Humpty-Dumpty Republicans By William Rivers Pitt

[ProSense]

It was, strictly speaking, a terrible time for this kind of division to erupt within the GOP ranks. Iraq is a mess, Goss has quit the CIA under terribly suspicious circumstances, the #3 man at CIA just had his house searched, the scandal surrounding Duke Cunningham has reached into the heart of the House Intelligence, Appropriations and Armed Services Committees, Rep. Jerry Lewis of California is the newest name on the list of those being looked at, the Abramoff scandal continues to walk and talk, Karl Rove has reportedly been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation, and it seems that the NSA has been harvesting millions upon millions of telephone calls from Americans to Americans, despite strident denials by Bush administration officials that anything of the sort has been going on.

more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051506Y.shtml

[Old and In the Way]

1. A perfect political storm is brewing.

The Republican Syndicate is in big trouble and they know it.

[MichiganVote]

2. Sex scandal....coming right up...only a matter of time

[electropop]

3. There already is a sex scandal: Watergate II (Sloppy Seconds Edition)

It's tied in with Duke Cunningham, Porter Goss, and Dusty Foggo, and probably more.

[MichiganVote]

30. Too vague for most americans...bring on the interns

[electropop]

31. Limos delivering congressmen to hookers at the Watergate is vague?

Sounds like a made-for-TV movie to me! We need to locate a couple of those hookers and hear all about the Dukester's kinky habits, Congressman X's preference for young boys...

[AuntiBush]

33. Nope.

This average American now knows about it, thanks to sites like Truthout, White Rose Society, and other sites linking out from DU.

Even Republican neighbors, and friends of family know. Vague? Nope. Nada. Ain't happening. It's all the latest rage and gossip :)

[Taxloss]

4. "reportedly" been indicted?

Reported on your website Will! Yesterday it was certain, know it's only "reported"?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. Geez. Give it a rest.

[Taxloss]

7. When you do. n/t

[AuntiBush]

34. Thank You.

Really.

[deaniac21]

9. There are still 24 business hours..

[Loge23]

5. The immigration putsch will drive wage pressure

As Pitt points out in the editorial, the dirty little secret among repukes is cheap labor. Some of the repukes biggest financial supporters have benefitted greatly from "employing" illegals to build the houses, staff the factories, and clean the stores - among other things.
If the initiative to drive out illegal labor is successful (if it's a * administration initiative, it's bound to fail), then real wage infaltion pressure will finally lift the inflation balloon.
He can't win for losing.

[AuntiBush]

35. Bingo! Pitt hit it right on the nail, again.

[Bluebear]

8. 'Karl Rove has reportedly been indicted'

Well that's an understatement!

[meisje]

10. Shouldn't "reportedly been indicted" read "allegedly been indicted"?

[Snivi Yllom]

11. it's so confusing

:eyes:

[Jacobin]

12. A new low, really

"reportedly" by this same writer.

Aww, this is not a good thing

[Spazito]

16. Ummmm, Will Pitt did not write the article about Rove being indicted,

Jason Leopold did. It is perfectly appropriate for Will Pitt to use the word reported when referring to an article he DID NOT write.

It is interesting that some would like to blur that fact.

Will is the editor of Truthout, I believe, who also contributes articles as does Jason Leopold.

I do wish that those who want to slag someone, they at least get their facts right while doing so.

[Jacobin]

23. Who personally vouched for the story

with words like 'bank on it' on posts right here on DU

that is beyond mere reporting. Way beyond.

I like Will's work a whole lot. I just don't think its appropriate to approve of inappropriate behavior based on political ideology or personalaties.

[Spazito]

24. Yes, he vouched for it and has never posted otherwise

I don't see your point. Reading his using the word "reported" as him, in any way, backing off his support for Leopold is, imo, ridiculous.

He didn't write the article, is certainly more in the know than you or I as to what went into sourcing the article, has every right to vouch for the article and (gasp) use the word "reported" in an article of his own, does he not?

The parsing of the use of "reported" in the OP article is even more ludicrous than the parsing over what "is" is.

[yodermon]

39. oh my GOD

these fucking threads.

[fooj]

40. I know.

We are living in hell. People are frightened. People are angry. People are anxious.

The last thing we need to focus our energies on is negativity. Really.

Like it or not, we, as Americans, are in this together. I honestly believe that there isn't ANYTHING that can stop the righteous patriotism of a true, authentic American. It's who we are. It's what stokes the fire within us. We can take our country back. I really believe that.

