Techno Dog]

224. Did you play dungeons and dragons when

you were a kid?

[Marie26]

204. They're worried

IMO, it's because the mainstream media feels threatened by the blogs. They're gloating over the TO fiasco a little because it give them a chance, for once, to say that they're more accurate & reliable than the blogs. TO never got much attention in the national press until this story - now the MSM loves talking about them, because they can use TO as an example to discredit alternative news sites in general. The WP/NYT have had to eat crow before, when bloggers exposed the collusion by some of their reporters w/the Bush Admin. during the Plame case (Judith Miller, Bob Woodward.) Now it's their turn to crow. But, IMO, it's not a huge conspiracy to create a fraud against TO. Leopold & TO created a fraud that was pretty quickly exposed, & made TruthOut into a joke punchline. Lauria didn't make this up - Leopold apparantly did impersonate him; TO did write a false story w/numerous errors & then refused to retract it. etc. It was these actions, not a big conspiracy, that harmed TO's creditibility.

[Just Me]

155. TO is a threat to WP. WP is acting like an animal,....

,...whose existence is threatened.

It's that simple.

Anyone wonder why Ghandi replied, "what western civilization"?

WP is being BARBARIC because THAT is how a capitalistic rather than a democratic society is built: "dog eat dog" kinda' mentality that isn't real.

This society is falling apart. Thank the assholes who did whatever necessary to rise up from the corrupt Nixon administration. They are insane and WILL eventually receive their dues.

[gkhouston]

156. yes, but *why* does the Washington Post feel threatened by

a mom-and-pop Internet outfit like Truthout? I could understand it if they were trying to cut the legs out from under a site that gets too many eyeballs for their comfort. Their threshold for "too many" seems surprisingly low, given the relative sizes of the organizations.

[Jazz2006]

170. How so?

"TO is a threat to WP"?

"WP is acting like an animal"?

"WP is being BARBARIC"?

How so?

It looks more like a journo being a bit peeved that another journo assumed his identity in the quest for a story.

I see nothing to suggest that truthout is any threat to WP, nothing to suggest that WP is 'acting like an animal" and nothing to suggest that WP is being "barbaric". Care to elaborate on those assertions?

But I would sure be annoyed if someone assumed my identity to try to use my good name for his own purposes. Wouldn't you?

(Disclaimer: I'm not convinced that Lauria has adduced sufficient evidence vis a vis Leopold to be sure that that's what Leopold did, but I can understand entirely why he would be predisposed to believe it and I'd be damned peeved if I thought that was the case)

[dogday]

246. Taking up for WaPo, have you seen their

latest Democratic Smear.. I have to question anyone who could take up for that rag....

[Jazz2006]

283. Taking up for WaPo?

Are you suggesting that I have ever done so?

[dogday]

284. I am suggesting the WaPo is a rag

that I would not let me dog crap on...

[Jazz2006]

285. Well, I might let my dog

crap on it if I subscribed to it.

That might increase its usefulness to about a 1 on the 0-100 scale.

But I don't subscribe :D

Edit to add: now, about that question above "How so?" to which you responded with your "talking up WaPo" post ~ I'm curious as to whether you are going to answer the actual question.

[dogday]

286. Meant in general

Like anyone who would take up for the WaPo.. Not directly at you.. Just that it is a rag... After yesterday's article, I know it is....

[symbolman]

168. I want to thank Techno Dog for his/her bravery in the face of this

onslaught of absurd "logic",,

Now, let's get to some finer points. Ir would appear that if what Techno Dog is saying about Armando (and please pass this along for me), is true then it sure looks like it may fit the legal definition of EXTORTION. He might want to think about putting a con back where he belongs if Leopold is indeed doing this, and that's behind Bars. And that includes anyone who's assisting him. This is getting VILE.

It's not enough that this tooth fairy bullshit has taken over blogs and the DU, now it may be reaching the criminal stage, and THAT is beyond the pale.

