The Leopold disaster was useful and instructive

[Stevendsmith]

It served as a needed check on the rampant and irresponsible speculation and rumor-mongering surrounding the Rove case. Now, most of us want "just the facts", which is how it should be.

(Note: I mean "disaster" from a journalistic perspective, because it was just a total choke-job by Truthout. I don't see how that can be seriously argued.)

[meisje]

1. Why do you hate America?

:popcorn:

[tridim]

2. Neither you nor I know if it was a "total choke-job"

Do you have some new information? If not, you're just guessing.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[tridim]

10. Totally.. but still, nobody knows what actually happened

and calling it a choke-job is nothing but a guess. If someone is played, that's not a "choke".

[symbolman]

12. Okay

Let's use Your Standards on this.

PROVE they were "played".

[tridim]

16. I can't, just like the OP can't prove they choked.

[symbolman]

18. So why do you make such a claim

if you can't prove it? The OP didn't put any words in your mouth..

You refute the possibility that it was sloppy reporting, that Leopold didn't bother to check his sources?

He couldn't have had the headline, "SOURCES SAY Rove Indicted"?

That would have saved him a WHOLE lot of trouble. Agreed?

[tridim]

25. Let me be clear (for the hundredth time).. I don't know what happened

and I've never claimed that I do. It very well could have been sloppy reporting, we'll find out soon enough. Do you have any solid information you can share that proves Leopold didn't report exactly what his sources told him?

[symbolman]

31. Yeah.

His claim has been thoroughly investigated by much of the Media and debunked. NO ONE in the Media has reported an Indictment of any kind existing save for HIM. I've studied the Media for a LONG TIME (as you might know, my site is called TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA.com) and simple logic dictates given the information that his story is untrue.

To me this is like someone telling you your mom died TODAY, then after you've called all over the place, drank yourself silly (having believed the one who told you), and made arrangements for the funeral, they come back and say, "Well, maybe she's not dead.. maybe she's just a little dead.. What we KNOW, YOU haven't seen her in two weeks, WHAT we Don't KNOW: If she's dead or not.. But we're still sticking by our story, Your Mom is Dead.."

Okay, so all of your relatives say, "Naw, saw her last week, she's fine..", There is nothing in the paper about her death. The priest doubts it, he'd have heard of it, etc, etc..

So the person says, "Let's just adopt a 'wait and see' attitude on this, since you can't PROVE your mother IS Alive.."

I'd be a little pissed if someone did that to me, and never forget it. And before you say "That's a ridiculous metaphor, it's nothing as serious as that.." remember that THOUSANDS of Troops have DIED, TENS of Thousands have been injured and god only knows how many Iraqis have been killed and maimed, and BY ROVE.

To me having someone make a MOCKERY of the Liberal Press Online is just as serious, it's an investment of a few HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars of MY money and 5 years of my life, fighting for a Left Wing Media that can hold the right wing media's feet to the fire..

If having pretty much ALL of the Media, even turkeys like Capitol Hill Blue, laughing at Leopold over this isn't enough for you, then I bid you well, and hope that everything works out for you.. somehow..

I guess the use of the old say, "You can't Prove a Negative.." has been New Thought into, "You can't Disprove a negative.." and that's fine with a little cadre here, but that's too bad..

Tho the OP is right, we sure have learned some lessons, haven't we? :)

[On the Road]

140. There is One Possibility That May Exonerate Leopold

That would be if Gonzalez blocked the indictment at the last minute. There is that "Sealed v Sealed" filing that none of us have access to.

Otherwise, I would have to agree that Leopold got played.

[JuniperLea]

191. His claim has been thoroughly investigated by much of the Media and debunk

Linky?

[JuniperLea]

46. The OP did make a claim

That can't be substantiated.

[symbolman]

110. Read my post again

it WAS substantiated, by the MEDIA and their refusal to run a non sourced piece.

Are you going to say that they are LIARS, but later claim that they Vindicate the Leopold story should (against all odds) they REPORT that there was an indictment handed to Rove on that very date?

I mean you can't have it both ways. According to those that think the Media is not to be trusted WHY would they BELIEVE the Media if they substantiate Leopold's claims?

Why should those that don't believe Leopold's story now, believe that the Media is RIGHT THEN? Would THAT be YOUR PROOF?

One thing you might want to think about is that for those who DON'T believe in Leopold's story we've at least been CONSISTANT. As far as I've seen those that accept it on blind faith appear to be changing the parameters to MAKE the story fit, which some point out as "moving the goal posts..", and even going so far as to create scenario's to FIT the reasons WHY the story doesn't make sense, all the while insisting it's CORRECT. Why say that Leopold was "played" if the story IS CORRECT and TRUTHFUL?

That's why we consider our stand to be rational and straightforward, while Leopold has been changing his own story, both in "print" and on the Radio, and the Leopold supporters are creating back stories and plots as to WHY it APPEARS to not be correct.

I heard him tell Shultz on his radio show that he believed his own story was 95% correct. Would that include the partial apology?

[JuniperLea]

190. You still don't get it... I'm not defending Leopold, just honesty

There is a long list of laws, rules and regulations BushCo has broken, ignored, or otherwise usurped. They are uniquely evil and corrupt. Do we ever hear about their evil ways right away? No. Can we trust the media to give us the truth? No. Do all media outlets have the same sources? No.

There is just not enough information to state anything with certainty, not only the Leopold story, true or false, but anything else this corrupt administration may or may not have been involved with.

To believe they are predictable by any means of divination is dangerous at best.

Circumstantial evidence (and ALL of the so called "evidence" you have produced is nothing more than circumstantial) means nothing because they don't play by the rules and what has happened before has no bearing whatsoever on what may or may not be happening now.

I think you are the one showing blind faith. You have no proof. No one does. I'm not accepting anything on blind faith. We need more information to form a decision one way or the other. Seems to me you are the one creating scenarios... the media refused to print the story because it's unsubstantiated? Come on.

I'm sorry, I had to laugh at your consistency comment. That's one thing you have in common with BushCo... stay the course!

[emcguffie]

155. How about prove they weren't?

You know, it used to be in t his country that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense. So it's up to you to provide the proof. That is, if you approve of the American system of government and justice. At least, the one we used to have.

[emcguffie]

156. Whoops, sorry, posted my reply to you instead of the fellow to whom--

you were replying. Can I fix that? I will try.

[Goblinmonger]

29. If you are a professional journalist

and you got played like that (if that IS what happened) then it is still a choke.

[JuniperLea]

54. There is no proof one way or the other

So how does it benefit you to keep the beatings up?

[Goblinmonger]

125. I was just replying to the justification

of "Leopold got tricked." That isn't an excuse in my mind.

[dogday]

176. No matter what , we

decide you are screwed---must be nice to be able to pass judgement regardless...

[Scoody Boo]

45. Everyone knows what happened...

some people just don't want to admit it to themselves. Rove WAS NOT indicted, Leopold said he was. Ahead of the news cycle? Hell, he got ahead of the facts.

I'll make a wager with anyone who wants to. $500, $1,000, hell $5,000 that when Rove IS indicted, May 12, won't have shit to do with it. That is if he is indicted at all.

Come folks, it is pretty simple and black and white, either Rove was indicted on the 12th or he wasn't. You can make a quick buck here if you are correct.

[JuniperLea]

59. Can you prove Rove was not indicted?

He's no longer the proud owner of a security clearance... hmmm...

[foo_bar]

74. can you prove Bigfoot wasn't indicted?

For example, it may be asserted that carrying a rabbit's foot improves luck on the grounds that it cannot be proven that it does not.

This is fallacious for two reasons: first, it requires proof of a negative, and second, it places the burden of proof on the challenger, not the proposer of the idea. Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29

[JuniperLea]

99. Answering a question with a question....

RW tactics are better ignored.

[foo_bar]

129. source?

Perhaps his most important contribution to Western thought is his dialectic (answering a question with a question) method of inquiry, known as the Socratic Method or method of elenchos, which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice, concepts used constantly without any real definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

[JuniperLea]

141. Looking for lies...

Avram Sapir's Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) program is one of them. Curious about it, I paid my $350 and took his week-long seminar about a ten years ago. It's an odd mixture of the techniques used by the FBI, called Statement Analysis, and a hopeful but largely misguided use of some of the good work coming out of Paul Ekman's laboratory in San Francisco. Mix in a touch of the Reid Technique, stir well, and you can teach the police how to tell when suspects are lying.

