Monday, June 19, 2006

Truthout. again.

Over at DU, someone asked larisa:
"So, point blank question - no spin, no nonsense, no subterfuge.... : do you believe that Rove has been indicted and that he was served with an indictment on May 12/13 as truthout claimed.... .... or not?"
I can say as follows:
I had one person tell me this the same day Jason's story broke, but I was unable to find a second source, that is correct and I have stated this many times and all over the place. In fact, I stated this in much the same context. Does that make the story wrong? No. Does it make it cooked? No. Does it make it sloppy reporting? Looks like at this point.

But what we/you should be asking is this:
1). Why would an entire news outlet, around for years, take a suicide mission off a cliff together? What do you think would explain this cliff jump?
2). If Jason cooked the story, then what of Marc Ash and Will Pitt? One would have to conclude that they were in on it and I don't buy that. Do you? Does anyone?
3). If Jason made errors and was sloppy, which appears to be the case (at this point in the game, as far as we know), then what parts were not errors and what parts were errors? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
4). Were his sources good/bad faith and has TO determined this yet? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
5). Why will Luskin not show the letter he has from Fitz? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
6). Why won't Fitz confirm this? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
7). Did any other journo confirm the story but not run it? If so, why? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

See, for the past month it has been attack, attack, attack which is precisely why this disturbs me so. It was attack when the story broke, it was attack after the story broke, and it is still attack now. But I want answers to the questions I have and attack mode does not allow for that kind of discussion.

What we as the public know:
1). TO ran this story
2). TO seems certain of their sources
3). TO stands by its story
4). TO was attacked within hours and the very next morning NRO had a story out discrediting TO
5). WSJ had a story discrediting TO the next day
6). Corallo asks Kurtz to pen a piece on Jason
7). No other journalist has been able to confirm the story
8). Corallo and Luskin reach out to the left blogs like never before, commenting at all hours of the night
9). Corallo claims to have had a call from Jason posing as someone else
10). Kurtz pens his piece
11). TO continues to stand by its story
12). Attacks keep coming mostly from the left now
13). TO checks and rechecks with sources they say, stand by story
14). Jason runs sealed v. sealed
15). Key points discredited within hours (because sloppy reporting is obvious here)
16). Luskin says Rove not going to be indicted, claims a letter from Fitz, does not show it to anyone
17). Multiple stories of a call, a letter, a fax of Luskin's account
18). Fitz won't comment
19). TO puts ball in Rove court asking that the letter be put forth
20). Luskin rolls out the blogs are bad garbage and cites Jason
21). Rove rolls out blogs are full of hate on the left

That is what we know thus far. Did I miss anything? Now based on this, what appears to be the case that can be made? From this, can anyone say with any certainty that the story was cooked? No, at least I cannot. There is not enough evidence to say that. If there were, I would have written about it.

Can we say from this that the story had errors? Yes, it appears that certain errors were made, like 24/24 biz, etc. But do those errors indicate sloppy reporting or would they be enough to suggest a cooked story? I would say sloppy reporting is likely, given the info that we have thus far.

Can we say from this that TO was set up? No, not with any certainty. If there was enough evidence, I would have written it. But, there is enough to suspect this as a possibility and given Rove's MO, there is no reason to discount this theory.


That said, TO is not excused and should conduct an investigation into their sources (good faith/bad faith), Luskin should produce the letter, and Fitz needs to comment. Now DU's work can be made easier by these things to be sure, but it is not relying on these things.

What else can be added to this? I don't know, but everyone is welcome to have at it. I just think there is more to this story than meets the eye. I don't know what it is, but I sure want to know.

Some other things to consider:
In my dealings with gov informants, I have noticed that they are always easily discredited because of their past. That is why they are chosen. If I wanted to discredit a story and a journalist on that story, would I pick Sy Hersh to do it with?

Jason and Pitt are both mentioned in one of Libby's filings, which is odd given the stupid context of it.

What was Jason working on other than this story?

Does the WSJ writer, Kurtz (that we know anyway), and others, including this latest have any connection to Rove?


anyway, hope that helps, that is my 2 cents on this whole scandal. now back to Iran, sadly, because between Jolie Pitt baby and this, no one seems to be paying attention to what these guys are up to in their policy games. :(

and someone else asked her:
"Hi, in the radio program, you said, "I know Marc Ash flew to another state to meet with these sources, over a two week period, they had many meetings." I'm just curious; where did you hear this from? Was it from Ash, Leopold, the sources met, etc.? Thanks."

"sorry... cannot say:(
but i heard it from someone reliable, so i take it on good faith. also, jason flew for the non-indictment indictment presser... he flew to DC for a press conference that he was that sure would take place... so something is very odd, no?"
I wonder what TO will tell us Monday. I suspect not very much.


Miguel said...

"What was Jason working on other than this story?"

Do we know the answer to this question?

Don said...

On a side note, 16:30 Eastern Daylight Time and nothing new at TruthOut that I can see

"What was Jason working on other than this story?"

Do we know the answer to this question?

That was the first thing I lit on, too.

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Wake UP said...

For God's sake, Leopold made up a huge lie and Ash ran with it. Then 2 days later, Ash and Pitt made the huge mistake of lying and claiming they had verified sources and information because they wanted the glory of the scoop. Now, all three could not be more thoroughly discredited. End of story.

Let's get back to what matters and use principles and ethical behavior to win our battles not LIES as they tried to use. Defending those lying jackasses is a waste of time and surely not worth the effort.

lukery said...

don/miguel - yeah - i caught that too. i dont know the answer - but it was a great question.

wakeup - we're not really defending anyone - just trying to understand what is going on.

Wake up said...

How hard is to understand?

Truthout lied, but at least no one died.

The amount of ink (well cyber-ink or bandwidth) that has been wasted giving attention to these very bad liars and frauds is astounding. It was an obvious lie when originally posted and it's an even more obvious lie now, not to mention that everything they have said that isn't simply indecipherably vague or meaningless was also nothing but lies.

They've had their 15 minutes of fame (infamy might be more apropos) but lets just stop giving them attention and maybe they'll fade away.

They should have listened to Neil Young: It's better to burn out than fade away. You can't make a "heart-warming" comeback after some tortured soul searching and finding personal redemption if you refuse to leave in the first place.

lukery said...

lol - yes. assuming that you're right, leopold's career come-back won't be for a while