I'm Cheering for TruthOut & Leopold: No matter what, *WE'VE* already won.

[IdaBriggs]

Every time someone has to deny that KARL ROVE IS BEING INDICTED, they have to explain WHY -- and then they get a few seconds to explain how no one knows for sure -- yet.

It builds up the excitement and the interest. Its kind of like the Stephen Colbert story -- first they ignored it, then they had to explain why they ignored it, and then they had to comment on it, and every single time they explained why listing Junior's FAILURES wasn't funny, more people saw it on the web, started cracking up -- and GETTING MAD.

The MSM lost credibility points, the blogs got more points, and Junior's approval ratings got to sink lower.

For most people on the planet, this story is a "Rove who?" Promptly followed by a "did what?"

All of which gives everyone else the opportunity to explain "HELPED EXPOSE ONE OF OUR SPY MASTERS" which is TREASON.

The Repukes are mud throwing experts; perhaps the Democrats are learning to play the game?

Either way, THANK YOU JASON FOR WRITING THIS STORY!!!

And if you turn out to be wrong, Please BURN Your Sources!!!

Best, Ida M. Briggs

[idgiehkt]

1. that is so true.

we can call it strategy, even if it doesn't work out.

I'm rooting for Jason, too, myself, trying to send him peace and calm.

[hwmnbn]

18. welcome to DU, idgiehkt ......

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

2. What a good way to look at it!

[Vincardog]

3. Second that if you turn out to be wrong, Please BURN Your Sources!!!

[fooj]

4. Good post.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Yes, but it would be nice to win without a steroids asterisk.

[redqueen]

8. What'd I miss?

What's the asterisk?

[BuyingThyme]

10. A would-be successful trap for Leopold.

(And those of us to whom he's given hope.)

[redqueen]

14. So you're assuming it's some kind of trap? n/t

[electropop]

6. Well said!

What's happening is classic Rove, used against him.

[MADem]

7. No, Chris Matthews won...he broke it first

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/matthews-on-rove-indictment-it-could-be-today/

Last Friday. On IMUS.

If this comes to pass, ole Tweety will say "Right church, wrong pew." And hey, he's been known to chat on the phone with Karl....

Fine with me!!!! I don't care who gets the 'get' just so long as that fetid shitheel gets got!

[karlrschneider]

13. Tweety was cagey, though...said "COULD be today, COULD be

next week"

...

[MADem]

15. But hey, he said it was happening, and he said it first!!!

So, if people are gonna bust this Truthout guy, they need to do a little "LUMPING" and bag Tweety as well!

[flyarm]

21. tweety wasn't very cagey he said he would be working all weekend

and would be ready to be on air ..not in those words but in different words ..even imu asked him what he meant..and he said like they worked when Libby indictment came down

and on thursdays closing tweety said his friday show would have on people to discuss the cia leak case...infering that the indictment was coming down friday!

remember imus had tweety spell out what he was saying when tweety was being cagey!

fly

[Spazito]

9. I like your thinking!

The more the issue of the outing of CIA covert agent, Valerie Plame, by the bush admin officials like Libby, Rove and Cheney, the greater the opportunity to educate those who are unfamiliar with the scandal.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. Wonderful, much needed inspiration! I commend your post and join you

in saying....

.....THANK YOU JASON FOR WRITING THIS STORY!!!

:kick: and R!

[Greybnk48]

12. Agree. Good post.

And I'm rooting for Jason Leopold and Truthout--thanks for writing this story.

[NRaleighLiberal]

16. Also - they've spent 5.5 years "creating" their truth - our turn to

lay on on them. Think about it - they've lied out their backsides and brainwashed the media and public. They in a way have created the illusion of their so called success. What the Leopold article did is create the future as it should be - to shout it out, rinse, repeat...

[DearAbby]

17. Great Post

I for one is going to sit back and watch it unfold. I have faith in Patrick Fitzgerald, the man seeks Justice no matter where it leads him. Rove indictment, not an if, but when.

I am going to sit back and watch it unfold.

:popcorn:

[dogday]

19. I call it faith and you have

to be able to invest in something that you believe in... I too believe in the stories they have given us the past few years, and I am willing to stay with them, and have no reason to doubt it...

Even Tweety thought it might happen Friday...

[Jackpine Radical]

20. For me a significant additional fact here is that the corporate media

were forced to take not of the Truthout story, even if only to fail to confirm it. In earlier times, they would have ignored it, labelling the story among themselves as a "web rumor" and therefore not dignifying it with any attention whatsoever.

[H2O Man]

22. Nominated.

Thank you!

