Can’t Find Truthout Post (UPDATED: There It Is!)
Wasn’t there supposed to be a big defense of Jason Leopold at Truthout at 5 p.m. sharp?
I just went by and didn’t see it.
UPDATE: It was there all along. See Dubya provides the link.
UPDATE x2: Just for the sake of amusement, read the Lauria piece, with its level of detail, and the Marc Ash denial. The contrast is amusing.
Truthout’s defense is: Rove’s spokesman is the only guy who confirms that Leopold used Lauria’s name. Hey, he’s lying about everything else! Why not this too?
But Rove’s spokesman also gave Lauria a phone number that was one digit off of Lauria’s. And before Lauria ever got involved, Rove’s spokesman gave much of this information to Jeralyn Merritt — including the reporter’s first name, the area code of his cell phone, and the fact that he freelances for the London Sunday Times.
I mean, it’s pathetic. If Rove’s spokesman is making this up, what is Truthout’s explanation for how Rove’s spokesman knew all this information about Lauria? Did they pick a random acquaintance of Leopold’s, give Merritt that random acquaintance a first name, area code, and connection to a newspaper, and sit back and hope Lauria would make the connection?
If you’re following the details on this, it’s just sad what this guy Ash has talked himself into believing. Man, these guys are easily led. They must have hellish lives each April 1.
It’s up. You have to go to the blog.
They don’t really deny anything.
See-Dubya (a661de) — 6/21/2006 @ 5:37 pmThose Truthout folk are a hoot.
Geek, Esq. (fc561e) — 6/21/2006 @ 7:37 pmWell that was useful. I now understand the importance of this whole thing. It seems TruthOut and Jason Leopold are some kind of incredible reporting machine with all sorts of contacts within the government and the Washington Post is just jealous. It’s suddenly all clear. I just had no idea a major newspaper like the Post could be so petty as to envy those paragons of reportorial excellence, TruthOut and Jason Leopold.
Bill M (d9e4b2) — 6/21/2006 @ 8:00 pmI like how they shifted the burden of proof. Prove it didn’t happen! Heck, you could report that Martians have lived among us and control the government.
Don’t believe me? Prove it isn’t true!!
Of course, the most obvious…shouldn’t they document and substantiate thier story?
J (effd50) — 6/21/2006 @ 8:33 pmThanks, Patterico for the link directly to the TRUTHOUT response. It is becoming more and more apparent that the MS media and the government are partners in disinformation. It is already well known that the government pays journalists to say things. At least most people know it.
Why would Patrick Fizgerald’s spokesman simply say: “no comment” if it was stated in the MSM that Rove was exonerated? What is to hide?
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/24/2006 @ 3:44 pmBlu, even the liberal bloggers are trashing truthout and Jason Leopold — because they blew it on this one.
Truthout can defend Mr Leopold, say things about how they checked his facts, verify all of his sources, and it still doesn’t mean one thing: they said that Karl Rove was going to be indicted within a couple of days, and it simply wasn’t true.
It’s been what, about a month now, and still no indictment. And apparently there won’t be an indictment.
Dana (71415b) — 6/24/2006 @ 4:45 pmDana, even an idiot would know better than to put themselves in this ridiculous predicament of having to fess up in the end to something that turned out not to be true. So, whatever happened, I don’t believe that Leopold intentionally lied. There might have been some deals made though among the law and Rove.
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/25/2006 @ 12:10 amPerhaps, Blu, Mr Leopold is an idiot; he has a rather checkered journalistic history. I know that you respect the posters on The Liberal Avenger website; well, one of them, Gordo, also has his own site, and here is where he takes apart Mr Leopold and Truthout’s decision to use him, complete with linked sources.
You might wish to consider the possibility that not everything that is written that is unflattering about the people you dislike must necessarily be true.
Dana (1d5902) — 6/25/2006 @ 5:10 amI said, Dana that even an IDIOT would NOT put himself in a position of having to be proven wrong after making such a declaration. The slick maneuvers that Rove manages to wriggle in, out through and under is no surprise. He is known for that and has even admitted to many slippery tactics. His claim to fame is that he thinks outside the box. Thinking outside the box is easy if you bypass that pesky enclosure called law.
It is par for the course that laws are not much of a concern for him. This whole administration just bypasses law. Bush has broken over 700 laws. After all, he is king.
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/25/2006 @ 11:55 amAlso, Dana, the reason you like Gordo more than other liberals is because he leans slightly more right than many liberals. I’m appreciative of liberals outspokenness in general, but I don’t agree with Gordo always.
I disagree with Salon sometimes too.
There are many that form their opinion on the weather vane. Some.
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/25/2006 @ 12:02 pmDana, even an idiot would know better than to put themselves in this ridiculous predicament of having to fess up in the end to something that turned out not to be true. So, whatever happened, I don’t believe that Leopold intentionally lied.
Too bad we don’t give the same benefit of the doubt to people with whom we disagree … Personally, I’m partial to your assertion that Mr. Leopold is an idiot. BDS does seem to affect some minds that way.
It is par for the course that laws are not much of a concern for him. This whole administration just bypasses law. Bush has broken over 700 laws. After all, he is king.
So many laws to break, so little time …700? Wow! Not bad for “the king.” And all this time I thought Elvis was “the king.”
Care to list just say, 50 or so … just for grins so to speak?
See, this is why we can’t close Gitmo, we’ll need it on January 21, 2009 … if you know what I mean.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/25/2006 @ 1:32 pmYou might wish to consider the possibility that not everything that is written that is unflattering about the people you dislike must necessarily be true.
Yep, some of us just believe any old thing we want that fits our version of the universe, don’t we? Strong point, Dana.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/25/2006 @ 1:35 pmJust keep wearing those rose colored glasses, Harry. Here is a link that objective folks that are not afraid to appear out of the spere of common thought recognize. Check out #13 on the list. Don’t worry though. Your commonness will never be threatened.
http://www.peace-justice.com/fascism.html
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/26/2006 @ 12:06 amHarry, you asked about the list of laws broken. Well, I don’t have the list, but here are some articles, since you asked.
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/laws_and_treat%C4%B1es_violated_by_pr.html
http://greatmartin.blogster.com/bush_broken750_laws.html
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/26/2006 @ 1:31 amWell, despite finding those articles on the web, after typing in the links, they are not coming up. If you are actually iinterested, Harry, and my bet is that you choose not to really know, the articles are plentiful on the subject, just look, but of course not on the MSM. Interestingly, I found a great quotation today from someone that resided here from the Soviet Union for 5 years. I shared it over at Dana’s site.
A Soviet correspondent based 5 years here in the United States: “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world-in the field of advertising and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency. Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious…I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda is quite simple. You tend to believe yours..and we tend to disbelieve ours.”
blubonnet (86405d) — 6/26/2006 @ 1:42 am