Robert Novak and the Perfect Stranger - By Jason Leopold

[kpete]

Robert Novak and the Perfect Stranger
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 29 August 2006

By his own admission, syndicated columnist Robert Novak broke the news that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA to a perfect stranger on July 8th, 2003, the same day he spoke to Richard Armitage and Karl Rove about Plame.

In an online chat on Fox News's web site last month, a woman named "Judy" asked Novak to provide readers with more details about a run-in he had with a man he met near the vicinity of the White House on July 8, 2003, the day he was told about Plame's CIA status.

"I foolishly answered questions about the case by a stranger who stopped me on the streets of Washington," Novak said in response to a question about why he spoke to the person on the street. "He turned out to be a friend of Wilson who immediately went to Wilson's office to report after our conversation. Some people think this was set up by Wilson, but I have no evidence of this."

Before the encounter with the stranger, Novak was told by a senior administration official that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was employed by the CIA and may have been responsible for sending her husband to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from the African country. Two days prior, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times accusing the administration of twisting pre-war Iraq intelligence to win support for a pre-emptive strike against the country.

more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082906J.shtml

[bluestateguy]

1. A hack writes about a hack

I'll read this article in the next 24 business hours.

[tridim]

5. Sigh.. Here we go again

I'd suggest starting your own Leopold thread if all you want to do is trash him.

[bluestateguy]

23. It would seem that the OP is the one who started the Leopold thread

especially since he put his name in the Subject Line.

[VolcanoJen]

11. ROFL ROFL

:thumbsup: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[Bandit]

25. Boy you do have an agenda don't you?

Get over it....

[grytpype]

2. GO AWAY JASON!

Why are you still here?

[grytpype]

101. .

[kstewart33]

3. kpete, you are the best at posting interesting articles. But

please stop posting stuff by Leopold. It's an insult to the DU community which was taken for a real ride by this guy. If people want to read his trash, they can go to truthout.

[QuestionAll...]

6. here here. kpete is Awesome, but

Leopold is a disgrace.
I can't read anything from truthout or it's people without cringing.

They are just this side of being dishonest with all that Rove May 12th stuff and I'm not just going to let it fade away like it is hoped. I'm just sick of pretending some things didn't happen or somthings weren't said or somethings never get the proper apologizes for.

[Catherine Vincent]

22. "I can't read anything from truthout or it's people without cringing."

Then why click on the frigging thread? :crazy:

[QuestionAll...]

24. hmm, there are plenty of stories out there

that make me cringe and wince - doesn't mean I should avoid them.

Don't you cringe and wince at some of the things that come out of the WH?
Why do you click on those frigging threads?

[Catherine Vincent]

44. Of course there may be some I cinge and wince when reading them.

But I don't make it a point to cry and whine about it in every post.

[QuestionAll...]

47. every post. . . what are you talking about?

i cry in whine (about Leopold?) in every post I make?

wtf are you talking about?

[Catherine Vincent]

72. I'm saying you and the other anti-TO/Leopold bitchers cry and whine

so much that you all sound alike.

[QuestionAll...]

81. anti-lie and anti-hoodwinked is more like it.

no matter who does the job on us.

you do realise that calling posters you don't agree with bitchers and whiners sounds a lot like some other places here on the nets...

maybe we 'all sound alike' is because ROVE INDICTED MAY 12th (it's really the truth, still, really!! trust me you ingrates - JL) doesn't quite cut it as responsible journalism for some of us.

[jasonleopold]

52. What a pitiful bunch

Taken for a ride? Please, I reported the truth. And unless any of you have received a statement from Patrick Fitzgerald all you have is Robert Luskin's word.

Amazing that you call yourselves "progressive."

You're no different than the folks who have spent the past three years maligning Joe Wilson.

[QuestionAll...]

59. way to make your case, in that charming convincing way you have...

not.

[Marie26]

60. Where did the indictment go?

"We regret the error." It's really not that hard to say. And it'd go a long way toward restoring TO's creditability.

[Straight Shooter]

134. Jason, is that really you?

Hang in there! :hi:

[yodermon]

143. You're a brave man for stepping into DU

welcome, Jason.

[Cha]

169. Like someone said..

"hang in there", Jason Leopold!

[Dora]

8. Kpete can post whatever she likes.

You can choose to hide the Leopold threads when they come up. I generally disregard the Leopold/Truthout threads just because I find the ensuing flamewars boring and unproductive.

There is no insult to anyone, and that idea is just ludicrous. If you think you've been offended by a story simply posted to internet discussion board, then I suggest you find some more rewarding things to do with your time. Life is too short to spend it feeling "offended" by a neverending online debate on the veracity/reliability/truthiness of an online journlist who fucked up a couple of times.

[Catherine Vincent]

13. No it is not. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

15. I am not insulted

please speak for yourself. I am and have been part of this DU community for over 4 years.





NO CENSORSHIP

[KittyWampus]

35. who the fuck is any DUer to tell Kpete or any other DU'ers what to post?

"insult to the DU community"

speak for yourself.

[dogday]

147. Thank you

for those sound words....

[BlooInBloo]

55. Correction: He only took those for a ride who didn't care...

... about evidence for claims made.

Which, admittedly, was quite a few. But not all.

In any case, the blame is on the credulous-don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence DUers as much as it's on leopold.

By the way - have 24 business hours passed yet? :rofl:

[dogday]

146. kpete, unless you are told by the moderators

that this is not allowed, you post what you want... They have this wonderful feature called hide thread... Those who are so opposed to Jason's articles are more than welcome to hit that... But please do not presume to speak for all of us...

[rman]

185. hey, speak for yourself,

not for me.
thanks

[ShaneGR]

4. BREAKING: Still no indictment... nt

[SidDithers]

7. You're a brave, brave woman, kpete...

but thanks for your relentless and judgement-free posting :hi:

Sid

Edit - corrected gender!

[Connie_Corleone]

12. Brave woman. nt

[SidDithers]

21. Yikes...my apologies!

was too focused on the "pete" part of the name.

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

9. Keep posting ALL kpete

Thanks for everything

NO CENSORSHIP

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

10. A Future Media Pro

For his next story.....the John Karr Investigation.

[kpete]

14. As always - with no apologies

I post whatever interests me

- you decide to chew it up or spit it out.

I respect your choices and often wear a plastic bib myself...

[Lochloosa]

20. Food fights can be fun.

Keep posting kpete:toast:

[berni_mccoy]

37. Well stated kpete!

HUGE kpete fan here! :yourock:

[malaise]

138. Ditto n/t

[OzarkDem]

58. Getting the GOP riled is a good thing

These threads always keep them on their toes.

[Marie26]

110. I feel like

people can post it & people can flame it.

[kstewart33]

16. You bet, kpete. Let's have no standards for posting!

Truth as a standard? Why no, that's censorship!

DU currently bans Wayne Madsen articles because they guy is a nut. I learned this when I was gullible enough to post one of his pieces and DUers explained to me why the moderator deleted the post.

Why can't we apply the same standard to Leopold?

Isn't truth the most important standard of all?

[seemslikeadream]

17. And who pray tell appointed you

to decide what we should be able to decide for ourselves? Why should I relegate all my decisions on what to believe and what not to believe to you? WHO ARE YOU?






NO CENSORSHIP

[kstewart33]

26. Truth should be the standard.

Obviously, the moderators thought so when they banned Wayne Madsen from DU.

[seemslikeadream]

39. And I am supposed to relegate my decision of what is truth to YOU?

We are not talking about Madsen or the DU mods here, please stop changing the subject.

[kstewart33]

56. What's the difference between Leopold and Madsen? nt

[seemslikeadream]

88. What degree of censorship is alright with you?

I find it all disgusting whoever the author is, I prefer to decide for myself, thank you.

[kpete]

18. truth is what I seek

In looking for the truth,
whether its info from NYT, Wapo or Truthout or Madsden -
I am quite often skeptical - but I check them all out -

searching, always searching - not necessarily finding...

[Catherine Vincent]

19. Leopold is not a nut, apparently DU owners think Madsen is a nut.

n/t

[kstewart33]

28. Google Leopold.

Do some research and let us know what comes up. I have and he's a nut.

[jasonleopold]

63. kstewart...NEWS FLASH

I did not lead you or anyone else around...

I don't report exclusively for you. I don't report exclusively for anyone. If you're upset because the powers that be are suppressing the truth than do something about it. All you have done for the past three months is opine and pontificate and bitch and moan.

You have spent a considerable amount of time slandering me and I am curious as to why you're so angry. You seem to have a personal beef with me.

[kstewart33]

75. No personal vendetta, Jason. Just a question.

What happened with the story?

[seemslikeadream]

77. Anyone that profoundly advocates censorship

and seems to KNOW the truth for us all should in fact take some lessons in humility

[Dora]

48. Well, apparently the DU standard is that Leopold is OK.

You can either continue to bitch about it, or you can hide the threads.

It's patently obvious that the DU mods have decided that for the time being, Leopold articles are acceptable to post.

[Goblinmonger]

144. Which many find amazing.

Why someone who has a history of making shit up, plaegerizing, and falsifying sources (and if you really are reading this Leopold, the truth is an absolute defense against slander and a simple google of your name will get you to the three things listed above) gets support from a progressive site when he does it again is beyond me. Just because he is a progressive doesn't mean we have to blindly support him. Setting and expecting some standards for journalism should not be that complex of a thought.

[seriousstan]

27. Breaking news........... Rove still not indicted and...........

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead

update at 11

[Beelzebud]

31. Scoop of the century: Man Lands On Mars!

I was on top of this story YEARS before anyone else.

I patiently await my Pulitzer Prize. It should be awarded to me in 24 business hours!

[kstewart33]

32. Great news! You can share it with Leopold! nt

[smb]

112. Scoop!

Man Lands On Mars!

Maybe the indictment was dated May 12 on the Martian calendar.

[stop the bleeding]

29. KICKING

and loving it - lets see what positive wise ass commments will pop up that have not already been posted on this.

