Link please. Any other lore you'd like to repeat?

And BTW, what does your stupid comment have to do with WAPO having sold its soul to the Bush regime?

Jan Knaus

I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

It is amazing that they continue to publish the work of people with a lengthy track record of being wrong about most of what has happened over the past 5 yrs or so.

Sorry. I understand (from my pals above) you were being funny. I guess I didn't get it with all the trolls around baiting every posting!

Jan Knaus

The Washington Post has become a mockery of the best traditions of journalism-- and now serve, akin to Fox "Faux" News, as nothing more than a propaganda tool to be used by our corrupt, corporate-owned neo-con Bush gang.

That Libby will probably go free-- and that Bush & Cheney will continue to break the law, is enabled by a nauseating main-stream-media machine replete with sycophants- incompetents- and opportunists.

Do not expect that the criminal elements in the Bush regime will be held accountable for their myriad crimes, for the plutocrats who run-and-own the press, as well as the wealth of the nation, which they have plundered over the last six disastrous years, don't will it!

Washington Post has been acting as a PR organ for Libby for a long time now.

There were the editorials calling the Wilsons liars and claiming they brought it on themselves. The editorials read like the WSJ editorials. They repeated lies and smears.

Then came the op-eds.

http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200702210007

"Wash. Post published four op-eds attacking prosecution and trial of Libby, none supporting them"

Washington Post has clearly decided to defend Libby.

Why?

I am guessing it is because Libby is a member of the Establishment in good standing. He has been leaking to the WP for years. He is also an ideological ally of the WP in foreign policy, escpecially Iraq.

The hypocricy of the WP is breathtaking. They were the house organ for Kenneth Starr and cheered on his endless witchunts.

Froomkin's column is the hardest thing to find on wapo.com. They hide him well.  

Dissent Protects Democracy.

It's not just the Washington Post though. CBS news radio did a brief rundown of the Libby case over the weekend - and they referred to Plame as "CIA worker" - it was like they were trying to the he said/she said disinformation - afraid to say that she was an "agent". Disgusting.

Golly LJ, why didn't you try to charm Ms. Howell with your typical potty mouth logic.

Since you have already stipulated that no crime was committed regarding her covert status, I could see why she would blow you off as a partisan kook.

I think Larry is calling Debbie a coward because she is supposed to represent the readers viewpoints and disagreements with the newspaper, not the WaPo's op-ed page....and it's quite obvious she prefers her masters to the readers.

What you're seeing are 'Promoters of the Always Wrong'.

Why is it that Dick Cheney, Tom Friedman, David Broder, William Kristol, John McCain, David Brooks, and Joe Lieberman to name a few of the "Always Wrong on Iraq", continually show up on Sunday morning news shows bloviating on Iraq, but the 'Always Right on Iraq', like Kucinich, Feingold, Lincoln Chaffee and a number of others are rarely seen? Oh wait, we do get Murtha now and then.

I don't think the issue really matters. For all we know, the Libby trial was a delay tactic... Probably he'll get pardoned...

You have a whopping four years of CIA experience behind you Larry.

How many years do you have, Seixon?

I believe the term you're looking for is "Democratic Kool-Aid Kids", JB.

You weren't the only one who misunderstood. I had troll-rated it until I saw his later post saying he meant it as sarcasm.  You gotta be careful if you go around imitating trolls!

Yeah, even Dubya was able to cough up "Democrat...Democratic" this morning at the Governor's Convention.

zombie right-wing lies.

I linked it for that exact reason,...so you could judge for yourself, Jonathan. Larry, on the other hand claims things, then doesn't link to them, and then responds with obscenities when people inquire for proper attribution.

When Larry said two years ago that he didn't know if a crime was committed, then what has changed since then? I asked in that post and he did not respond. In a justice system where someone is innocent until proven guilty, if you say "I don't know if a crime was committed", and especially when a supposedly thorough investigation has taken place there was no indictment, I think its safe to say in a moment of semi-lucidity, Larry was admitting that no breech of the IIPA was committed.

These are his words. Your claim that I took them out of context, implies that it is an attempt to mischaracterize what his real beliefs are. I included two full paragraphs and the date of his TPM posts. If you want to look at his entire post, its there waiting for you. By you implying that I have attempted to alter his original meaning demonstrates your desire to convince others that there is consistency in the two statements, when in fact the two arguments he is making are opposite.

In one he is claiming with emphatic certainty that Libby is guilty of violating the IIPA. In the other he is saying that he has no reason to think that Libby is guilty of violating the IIPA. The two arguments are different and you have not addressed the content of his remarks in a way that disproves that.

Seriously? I bet that cost him some phlegm!