I found SCAN, Statement Analysis, and the Reid technique amusingly optimistic and often downright frightening. But they are hot items in our nation's police departments.

Perhaps SCAN's best attribute is that it begins by admitting that the police interview often messes up royally (I wondered then, and still do, why then it might not be better to try to improve the interviewing). To avoid this problem, Sapir suggests that before the interview begins, the police are to give the suspects pen and paper and have them write a description of everything that happened on the theory that it's much harder to write a lie than to say one. He also teaches that people lie indirectly, so the police are to notice omitted information, hedging, answering questions with questions, and ignoring certain things.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002817.html

The Socratic Method you site is used by teachers to purposely avoid giving information, thereby making students think for themselves. Classic avoidance tactic.

There are many more links to psychotherapy and couple's counseling sites... avoidance, avoidance, avoidence... check it out.

[foo_bar]

147. ...in all the wrong places

The Socratic Method you site is used by teachers to purposely avoid giving information

I think you mean "cite".

There are many more links to psychotherapy and couple's counseling sites... avoidance, avoidance, avoidence... check it out.

You called it a "RW tactic", so googling something about police interrogations doesn't illuminate your claim. Personally:

Q: Why do Jews always answer a question with another question?
A: What, you've got a problem with that?

The Bigfoot example was meant to illustrate the fallacy of the burden of proof, as in "prove Rove wasn't indicted":

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Here Richard points out something correct (that if his god exists, then it exists regardless of what he says on the matter) and concludes from this something completely nonsensical (that therefore it isn't necessary for him to provide support for his claim that his god exists). By that "logic," a prosecutor could tell a jury that if the defendant is guilty, then she is guilty regardless of what the police have to say - and therefore there is no need for the prosecution to present a case.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/034513.htm

[Catrina]

151. There would be not 'burden of proof' for the OP had he not made a claim.

In all cases, both civil and criminal, the 'burden of proof' rests with the prosectution, because it is s/he who makes the claims.

The OP in this case made a claim. Therefore it is to be expected that he would be asked to prove it. I don't see that he is being asked to prove a negative. His claim was quite positive.

If he has information or evidence that contradicts TO's claim that they are still standing by the facts of Leopold's story, then he has a right to make the claim, show the evidence (a statement from Fitz. would do) and expect his claim to go unchallenged. But he has not done that.

As far as learning something? I have learned that when people fail to discuss something rationally, no one learns anything. There has been only one thread where a rational discussion about this did take place, and I learned a great deal I didn't know before.

One thing I learned in that thread was that Libby's Legal Team in one of their filings, referenced one of Leopold's articles. That says to me that they, at least, take his reporting seriously. That they are aware of him, despite claims in many of these threads that he is a 'nobody'.

So, I asked myself why there has been such vitriol against this one relatively obscure reporter. Could it be that someone wants to know who his sources are because his reporting has been accurate so far, indicating that he has good sources? I have found his reporting to be more intense, more detailed and way ahead of the MSM all along. If Libby's lawyers are mentioning him in their court filings, maybe he was getting too close to the truth. If so, Libby's team might be wondering how he is doing this. People might be wondering who are his sources? They might be wanting to know that because it would have to be someone they know and they may be feeling a little paranoid at this point.

So, I will wait and see ~ since learning of Libby's interest in Leopold I am willing to consider that his sources may very well be close to the investigation. I hate eating crow, so I won't say 'there was no indictment' ~ nor can I say with certainty 'there was an indictment'. But I do see the possibility that there was. The denials by Luskin and Rove's spokesperson mean nothing. This cabal often make denials that later turn out to be untrue. In fact Rove's spokesperson has done it before himself. Not to mention, Rice, Cheney, Bush et al.

But as far as the OP's claims, once you make a claim, you are vulnerable in the sense that someone may ask you to prove it. So far, I don't see any proof that there was no indictment, and lots of reasons to think there might have been. Therefore the OP is merely expressing his opinion. It is not a fact. It can't be a fact until we know for sure that no indictment exists.

[foo_bar]

153. whose post are you replying to?

I didn't address the OP, just "can you prove Rove (/Sasquatch) wasn't indicted?". If you recall, truthout started the chain of events by publishing "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators", and it's been thirteen business days since they changed the wording post hoc from "24 hours" to "24 business hours".

If he has information or evidence that contradicts TO's claim that they are still standing by the facts of Leopold's story, then he has a right to make the claim, show the evidence (a statement from Fitz. would do) and expect his claim to go unchallenged. But he has not done that.

Replace "he" with "Leopold", and you'll place the burden of proof where it belongs.

[Redbear]

117. I don't have $500.00 to risk, but I will take your bet.

Maybe a $25.00 donation to DU?

I am certainly willing to wager that something happened on May 12 involving Rove that will eventually be an important factor in a subsequent indictment or guilty plea of Rove and/or other people.

Maybe I'm a naive optimist, but heck, I'm a blue state guy living in Bush's backyard, so I have to be.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[wtmusic]

5. As was the Macbeth Debacle

Sometimes we all (myself included) need to get a grip.

[symbolman]

6. There are ROVE APOLOGISTS HERE?

WHERE? THis I gotta SEE..

Can you explain that for me, because THAT just sounds completely whacky..

Out of the 90,000 or so odd DU'Rs, are you saying that SOME OF THEM are "Rove Apologists"??????

can you name ONE, seriously?

There are people HERE that DON'T WANT ROVE INDICTED?

Really? I'm having trouble believing that, if that's what you're saying.. :)

(Oh and this was TO the catgirl and not the OP, Him I agree with totally..)

[Jigarotta]

8. I suppose some of us are 'terrorist apologists' as well.

if we are against the iraq and upcoming iran war.
Now where did I hear that nonsense before...?

[ixion]

9. yeah, they're called the DLC

and there right here, and everywhere else someone struggles to get the truth out. ;-)

[symbolman]

11. Oh that's right

when all else fails drag out the DLC and start kicking them in the teeth.. last I heard they were DEMOCRATS and this is the DU, where we SUPPORT DEMOCRATS, no?

So the DLC are a bunch of ROVE APOLOGISTS?

Lordy..

[ixion]

14. oh yeah... poor widdle DLC... just trying to get along with everyone

yeah. right. whatever. :eyes:

I don't support anything blindly. I question everything. Sorry. ;-)

[symbolman]

19. So

then you ARE questioning Leopold's story?

[ixion]

28. I never take anything at face value

I've never stated, or accepted, that Leopold's story was either true or false. I feel sorry for the guy, and for truthout, because I think they were acting with honest intentions, but I didn't hold my breath for Rove to be indicted when the story ran, and I certainly don't hold ANYTHING against truthout for the story not unfolding as reported.

If every news agency that had ever reported a story that did not unfold as reported were discredited and disbanded, there would not be one news organization in operation today, IMO.

I don't have the information at hand to say what Leopold's motivations were, or how much truth (or falsehood) there is to the story.

There is NO question in my mind, however, that Rove should be indicted. If not for this, there's a plethora of other items to choose from. In any case, he belongs in a cell in the Hague, IMO.

Just my two cents. :hi:

[Goblinmonger]

30. What about the claims

that anyone who didn't believe Leopold's claims on due were cretins? Was that someone acting with honest intentions for the good of the party?

[ixion]

33. uh, well, no... although I hadn't heard anything about those

particular claims.

I don't see what that has to do with truthout, though. I've never known Will to make these kind of claims.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Well,

since I got a message deleted for calling someone a pollyanna, I think I will just leave it at that. Though you may want to do a little research and rethink this, "I've never known Will to make these kind of claims."

[ixion]

37. will do, thanks

I generally try and stay out of the flame threads...I'll take a look. Appreicate the info.

[JuniperLea]

52. Can't you get over it and move on?

I've not been sensitive to being called names since elementary school... sticks and stones and all that.

[Ladyhawk]

95. Fallacious reasoning. Words can hurt. Besides, the name-calling

says more about the person doing it than the person on the receiving end.