Keep clicking on the thread and I'll keep kicking:P

[kpete]

33. You are such a trouble-maker

[Coexist]

125. add me to the list of troublemakers kpete

I appreciate your keeping us all up to date.

[Catherine Vincent]

34. It's quite funny, but you do know what their agenda is right?

Post as many same old wise ass comments on TO/Leopold/Ash threads to persuade the mods to lock them.

[QuestionAll...]

36. I for one

have no such agenda. just saying.

I would like to know the truth and why Leopold lied and is being supported and defended and the people questioning this are somehow the outcasts...

May 12th, long gone. 24 business hours on most any planet , long gone.
Liar or Incompetent. I don't like either.

but I guess that makes me a rovian thug plant . :sarcasm:

[kstewart33]

38. Do you know why this bugs me so much?

I've been a member of DU since 2001, and I have NEVER seen a community played for a chump the way we were played by Leopold and truthout. Played for a chump because we were led by our noses for over a week, and then we were NEVER given an explanation of why their story was wrong.

Not one dang explanation. From anyone.

I was a reporter for a city daily many years ago, and learned that there are standards that any publication, web or not, applies in journalism. And Leopold and truthout violated just about everyone of them in the book.

But many in the DU community give them a pass.

I can't figure it out. And please, don't cry censorship. If we have no standards in the interest of free speech, then let's start posting stuff by David Duke. How about Mein Kampf?

[seemslikeadream]

40. Has Judith Miller been banned here at DU?

Just asking :shrug:

[kpete]

41. you hit the nail on the head

that is exactly why I find the flaming so questionable.

Judy is complicit in the deaths of thousands....

Leopold jumped the gun - Judy pulled the trigger!

[kstewart33]

42. Good question. She played the entire country for a chump, didn't she?

[QuestionAll...]

43. her articles are laughed at and scorned

by the vast majority of DU - as should Leopolds be.

Do you still think Miller is still a journalist after her truthiness was revealed for what it was?

[kstewart33]

53. The MSM applied the truth standard with Miller.

Have you seen her around lately?

[seemslikeadream]

54. of course not but if someone posted an article by her

it would not be censored

[Coexist]

129. Don't ask such questions.

You will confuse people.

[H2O Man]

49. Perhaps you and those

who dislike TO, Will Pitt, and Jason L could have enough respect for other DUers to not try to infect these threads with the same tired insults that have been all too common for the past four months. It has nothing to do with censorship, although there is a pretty clear case to be made that several of you are invested in disrupting other DUers discussions.

There are some issues where sincere and decent democrats & progressives are not all going to agree. In some cases, an on-going discussion can be beneficial. This isn't one of them. When you start posting about David Duke and Mein Kempf, it should be as clear to you as it is to me that you are not looking to add anything of value to the thread, but are simply looking to insult others. It isn't necessary.

[kstewart33]

51. I meant no insult by posting about DD and MK.

As several posters have raised the no censorship! issue, I used those as examples of just how far the 'no censorship' issue can go.

I apologize if anyone took insult by those examples.

I don't believe that we are tired insulters. Instead, we are baffled why no one has held Leopold and company accountable by demanding an explanation.

Why not at least expect an explanation from Leopold and company? We expect no less from the MSM when they mess up. Why the exception?

And why the trashing of DUers who want that explanation?

[H2O Man]

68. I do not

mean to trash you. I will be honest and say that I think a number of DUers trash themselves. Perhaps it is similar to your thinking that some do the same reading TO.

Regarding the "incident" with JL, I have tried to avoid giving my opinion on the Rove business. I have tried asking people on both sides of the divide a few simple questions. In truth, you are the first of the anti-JL who has attempted to answer me in a civil way.

I wish that more people would attempt to be civil on the topic of the Plame investigation, including in the reports from TO. It seems that there is plenty of room on DU, and those who want to trash TO/ and JL could surely have threads where they can insult and degrade TO/JL to their heart's delight. There should also be room for those who wish to discuss articles from TO/JL to do so without the constant attempts to degrade those discussions. And there could always be a third group, for those who want to say nasty mean things about their fellow DUers.

[Coexist]

127. Amen.

[Dora]

50. "Mein Kampf"

:rofl:

The last gasp of a dying argument typically raises the Nazi spectre.

[dogday]

150. Bingo give the girl a prize

and they will succeed... Someone will keep up with the nasty comments and before you know it, pow, thread closed, mission accomplished.....

[Marie26]

46. So... is anyone commenting

on the actual article? With yet another unidentified source?

[OzarkDem]

64. Joe Wilson

isn't unidentified. Call me silly, but I trust his judgement in these matters.

[Marie26]

66. The source is the "stranger"

Who remains unidentified. Joe Wilson is only confirming that the "stranger" actually is the person who talked to Novak. The primary source is not identified in the story at all.

[OzarkDem]

69. Joe Wilson backs it up

Good enough for me. No need to give the Bush administration an opportunity to pressure someone into changing their story. Better to save his identity for the grand jury.

[H2O Man]

89. He did. n/t

[Marie26]

91. There's no grand jury.

Novak's two sources were Rove & Armitage. Rove is off the hook & Armitage is cooperating w/the investigation. It's over. If this man testified at all, he did it a long time ago. There's no legal need to keep his identity secret, & it doesn't matter much anyway to the investigation. Novak wasn't the one under investigation - it doesn't matter what he said to the "stranger".

[OzarkDem]

97. Do you have proof?

And it apparently matters very much what he said to the stranger, otherwise why the vicious, knee jerk reaction?

[Marie26]

98. And you're a stickler for proof,

of course. Proof of what - that Novak isn't under investigation? That the two sources have both publically revealed that they were Novak's sources? The vicious, knee jerk reaction is against Leopold, not the "stranger", if you haven't noticed? And that's based on the past shady stories he's written. He's lost creditability, and relying on more unnamed sources now might not do much to restore it.

[OzarkDem]

100. So it appears Novak is lying - Armitage didn't tell him, Rove did

On July 8, when Novak met the stranger and told him about Plame (days before he wrote about it in his column) he was walking away from the White House, towards the State Department. Novak has already stated that he met with Rove that day. So the whole Armitage cofession is just a hoax.

[Marie26]

102. Do you have any proof? :) nt

[OzarkDem]

104. Yes

It hasn't been publicly announced that the grand jury is disbanded or that the investigation is over.

[Marie26]

106. That Armitage is a hoax

Which was the topic we were discussing, remember? You stated that the Armitage confession is a hoax & Novak is lying. I'm wondering if you have any proof for those statements.

[OzarkDem]

115. Of course

I'm surprised you would ask. One would think a loyal Dem like yourself who is opposed to the Bush administration would know so little about the case.

Read Joe Wilson's book. When Wilson called him after his conversation with his friend, Novak said it came from a CIA source. Later, Novak's article leaking Plame's identity quoted two administration sources.

Now he's changing the story again, saying it was a CIA source. Which is the true story?

[YOY]

30. Damn, I though this would be about a Novak-Balki Bartakemos Debate

Coosin Laaareeee!!!

[deaniac21]

45. ..

[jasonleopold]

57. Try reading the story before knee jerking

This is a story corroborated by Joe Wilson. It says so in my piece.

[OzarkDem]

61. The facts never seem to bother the GOP

this story scares them like nothing else.

[Marie26]

62. Why couldn't you name

the "stranger"? I don't understand why the random passerby's name would need to be protected?

[OzarkDem]

67. Really, you don't understand?

I can't blame anyone for not wanting to become the target of a GOP hate campaign.

[Marie26]

70. Novak knows who it is.

So the GOP hate campaign presumably also knows who this person is. Wilson knows who it is. Presumably Fitzgerald knows as well. The only one who doesn't know is us. And it's not like it really matters all that much - in this article the "stranger" basically repeats the same story that's been in the media for years.

[OzarkDem]

73. It doesn't change the facts - Bush & Cheney deliberately outed Plame

What's left to debate?

Whether they did it

for revenge against Wilson

or to keep the story out of the news media while they were ginning up false evidence to invade Iraq

or to destroy the CIA's network tracking sale of WMD and nuclear materials in the ME

or all of the above

[Marie26]

79. Changing topic, no?

I agree that Bush & Cheney outed Plame, but that wasn't what we were discussing. I was asking why this particular source's identity needed to be concealed. Also, wondering why this story is news when we already know what Novak told the "stranger." Remember, the Rove indictment story was also based on unidentified sources. There's not a good track record for unidentified sources here.

[OzarkDem]

82. Staying on topic - Bush & Cheney outed Plame - the MSM was an accomplice

the diversion from the real story here is trying to discredit anyone who dares stray from the GOP talking points.

The issue is Plame and the ongoing media smokescreen that keeps rising to protect the White House, particularly as it gets closer to election day.

[kpete]

65. oh dear, oh dear

what have I done...

either you are one brave young man

or STB put you up to this...

Oh well, have fun!

[kstewart33]

71. Hmmmmm.....

If you're really JL, boy, have you got some explaining to do.

How about giving it a try? We are all ears.

[jasonleopold]

74. HA HA

Gotcha! So maybe I am not the "real" JL. But I sure can do a good impersonation!!

[kstewart33]

76. You had us going there.

If you know the real Jason, tell him to come on over and join the discussion.

We'd like to hear from him.

[Marie26]

85. I think it's him. nt

[kstewart33]

87. You may be right.

No explanation, as always.

[OzarkDem]

108. So why does Novak keep changing his story?

First he says it was a state department official who told him, then he says it was a WH staffer who told him.

Then Armitage says he's the one who told Novak, but its obvious that isn't true either?

When is the corporate news media going to start asking Novak some tough questions? He is protected by immunity after all.

[Marie26]

Now, the topic here

is whether "jasonleopold" is actually Jason Leopold. So why are you replying w/something about Novak changing his story?

[OzarkDem]

116. The topic is Novak's source - why is the news media spinning Armitage

when Novak said otherwise?

Why is he saying it was a CIA source when his conversation with the friend of Wilson occurred as he was walking from the White House to the State Department?

[Marie26]

109. ...

[Catherine Vincent]

78. So you don't want articles posted by Leopold on DU, yet you want to hear

from him? Interesting.

[kstewart33]

80. If Jason L. writes an article explaining what happened with

the 'indictment' story, that's one article we'd all like to read.

In the mean time, Jason's welcome any time as long as he explains what happened. Wouldn't you like to know?

[OzarkDem]

83. What do you think of the WH outing Plame?

Do you think its justified and that the story of betrayal should be swept under the rug?

[kstewart33]

86. No, of course not. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

84. "Jason's welcome any time as long as he explains what happened."

He doesn't have to explain anything. He's welcome here as long as he abide by the DU rules.

[kstewart33]

90. Now that's accountability!

Catgirl, we just disagree. No harm intended.

As long as JL articles are posted on DU, I and probably some others will continue to raise the issue of accountability.

If you write an article that's full of untruths, you should at least provide an explanation to those who were misled. Judith Miller never did and she was fired for it.

An explanation. One that hopefully makes sense. That's all.

[Catherine Vincent]

114. This is why I said JL doesn't have to explain anything....

2) Moderating this thread has been extremely complicated due to the fact that Jason Leopold is something of a public figure, and has been personally attacked on this website repeatedly for months. As most of you know, we generally permit personal attacks against public figures, which is why we have permitted attacks against Mr. Leopold. When Jason Leopold showed up in this thread (which personally attacks him) and started to attack back, would it have been fair for us to delete Jason's posts right off the bat? Deleting his posts would have been justified under our rules, but to me it did not seem fair to do so -- particularly since we were not going to go back and delete thousands of personal attacks against Mr. Leopold posted over the last few months. I felt it was only fair to let Mr. Leopold say his piece. I instructed the moderators to keep their hands off of this thread overnight, and I would deal with it in the morning.

Even though we made an exception last night, we are not going to continue allowing exceptions to our rules against personal attacks. If Mr. Leopold returns to DU and attacks our members, he will get his posts removed. If any of our members personally attacks Mr. Leopold when he is participating on DU, we will remove those posts. But everyone needs to understand that since Jason Leopold is a public figure, we will continue to permit free and open discussion about his public activities, including personal attacks -- as we do with any public figure. HOWEVER, as I said above, when Mr. Leopold is participating on DU we will not permit members to attack him.

Skinner
DU Admin

[QuestionAll...]

120. JL called some of us a pitiful bunch upthread

that's sounds personal but I really don't care what he thinks or what names he calls the unbelievers in JL.

calling him out on his poor performance as a journalist is not personal.

[Marie26]

Dupe!

I profoundly regret the error.

[Marie26]

121. Pretty unprofessional. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

130. Some of you are. n/t

[deaniac21]

137. Here at the Rock.....

[QuestionAll...]

92. does that apply to all so-called journalists, or just JL?

because I for one am quick fed up with 'news' people not having to explain fucking nothing.

[kstewart33]

95. Good question. In a perfect world,

all journalists. But we know better. But one can hope.

[Generic Other]

94. I think you have a lot of courage coming to defend yourself here

I have been shocked at the sniping against you. And at the attacks against good DUers like KPete for posting stories.

I think any journalist who can cite Joseph Wilson as a source might have something worthwhile to contribute to this continuing story.

There is a faction of DU that seems to take issue with anyone on our side. Dare I say it almost seems Rovian in its singlemindedness at times?

[OzarkDem]

93. Novak didn't know the guy he spoke to on July 8

that's why he's not naming him now, he was a total stranger. Apparently Novak was really keyed up that day, must have felt pretty good about what he was doing.

[Spazito]

96. I applaud kpete for posting articles of interest...

most DUers don't seem to have a problem with it and, in fact, actually read the article, comment on the content while a VERY small minority seem to become unduly agitated at the very thought DUers might want to read this, I can't help but wonder why.

Such vitriol is always intriguing, to me at least.

Thanks, kpete, for posting this.

[kstewart33]

99. Vitriol was not one sided.

Some DUers are just tired of being played for chumps. We'd like an explanation. And there's nothing vitriolic about that.

[Spazito]

111. The questions are not vitriolic, the words used to ask them often are

It fascinates me that you feel those most "aggrieved" feel like they were chumps and the solution suggested is censuring. Most didn't feel like chumps and don't feel like censorship is any kind of an answer, using the hide thread feature for those who don't wish to read is a much more democratic solution, imo.

[H2O Man]

103. Well said.

I agree 100%.

[kstewart33]

107. It certainly spurred a discussion.

I'm signing off for now; I don't think we'll resolve the debate until JL and company provide some information on what happened with the story. If they do and their explanation makes sense, this issue will end. Otherwise, it will continue.

[H2O Man]

It is not a "discussion" or"debate."

That phase ended long ago. TO and JL provided an explanation. Some people accepted it on face value. Others, like yourself, don't buy it. The topic was discussed at length, and debated well beyond that.