Talk about shooting the messenger. And if Lauria wants to seek redress for Identity Theft then he should do that as well.

This 'man' Leopold is now less than some kind of insect, feeding off the frenzy he creates, and Exploiting it. He loves to be the center of attention and boy, get this guy in front of a Judge NOW and let's let him be JUST THAT.

I have heard nothing but solid facts from techno dog, and squishy replies, and I'm one of the golden oldies around here as well. You ain't no Troll pal, I've practically been called one myself, that's how bad it's gotten.

If indeed TO is assisting Leopold in any of this then the word will get out, and soon they'll have nothing but Leopold did this or said that going on to the point where the site will fail, let the small circle of people who believe in the Leopold Fairy be their cadre of supporters, a one note Johny site, which offered so much, when all they had to do was tell Leopold to take a hike, say they probably screwed up, and be welcomed back.

A junkie is a Junkie and that's all he'll ever be, an old man once told me - NOW I get it, whether it was the coke going up his nose or the "news" he used any measure, unethical or otherwise to push himself as the story, Leopold can fuck off.

It really pains me to hear that Armando is screwed by Leopold.. does this remind you of anyone else's tactics? yeah, you guessed it, ROVE.

Hey Leopold - Come after me punk, I got pieces of guys like you floating in my toilet.

[autorank]

176. Well that raises the level of debate;)

...look at this regarding the outing of the blogger in question. That would be OUTRAGEOUS but there is a bit to clever a twist to the argument as you will see.

I'm not obliged to read anything here and I realize that. But looking at this, what's to commend. It's all "inside baseball" imho.

You do some truly amazing work. Why waste time on this.

All you're doing is giving the object of your ire the ability to regulate your mood.

[Techno Dog]

180. I'm confused

What is the clever twist?

Did I forget the links?

http://www.swordscrossed.org/?p=182

"And indeed I have been contacted by one of the bloggers I debunked regarding the Rove indictment story where this blogger promises to write about my personal circumstances. This same blogger also promised to reveal his sources if his story was wrong. He has not done that so it is possible he won’t write about me either."

In the comments section of several diaries at Kos there are numerous people complaining about getting threatening emails from [e-mail]. Leopold tried to claim his account was hacked for a short period of time, but he never explained why the hacker wasted his time defending him.

Leopold never asked Armando for a retraction so by TO standards it means it is true.

But, even if TO standards aren't good enough for you, there would have to be a lot of people not known for lying, with solid progressive creds, willing to throw away their reputations to trash Leopold.

Not a single person on this thread has offered a reason why they would do that.

You link to Armando's anti nut job diary, is this supposed to mean something to you?

"I don't want to hear baseless theories on fraud and other nonsense. I think, no, I know markos feels the same way.

You want to waste your time, do it somewhere else."

Funny, that's exactly what we are dealing with here.

People just KNOW karl has been indicted. They can't prove it but what ever you do don't tell them there is no proof because they will kill you with endless irrelevant "facts" that prove Karl could be indicted therefore he must have been.

Am I striking a nerve?

[autorank]

219. No, the discussion is tedious and irrelevant. No nerve struck.

With regard to the "is that supposed to mean something to you" point. Yes that ill tempered, rude,
dictatorial comment means something to me. It means, for example, that RFK Jr. couldn't publish his
Rolling Stone article on KOS. I think that it's a short sighted stance on a critical issue. You're
headed for my ignore list to we won't be talking any more.

[Techno Dog]

226. It means what?

The RFK article was front paged, and it sat at the TOP of the recommended list for DAYS.

Ignoring facts is what leads to half of the theories I've seen you post in this thread.

Ciao.

[dogday]

192. Autorank you put it into words

so much better than I could of... Well said...:hi:

[Techno Dog]

181. Thank you for your kind words

I'm a bit confused though, I've been assured that back in the good ol days everyone would have seen right though this rovian campaign to discredit the ONLY investigative journalist making a difference in America.