[JuniperLea]

102. Only things you allow to hurt you can really hurt you

We are in control of our own feelings. Fallacious? Perhaps someone should tell Jung?

[Ladyhawk]

I'm not sure what got deleted and what is still searchable.

"I've never known Will to make these kind of claims" <---look into this on behalf of cretins, shitdogs and fuckwits everywhere...also on behalf of those accused of not really having pancreatic cancer, but a "less severe" kind of cancer.

[dogday]

114. A thick skin is required when

posting here is what I have been told... Many names have been called by many people on this forum. Also the incident about Andy was a concentrated effort on a part of the right to discredit Andy, Will is not the only one guilty of buying into this.. Many people unfortunately bought into it, so I don't think it is wise to lay this on the lap of one member....

[Ladyhawk]

87. I'm a "cretin / shitdog / fuckwit" apologist.

I'm still waiting for an explanation and it had better be a doozy!

The OP is right. This whole fiasco has brought me closer to my creed of skepticism and truthseeking. It was a good wake-up call.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Hey, I'm a fuckwit, too.

Actually I can decide which of the three to add to my signature line. They are each good for different reasons.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

169. "brought me closer to my creed of skepticism and truthseeking"

Those are powerful words. Good for you! We "creshifucks" should stand proud. Or is that "tindogwits"? I can't keep up with all the dehumanizationist rhetoricalishmis drunkihubrist truthiness.

People shouldn't be so nasty to Skeptics; it's not our fault that we can see the strings and they can't.
In the kingdom of the blind...

[Jazz2006]

171. "dehumanizationist rhetoricalishmis drunkihubrist truthiness"

:rofl:

You should copyright that!

[dogday]

177. Toughen up man

one has to have a thick skin to post on this board...

[TheWraith]

164. Look over there! It's Goldstein!!!

You question everything? Then perhaps you should question how certain people on DU attribute to the third-rate campaign organization known as the DLC such a wide range of superpowers as they do. To listen to some people here talk about it, the DLC has operatives all over the world secretly scheming just to stymie people like Jason Leopold. I hate to break it to you, but outside the online political junkies, nobody cares about Leopold's story. And I bet that if anybody from the DLC actually reads DU, they probably get sexually aroused imagining if they had one tenth of the power and influence that you folks attribute to them.

The DLC is the Goldstein of the left, pulled out as a trump card whenever facts get in the way. Its "Why do you hate America?" It's "We have to do it because of National Security." It's meant to end meaningful debate on a subject, and it's shameful.

[ixion]

35. here's a good story on what I'm talking about

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2653395

Just for reference.

"That's right, in Washington, you are labeled "liberal," "extremist" or "outside the mainstream" if you actually challenge power, debunk dishonest agendas with facts, and remind the public that the Beltway is deliberately ignoring what the vast majority of Americans want from their government."

[WiseButAngrySara]

38. Thanks for this link! It made this thread worthwhile. BTW, I agree with

everything you stated in post #28.

[ixion]

39. sure thing...

nice to know I'm not alone on that one. :-)

[symbolman]

41. But since TO was the Publisher of Leopold's screed

then WHY are they Not to be held responsible? After all, it was They that disseminated the story, called it "bulletproof" "concrete", etc.. Why would they issue an "apology" if They are not liable for posting the story and refusing to back down from it?

Doesn't make any sense.. now you could say you Forgive them, but I don't understand how TO somehow was Not Involved..

Not being emotional here, just confused.

I myself have said not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and that TO had done a lot of fine work in the past, etc.

Still, they suffered from having Google and Yahoo refuse to disseminate anything from them as NEWS, that has gotta HURT, don't you think that Google and Yahoo found TO to be responsible?

[WiseButAngrySara]

43. The silence of Pitt, T.O. and Leopold speaks volumes at this point in

time, IMHO. They knew of Leopold's lack of credibility in the past, and they are still standing by his story in spite of their current loss of credibility, as exemplified by Google and Yahoo news, and most recently, being lambasted by Maurie and Connie on MSNBC. Why is this? Why are they still supporting Leopold? It is suicidal, if there were not a great deal of credibility in Leopold's original story. I posted an opinion about a week ago, on the possibility of Leopold being "Hatfielded" and/or "Rathered" by his sources. This is such a Rovean tactic, to spread disinformation through an unreliable news source, so that no one believes the bearer of the news, and the true content of the story is lost and/or forgotten. I could try to repost the original, because it was soon locked, but I found out yesterday that it is against DU policy to 'repost' a locked thread!

[JuniperLea]

60. Pitt has spoken again

And still stands by the story.

Can you prove the story false?

[PassingFair]

77. Weren't they going to reveal their sources...

if the story didn't pan out?

What happened with that?

[sweatyk]

80. They're sticking to their story

The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Tue May 30th, 2006 at 03:58:17 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


We are still getting a high volume of email inquiries on our Rove indictment story from May 13, 2006. We greatly appreciate your interest, and are well aware of the right of all Americans to know what is happening here.

So again, for the record: We stand by the story. TO's staff is treating this story as our highest priority and will be following up with additional information as it becomes available.

Clearly the question is: "If Karl Rove has been indicted, why has there been no official announcement?" Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.

This a unique situation, and frankly a stressful one. We would like to thank all of those who have offered their support during the course of this ordeal. We fully intend to press on.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
[e-mail]

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/30/155817/191

[JuniperLea]

100. They aren't convinced

That their story has not panned out. Simple, really. And yesterday they stated again that they stand behind their story. Suicidal?

[WiseButAngrySara]

82. Did you even read my post? or accidentally respond to the wrong one? n/t

[JuniperLea]

98. Ooops! Your #2 thought... sorry... n/t

[theboss]

116. Yes

By the fact that Rove still works for the White House.

[symbolman]

121. And yet

HE is not to be held RESPONSIBLE for the story, or Truth Out for that matter..

How can people expect to have it both ways, to say that TO is STANDING UP for the story, but at the same time THEY are NOT responsible for it.. tho they published it, Pitt called it specifically "Bulletproof" and "concrete"..

How is it that it's Leopold's potential mistake, but not TO's? I mean read this thread, many say that TO shouldn't be held accountable, why? THEY stand up for it..

[Strong Atheist]

130. How long should a reasonable person wait after something

(anything) is reported to have happened, and there is ZERO evidence that it has happened, before said reasonable person concludes a story is false? A day (been there)? A week (been there)? Two weeks (been there)? A month? A year? The rest of your life?

How long does a reasonable person wait, before admitting that a story is false? Tell us.


Edited to add: How long is this going to be a faith based issue, rather than a fact based "it has actually occurred for everyone to see" issue? Forever?

[Strong Atheist]

184. Crickets .... nt.

[symbolman]

83. I agree that the silence speaks volumes

but from the other side. I think it speaks of Hubris, and now there's even more bizarre info on the site, like we're supposed to be some kind of "support group" for bad reporting, amazing, never seen anyone do that..

Even if they are right, it isn't the "scoop" of the century, as stated by the Media (who many like to claim are liars until they need validation, I find that pretty odd) who'd been saying for two months that an Indictment was coming down in ten days to two weeks..

So someone could argue that THEY were "wrong" too, but none of them said Rove Indicted TODAY..

Do you honestly believe that an entire floor was shut down as they claimed as fact, and they even claimed that there were TV Newies there that day REPORTING ON IT, and We hear NOTHING from ANYONE?

Just too Out there.. too many screwy things in the same story..

If they were going to Hatfield or Rather someone online, it would be SLATE or SALON or someone like that, not TO who frankly leave a much smaller footprint on the web.. Ever think that if they DID "Rather" TO or Leopold that it was STILL their own fault for NOT checking their Sources?

There's really no excuse for such Sloppiness.. and given Leopold's history, WHY would HE make a good candidate, when the left could easily say, "Ahh, THAT GUY.." and walk away?

None of it adds up for me, just my 2 cents, keep talking tho, I'm sure it will get figured out to someone's satisfacion somewhere :) but not mine...


EDITED TO ADD: Lemmings don't back down either.. something my wife just mentioned, they go right over the cliff, not that the ones that are left get any smarter :)

[Jazz2006]

86. So does the constant shifting away from their original story...

They seem to be trying to play this as though if it ever turns out that there was an indictment returned by the GJ on Mar. 12, that somehow makes their story all legit.

