once again, when your editorializing is exposed as such, you fall back on strawman tactics. can you not stay on point? i thought liberals were superior debaters, and that's why all the neo cons have disappeared. well i'm right here- please back up your assertions above with facts. TIA!
Good Question. I'd like to know as well. To the board I apologize for posting seemingly wrong information. -------------- The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now By Marc Ash, Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:23:39 PM EDT On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title. The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it. As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted. Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t director@truthout.org
He's a well documented liar & a known plagiarizer. October 1, 2002 | After careful review, Salon's editors have decided to take down from our Web site an article titled "Tom White played key role in covering up Enron losses" that we published on Aug. 29. We took this unusual step because we have come to the conclusion that we can no longer stand by the story in its entirety. Though we have corroborated most of the reporting in the article, some unanswered questions remain. Specifically, we have been unable to independently confirm the authenticity of an e-mail from former Enron executive and current Army Secretary Thomas White that was quoted in the article. Although Salon reviewed key supporting documents before publishing the article, we felt compelled to further investigate the story two weeks ago. At that time, we received a phone call from an editor at the Financial Times informing us that several paragraphs of the story, which was written by freelance writer Jason Leopold, had previously appeared in a February story in his paper. We reviewed the complaint, discovered that it was legitimate, and posted a correction notice as soon as we were able to confirm the details. As we reported in that notice, "Leopold ... told Salon that he accidentally copied the passages while writing his own story, and never noticed the error during the editing of the story, or after it was published." Whatever its basis, this sort of plagiarism is a serious breach of journalistic trust, and caused us to go back over every detail and aspect of the original article. Our review led us to take this latest step. Salon apologizes to its readers. We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of careful journalism -- and, wherever questions or problems do arise, to correcting them promptly and fairly. -- The editors of Salon http://dir.salon.com/story/letters/editor/2002/10/01/note/index.html
It sounds like Leopold's a loser and maybe worse. Jayson Blair was too. And 60 Minutes royally ****ed up with the National Guard story. But none of that ought to forgive the Judith Millers or virtually the entire staff of Fox News or, more to the point, the bad acts of the people covered by the media. And that's what the right wing seeks to do. Truthout screwing up and then acknowledging the mistake ought not to erase all past or future credibility. And it certainly ought not shine a bad light on kos or any other net media that had no part in this story simply because the sites might share a general point of view. Similarly, a Dem congressman with 90K in his freezer, one who seems almost certain to be guilty of some sort of corruption and who seems all but certain to have broken laws, should be condemned, removed from office and tried for whichever crimes he's accused (and I expect guilty) of. But the shadyness of one guy in no way lessens my contempt for the shadyness of other ones. This attitude is sorely lacking in the right wing. They employ the bad acts of certain lefties to both condemn the left and provide a shield for their own bad actors. They do not police their own. Never was this so evident as in the case of basso freaking out over Leopold's actions and calling the actions of the Bush White House in the Plame affair a "kerfluffle."
Two more: Richard Nixon. But they are extreme exceptions to the rule. You will never hear me or other Dems or liberals here defend lawbreaking or other blatant bad behavior on the part of elected Dems or mainstream or liberal media. You do it for your guys like it's a religion.
Haven't given up all hope yet bassole. Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story By Marc Ash, Sun May 21st, 2006 I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked. We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all. Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late. We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.) We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization. Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation. We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow. Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t director@truthout.org http://forum.truthout.org/blog/
Well first off, you didn't see any from me. Nor have you ever heard me defend Clinton's perjury, Sharpton on Brawley or any other like thing. But there is an important distinction to make between Patrick Kennedy's (I would say) criminal behavior and Rush Limbaugh's. In both cases these guys lied and (I think) broke the law. And they should both be punished. But Kennedy wasn't a hypocrite into the bargain. He hadn't spent years condemning people for doing a thing he himself was doing. So while they were both wrong, Rush was more wrong. Furthermore, there is a difference between simply breaking a law and gaming the system for gain, thereby betraying the public trust. The Dem with the freezer cash did that and I think he's scum. So did the leakers and those who engaged in subsequent coverups. Rush didn't and neither did Patrick Kennedy. My point still stands though. You condemn scumbags on the left wing and embrace, excuse or defend virtually all scumbags on the right. That's bull****.
what scumbags on the right do i defend? and in the case of rush and PFK, you left out one other highly pertinent aspect. one's an elected official, one's not.
This is a pointless discussion (as are all with you) as whenever you like a lawbreaker you just decide they didn't break the law. Incredibly that even extends to people for whom the solution is retroactively changing a law so that the illegal act will no longer be so. You defend a lot of scumbags, but the main ones I was thinking of here were the leakers, the liars under oath, the cover-uppers, the war criminals involved in Abu Ghraib and the guy that presided over widespread illegal, warrantless wiretapping. No need to respond. I already know your answer. If the military, the president or any of his agents break the law it doesn't count.
Regarding PK and Rush, I agree that elected officials should ideally be held to a higher standard, but I disagree that the crime they have each been accused of rises to a level of betraying the public trust (like the various crimes I mentioned in my last post, or any of the recent examples of corruption by government officials). Driving while ****ed up is a crime and it should be punished, but it's not corruption or abuse of power. I think the cops let Kennedy off too easy, but that's on them not him. All that said, I think Rush's deal was worse because he was a hypocrite and I hate hypocrites. But I don't really care too much about comparing Rush and Kennedy. As far as I know, they both broke the law and got caught and they should both be punished.
please, where has the president broken the law? you may not like his policies, but that's a far different matter (disclosure: i don't like many of his policies). and the plame affair is a kerfuffle until proven otherwise. if fitz indicts someone, and they're convicted, of actually "outing" a "covert" CIA agent, i will cheerfully retract every kerfuffle comment ever made, but until such time, if it walks like a kur, and talks like a fuffle, it's a kerfuffle, and policitcally motivated on at that, that stands a decent chance of coming back to bite those who pimped the story the most, in the ass.