I haven't been mislead have I?
:hippie:

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

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

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

232. Thank you for your sensible words. n/t

[Name removed]

185. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[Marie26]

211. Yeah

Perhaps it's time to update the counterarguments.

Argument: "This story is illogical & contains numerous factual errors."

Counterargument: "Troll!" :eyes:

Harvard Debate Society, this ain't.

[Techno Dog]

218. It's completely bizarre

I have had several informative posts deleted because one of these loons posts in reply that I'm a troll. They spew some bullshit that I refute, and then bam "deleted sub thread"

For example AutoRank posted an insinuation that Armando was some kind of troll because he didn't believe 04 was stolen, and thinks filling a blog's pages with unsubstantiated partisan conspiracy theories hurts its chances of attracting high profile posters whose opinions we are trying to shape. Armando is no troll, in fact he is a former front pager at Kos who quit blogging because people upset with his debunking of the Leopold/Madsen Plame articles posted diaries, and comments all over the left blogisphere listing his real name, the law firm he worked for, a link to their website, and a list of his clients.

This story was then picked up by the NRO rw hack site and broadcast rss style all over the internet.

All because people refuse to accept piss poor behavior from a group of self appoint experts pushing their unsubstantiated bullshit on us with attack dogs waiting in the wings.

(Several posts linking to such information remain on the TruthOut blog)

I am sick and tired of these witless sycophants. They reply with ad hominem, troll accusations, and conspiracy theories.

My motives have been questioned countless times because I have only a few posts here not related to this issue. I have been very upfront about how I got here and why rooting out the behavior that causes such damage to our cause is essential if we are ever going to be taken seriously and allowed to truly crash the gate.

[Catherine Vincent]

227. "I am sick and tired of these witless sycophants."

Then make like a tree and leave.:)

[Techno Dog]

228. umm no

If I did that there would be one less person standing up to their vainglorious efforts to champion those who have cause tangible harm to many true progressives.

[dogday]

247. It's more like they

piss on the tree then leave.. They like to piss all over these threads like this...

[greyl]

229. Right on. nt

[dogday]

249. Loons, Morons,

what else do you like to call us.. Funny you say we call you names, I have seem so many of your posts calling DU members a lot of names....


Don't throw rocks in your glass house...

[Techno Dog]

253. if the shoe fitz n/t

[dogday]

255. There is a difference between outright

calling someone a Moron or Loon and saying If the shoe fits... If implys if the action are they are, if they are not, they are not....

if —conj. 1 introducing a conditional clause: a on the condition or supposition that; in the event that (if he comes I will tell him; if you are tired we can rest). b (with past tense) implying that the condition is not fulfilled (if I knew I would say). 2 even though (I'll finish it, if it takes me all day). 3 whenever (if I am not sure I ask). 4 whether (see if you can find it). 5 expressing a wish, surprise, or request (if I could just try!; if it isn't my old hat!; if you wouldn't mind?). —n. condition, supposition (too many ifs about it).  if only 1 even if for no other reason than (I'll come if only to see her). 2 (often ellipt.) expression of regret; I wish that (if only I had thought of it).

ON EDIT: I draw your attention to post #239

[JuniperLea]

270. bam "deleted sub thread"

Sounds like you have your own little conspiracy theory going there. The big bad mods out to get you, eh? Couldn't possibly be that you broke some rules... naw, that couldn't be it.

You've refuted nothing, imho.

Witless sycophants? So, in essence, you are calling everyone on this thread who disagrees with you... shocking... names. Ummm.... that is against the rules. So if your post is deleted, small wonder.

Ramble on.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

230. Your post is alert-worthy, but I would like it to remain in plain sight.

Calling out another DUer as a paid troll, Republican, Freeper or other undesirable is against the rules, even if you allude to it rather than state it outright. If you have any evidence, please alert it and trust the modmins (assuming that you haven't already done so and had your request denied).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

198. This Ash Guy Has Gi-Normous Delusions of Grandeur

Between the "we were the ones who brought Rove to the table" bit, and this whole "WaPo wants to take us down" bit, I have to wonder where his head is at. Or is it what world he's living in?

:crazy:

DTH

[Senator]

239. Something curiouser from the TO forum

------------------------------------------------------------

Kurtz, Lauria and Corallo
can't seem to get their own stories straight.

In the recent Washington Post/Joe Loria hit piece on Jason Leopold - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754.html - Lauria tells an oddly unbelievable tale of how he hit upon the idea that Leopold must have impersonated him. He relates that:

"I trawled the Internet looking for a clue to the truth. I found a blog called Talk Left....
...reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the London... Sunday Times. . . . A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel...I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used."

In this account Lauria claims to have pieced together Leopold's malfeasance thanks to his own artful snooping on the Web.

However, in his May 22 Washington Post hatchet job on Leopold, immediately following the TO indictment story - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101374.html - Howard Kurtz reported that it was in fact Corallo who contacted Joe Lauria after amazingly piecing together Leopold’s use of the phrase 'borders on defamation' in a 'conversation' with a 'liberal blogger':

"Corallo says a man identifying himself as London Sunday Times contributor Joe Lauria called about the story, which Corallo told him 'borders on defamation.' The man left what turned out to be a wrong number. After Leopold told a liberal blogger that Corallo had told him that the story bordered on defamation, Corallo reached Lauria..."

It's notable that much of the same vitriolic language about Leopold appears in both Kurtz's May 22 piece and Joe Lauria's recent attack, much of it almost word for word.

But they didn't quite get their stories straight. Lauria says he figured it all out and called Corallo. But Corallo had already said that he had figured it all out and called up Lauria.

Ahh what a tangled WEB...

Also notable - previous hit piece on Leopold by Kurtz and the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html

Justice is mellow
by jeffuppy on Fri Jun 23rd, 2006 at 01:49:26 PM EDT
< Reply to This >

[dogday]

248. BINGO

If I could nominate a post I would.. This is what I have said, when you deal with Liars on both sides of the issue, how do you get any facts... They would have us believe Leopold is the only liar in this story and that just is not the truth.....

[Techno Dog]

259. LoL

You are calling Lauria, a well respected progressive writer, a liar because Putz, I mean Kurtz, chose the word "reached".

That's ALL you have.

Mind numbingly ridiculous.

[dogday]

261. I am not calling him anything

I am applauding a post... Why don't you post to the person who posted the article? Why ask me? Are you following me again??

On Edit: I found this post so interesting that I started a thread of it's own...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1497993&mesg_id=1497993

[Techno Dog]

267. lol

You pointed me to this post as if you wanted me to respond. I did, to the person asking for a response. Then you call me a stalker.

In a final fit of absurdity, after calling me a stalker you point me to your new thread about the parsing of the word reached.

Unbelievable

[dogday]

271. Attack

attack attack attack who does this :shrug:

[robbedvoter]

258. Shades of the profer - er...clearance letter of Rove to Luskin

You know, the letter no one saw, that was mailed, phoned , faxed by Fitz (who never confirmed). A bunch well deserving to be defended against the evil TO!

[Chomp]

275. I make no comment on the substantive issue

But FWIW, Techno and Jazz have SERVED some of their Groupthinking opponents in this thread. In terms of logic and effort to stay on-topic, it's a mismatch.

A feeding frenzy like this (usually directed at one poster) is the ugliest aspect of DU without doubt. "They lied about Iraq so they're lying about this!". Jesus, what a fucking dishonest crock of shit argument that is. Fucking makes me want to puke.

And to the poster above who suggested that people are being PAID by the RW to post on DU, I say this: bwahahahahahahahaha!

Finally, everyone is entitled to an opinion. This is just mine. My honest opinion. If you choose to think it's not an honest opinion, then, frankly, stick it, because I don't care. I don't want to come into your echochamber anyway.

[LeftCoast]

287. Locking

This thread has degenerated into flamebait