At this point, we are at a point where the on-going events resemble nothing if not a very disfunctional family. There is a disagreement, based on something said and done by a family member we will code name "Jason." The majority of the family members are able to process what "Jason" has said and done in a rational manner. Many agree with him. Many others disagree.

However, a very few family members are simply lacking the capacity to let go. If any subject is raised that is even slightly related to what Jason said/did, these few individuals feel justified, even compelled, to raise their voices, to interrupt, and to insult the other family members. When confronted with their crude and self-righteous behavior, they shout about their need to "discuss" Jason's long past behavior.

This constant disruptive behavior interferes with the families' ability to carry on any meaningful discussion on topics that are actually worthy of further discussion.

Perhaps it is difficult for you to recognize the role you are playing here. But I see it.

[kstewart33]

149. I respectfully disagree.

Those of us who "lack the capacity to let go" never received an explanation about the story. I recall William Pitt's "I'd love to tell you but I can't" post a few weeks back. By any standard, that is not an explanation. It is an excuse.

I do not recall Jason Leopold ever providing an explanation other than a blanket insistance that he is right and everyone else is wrong. As I recall from past articles I've read about Mr. Leopold's work (the Washington Post piece is a good place to start), that has been a hallmark of his career.

Until an explanation is provided, I will continue to raise the issue, and so will others who are probably a bit greater in number than "a very few family members."

I do not recall my behavior as being crude and self righteous. It seems to me that those who disagree with me and others on this discussion thread have been rather blunt in their descriptions ("bitcher," "whiner", etc.) and have been just as insulting as you claim we have been.

I understand my "role" in this discussion which is nothing more than to state my view which as many posters have indicated in this thread, seems to be a central tenet of the DU website.

You are passing judgements on those who disagree with you. Does that not contribute to our "dysfunctional family"?

[H2O Man]

152. "I do not recall my

bahavior as being crude or self righteous." We certain view your contributions to this thread very differently.

There are many, many people who disagree with me on DU. I'm not passing judgement on anyone's disagreeing with me. I am on the behavior that a small group here engage in.

[kstewart33]

153. Unfortunate semantics.

You have called those who disagree with you crude, self righteous, insulting, and irrational; whether you used verbs or nouns doesn't matter.

H20 Man, we're simply miles apart on this issue, and neither of us look likely to budge. So let's call it a day and as the trite saying goes, agree to disagree.

[Patsy Stone]

123. Thanks for that post.

And thanks to kpete for all of her hard work!

[OzarkDem]

105. So Armitage is lying about being Novak's source - it was Rove

On July 8, when Novak met the stranger and told him about Plame (days before he wrote about it in his column) he was walking away from the White House, towards the State Department. Novak has already stated that he met with Rove that day. So the whole Armitage cofession is just a hoax.

[jaysunb]

113. Hats off to Truthout & Jason Leopold.

It takes a lot a of courage to continue the good work that true journalist should do , even in the face of swiftboaters of all stripes.

We on the left have expended tremendous amounts of time and enregy--rightfully-- excoriating the MSM for their laziness and complicity in letting misinformation and sensationalism be the rule of the day. There has been much said and written about their ( MSM ) inability to ask follow up questions or even question obvious lies.

Now comes one of our own, who, for whatever reason-- be it a mistake or trickery-- made us think Christmas had come early, we were going to hit the lottery, that girl/guy we've been eyeballing has said yes and every other wet dream we've ever had, was about to come true, and some of us act like spoiled disappointed children.

I don't know who or why Jason & Truthout got sandbagged---or if they were really, we still don't know-- but I'm sure glad they haven't let a bunch of whiners and malcontents cause them to take their eye off the ball.
Hopefully this kind of tenacity will rub off on others.

Kudos to Marc, Jason & the rest of the staff at Truthout. :toast:

[Marie26]

118. Dear Lord. nt

[DancingBear]

167. He posts here on DU, you know

Just ask the fan club. :)

[Sydnie]

122. thank you

Very well said. Someone had to say it eventually!

[QuestionAll...]

131. jaysun b. leopold?

what's the B. stand for Jason? ;)

[jaysunb]

133. Brown.....

for the last 63 years....

[Balbus]

132. I had to double check this....

You almost used "Jason Leopold" and "journalist" in the same sentence. Now that would be funny! But using them in the same post is almost as bad.

[Goblinmonger]

145. "Whiners and malcontents"?

So expecting and demanding journalistic integrity from journalists makes someone a whiner and malcontent? Then count me in as a whiner and malcontent. What we demand from Faux News, we should also demand from progressive journalists or we are no better.

[OzarkDem]

117. Google the Armitage is the leaker story...

Looks like complete media saturation with the phony story "Armitage leaked Plame Identity - Case Closed".

Just another step in Rove's media manipulation getting ready for the November elections.

What's next? A story saying we never invaded Iraq?

[kpete]

119. We INVADED Iraq?

OMFG!!!

Somebody tell Judy QUICK!

[OzarkDem]

124. Just like Bobby Ewing in Dallas

It was all just a bad dream...

:think:

[stop the bleeding]

126. #126 before I sign off for a few hours

see if we can be up to #227 by the time I sign back in


-

keep this at the top of GD for "conversation" :7

[kpete]

128. again...

naughty, naughty, naughty...

[WilliamPitt]

135. HEADS UP: the 'jasonleopold' in this thread is not Jason Leopold

My boss spoke to Jason, and Jason has denied being the one posting this crap.

Ignore it. It isn't him.

[QuestionAll...]

136. lol!

now who/what to believe....

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[QuestionAll...]

140. yep, sounds like the real deal. ;)

[Catherine Vincent]

141. oh my!

alerted

[Catherine Vincent]

142. Thanks, Will. n/t

[Generic Other]

148. Well that's pathetic isn't it?

Is the imposter a masochist?

Oh well. I stand by my earlier statement. I'm waiting to see how the story unfolds.

[dogday]

151. There is always someone

looking to put someone down... It is easy to do if you try.... Such a freaking shame.....

[Jazz2006]

187. What complete and utter bullshit

And that is as polite as I can possibly be in the face of such grotesque and utter nonsense such as has been displayed here.

[applegrove]

154. Looks like we will never know. Though I think Fitz would have gone

after Armitage just as quickly as Rove if there was evidence. He went after Libby cause he had evidence. And that sorta led to Cheney.

But the other two? What do we know? Not much.

[DisgustedTX]

155. We thank Luskin for REPORTING THE TRUTH

Yes we do.

[jasonleopold]

156. kstewart is a liar

As president of the Jason Leopold fan club I urge you to take a look at this man's distinguished career. In fact, I urge all of you to do the same.

Jason Leopold broke the Enron story.
Jason Leopold was the first reporter to report that California was being ripped off by energy companies.
Jason Leopold landed the first interview with Jeff Skilling when Enron went kaput.

Jason Leopold has won journalism awards.

Jason Leopold has a lot of enemies who want to silence him.

Here is my favorite quote about Jason Leopold from the Progressive Review's Sam Smith

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0606/S00222.htm

"Take the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, for example, one of those who seemed to take some pleasure outlining Leopold's problems. Ask yourself: what has Kurtz done for journalism or the nation worth half as much as helping to expose Enron? Would Kurtz, given the chance, have put half as much effort into the story as Leopold?

You take your choice: a respectable stenographer for an entropic establishment or a flawed but insatiable scribe who might just tell you what's really going on."

Truthout wrote a very good article about their Rove story. They answered all questions.

And Judith Miller happens to be writing for the Atlantic Monthly. She wrote an articel for them a couple months ago.

So there.

[Catherine Vincent]

157. You've been outed as an imposter.

Are you looking to get banned?

[jasonleopold]

162. I know I am an impostor

but I am also a fan of Jason Leopold and I won't stand by and allow people to be attacked. I for one have no doubt there has been a coverup

[johnnie]

163. But when you posted his number and email address..

You didn't do him any favors. Plus you personally attacked other people on the forum over and over claiming to be him.

[im10ashus]

168. I'd say pretending to be him and adopting his name as your own...

goes a little beyond being a "fan of Jason Leopold." I'm just sayin...

:shrug:

[Garbo 2004]

180. If you're really a fan as an imposter you're doing Leopold no favors by

posting under his name, pretending to be him and flaming others.

Leopold is quite capable of speaking for himself, here and elsewhere if he chooses. Imposters pretending to be him on the net don't help him. He's the one who gets the rap for their words and actions. If you're indeed a "fan" you should realize that.

[rman]

186. Every other DUer is an "imposter"

Did jasonleopold claim to be the Jason Leopold?

[Catherine Vincent]

188. You know, you're right.

I'm not really cat_girl25. :) But this jasonleopold was posting as if he was the Jason Leopold from Truthout.

[kstewart33]

170. First of all, who are you?

No, that's irrelevant.

As a former newspaper reporter, I've taken a thorough look at JL's career; I did so when our community was red hot with anticipation over his story. As a recently retired business school professor, I know how to do research, and I did some. No, I did alot.

Now I could review what I found, but that's all water under the bridge. Let's just say that I would not trust Mr. Leopold to write my dog's obituary. That assessment is not a personal attack; that is my assessment of a public figure's professional conduct and journalistic work, which as I understand Skinner's rules concerning a public figure, does not qualify as a personal attack. I've said far worse of our president as many of us have.

If Some DUers want to treat Mr. Leopold as the 21st century version of Woodward and Bernstein, so be it. That is certainly their right. But I'll pass.

As for your liar comment, geez kid, time to change your diaper and put some beer in that bottle.

[johnnie]

158. If anyone still thinks this is the real Leopold

You can listen to him live right here now:

http://krxa540.com/listen

I doubt he wrote the post above me while giving an interview.

[Catherine Vincent]

159. Thanks, Johnnie.

:hi:

[johnnie]

161. Np

:thumbsup:

[Sonnabend]

160. We need a smiley...

..for someone belting their head against a brick wall.

*sigh*

[DancingBear]

164. Breaking: Here is the first draft of the story

By his own admission, syndicated columnist Robert Novak broke the news that Karl Rove was to be indicted to a perfect stranger on May 12, 2006 the same day he spoke to Richard Armitage and TruthOut.

In an online chat from the fourth floor of a D.C. office building last month, a man named "Fitz" asked Novak to provide readers with more details about a run-in he had with secret service agents he met near the vicinity of the White House on May 12, 2006, the day he was told about Rove's status.

"I foolishly answered questions about the case to a cretin who stopped me on the streets of Washington," Novak said in response to a question about why he spoke to the person on the street. "He turned out to be a reporter for a hugh progressive periodical who immediately went to the fourth floor office and locked himself in."

Before the encounter with the cretin, Novak was told by a senior administration official that Rove, the wife of current Bush heart-throb Condi Rice, was employed by the ASPSCA and may have been responsible for sending her husband to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to acquire yellow coated retrievers from the African country. Two days prior, Rove wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times accusing everyone of not believing pre-war Iraq intelligence fabricated to win support for a pre-emptive strike against the country.

[stop the bleeding]

165. Libby Doc(s) - from 08/25/2006

08/25/2006 GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CIPA § 6(b) NOTICE - 4 pages


the rest are in the vault - *insert evil sinister laugh here*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=3589&mesg_id=4325



oh yeah - kickety kick kick :spank:

[kpete]

166. you have been at your "evil best" today

[im10ashus]

171. Thanks for posting, kpete!

:kick:

[bleever]

172. Armitage wasn't indicted, nor was Novak.

Lesson #1: tell the Grand Jury and the FBI the truth.

Libby was indicted for failing to do that. However, I suspect that lesson #1 wouldn't have saved Scooter, because he had a reason to lie and obstruct justice. It was because he had committed a crime. A crime that his boss, the VP, was directing.

Lesson #2: it ain't over until it's over. Unless you know, you don't know. And as long as there is information to which only the prosecutor is privy, you don't know, and it ain't over.

So I don't know. But it ain't over.

[Oilwellian]

176. Your post is the crux of the issue

Until Fitzgerald officially closes his investigation, there's no telling what could happen. I find it very possible that Fitz does have a sealed indictment against Rove and is using it to make him squirm and cooperate. There are only 2 people Rove could squeal on...Bush and Cheney. My money's on Cheney.

[bleever]

183. Yes. And here's the deal:

Rove is timing his public culpability. He's gaming it with an eye toward the various time-frames of the midterms, statutes of limitations, and other considerations of calendar and the elements of who has which power when.

He's playing against Patrick Fitzgerald, and as a whole, American democracy.

Mr. Fitzgerald's mandate may not, in his understanding, extend to some of the broader issues we might want to see addressed.

But: the fact that Rove is trying to slide past both indicates that he's decided that he's smarter than the Founding Fathers, and their democratic/federalist/socialist/republic nonsense that we call the Constitution of the United States of America, and can play this joint the way he played the chumps in junior high, in high school, in college, and in state politics.

He bet big on beating the system.

He's had a good run.

But I think he met his match when he decided to take on the framers of the Constitution.

[Patsy Stone]

178. Yogi?

Is that really you?

NGU. :hi:

[bleever]

181. When we come to a fork in the road,

we should take it, but clean it before using it.

:hi:

[DemReadingDU]

173. Fitz knows what's going on, but he's not talking

yet!

[Catherine Vincent]

174. Did someone say Fitz?

[ms liberty]

175. Thanks for posting kpete...

I never post on these JL/TO threads because they get soooo hijacked that it becomes annoying, and I get angry about the hijacking. The people who do it could simply ignore the threads, but they seem to delight in being juvenile and disruptive. I don't like it when the RW nutjobs try to keep me from reading what I choose, thinking how I choose, or believing what I choose; it's even less desirable when it's coming from our side - people who should know better and be above that peculiarly underhanded type of censorship. I'm not a fool, and I can make up my own damn mind, thank you very much.

I appreciate how hard you work to bring us interesting and timely articles and information. I've got a lot of respect for that, and for you.

[kpete]

177. wow

what nice things to say - thanks

[ms liberty]

189. It is my pleasure - you deserve all our thanks. n/t

[bleever]

182. One of my favorite responses on a thread in a long time.

:thumbsup:

[ms liberty]

190. Thank you! Glad you liked it! n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

179. I wrote a poem about Novak yesterday, after he forceably outed Armitage.

Novak, Novak, slinking low

In the pits of Hell below

What kind of journalist is he

Who tells his source "Out with thee!"?

In what hurricane did he stand?

What starving child did he lend a hand?

What mighty mind was his mentor?

Of what great debate was he the center?

When the White House spread oily lies

And slandered Powell with harpy cries,

Were you proud to trade your journalist's creed

For a minion's place in the Court of Greed?

Novak, Novak slinking low

In the pits of Hell below,

What kind of journalist are you

That outs a source on Karl Rove's cue?

[bleever]

184. Dante smiled.

Dr. Seuss, too.