Jan Knaus

Seixon, since you're still saying this:
*****************************************
"Perhaps that is exactly why you have no fear of claiming Plame is covert - you know that a definitive answer to that will never be uttered by the only source who knows, the CIA. "...
*******************************************
despite not answering my question on another thread:

What grounds did the CIA have for sending this to the DOJ? There ARE no other grounds; that is what they sent it to the DOJ to investigate: a protected asset was blown. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, or even Larry's for that matter, although his opinion is at least informed. Don't go off on how the Libby judge read it because it is irrelevent. Ashcroft would never have appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate giving out the name of a CIA employee whose name was not protected.

In your very own words you said that only the CIA knows. So what other grounds did the CIA have for starting this? NONE, and you know it.

Jan Knaus

Hmm, are you the same Seixon who posts/posted at TP?

OK, what part of "I think" is unclear? Unless you pick and choose from the statement, to most reasonable people it's fairly obvious an opinion is being stated.

What's more, if this is his opinion (or his certain belief), then why did you make the claim that Mr. Johnson had "stipulated that no crime had been committed"? Or are you now acknowledging that you were dishonest in your original claim?

Ironically, even if one allows that Mr. Johnson has contradicted himself (or simply changed his mind, due to additional information over time), the one opinion he has NOT stated was the affirmative one you claimed he had made. You have yet to provide more than your plainly counterfactual interpretation of his words in support of your assertion.

The meaning of the word "stipulate" is not in dispute here. Your claim, plainly not supported by the link you provided, is the issue -- as is your credibility.

Howell either doesn't know what the ombudsman's job entails, or is deliberately subverting it. She's a flack for her bosses, not a representative of the readers.

I'm still trying to figure out why the Wash Post endorsed Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004

Business decision.

The market they are trying to reach, the people who live in DC are overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal.  If they want to sell papers in DC they have to pretend to be friendly to Dem candidates, at least at election time. They usually give half hearted endorsements to Dem presidential candidates and then after the election shill for the GOP. Their editorial page is neocon and their op-ed page tilts to the right.

Just compare and contrast their hysterical coverage of Clinton/Gore to their kinder and gentler coverage of Bush/Cheney.

They were hyping pseudo scandals every week in the 90s, always insinuating some big crime committed by Clinton or Gore. Their editorial page was always demanding an independent counsel for this or that imaginary crime.

Compare that to their coverage of Bush and Bush friendly editorials. According the the WP Bush never lies. He is misunderstood, he misspeaks, his aides fail him......but he doesn't lie.

There was a story a few years ago about the WP getting govt contracts from the Bush regime for one of their subsidiaries, Kaplan. It's all about money.

Actually, Bush really is dumb. He's not idiotic, but he is dumb.

Pissing away all the political capital he had post-9/11 to invade Iraq was not the action of an intelligent man.

Six months ago I said that the Plame case would be the Hiss case of our time. As in, long after no one sane gave a shit any more, a few diehards would keep the case alive forever.

It's already true: the whole trial's almost over and yet Larry's fire is not the least bit dimmed, if anything he's even more fervent as he begins to suspect the case is slipping out of his grasp. 20 years from now, he'll still be screaming "SHE WAS COVERT! JUST ASK THESE CIA OFFICIALS!" on a streetcorner.

Maybe the Venona Transcripts will settle her status.

Pissing away all the political capital he had post-9/11 to invade Iraq was not the action of an intelligent man.

I think his pissing away all that political capital was a reflection of arrogance more than stupidity. And 'HUBRIS' is his middle name.

Howewver, your point is well taken.

"(3) celebrity gossip"

You mean like the kind of people who appear in glamor spreads in glossy magazines?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postphotos/asection/2005-01-12/16.htm

So? The shrub describes it as his favorite computer thing to do.

Jan Knaus

CVille Dem, you rated the above post 0 in violation of site rules as shown here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/faq/karma

Many users believe that the rating system is intented to be an opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with a post, or with the poster themself. This is not accurate; ratings are intended to help elevate those posters that consistently make clear, good arguments and points, regardless of content, and to prevent trolls from invading the message board. Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input. So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them!

you have to understand these things about the wapo...

they have kowtowed to the state for years. i can report that from ben bradlee's speech at donny's senior dinner at the harvard faculty club in 1966.

but in this era, it gets worse. kate's dad, eugene was a fervent zionist. donny retains that orientation. to understand the wapo, you must recognize it as an israeli izvestia, pravda. a true 5th column.

izzie libby is a fervent zionist. perhaps even a part of the israeli intell apparat. and he has been good friends with bo jones over the years.

scope out bo. he is the real eminence grise at the wapo.

until you understand these aspects of the wapo, you will not understand its objectives.

You're so...impotent when you're angry. Sorry, your link was bogus.

Jan Knaus

"That one" was not deserving of a rating. I troll-rated you previously because of the reasons I stated, and calling me "honeybunch" just makes you look like the silly little man that you are. Grow up.

PS. I don't like this personal stuff, so I am checking out of our little "tiff." You can go on if you want to, but I am done. This thread is about an important issue, and trolls always try to pull the conversation away using unrelated arguments. I admit I got sucked into your game, but it was a mistake. I am done.

Jan Knaus

I see that my prescience regarding the path you were taking this discussion was on target. I think my previous statements clearly address your first two paragraphs.

Regarding your third paragraph, you can decide whether he changed his mind over two years in addition to the fact that he contradicted himself, but you have still not addressed my question as to what might have changed in two years to make him change from no guilt to certain guilt?

Yes Jan, he is being really funny again. A Bush sycophant is someone who MUST be dumber than Bush to attach themselves to such a deluded and/or weak man is the gist of that joke.

However, I think the more dangerous species are Bush manipulators, which is a loosely (or perhaps only superficially loosely) organized cabal who use Bush as the front man in a campaign to get us involved in all sorts of troubles for their own purposes

Your position on this pretty much nails it.

Although, you seemed to overlook one glaring point. That point is, you missed mentioning the darling of the Watergate era, warmly ensconced at the top in the labyrinth of the true money making side of the Post, book sales. Libby and Woodward, closer buddies to the end, than Bob and Carl.

~OGD~

Dear apologist for the scumbags...

"partisan kook" ??? Pot meet kettle....

Hey now! How was your short trip to Tijuana? You did say you were traveling to Latin America over the weekend... Right?

And BTW -- After seeing these ratings, if I were you I would seriously consider taking artappraiser's hint and read that book she recommends.

~OGD~

ps: Really missed ya' ... as a sailor would miss a bad case of the scabies...

Registered for 1 year 32 weeks ... one post at 5806/comments... and the handle Joshblows...

Tell me someone hasn't hacked into an old exisiting account.

~OGD~

I am usually mocked here when I point thuggish behavior out, but the fact is that enough illegal downrating can make someone's posts invisible to people who aren't logged in. The ability to silence others should be taken very seriously and exercised in a grownup manner very sparingly.

Ironic that this hypocrisy appears in a post about getting your voice heard in the mainstream media....

Yes Jan, he is being really funny again. A Bush sycophant is someone who MUST be dumber than Bush to attach themselves to such a deluded and/or weak man is the gist of that joke.

Kosmo, thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

Mgmax, if I were you I'd take my football and go home. If they don't want to agree with you, f*** 'em!

The ability to silence others should be taken very seriously and exercised in a grownup manner very sparingly.

I couldn't agree more, I'm forwarding your post to the Bush gang and their supporters!

....but the fact is that enough illegal downrating can make someone's posts invisible to people who aren't logged in....

Again I agree wholeheartedly. I can't tell you the stress, the endless hours of sleepless nights I suffer knowing so many who aren't logged in can't read my posts.

Aren't you worried that the Rethuglican Gestapo will come in the night and take you away under the Patriot Act?

I fought the real Gestapo in WWll, the Bush gang isn't there yet, but give them time

Is it common for covert CIA operatives to be named and their spousal relationships detailed in meetings with INR?

Who knows. But it was not illegal for them to know, either.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Katherine Graham would be amazed at how one terrible hire (Neoconissimo Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor) has destroyed the WP.

WP started drifting to the right in the 80s.  Katharine Graham was best friends with Nancy Reagan. So I don't think it would be a complete shock to her to see the paper become neocon.

My apologies, I just tried to independently paste in that link and it doesn't work. Here is the text.
*******************************************

Media Groups Back Reporters In Court Filing
Judges Urged to Determine if Crime Occurred in Leak Case
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A03
A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.
The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame's name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications.
•
The friend-of-the-court brief was filed by 36 news organizations, including The Washington Post and major broadcast and cable television news networks, in support of reporters at the New York Times and Time magazine who face possible jail time for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the allegations. Those two organizations filed a petition Tuesday asking the full appeals court to review the case.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled in February that two reporters -- Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time -- should be jailed for contempt if they continued to refuse to name their sources to the grand jury.
Attorneys for the news organizations said yesterday that their decision to submit the brief underscores deep concern in the journalism community over special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's tactics. Fitzgerald, who heads the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, is in the midst of two separate battles with journalists over testimony related to confidential sources.
The petition by the Times and Time magazine focuses on whether reporters have a First Amendment right to resist disclosure of confidential sources.
The brief by the other news organizations takes a different approach: It argues that the statute at issue in the case, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, was aimed at egregious attempts to expose U.S. spies and was crafted to avoid ensnaring reporters going about their business.
It asks for a hearing to determine whether a crime has even been committed.
Bruce W. Sanford, a lawyer who handled the case for the group of news organizations, said yesterday that "it's a very poor result if somehow reporters got entangled in a net of prison sentences in an investigation which ends up with no indictment because no crime has been committed."
Attorneys for the Times and Time magazine have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Why should newspapers make the rules anyway? Lying is lying. Perjury is perjury. Some is more serious than others because of the end result. Outing a protected CIA source was the result of this particular action, and lying about doing it is the crime he is charged with.

The newspapers have no standing to make rules about this case.

And your point about Martha Stewart is right on! Good catch!

Jan Knaus

I tried to write to Deborah Howell as I have several times before. I was tactful and believed that I marshalled some good arguments. It just went into the big, black hole.

WashPo needs an ombudsman, not an apologist.

That's what she said.

The only type of referral the CIA can send to the DOJ is to investigate the outing of a covert agent? Really? So was that how the CIA referred the misdeeds of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo to the DOJ? What about the leak of classified information? It is irrelevant that the judge presiding over the Libby case, a man who has actually read the referral, still does not know whether Plame was covert or not?

My opinion isn't at stake here - Larry Johnson's credibility is. Calling a man who knows more than Larry Johnson on this matter "irrelevant" seems a bit odd if you ask me.

I'm the Borg. Resistance is futile.

~

It's nice to see that the individual who enjoys displaying their IQ on my comments is maintaining their consistency.

~OGD~

Aren't you angry about this pre-emptive, illegal war that has cost tens of thousands of people their lives? Doesn't it make you challenge the [thought?] process that allowed people with the idea of taking down Saddam to co-opt our national tragedy to their own ends, and to enrich their already wealthy friends?

Do you have children? Do you have, or expect to have grandchildren? Does it raise your hackles that they are left with the bill for this fiasco? What if one of them had been killed or maimed for this bogus farce?

No, my anger is justified, and if you feel no anger at all this, I would just wonder why not. Do you honestly think it is better to just relax and hope it will all get better?

Jan Knaus

Great post Campesino

Although using the term 'house organ' in a sentence mentioning K.Starr is amusing, he is not of the same low calibre as many of the lifer beltwayed, who oft are afflicted with morality deficit disorder.

In fact Starr obviously wants nothing to do with the ongoing saga of Scooter and the Prosecutor. I wasn't real pleased with the attempt to take down a sitting president because he lied in a deposition given during a frivolous civil sexual harassment case. Paula Jones was unable to cite for the record, even one valid instance of harassment from Bill C. after refusing sexual advances. That's pretty much the death knell for any sexual harassment suit, and is why the case got tossed, summary judgment. Contemporary Conservatism's predilection to engage in moral relativism is reprehensible.

America should thank its lucky stars that it wasn't some Ivy League Lacrosse Team under the gun in a frivolous sexual harassment suit for several years. The lamentations and wailing along with the rending of hair club for men weave would have been more than the country could presently handle. Still, it aint' K.Starr crying out in the media spotlight with dishonest assessments about the Libby indictment and trial. You don't find the Judge keynoting at a Tom DeLay legal fund event. No, he seems to prefer being out of the spotlight playing head of a University, and living in Malibu.

Where we did hear of Kenneth Starr again, or should have heard if the media had even been able to rise to the level of mediaocrity, is when he wrote to Arlen Specter about the evilness inherent in Congress' illegitimate theft of habeas corpus.

That puts him on top of many Democrats who deserve being listed in derision.

Democratic Thieves of Natural Liberty

In the Senate: Thomas Carper, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, Robert Menéndez, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Debbie Stabenow.

In the House: Robert Andrews, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Sanford Bishop, Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Allen Boyd, Sherrod Brown, Ben Chandler, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Bart Gordon, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Dennis Moore, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Mike Ross, John Salazar, David Scott, John Spratt, John Tanner, Gene Taylor

1. I don't tend to rely on "beliefs". Without knowing all the facts, I cannot conclude whether Libby did or not. Patrick Fitzgerald, unfortunately, did not seek all the facts, so it appears we will not know for sure whether Libby did lie or not.

2. Remove all of Valerie's friends from that list. Now remove all the people who haven't actually stated whether Plame was NOC/covert or not from that list. Who do you have left? Again, I would remind that I do not go around believing things just because someone, like Larry Johnson, says so. Demonstrating that Valerie was NOC takes more than that. Of course, as you can see from the rest of this comment thread, there seem to be a set of questions about this that no one around here seems to know how to answer. Not even Larry Johnson. Keep that in mind.