But even if that were the case, their story was and is still nonsense because they said that he was indicted and SERVED with the indictment (after a half day/full day/15 hour marathon meeting with a secret service contingent during a "lock down" at Patton Boggs, etc. etc. etc.) and yet is still wandering about the White House.

Leopold, in his radio interview backed off of that completely and said that it would make no sense that there was sealed indictment that Rove had been told about and said that he only reported that an indictment had been returned by the GJ. Which is, of course, total bs. That's not what the truthout story said at all.

As I've said in other earlier threads, I can imagine a couple of scenarios in which a sealed indictment could have been handed up by the GJ, but no way and no how in the ridiculous scenario that truthout reported as fact. No wonder they've been backing off of it ever since they published it, and no wonder they keep moving the goalposts along the way and telling porkies in radio interviews.

[WiseButAngrySara]

90. Your responses throughout this whole ordeal have always been

reasoned and thoughtful, and I don't recall you participating in any of the ugly verbiage that I witnessed. I don't have any answers, but I really think there must be a rational explanation. I trust T.O. and Pitt. Why did the M$M just drop this story, like they've done with so many others in the media-contolling administration? I think that there will be a lot more truth in their story when all the facts are on the table, than there appear to be now. :)!

[symbolman]

115. And I appreciate your posts too

and your demeanor, you got class, keep it up as an example to some others here, we're gonna NEED people like YOU, when the HUMANS take OVER :)

[Taxloss]

179. Maybe they have nowhere to retreat to.

I can understand their wanting to keep a low profile; I don't think it speaks to their motives. I can also understand people thinking that Leopold may have been set up, because the alternative - he made it all up - is very unappetising. But - why? Why devote so much time and effort to discredit a relatively minor site? Especially because it has actually given a bolstering effect to less reliable sites such as CHB, who have harped on the whole affair. So the overall effect is mixed. I really don't see the benefit that could be reaped from the cost.

[WiseButAngrySara]

44. Still waitng for your reply to post #43 Symbolman! Curious. ....n/t

[JuniperLea]

56. Did I miss something?

Has it been proved false? Or are we just supposing again?

[theboss]

118. It doesn't have to be "proved" false

It is false. He has not been indicted.

[JuniperLea]

154. Thanks for the opinion n/t

[theboss]

158. Not an opinion; fact

There is no indictment. If there was, there would have been a press conference and a resignation. I assume at least one newspaper would have covered that.

[JuniperLea]

161. Those are assumptions, not facts

You assume BushCo plays by the rules.

Your evidence in support of your assertion of "facts" is circumstantial at best.

[theboss]

162. So, where is the indictment

Indictments are filed in federal court. In theory, if there is an indictment, you can walk into the courthouse and see a copy of it.

Apparently, none exists or Truthout and every other media organization forgot to look.

So, let's assume it is not there. So, it's sealed, right?

Um, no. The charged party would not be told of the sealed indictment. Indictments are sealed so the charge party does not know about them.

There is no scenario that could possibly exist where Rove is told AND the indictment is sealed. None.

So...there you go.

Feel free to add your own fictitious scenario though.

[JuniperLea]

163. Just because you or I can't come up with a scenario that fits

Does not mean one doesn't exist.

You are trying to make logical assumptions about a bunch of crooks who know no law and show no logic.

Your "evidence" is circumstantial.

[TheWraith]

165. Perhaps the indictment was filed with the Fairy Queen.

Look, there's a simple equation here. There has been no filing. There has been no resignation. There has been no loss of security clearence. All of these are things which would be expected to happen were there an indictment. Therefore, a perponderance of the evidence indicates that either there currently is no indictment, or that any existing indictment is sealed, including against the target. Conclusions other than that are based on faith, not logic. One could imagine a dozen explanations of how the story could still be true, but none of them would be grounded in the actual facts of the case. I'd invite you to speculate on why this indictment would be so much different from Libby, who immediately resigned after he learned of his charges. I apprecciate that you want the story to be true, but we can't let our desires cloud our sense of reality, because that's one step away from living in a bubble of our own making the way the freepers do, where everything is filtered according to our perceptions.

[JuniperLea]

166. If we were living in a non-Bush world

Your preponderance may be something. But we aren't, and it's not. If anything, your assumptions are based on faith... there is no logic in the assumption that this administration reacts to, adheres to or otherwise acknowledges laws or the way things normally are. We cannot assume that just because there are a certain number of things to be expected, that they can absolutely be expected right now, in 2006, with this administration at the helm.

Why would it be different with Libby? Oh, come now. Whenever BushCo is confronted with a law or a set of laws they don't like, what do they do?

We cannot let our sense of logic lead in this case, or in any case where BushCo is in charge. What we once thought was our reality is no longer.

You are assuming that in every game of chess, the bishop can move diagonally. Well guess what. BushCo makes their own rules. We have no clue what a bishop can do now.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

172. Ah, you speak of Russian Anti-acoustic Submarines...

Posted by Juniperx

Just because you or I can't come up with a scenario that fits

Does not mean one doesn't exist.

You are trying to make logical assumptions about a bunch of crooks who know no law and show no logic.

Your "evidence" is circumstantial.

From Neocons: The men behind the curtain - Wolfowitz and the growing danger:

In the 1970s, the national security establishment was under attack from all directions. At the start of the decade, Arkansas Democrat William Fulbright led a senatorial charge to cap defense expenditures to help finance Great Society programs. In 1972, George McGovern's campaign promised to bring the troops home from Vietnam and put domestic issues back on the agenda. And a beleaguered defense establishment found its rationale for increases in funding requirements swept away with the signing of SALT I and the opening of détente.

Wohlstetter viewed all these developments with alarm and in 1974 joined forces with air force Gens. George Keegan and Daniel Graham in an ongoing campaign to obtain access to raw intelligence data regarding Soviet military rearmament. He claimed that the CIA systematically underestimated the Soviet nuclear weapons stockpile in its annual National Intelligence Estimates. In typical Wohlstetter fashion, he published a chart showing U.S. defense expenditures staying steady as a percentage of gross domestic product, with Soviet expenditures showing a marked increase. He was quickly joined by a chorus of defense-oriented right-wing bureaucrats and legislators who called for an alternative "threat assessment" to be drawn up by an ad hoc group.

In 1975, CIA Director William Colby dismissed their requests for raw intelligence. But in 1976, when the senior George Bush became CIA director, a second request was approved. Three separate teams were constituted to examine raw intelligence on Soviet nuclear assets. Their conclusions came to be called the Team B reports. Wolfowitz was an outspoken member.

The contents of the Team B reports are alarming, both for the threats they described, and for the methodologies they used. They projected that by 1984 the Soviet Union would deploy about 500 Backfire bombers--more than twice as many as were actually deployed that year. They claimed that the Soviet Union was working on an anti-acoustic submarine and, failing to find any evidence of one, stated that it may already have been deployed since it appeared to have evaded detection!

{emphasis mine}

You keep using that word "logical": I do not think it means what you think it means.

Edited to put the original quote before the Wolfowitz comparison in the hope that the message is more obvious. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of something undetectable. Occam's razor. Hoofbeats in Central Park.

[JuniperLea]

188. Have you actually used Occam's Razor in this argument?

"When multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities."

The "There is no indictment" crowd bases their argument solely on the assumption that BushCo adheres to, recognizes or otherwise think they are accountable to any law, rule or regulation. This assumption, and the assumption that history can dictate the future with regard to this administration's activities is absurd. Their "evidence" is circumstantial and based on historic law, making all those assumptions hypothetical.

[JuniperLea]

61. They can't be held responsible

Because there is still no proof the story was incorrect. It cannot be proved that Rove has not been indicted.

I do find it interesting that he no longer has a security clearance, and a fine BushCo excuse for that is all the more interesting.

[Jazz2006]

89. By the standards you propose,

Bush "can't be held responsible" for much of anything, either.

And on the security clearance issue, don't you find it even passing strange that someone without security clearance would have a secret service contingent accompanying him to a marathon session of plea bargaining (according to truthout's 'belief') and that BushCo wouldn't know about it, but would continue to allow the man to traipse about the White House going about his business?

[JuniperLea]

101. Why assume BushCo doesn't know about it?

Because they said so? Really?

[symbolman]

119. Once again I hope you realise

that you've been contradicting yourself between posts.

First you made the claim that it was interesting that Rove "Lost" his Security Clearance.. then you make the claim above that Bush admin 'saying so' makes it dubious..

Which one is it? Do you believe Bush Co when THEY infer or it's reported (or however you gleaned it) that Rove has NO SECURITY CLEARANCE now, but NOT when someone assumes that BushCo "doesn't know about it"?

WHEN is Bush Lying? Seems pretty convenient doesn't it? Like making whatever assumptions you need to "fit" the story, instead of the stories standing on their own AS REPORTED?

[JuniperLea]

135. If they say the sky is blue

And I look outside and find the sky is blue, what's the problem.

Those alphabet news agencies you are waiting for confirmation from have reported the end of the security license.

I've contradicted nothing. It is still very interesting that Rove gave up his clearance, which is one of the things that must happen when under indictment.

When is Bush lying? Who knows for sure! We have proof he has lied in the past, but like the devil himself, sometimes lies are mixed with truth to throw people off.

You still haven't proved he wasn't indicted. And it hasn't been proved he was. So what's your problem?

[Garbo 2004]

139. Where is the info that Rove gave up his security clearance? I don't recall

that being reported.

While recently his job in the WH was scaled back in scope (he had been promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff in 2005) he's retained his Deputy Chief of Staff title as well as at least the functions he had in 2003 when Plame was outed.

Is there a source for the statement that Rove either gave up or lost his security clearance? I've seen speculation, but that's not the same as established fact. If you have a source for this info, please post since I'd be interested in seeing what I've missed.

[Garbo 2004]

149. April 19, WH spokesmodel Scotty: Rove retains security clearance.

FWIW. As reported in Salon: "Update: At today's White House press gaggle, Scott McClellan was asked if Rove will be keeping his security clearance. His response: 'Oh, absolutely, yes.'" http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/19/rove2/index.html

Anyone: Has there been info to the contrary since April 19, 2006?

[Jazz2006]

152. I've not seen anything that indicates he lost his security clearance....

... other than the posts of one person on these threads saying so without providing any source for that assertion.

[Jazz2006]

144. "we have proof he has lied in the past, but like the devil himself,

sometimes lies are mixed with truth to throw people off"

Amazing how much Leopold and Bush have in common.


"When is Bush lying? Who knows for sure!"

When is Leopold lying? Who knows for sure?

[johnnie]

7. What I learned

That with the exception of a handful of people that are on the Internet, no one else even heard the story. I mentioned it all to a bunch of different people in real life and they had no idea what I was talking about. These people are all fairly politically aware too.

[symbolman]

17. Is your avatar

the Spinal Tap album? :)

It goes to 11.. just like the Leopold story :)

[johnnie]

20. Lol, naw

I changed it over the weekend. It was inspired by Johnny Cash's song "Man in Black".

[symbolman]

22. Well that IS the LAW

Unspoken of course.. but if you DO wear all BLACK, then you are required when you enter a room to announce..

"Hi.. Ahm Johhny Cash.." :)

[Jigarotta]

23. Love that song.

Cash was surely something special.
Have you seen Walk the Line?
was disapointed Man in Black wasn't covered in it, but otherwise a fine piece of work.

[johnnie]

24. Yeah, I saw the movie

I liked it, but it was more about Johnny and June than it was about Johnny's career. I wasn't necessarily disappointed, I just would have liked it to be more about Johnny and his music. I have a few documentaries about him and they have a lot of good footage and information though.

[movonne]

13. The world is falling apart and you want to talk about Leopold...whats up?

[JuniperLea]

48. One must ask oneself what the motivation is

that causes people to continually beat a dead horse. Why the hardon for TO? Why the anal retention? Who beneifits? Who in their right mind would wait for mainstream media to confirm anything?

[symbolman]

112. So by your comment

that means if the Media reports that Leopold was Right, then they are not to be believed, which would mean that Leopold was WRONG?

Or does it mean it will NEVER be proven? Don't you agree that there has to be SOME standards?

Or is it just Faith Based Media, and only if they CLAIM to be Left, other wise they can't CONFIRM that Leopold is "right"?

I don't think you can have it both ways, it's just not logical and has no basis in fact at all.. it looks like it's all TRUST ME, and for that matter why even have sources? Who needs them..

I find it interesting that the NUMBER of sources keeps changing, and when Leopold or Ash mentioned that some were from the very WHITE HOUSE STAFF, it was Laughable, for god's sakes, even *I* know that THEY would lie..

So according to those sources, didn't Leopold SET HIMSELF UP to be PLAYED? Isn't that pretty sloppy reporting?

[texasleo]

15. Bob Shrum was Leopold's source.

:crazy:

[symbolman]

21. K & R Stevendsmith

good to stop and examine parameters in any situation where there appears to be a problem..

Appreciate the thought.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

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

[DancingBear]

27. Second recommendation

Perhaps in the future we will focus more on the stories themselves, and not those associated with same, as if one lends credence to the other.

Oh, and cutting back on the whole "cult" thing would be good, too. :)

[SidDithers]

32. K&R...

'cause critical thiking is always a good thing.

Sid

[Jigarotta]

34. I've learned that Kool-Aid comes in more than one flavor. nt

[LittleClarkie]

40. What if it comes out that Rove has actually been indicted all this time

Now wouldn't you feel foolish.

[Jigarotta]

42. I suppose I should, but prolly won't because

I'll be too busy doing the happy dance if that sweaty pork rind gets his.

[JuniperLea]

49. Good question!

And there is no proof he hasn't been indicted either... and he no longer has his security clearance, remember the "political" excuse for that? No proof either way, yet so many have a hardon for Leopold, TO and Will Pitt. Makes you wonder who benefits from all this dead horse beating.

[symbolman]

113. But you said in another post

that the Bush admin is not to be believed, so how do YOU KNOW that Rove DOESN'T have a Security Clearance still? WHO told you that, and how do you KNOW they are correct?

By your standards, that's not proof either, correct?

[foo_bar]

62. that's a variation on "Pascal's Wager"

Pascal begins with a two-by-two matrix: either God exists or does not, and either you believe or do not.

--Table I--
God exists God does not exist

You believe in God
(a) infinite reward (c) 250 utiles

You do not believe in God
(b) infinite punishment (d) 200 utiles

If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal bliss (cell a), while atheists will suffer eternal damnation (cell b). If God does not exist then theists will enjoy finite happiness before they die (say 250 units worth), and atheists will enjoy finite happiness too, though not so much because they will experience angst rather than the comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, then, theists have it better than atheists; hence belief in God is the most rational belief to have.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm

Those who have stood with truthout are owed a massive river of thanks. Your faith will be rewarded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1217985&mesg_id=1217985

It's a good case for "belief", with regard to an all-powerful deity who tortures non-believers, but with truthout it's more like selling your soul for a donut.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Horsehockey

They had reasons for why they reported what they did. And so, I leave open the possibility.

[foo_bar]

72. au contraire, mon frere!

SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/023941.htm

[LittleClarkie]

73. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I'm talking about people who've been right before. People who say they've checked their sources.

Or did you think Rove's people were above reproach and certainly wouldn't like about such things?

[foo_bar]

75. it's my attempt at a rebuttal to "Horsehockey"

I'm talking about people who've been right before. People who say they've checked their sources.

A scoop is a scoop. In my opinion, as long as you are the first one who reports the news, you own the story. It doesn’t really matter how you get it. Other journalists will whine about ethics, but that’s a load of crap.

...

That bitch. It all makes sense now. Motherfucking unbelievable. She’s trying to stop the other papers from picking up my story. That’s it. They’re trying to discredit me. You don’t need to be Woodward or Bernstein to figure out that there’s probably some truth—or maybe something bigger—to my story if the press office is going to such great lengths to stop it from being picked up by the Los Angeles Times. Man, I thought, if I could only control my drinking and coke habit, I’d pour myself a tall glass of brandy and snort a line or two off my desk.

...

When Arden called to tell me about my award, I thought she was going to say, “Jason, we’ve figured out you’re a complete fraud. You’re fired.” Doesn’t she know that I have no idea what I’m doing? Am I that good of an actor?

You could say that I got many scoops through unconventional means.

http://processmediainc.com/press/mini_sites/news_junkie/media_files/newsjunkie_chap2_thescoop.pdf

Andy is apparently a hell of a lot less ill than I and others were led to believe, and I need some answers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3672828

'nuff said.

[symbolman]

120. But but but..

Rove's "people", specifically WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS, WERE among Leopold's SOURCES.. he said so himself.. the number keeps changing, but that was stated, the Staff Sources, and let me tell you, when I read that one it was the topper for me..

Seriously, would YOU believe a source from the Bush WHite House? Wouldn't you wonder if you were being SET UP by them, and tread carefully?

WHITE HOUSE SOURCES? To me that was just nutty.. might just as well have been talking to Rove..

[Ladyhawk]

88. No. I'm merely a "cretin / shitdog / fuckwit" apologist.

I'm 99% sure Leopold is full of shit, but if he isn't, I'll rejoice that Karl got indicted. But until that highly unlikely event happens, those making the positive claim still have the burden of proof. Also, it doesn't undo the damage by labeling dissenting voices "cretins, shitdogs and fuckwits"...or was that "fuckshits"? Perhaps the proper fuckwit or fuckshit can refresh my memory.

[Jazz2006]

91. Quite so.

Those telling the tale have the burden of proof.

And it is very bad form to call people cretins, shitdogs, fuckwits, and fuckshits along the way for having the temerity to ask the very questions that anyone with two arcing brain cells should ask about a story that was not only poorly written, but had glaring internal and external inconsistencies throughout.

Good journalism isn't magic, man.

[Ladyhawk]

94. I also want to give my thanks to those who questioned the story

from the very beginning. I was so obsessed with the need for good news I celebrated prematurely. Even at the time I knew celebrating prematurely wasn't a good idea and I was open to the voices of skeptics and grew skeptical myself pretty quickly.

If you were there from the beginning, thanks!

[theboss]

159. Except there is no scenario where the facts described are plausible

If there was a sealed indictment, Rove would not know about it.

TO's story is that Rove knows about a sealed indictment. Since indictments are sealed to keep the defendant from knowing they exist, this would be odd.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Hey, Here's A Scab On A Badly Beaten Topic. Maybe I Should Pick It To Make

it bleed again just for the sake of seeing fresh blood! (though I will claim my intentions for picking it were innocent and it just simply itched.) Yeah, that's what I'll do!

[JuniperLea]

50. Doesn't it make you wonder who benefits from this

anal retention and repeated beatings of the dead and now swollen and festering horse?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. No, Doesn't Make Me Wonder. It Is Already Well Known That Nobody Benefits

Either which way the thread goes, for or against, there's nothing productive that's going to come from it anymore. I'm in the opinion that threads like this aren't a benefit to anybody at all, and are only there to keep pickin the scabs for some quick attention.

It's all been done already, and done to death.

[JuniperLea]

55. Ahhh... attention whoring

I get it now.

Yes, I've vowed to myself to alert the mods to these flaim bait only threads.

[The Onyx Key]

79. The horse ain't dead. Just as you say: Nothing has been

proven or disproven. There is no closure. I think THAT'S why it continues to be brought up.

[JuniperLea]

103. Wow... I never thought of it that way.

But why invite the flamefest if one is so convinced, yet uninformed, as to the veracity of the story?

Hey... Sosa with the Cubs now?

[Stevendsmith]

57. I wasn't picking a scab.

Some time has passed since the Leopold debacle, and I wanted to share my observation that the Rove buzz has since been tempered by a healthy caution and a reluctance to prematurely break out the Fitzmas carols. I think this is a positive development. I needed to be brought back to earth, too, cuz I want Rove to go down badly.

[DancingBear]

58. It is a very positive development

It has shown that many (not all, obviously) are able to, after a period of time, objectively look at what has happened and vow not be "wowed' again.

I was saddened to see some "question" the article in ways not unlike that of the 29% who "question" Bush: "Mr. Bush, we know you are doing what's best for us, and we will stay by your side."

That is NOT a healthy way to look at things, and the resulting "healthy caution", as you put it, now seems to gaining a foothold here.

That is indeed a positive development.

Rove goes down when Rove goes down. As for right now, well, you know the next line:

No. One. Knows. Anything.

[JuniperLea]

63. I disagree

No one can prove the story correct or incorrect. There is not enough information.

"Healthy caution" tells me no one knows a thing and to argue that TO/Leopold was wrong is every bit as unhealthy as arguing they were right.

[DancingBear]

64. Proving a negative is a false argument

"The Drudge article said Vince Foster was murdered by Clinton on February 10th and he will be arrested tomorrow the 11th."

"The arrest did not happen, and it is now April 20th. Obviously, the article is wrong."

"Can you PROVE he wasn't already arrested?"

See how silly that line of reasoning can be?

Would you argue in this case that "to argue that Drudge was wrong is every bit as unhealthy as arguing he were right". I would hope not.

If by now you don't care to accept the fact that NO ONE ANYWHERE has corroborated anything that Leopold said then that is your right.

However, I can not give your "blind faith" argument any credence, especially in light of the falsehoods (starting with the May 12th date and moving on into the litany of falsehoods rehashed many times over) that litter the article.

I'm sorry, but my first obligation is to the truth, and not to my "side."

My side got it wrong, my side destroyed the cyber-credibility that folks like symbolman and others have tried so hard to build up, and my side now refuses to put ego aside and say it was wrong.

That is a trifecta that I am not willing to accept.

No one should.

[JuniperLea]

67. Your example does not fit

There is still no proof one way or the other, so your argument appears to be moot.

Would you apologize to TO if at some point an indictment was produced with the May 12 date?

[DancingBear]

68. It fits exactly

You just choose not to accept it because it does fit in the box you have already built.

The strawman "would you apologize" is tedious. Listen to this qoute:

"Will you apologize, Senator, if we do indeed find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"

Care to fathom a guess who said it?

Hannity.

This is their modus operandi - always.

If that is how you want to frame this, that makes me sad, in that you are using the tools that we mock. Hannity is Monty Python -"This isn't an argument" "Yes it is"

If you can prove your points, do so. But please don't play in the sandbox like Hannity. That is all he knows.

We have to be better than that. And we are.

[JuniperLea]

69. If you can prove YOUR points, please do so

There is not enough to go on to prove there was or was not an indictment.

I don't build boxes, I look beyond them.

Your choice to answer a question with a question makes me sad. THose are most assuredly the tools used by the RW and they are much hated tools indeed.

[DancingBear]

71. Sorry, I tried

The may 12th date as an absolute - WRONG.

The Secret Service on the 4th floor - WRONG.

24 business hours (or whatever) - WRONG.

Lock down of Patton-Boggs - WRONG.

Two other news crews at P/B (after first saying there were none) - WRONG.

15 hour meeting - WRONG.

I'm done - as I said, some folks are moving toward healthy skepticism, and some aren't. Some will not believe it's snowing even as the avalanche approaches.

I need now to focus on those who are, for they will take us where we need to go.

Good luck to you.

[JuniperLea]

104. You've proved nothing

Except your expertise in spelling the word, wrong.

[DancingBear]

111. Remember - Carvel cake on June 12th - don't miss it!

<fade to black>

Bye.

[JuniperLea]

134. Look at the shiny keys....

Avert your gaze...

[SidDithers]

108. If the story cannot be proven correct...

then it should not have been published.

Sid

[symbolman]

123. EXACTLY

If they EVER should have adopted a "wait and see" attitude, it should have been BEFORE they made the statement that ROVE HAD BEEN INDICTED THEN.. and NOT published the story until it was SOLID.

Totally irresponsible reporting and the Editor Should have known better.

What would have been wrong with "SOURCES SAY ROVE INDICTED"? Might have saved them a lot of hassle..

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[BlooInBloo]

65. No it wasn't. Unfortunately. The faith-based credulous here...

... are still just as faith-based, just as credulous, and completely unrepentant about it.

Completely unwilling to admit to being wrong for believing in claims made without evidence - the consequence of which will be: it'll happen again.

And we pro-evidence people get villified for being pro-evidence.

Sigh.