[Laurab]

23. I'm rooting for them, too K & R

and thank you!

[Pithy Cherub]

24. Yes and it is DEEP IRONY as Jason Leopold

was the first to break a historic news story that will profoundly shake the current administration from its denial. Being first means suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for reasons that are only known to the archers. Jason has someone to commiserate with on a very real level about being the first. His name is Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He was first to anounce there was no yellowcake in Niger and look what happened. Ambassador Wilson was right and first and look at the amount of time it is taking to prove it. Ironic, no?

Keep the faith Jason!

[demobabe]

25. What have we "won" and at what price?

Indeed, there is publicity surrounding the potential indictment of Rove.

But if Leopold's story doesn't pan out, Truthout and Leopold are going to be seen as or less credible as Wayne Madsen.

Already, it was reported that 700 democrats applauded Rove's indictment, then the article went on to make them look like fools.

In case you haven't noticed, the MSM generally isn't on our side. This just feeds the rumor of "you can't trust anything on the Internet."

There is no justification for bad journalism, sensationalism, or outright lying.

In the short run, you may gain - but as we are witnessing with Rove whom I believe will be indicted for lying - it eventually comes and bites you in the ass.

[IdaBriggs]

31. We have won the discussion point. Credibility isn't the point at this time

700 Democrats publicly applauding Rove's indictment? About time!

Right now *EVERYONE* knows Rove is guilty -- we are just waiting for the MSM to catch up -- and that is why the 700 Democrats applauded. The only question is whether or not he will get away with it. The folks who "make them look like fools" are always looking for ways to do that, so who cares? If it wasn't about standing up and cheering for a criminal going to jail, they would have found something else to snicker about -- or haven't you noticed that?

Do you remember how the Scum Suckers tried to take Clinton down? First they found someone they could pay to lie about stuff ("Troopergate"), then they had someone right a story about it on the East Coast, then someone on the West Coast wrote a story about the written story, and they just stirred the pot repeatedly while no one ever went back and actually checked the (paid to lie) sources.

Result? "Clinton is a lying cheating hound dog" as common Republican wisdom.

At this point in time you have no personal knowledge that this is a case of shoddy journalism, sensationalism, or outright lying -- yet you are willing to smear both TruthOut and Jason Leopold as Untrustworthy, Unprofessional Liars. Seventy-Two hours will prove you either right, or wrong. I'm all for healthy cynicism myself, and I am confident you will publicly apologize if you are proven incorrect, BUT the bottom line is this:

We have *already* won the discussion point. The news cycle is having to explain WHO Karl Rove is, and WHY he might be indicted.

More and more people are getting the information, and since we win when the TRUTH comes out, we win.

[demobabe]

44. Exactly what discussion point have we won?

Anybody who cares about politics knows Rove is in trouble. For the last eight months, it hasn't been a question of IF Rove will be indicted, but WHEN. Leopold has jumped the gun in attempt for his own personal gain, not to "win talking points."

Do you honestly think a whole bunch of people are walking around with new realization of Karl Rove because Jason Leopold said anything about it?

And to perpetuate unsubstantiated facts? What happened to the "reality based community" we pride ourselves in being members of?

You know better, Ida Briggs - why did you go have the ballots recounted when they did not match the pre-election polls?

Why didn't you just give up and say, "oh, it's close enough - it doesn't matter whether we get the votes exactly right?"

[BlooInBloo]

26. Just curious: do we have any standards?

For example on the "24 hours" business. Will we ever rightly be able to say they were wrong on that? Or if, for example, an indictment comes in 3 weeks, 4 days, will everyone here attempt to juryrig some cockamamie explanation about how 3 weeks 4 days actually IS 24 hours? That's what's already happened, of course...

As much I wanna see rove go, it seems like there's a bit of loosening of standards around here, just so that wishful thinking will be satisfied.

I happen to think this is a bad thing, that our best card was our unyielding allegiance to the reality-based community.

Note that I'm not saying this to "call anyone out" or whatever the DU phrase du jour may be - I just wanna point out somewhere along the line things like correct/incorrect and true/false should come into play.

Or are we only held to standards of truth when talking about THE OTHER guy? I for one would regret bearing witness to the birth of the concept "It's OK if you're a Democrat".

[IdaBriggs]

28. If I have understand the story correctly, Rove was told on Saturday

that he has 24 hour (business) hours to get his affairs in order (because he will be *formally* indicted when he turns himself in, as requested).

Sadly, that means no perp walk, which I had been looking forward to. Sniff.

My understanding is that the grand jury returned the indictment on Friday. Did you understand something different?

Anyway, I believe the press conference is scheduled for Wednesday.

This information seems to be fairly clear to me. Is there anything you are understanding "differently" than I am?

Either there is a press conference by close of business Wednesday, or there isn't. If there is, Jason is vindicated. If there isn't, then he was lied to, and he and his editors will get to unleash their wrath on the folks who lied to them.

The whitehouse lying about stuff is not news; Rove pretending he isn't sick to his stomach with terror isn't a surprise, either. They really thought they were going to get away with their treason. (Yes, I know they still might.)

Standards are a good thing, but the rest of us are still winners, even if Jason is wrong because they have to deny the story (up until it is proven true).

Lying isn't okay for either team, but an honest mistake promptly admitted (if one has occurred) will always get my admiration. And, in the meantime, Junior's team gets to BURN.....

:evilgrin:

[BlooInBloo]

29. I have a vague recollection of "24 hours" FIRST meaning 24 hours....

... and then later being "amended" to mean "24 business hours"... It's CLEAR enough either way, it the CHANGE i have a problem with.

So when the the truthout story come out? Friday? And you say press conference Wednesday? So you're saying that "24 hours" now means like 5 or 6 days? Do you see how a reasonable person can have a problem with this?

And that's piled on top of the no-independent-corroboration-no-rational-evidence part. And now I've heard (confirmation anyone?) that the author has a history of false stories.

Is skepticism REALLY unwarranted here?

Especially given that we're supposed to be DIFFERENT from republicans, and count honesty, rationality, and evidence as near and dear to our hearts.

[IdaBriggs]

32. The story came out on Saturday. The clarification was prompt (same day).

Either its true, and there is a press conference by close of business Wednesday, or there isn't and its not.

Your opinions (and mine) really won't alter the fabric of reality about this either way.

I am honest, rationale and believe in evidence, and I also know damn good and well that Rove and his little minions are guilty as hell. The only question I have is whether or not they are going to get away it.

Continue being skeptical if you please, but if you are going to continue to SMEAR TruthOut and Jason Leopold as Untrustworthy, Unprofessional Liars with no evidence or personal knowledge, then be aware that you yourself have -- how shall we say this? -- a credibility problem? If you have secret information proving the things you allege, by all means, please share it (and your real name) with all of us (like Jason does). If you just have "a feeling" that they are lying, well....

:shrug:

And, like I said, we've already won the news cycle. Its bleeding into the MSM where its competing with alligator attacks, Duke stuff, and some pretty blonde who is undoubtedly missing from somewhere. Its one more nail in Junior's coffin of "untrustworthiness."

:)

[BlooInBloo]

33. ROFL!! "Smearing" is now equated with....

... "presents a rational demand for evidence".

Sheesh. And I'M the one with a credibility problem...

Sigh.

[IdaBriggs]

34. Ah, but please define what is a "rational demand for evidence" for you?

== He is employed as a reporter for a respected news gathering organization.

== His editor has publicly stated they required MULTIPLE sources before they were willing to go with the story.

== His story has an "it will be proven true or false within X number of days" deadline.

Did you even bother to READ the article? Or any of the others he has written on the subject? (He knew about Scooter before the MSM did, too.) Go here -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml Or you can read some of the "other" stuff here: http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml

And, like I said, if you have secret information proving them wrong, please present it. :)

Personally, I will forgive you your skepticism; its hard not to when one has observed how much this criminal gang has gotten away with already.

Peace between us.

:hug:

[BlooInBloo]

35. Forgive me? ROFL!! As if I've transgressed....

Correct me where I'm wrong please:

A writer stated without any independent corroboration available to the reader that X took place.

There was also no rational evidence presented that would imply that X was the case.

We know now that a part of the story is just plain factually not true (the 24 hours part).

Apparently the writer has a history writing stories with falsehoods.

The entirety of the story is based on the author's say-so.


I'm not being sarcastic when asking to be corrected on any of the above - but only if something above is literally false.

If the above is literally correct, then IMO, a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted.

If the story turns out to be correct, I'll be the first to jump for joy. If an explanation is then forthcoming about sources and evidence and what-not, I'll be the first to say something like "ah, now I understand why you couldn't say blahblahblahblah."

But in my CURRENT state of information I would be remiss in my intellectual honesty duties if I treated the story without skepticism, it seems to me.

[IdaBriggs]

36. Something above is literally false.

His *EDITOR* has independently corroborated that X took place. To MSNBC. With a minimum of TWO sources (like good reporters do).

