Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Jason Leopold Misled? Was he Targeted? James Hatfield Revisited...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:08 AM
Original message
Was Jason Leopold Misled? Was he Targeted? James Hatfield Revisited...

I have posted several times my suspicions that Leopold was "Rathered" or "Hatfielded". I was researching Hatfield to refresh my memories, and ran across several opinions that are similar to mine, i.e. that Leopold was used as a target to feed misinformation to by his 'sources', and was so chosen because he, like Hatfield, had a dubious past. His past could thus be used to discredit him, even though his sources may have given him the truth, the partial truth, or outright lies. It is of extreme interest to note that Rove was presumably one of Hatfield's sources, and chillingly, one of his sources threatened Hatfield's family members prior to the publication of his book! Wouldn't this be so ironic and Roveian; to find another Progressive author with a past, who this time writes to expose Rove.

There are two recent links below which compare the circumstances of Hatfield and Leopold. Following this are links and snips from articles about Hatfield. Apparently, he never divulged his sources for his book Fortunate Son, but strongly hinted that one of the sources was none other than Rove himself. Also ironic, is the fact that Hatfield repeatedly states that there was never denial or refutation of the facts in his B* biography.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/05/rove-hatfield-leop...
<snip>
I don’t want to dump all over Leopold, as, unlike everybody else, he seems to be trying. On the other hand, his background makes him, exactly like James Hatfield, an excellent target for Rovean disinformation. The Rove pattern is to pick somebody with an iffy history to spread rumors about a touchy topic, rumors which have a basis in truth but which are technically wrong, and then use the character of the person reporting the rumors to deflect attention from the real issues. They used the same method in dealing with Bush’s military service, or lack thereof.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=...
This Google page contains numerous links strongly suggesting that Rove himself was one of Hatfield's Sources

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=3...

<snip>
Jason Leopold -Truthout vs. Karl Rove- White House

by JOSHUA FRANK (EDITOR'S NOTE: Did Jason Leopold & Truthout.org get bushwhacked by the Karl Rove Spin-Lie Machine for the "Karl Rove Indicted" story? It happened to J.H. Hatfield, author of Fortunate Son, who was fed the story of George Bush Jr.'s cocaine conviction, then discredited publicly when it was revealed that Hatfield had done time for an unrelated fraud charge. Thus the Bush cocaine story was also discredited just in time for the 2000 presidential election. Later Hatfield was either suicided or committed suicide himself.)

Jason Leopold should be used to it. He's been the target of media assaults for years now, really ever since he began breaking stories about Enron’s fiascos and the California energy crisis as a writer for Dow Jones Newswire. .....

tp://www.lovearth.net/fortunateson.htm

Bush Accuser Dies Of Drug Overdose

<snip>
Was This A Payback Murder For His Writing Fortunate Son, Or Did
He Really Commit Suicide By Overdosing On Prescription Drugs?

by Irene Noguchi
The troubled author of a biography accusing President Bush of hiding a three-decade-old cocaine arrest committed suicide Wednesday. James Howard Hatfield, 43, was found in a hotel room in Springdale, Ark., and appeared to have died from a overdose of prescription drugs, police said. Hatfield wrote Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President in 1999. The book cited unnamed sources in claiming that Bush was arrested in 1972 but that his case was expunged. Bush, who was campaigning for president when the book was published, denied the allegations.
Soon after Fortunate Son was released by St. Martin's Press, the company discovered that Hatfield had been convicted in 1988 of attempted murder of his former supervisor. It recalled 70,000 copies in October 1999 and left an additional 20,000 books in storage.
**********
"He did have a past that he was working very hard to put behind him," Hicks said.
In "Fortunate Son," Hatfield said three unnamed sources claimed a judge had expunged Bush's case and given him community service as a favor to his father, who was ambassador to the United Nations at the time. The incident raised questions of how well publishers screen the credentials of authors and check facts in their books. Hatfield was convicted in 1988 of paying a hit man $5,000 to murder his former boss with a car bomb. Both passengers in the vehicle, the intended victim and a colleague, escaped unharmed when the bomb malfunctioned. After news of that conviction surfaced, it was also discovered that Hatfield had pleaded guilty to embezzlement in 1992. (Original article in Washington Post July 20, 2001; link doesn't work)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/19/fortunate /

The biography, which was supposed to debut next January, was hastened out the door three months early by its publisher St. Martin's on account of startling allegations: that Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession and had his record expunged with the help of family connections.