[JuniperLea]

70. Unrepentant... just like those who choose to believe there

is evidence where none exists.

There is no evidence of the story being correct or incorrect.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

107. Does it make you feel better about yourself to make fun of people?nt

[Jazz2006]

93. Well, Leopold himself backed off his own story...

in his radio interview, when asked about sealed indictments near the end of the interview, he said it would not make sense that there's a sealed indictment sitting there that Karl Rove's been told about.

His published story, on the other hand, said that Rove had been served with the indictment, not only told about it.

He then lies outright by saying that his story was just that an indictment had been 'returned' by the GJ.

Total bullshit.

Truthout said a whole lot more than that and presented it as fact. Subsequently, they've been distancing themselves from their own words - repeatedly - and they seem to be engaging in tactics to try to convince everyone else that they didn't say what they clearly said, in hopes that nobody will notice by the time that the whole thing plays out.

Shabby, shabby, shabby journalism, that.

No matter how you slice it.

[JuniperLea]

106. I listened to that radio interview

And I don't know what you are talking about.

TO came out again yesterday saying they stand behind their story.

[Jazz2006]

137. Well, listen to it again...

it's very near the end when a caller asked specifically about how indictments work.

Leopold mentioned sealed indictments and the interviewer asked Leopold whether it was possible that there was an indictment sitting there sealed. Leopold answered that there is a possibility that it's sitting there sealed but that "it would not make sense that it's sitting there sealed and Karl Rove's been told about it, and that's exactly what I said in my story. I said that he was indicted, that the grand jury returned the indictment."

[JuniperLea]

145. Leopold answered that there is a possibility n/t

[Jazz2006]

148. He answered exactly as I posted above.

Leopold answered that there "is a possibility that it's sitting there sealed but it would not make sense that it's sitting there sealed and Karl Rove's been told about it, and that's exactly what I said in my story. I said that he was indicted, that the grand jury returned the indictment."

Which, as should be blatantly apparent, is not what the truthout story said at all.

[crispini]

78. IBTL!

:popcorn:

[symbolman]

105. Could you at least "dress up" the horse?

Maybe some pink handcuffs? :)

[sweatyk]

81. Truthout: We stand by the story

The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Tue May 30th, 2006 at 03:58:17 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


We are still getting a high volume of email inquiries on our Rove indictment story from May 13, 2006. We greatly appreciate your interest, and are well aware of the right of all Americans to know what is happening here.

So again, for the record: We stand by the story. TO's staff is treating this story as our highest priority and will be following up with additional information as it becomes available.

Clearly the question is: "If Karl Rove has been indicted, why has there been no official announcement?" Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.

This a unique situation, and frankly a stressful one. We would like to thank all of those who have offered their support during the course of this ordeal. We fully intend to press on.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
[e-mail]




http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/30/155817/191

[symbolman]

84. To me this just gets more and more Bizarre..

So now they appreciate having a "support group" for sloppy reporting? As for everyone else that's writing to them, and I assume complaining, what of them?

Man, that is SO over the top, just gets curiouser and curiouser.. we're definately through the Rabbit Hole now.. :)

[Jazz2006]

96. It's just more of truthout's distancing themselves from what they actually

reported.

They've been moving the goalposts since the first day.

Their latest pronouncement is just more of the same.

They're pretending now that the story was only that an indictment was "returned" and trying to pretend that they didn't report as fact all manner of complete and utter nonsense along the way.

Leopold did that in his radio interview last week as well. Acknowledged that it would make no sense for a sealed indictment to exist that Rove would be told about, and pretended that he didn't report that Rove was not only told about it but had been served with it. He said that what he'd reported was only that an indictment had been returned by the GJ. That is not true at all, obviously. He reported - as fact - a whole lot more than that, and which he and truth*out have been distancing themselves from ever since.

They're still trying to move the goalposts by way of "partial apologies" and occasional updates that distance themselves from the original story and try to reframe it from a vastly different position.

(And that's not even considering the nonsense about a half day/whole day/15 hour meeting in "lock down" with the secret service, etc., and not considering the 24 hours/24 business hours/3 days/5 days/one week/ silliness, and not considering the fact that truth*out changed their original story without noting on the face of it that it had been changed so that it looked as though the edited version was the "original" version, etc. etc.)

Crappy journalism, any way you look at it.

[Jersey Devil]

85. Cripes! Give it a rest!

Although I have always been skeptical about the story it is is pretty clear that a lot of the criticism here of Will Pitt and Truthout emanates from personal hostilities and petty jealousy.

Yeah, maybe Truthout fucked up, maybe Will Pitt was too loyal to Leopold. I don't know the guy personally and I've read stuff written by him that might make others resentful towards him. Sometimes he comes across as a smartass knowitall. But you know what?

Will's heart is in the right place. His passion is our passion.

I think we'd all be much better off if all the hostility was directed where it belongs instead of towards someone working to achieve the same goals as virtually everyone here.

That's just my 2 cents.

[JuniperLea]

109. Hear, hear!

:toast:

[Laurab]

142. Your 2 cents is very much appreciated

by me, anyway. "personal hostilities and petty jealousy" I think covers it for quite a few posters who just won't give it a rest. It's been the same names over and over, too.

I don't know Will either, and on rare occasions he might come across as a "smartass knowitall", but so do a LOT of people. He's one of the rare ones I've seen apologize when he does. He's also apparently not allowed to delete posts he thinks better of, since I've been hearing about one of them for a long time.

On other (far more frequent) occasions, he posts, IMO, some of the best-written, informational, and heartfelt things I've ever read. Inspirational things, too, that help a lot when I've been close to giving up.

Well, he used to. Until the hostilities and jealousy achieved their goal.

[Rex]

92. Did you win?

Let us know when that is.

[Jazz2006]

97. "a needed check ..."

Yes, it was useful and instructive in that regard.

It is always a good thing when people are encouraged or reminded to engage in critical thought and reminded or encouraged not to suspend healthy disbelief about a story even when - especially when - we wish wholeheartedly that the story were true.

And now, to bed.

Cheers,
Jazz

[Marie26]

122. It was also

a lesson, I think, about how hard it is to change your beliefs. Especially when you had faith & trust in someone & believed them because of that trust. If we did a poll here, I bet 29% still wouldn't admit the story was wrong. It's kind of like how 29% of Americans still won't admit that Bush was wrong. It's very hard to admit to being betrayed, or fooled, or that someone you admire did something inadmirable. So, it gives us some insight into what's motivating many Bush voters. Right or wrong, people did trust him, & it's not fun to admit that trust was misplaced. It's really a testament to Americans that so many are now willing to change their minds about this Administration. Of course, there's some that would still follow Bush to the ends of the earth, but it's not always cause they're evil, or bad, but sometimes it's just because they can't admit that he was wrong.

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. People beleived it because they WANTED it to be true

Plain and simple.

[Marie26]

133. Right

We've all done that at some point. But you can't shut off your own independent thinking just cause someone's saying something that you like, or feel must be true. That's the whole "truthiness" scheme that Republicans have exploited so well. It leaves people vulernable to being lead or manipulated by whoever tells them what they want to hear.

[Jazz2006]

138. Very good point.

But I am NOT going to post a poll thread about it!

:hi:

[Marie26]

143. Please don't! :) nt

[ContraBass Black]

124. .

[Lochloosa]

127. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray:

[Marie26]

128. LOL!

But since Truthout is still standing by the story, it's not exactly a dead horse, is it? Shouldn't we still be having threads anticipating the unveiling of this secret indictment? I do think that once it's officially corrected, there's no reason to keep bringing it up. But, IMO, they're keeping the fire going by refusing to just retract this story already.

[Igel]

132. It was instructive, but the instruction won't be

heeded.

People, when confronted with something that can be true or false, frequently can't understand the reason why anybody would possibly argue that we simply can't decide, and therefore declaring the truth or falsity of something has to be postponed. But only when they want to believe something is true or false. As soon as it's expedient to claim 'we can't tell', that's suddenly a possibility that's almost a necessity.

They're quick to jump on a claim that something happened, and when insufficient proof is adduced to show that it certainly must have happened, argue that it's "impossible to prove a negative" (when it's quite possible in some cases, making that claim false). But as soon as the default assumption is that something didn't happen, to claim the default assumption--proving a negative--is urgently required.

The default assumption in this case is that Leopold screwed up in a big way. There are too many inconsistencies to accept that his story is true. Is it just remotely possible that Fitzgerald managed to get a sealed indictment and is playing footsie with Rove with a wink and a nudge from the judge? Sure. Remotely. Let people have their beliefs. Arguing with fundies is a losing proposition; they keep changing the rules of the game.

[mmonk]

136. So you know what has happened or not happened and the circumstances

around it?

[Roon]

146. Hmmmm!

Where's Pitt?

[LaCrosseDem]

150. they gambled, lost, and flushed their own credibility

I think Rove will be indicted, but if I recall correctly they said it was imminent. They did choke , and it's too bad. They do a great job 99.9% of the time but this was a massive error.

[emcguffie]

157. How about "prove they weren't"?

I posted this as a reply to the wrong poster. It was meant for you.

Please forgive the error.

You know, it used to be in t his country that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense. So it's up to you to provide the proof. That is, if you approve of the American system of government and justice. At least, the one we used to have.


emcguff

[theboss]

160. That's easy

There is no indictment on file in the federal courthouse, so there is no indictment.

"Ah ha," you say. "I saw an episode of Law and Order once. I know they mentioned something called a sealed indictment."

Indictments are sealed to keep the person from knowing they are indicted. TO says Rove knows he has been indicted. In fact, it was handed to him during some fifteen hour meeting.

There is no scenario in legal history where such a meeting would take place and then the indictment be sealed.

[JuniperLea]

167. There is no scenario in legal history

Exactly my point. You cannot base any argument on legal history. What does BushCo do when confronted with a law they don't like?

Your assumption that BushCo plays by the rules renders your "logic" ineffective and inaccurate. What has gone on in the past is no measure of what will happen now or in the future.

[theboss]

173. Fine...so Fitzgerald is just a wimp then

Your story is that Bush and Co are flouting 225 years worth of legal precedent in order to protect Karl Rove.

I would think that Fitzgerald may say something about that. Something like, "Hey, they're are flouting 225 years worth of legal precedent."

And how is Jason Leopold the ONLY person to have figured this out.

[JuniperLea]

174. Don't put words in my mouth... if you want to believe

That BushCo plays fair and by the rules, that's your fantasy... erm... business:) If you want to believe that BushCo gives a rat's butt about history, legal or otherwise... dream on.

Yes, Fitz would say something... at the right time... when all his ducks are in a row... as always.

[theboss]

175. The right time is the day the indictments are quashed

The Saturday Night Massacre did not have a month-long prologue.

[JuniperLea]

182. Again... history has nothing to do with now...

or this administration. There is a long list of laws, rules and regulations they have broken, ignored, or otherwise usurped. They are uniquely evil and corrupt. Do we ever hear about their evil ways right away? No.

There is just not enough information to state with certainty not only the Leopold story or anything else this corrupt administration may or may not have been involved with. To believe they are predictable by any means of divination is dangerous at best. Circumstantial evidence means nothing because they don't play by the rules and what has happened before has no bearing whatsoever on what may or may not be happening now.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

168. Junkie Jason needs wollop?

• Join weasel-led snoop junk.
  
• Leaden-jowl junkie snoops.
  
• Junk news: a poisoned Jello®?
  
• Onion¹ pulls “deja news”² joke.
  
• Join naked Jello® news opus.

¹ Reference to the satirical publication The Onion www.theonion.com. This whole episode seems like a prank.
² Leopold has claimed Rove's indictment several times, since before Libby went down.

It seemed time for a re-post of this. These are all anagrams for "Jason Leopold News Junkie" (his new book). You go to the anagram generator with the letters you have, not the letters you want. (if you think these are harsh, you should see the ones I rejected)

I hope that anyone who initially believed in Leopold's "reporting" has now realised that their faith has been abused by him. We all want Rove to swing from a high branch, but that doesn't mean we should believe every snake-oil salesman that says he has proof of it. Especially not if he has a book coming out and a track-record of falsification.

/Proud member of the reality-based universe.

[stepnw1f]

170. Rove Is GOING DOWN!

Buh Bye....

[Snivi Yllom]

178. It was not useful or instructive.TO has accepted no responsibilty.

Down the memory hole. It never happened.

We were right, yeah, that's the ticket!

Rove was not indicted? Sure he was! 3 weeks ago! Just nobody else heard a whiff about it.

Can't prove it? No problem!

No sources on record? No problem, we don't need any!

Can't you tell us even a little about how you got the story wrong. Fuck you! we're Truthout, we don't have to tell you anything. We don't make mistakes!

[DancingBear]

180. "TO has accepted no responsibilty"

Therein lies the usefulness.

Some have seen it for what it is, and will now employ the critical eye that many of us here having been asking for.

Some never will.

They are our 29%.

Before this, I didn't think we had them.

I guess it is useful to know that.

[dogday]

181. I am trying to understand what you just posted

Some have seen it for what it is, and will now employ the critical eye that many of us here having been asking for.

Some never will.

They are our 29%.

Before this, I didn't think we had them.

I guess it is useful to know that.

When you make the reference that some never will, is that the wait and see crowd you are referring to? Are you comparing this to the 29% who still believe in Bush?

I guess it would be useful to know exactly what you meant... The innuendo just doesn't explain it, could you expand your answer further please???

[DancingBear]

183. Read some of the "rationale" for defending TO

Better yet, use Drudge for the source, substitute <any Dem> for Rove and keep all the Leopold "absolutes" in place.

If that were the case, we would be laughing out loud at anyone still willing to go along with what Leopold wrote.

"20 days and no indictment!", we would laugh.

"Rove! Secret Service!! - he doesn't even have a SS detail!!" Guffaw, guffaw.

"Anyone see the 4th floor locked down?" Anyone??" Uproarious laughter.

Yet because it is what we WANT IT TO BE, we pretend Sealed Indictment, discount the blatant falsehoods as just one of those things, and wait and see.

They're waiting on the other side, too, you know.

For WMD's.

It doesn't matter to them that everyone has discounted their existence.

How do we KNOW they're not in Syria? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Timbuktu?

We have to be better than that. We have to. We have to admit when we're wrong.

And the 29% just will not.

I'm telling you that IF Rove gets indicted there are folks here that will jump up and down and say "See! Truthout was right! They just got the dates wrong!"

And people will believe that.

THAT is not critical thinking. It is groupspeak.

And it is a damn shame.

[dogday]

185. Group-speak seems to be prevalent on

both sides of this issue... I think the rate is actually higher than 29% here that have the wait and see mentality. I think this issue is divided about 50/50...

What worries me is the amount of acrimony I am hearing from those who believe Jason, Truthout and Will are wrong. I am hearing the following descriptions:

dead wrong, doesn't matter if sources were wrong, they fucked up, they are shit, Jason is a drug-addict, Will called us names. Trashing truth-out, trashing Jason, trashing Will...

It deems the question as to why all the acrimony?

Why don't I feel as mad as others do about this story, after all, I was disappointed I didn't see Rove indicted on TV.. Why aren't I so angry at them? I would want to post thread after thread of how they are just crap for posting such a bogus story.

I can't tell you why I am not outraged by all of this. I am supposed to believe no matter what comes from this story, they are wrong and truthout is crap now? I don't think I can do that..

So, does that make me in the 29% of which you speak? If so, I am sorry you feel that way....

[JuniperLea]

189. Ooops! Looks like you got to close to something...

You little sub-thread killer you:)

[JuniperLea]

187. You forgot my rationale... conveniently, methinks...

There is a long list of laws, rules and regulations they have broken, ignored, or otherwise usurped. They are uniquely evil and corrupt. Do we ever hear about their evil ways right away? No.

There is just not enough information to state with certainty not only the Leopold story, true or false, or anything else this corrupt administration may or may not have been involved with.

To believe they are predictable by any means of divination is dangerous at best.

Circumstantial evidence (and ALL of the so called "evidence" you have produced is nothing more than circumstantial) means nothing because they don't play by the rules and what has happened before has no bearing whatsoever on what may or may not be happening now.

[rman]

186. We'll see. It may yet turn out to be true.

I'm not holding my breath though.