We can work together to achieve our COMMON goal...ridding ourselves of these criminals that have moved into OUR HOUSE! We can't do it fighting amonsgt ourselves. Unity is key. Please don't lose sight of the prize. It's our Country and the laws that it was founded upon. That is the prize. The stakes are too high to bitch at or about eachother 24/7.

I'm not willing to give up on America. I can't I won't.

[Bluebear]

13. Well it's written in strange third person, as if someone else reported it.

Just an observation.

[ProSense]

14. Some one else did report it: Jason Leopold. n/t

[Taxloss]

15. Will Pitt was confident enough in its veracity to defend it vigorously.

He was the mouthpiece of the story to DU - at no stage did he express anything other than total confidence.

[ProSense]

17. Posting on a link on DU doesn't mean he is the one who reported the story.

He's just another poster when he isn't the writer. Mouthpiece? That's the problem maybe.

[Taxloss]

18. He was confident enough to flame Skinner for expressing a shade of doubt.

That's fairly confident.

[ProSense]

20. Vouching for Lepold doesn't mean it's Pitt's story.

Whether Leopold is right or wrong, it's his story. Will Pitt can defend the writer's credibility (as someone he knows and trusts), but it's still not Pitt's story.

[Taxloss]

21. Nevertheless

last night it was a certainty according to Pitt; now it's simply reported. That is a clear change in position.

We all saw how passionately Will defended his colleague, and that's an understandable reaction on his part. What I don't understand is why he should be downplaying the scoop now. This article was written on TruthOut - why doesn't he credit TruthOut with the scoop?

[ProSense]

22. He could have said:

Rove was reportedly indicted, according to Jason Leopold. Either way, Rove was reportedly indicted.

[Maddy McCall]

25. What do you consider the job of a senior editor to be?

[ProSense]

26. Does Pitt have to be a senior editor to vouch for Leopold? n/t

[Maddy McCall]

27. Do senior editors make the ultimate decision whether or not an article...

goes to print?

[ProSense]

28. Depends!

But even if the senior editor did approve the article and knows the sources, the SE wouldn't go about disclosing the sources. Vouching for Leopold's character is separate.

[Taxloss]

42. Pitt, did briefly name one corroborating source

and then sensibly deleted his own post. He doesn't have to name the sources, but he should at least know their names. Source/reporter confidentiality isn't necessary (outside the most extreme circumstances) within the reporting organisation itself - if there is doubt over a big story with an anonymous source, the editor should ask the reporter who it is and base the decision on whether to run it on the answer.

[sheelz]

41. According to Pitt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1031366&mesg_id=1031595

[katinmn]

36. When someone defends something this vigorously, he owns it.

He not only attacked Skinner but several others in a vicious fashion, even if it was a poster cautioning people to take a wait and see approach to this story.

If this story turns out to be bogus, Pitt should share in any loss of credibility because of the way he has hyped it over and over again (which is much stronger than defending another writer), and also for demanding complete and utter allegiance here and elsewhere.

[ProSense]

37. "IF the story turns out to be bogus," says it all. n/t

[katinmn]

38. yeah, it's a big "if." Maybe Leopold was lied to.

[golden voyages]

29. I don't post here much, but isn't that the same person who once

accused someone named Andy of faking cancer for the sympathy donations? I've learned to take his statements with a grain of salt.

[demobabe]

19. Well, Truthout reports Rove already has been indicted

Will Pitt has defended this to the hilt, so his article should say "has been indicted" to be consistant with Leopold's story and Truthout.

Which is it? Has he or has he not been indicted?

[0007]

32. 'Tis mind blogging when one thinks of how wealthy the

Republicans are in scandal.

"It was, strictly speaking, a terrible time for this kind of division to erupt within the GOP ranks. Iraq is a mess, Goss has quit the CIA under terribly suspicious circumstances, the #3 man at CIA just had his house searched, the scandal surrounding Duke Cunningham has reached into the heart of the House Intelligence, Appropriations and Armed Services Committees, Rep. Jerry Lewis of California is the newest name on the list of those being looked at, the Abramoff scandal continues to walk and talk, Karl Rove has reportedly been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation, and it seems that the NSA has been harvesting millions upon millions of telephone calls from Americans to Americans, despite strident denials by Bush administration officials that anything of the sort has been going on."

From Truthout