The "rationale evidence" argument makes no sense; we are being told that a man who has testified in front of a Grand Jury FIVE TIMES is being indicted for "perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case" which makes sense because we KNOW "someone" LEAKED A CIA SPYMASTER'S NAME (unless Novak suddenly developed psychic abilities), and we know that "the whitehouse" has been insisting that all the REASONABLE SUSPECTS didn't do it, so SOMEONE IS LYING. :eyeroll:

The 24 hour part was promptly CLARIFIED (which implies that the writer and his editor are concerned with their facts being accurately presented).

And I personally know nothing about Jason Leopold "writing stories with falsehoods", but if you do, please present your "evidence" for evaluation.

As I said before, there is really nothing to debate -- either your skepticism will be proven correct, or your skepticism will be proven wrong. In the meantime, I am comfortable with the fact WE'VE ALREADY WON THIS ROUND (which is the point I made in my original post, and I thank you for your help in keeping it kicked!).

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

37. ROFL! What exactly does INDEPENDENT mean to you?

(shrug) whatever.

But the idea that a "just so" story is evidence is laughable. I'll leave it to you to look up what a "just so" story is.

[IdaBriggs]

38. Correction: He has FIVE sources. Doh!

More details here! :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2627636

[BlooInBloo]

39. Cool! What are their names?

And with that many sources, it sounds like a LOCK doesn't it?

So why is NO ONE else reporting on this, what appears to be a COMPLETE LOCK of a story?

Is it a republican-media conspiracy?

Then why aren't the likes of Kos and Atrios willing to lend their names to this COMPLETE LOCK of a story?

Maybe their involved in the conspiracy too, eh?

I'm sure a story can be told and extended to answer (or "answer") all of my questions. But then the question becomes: what's more believable: that convoluted story (rofl - it depends on what "24 hours" means!), or the simple claim that their isn't currently enough publically available evidence to assent to the truthout article's claims?

Note that the issue is NOT that I believe Truthout's claims to be false - so there's no need for you to continue asking me for evidence for that claim, which I've never made.

The issue is whether or not there's enough publically available evidence right now TO RATIONALLY ASSENT to Truthout's claims.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. Ask Joe Wilson....he knows.

[symbolman]

45. Here's some Homework for you then

http://www.newsmedianews.com/jason_leopold2.php

http://gnn.tv/articles/709/Media_Meltdown_The_Jason_Leopold_Saga

http://villagevoice.com/news/0508,murphy,61336,6.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

All freely available on the Web, read these.. you want more I'll find it for you..

Oh and one other thing, if Fitz comes out on Wed and makes an announcement that Rove is Indicted, there's a very good chance that it just could be that the Grand Jury VOTED for his Indictment THAT DAY, same goes for Friday if they meet.

And that M'dear blows the entire Leopold arguement clean out of the water.

Faith is faith, and logic is logic.. tell if after reading about Leopold's past which HE admits to,so does TO and Raw Story, his Grand Larceny, theft, Plagiarism, lying about sources, outing sources to use their testimony leaving them in jeopardy, like they could get JAILED - if you would let such a person even date your daughter, let along believe a single damn word they said..

A Leopard (close enough to Leopold) doesn't change it's spots... especially when they smell like FISH..

Sorry to burst any bubbles and don't accuse me of smearing him, this is ALL publc info which HE HIMSELF USES to PROMOTE HIS BOOK.

[BR_Parkway]

27. And mention Brewster Jennings and how they would know what Iran

was doing in nuclear field, but no, we had to get rid of them too.

[bvar22]

30. K&R

My feelings exactly.
Win/Win either way.

[troubleinwinter]

40. Yessirree, mam!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. I often think they'd do better to let "sleeping dogs lie", than to

invite repeated rebuttals and court constant derision, when, as is invariably the case, they "don't have a leg to stand on". But what else can they do? Their nerve would fail them if they just sat and suffered, as they witnessed the piece-meal demolition of their tawdry, mendacious house of cards.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Excellent observations! :-)

[nicknameless]

46. Trying to explain away what the blogs are writing about

takes so much time away from that headlining Aruba story. M$M winds up inadvertently reporting news.

:thumbsup:

[Cocoa]

47. but they call themsevles Truthout

not Hypeout.

[gollygee]

48. People don't seem to be questioning whether he should be indicted

just whether or not he actually will be.

[robbedvoter]

49. Se non e vero ma e ben trovato - may not be true, but it fits

Point is, the story was NOT concocted for hype (a la, say, Patrick Kennedy totalled his car).
It was based on sources that seemed reliable at the time. Not unlike the Fortunate Son stories, the CBS TANG reports - hey, guess what the two had in common? I didn't blame the author of that book or 60 minutes. I harly blame Truthout.