...Hatfield relies on three unnamed sources to nail down his disturbing allegations about Bush's supposed cocaine arrest.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2001/05/Jim_Hatfiel...

BUZZFLASH.COM INTERVIEW WITH JIM HATFIELD:

BuzzFlash: Why was the Bush Campaign so scared of Fortunate Son being published? Hatfield: For the obvious reason--everything contained between its covers is the truth. Pure and simple. Here it is a year-and-a-half later and no one has ever disproved anything in "Fortunate Son." The biography has withstood the test of time and, trust me, there has been an army of conservatives who would have given up their first born to destroy this book. But they had to settle with trying to destroy me instead. But to their absolute utter dismay, I'm still standing. My e-mail signature is from writer Langston Hughes and it fits me like a glove: "I've been insulted, eliminated, locked in, locked out, and left holding the bag. But I am still here."

**********************

BuzzFlash: Do you expect the White House to unleash a counterattack against you and your book? Hatfield: You betcha! It's Bush and his gang's modus operandi. Usually when a hard-hitting biography of someone is published, the subject ignores it and refuses to comment on the book because discussing or refuting it or even calling the author horse hockey, only draws more attention to the book--the opposite of what the biographical subject wants. When "Fortunate Son" was first published in October 1999, there was an orchestrated plan to discredit me on a daily basis publicly, while the Bush lawyers were privately pressuring Saint Martin's Press to take the unusual step of recalling all copies. While George W. was calling the cocaine arrest allegation "science fiction" and "ridiculous" (but never denying it), his father gave Fox News an exclusive interview and bold-faced lied. He claimed his lawyers had been in contact with me and was threatening to sue (neither I nor my attorney ever heard from any legal representative of the Bush family). The elder Bush also said I alleged in the book that he "bribed a judge" to insure his son's cocaine arrest was expunged. Using my sources' own words, I detail how he used his political influence with a judge friend in Houston to make sure George W. got community service and the record expunged. The Bush campaign also drafted former Harris County (Houston) District Attorney Carol S. Vance to issue a statement debunking the allegations that the charges against Bush were expunged by a GOP judge, claiming that they could not be true because no Republicans served as judges in the county at the time. Vance's statement does not prove that what I asserted was false. Actually, it validates my procedural process of corroboration when dealing with anonymous sources. Two of the three stated it was simply a "state judge" who expunged Bush's cocaine arrest, while only one of them said, "Republican." By late 1999, all 59 state district judges were Republicans, whereas in 1972 they were all Democrats. Was it a simple mistake on the part of one of my sources, or purposely planned to discredit me at a later date, as my publisher, Sander Hicks, believes (as do quite a few others). And then, of course, the final nail in the coffin during that week in October 1999 was the eventual front page story in the Dallas Morning News that I had a checkered past. Suddenly the media was more obsessed with the life of the biographer than the subject of an even-balanced but unflinching biography of a man that eventually became president. Confederate General Robert E. Lee once said, "When you're too weak to defend, you must attack." And that's exactly what the Bush campaign did. This time it will be the White House. Actually, they've thrown everything at me but the kitchen sink, both personally and professionally. Also, like I said earlier, not one single statement in "Fortunate Son" has been disproved during the past year and a half. What truly worries me and wakes me up in a cold sweat during the middle of the night, is what one of my confidential sources for the cocaine arrest told me when it was announced that Soft Skull Press was going to re-publish the book less than 3 months after St. Martin's Press recalled it: "Jim, we're not done discrediting you. The wheels are already in motion for more of the same." Then he went on to say if I "valued the lives" of my wife and baby daughter (whom he called by their first names), "then you'll cancel this publishing deal right now, today." It makes you wonder why the Bushes so desperately want this book suppressed. What's contained in its 400+ pages that scares the hell out of them?

http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000058.shtm...

According to Hatfield, during the writing of Fortunate Son he had contacted Rove and Johnson and interviewed them at length. Hatfield mistakenly assumed that Johnson and Rove weren't aware of his 1988 conviction for solicitation of capital murder. Rove and Johnson realised that, in Hatfield, they had found their solution to Bush's drug problem. A flawed author.
**********
He had, he claimed, received death threats levelled at him and his family from prominent and important right wingers.
**********
He was clearly taken by surprise when the press turned against him and when his criminal record was unearthed and used to discredit the work he did on the biography

I think he was naive enough to believe what most Americans like to believe about America, that democracy still means something here, that the truth will get a hearing, that evil when exposed will be brought down."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe he lied, not the first time for him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not the first time for Robert Luskin either...
FACT: The single source for this story is Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

FACT: Luskin's claim to the press is in the best interest of his client -- and not the press or the public.

FACT: truthout.org says Luskin's claim is directly contradicted by multiple-sourced information, and they're standing by the story.

Most telling FACT: Luskin was spinning nonstop since Rove clearly became a "person of interest" to Fitz; now, suddenly, Luskin says he's not going to be discussing the matter -- clamming up, in effect.

Luskin is spinning one last spin (he hopes). Don't get spun like the so-called "liberal media."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good morning Sara and thank you for this very thoughtful post; I never
bought into Leopold's report and had posted a few times that this story had Rove's filthy fingerprints all over it. Now how so, I am still not sure. Was a guiless Leopold deliberately fed misinformation or was he a disinformation plant? We do know that this psychotic administration has paid people to just make sh*t up.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Good morning Ommmm!!!! Bad news today, huh? I'm so depressed
that this cretin is not to be indicted. The venom on the right has escalated way beyond decency.

Now, M$M is stating that Rove is demanding an apology from the Liberal Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Sara, my father passed away two days ago. I am disappointed in this news
but can't feel depressed about it right now. Too numb.

Don't worry though. I truly believe that Karma will bite them in their collective psychopathic asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Oh, I am so sorry! I hope you're holding up alright? Death of our
loved ones is such a tough lesson; it can cause so much suffering that sometimes I think that God is cruel, or has a very peculiar sense of humor! Didn't you post that Online Candle site here once Ommmm? It was so lovely.

Take care of yourself.

:hug::hug::hug:!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Thank you dear (((((((((((((Sara))))))))))))
I am trying my best to hold up. The cirucmstances are tough for me to grieve "properly". He passed away in California where my sister and brother were assisting with his care. I did have a final phone call with him the day before he passed over, letting him know how much I love him. I cannot get out there for his cremation or memorial service.

He lived as good as a life as most people can have and was on this planet for 88 years. The last year of his life was rocky but he got to see his great grandson bar mitzvahed and my brother married two days before he passed.

I was born Jewish, and as is the ritual when a member of one's family passes away, I have a white candle burning for him. It's on my fireplace hearth.

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Oh, sweet friend! I'm going to PM you later, as I have to sign off
now. I don't remember the white candle tradition, but I do know that the 'formal' funeral is not until a year after death, and as with most traditions, it has a lot of good in it, but also some 'bad' in that it tends to prolong grief for some.

I'll PM you later in the day!

:hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hu:hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. He was sloppy and arrogant
He doesn't exactly have a great track record in that department either.

His latest TO update had an explanation where he cited a "former federal criminal prosecuter" and some "legla experts." Frankly, I think he either made both quotes up, or culled them from other articles or white papers and passed them off as his own. I caould maybe be convinced that a former federal prosecuter would want anonymity, but why some "legal expert?"

The only reason I can think a "legal expert" would not wanted to be cited in a Leopold article is because he/she wouldn't want to admit he ever had any contact with the guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not only has TO and Leopold been smeared by this, but the M$M is
already stating that this will take the wind out of the Dems contention that the Repubs are the 'party of corruption' and some are suggesting that the LW apologize to Rove. It looks like Leopold might have played into someone's hands on this one, albeit sloppily and arrogantly.

This whole thing is a darn shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I actually think that stuff will pass.....
I don't think many people outside of us are going to remember this a week from now. Leopold/Truthout are just not widely known enough to elicit a great deal of opinion from the general public.

The lesson learned here is that we need to be more diligenet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You're probably right about the memory of this a week from now.
I so wanted Rove to pay for some of his ghastly cruelty and criminal acts, and now, not only has he not been indicted, but they are slamming the 'liberal' media as well, for spreading 'falsehoods' that KKK himself probably planted!

KKKRove and his Machiavellian 'art of war'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC