Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Returning to "06 cr 128" (Rove mishap)
Truth Out | Jun 19th, 2006 at 06:59:47 PM EDT | Mark Ash

Posted on 06/19/2006 10:32:32 PM PDT by Lorianne

What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."

The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.

On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.

After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.

What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.

Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.

However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.

Joe Lauria and The Washington Post's Attacks on Jason Leopold

We are well aware of the Lauria article and the series of attacks The Washington Post has launched against Jason Leopold and Truthout. As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response. In this case, we will publish our response on Wednesday, June 21, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: cialeak; fitzgerald; fitzmas; jasonleopold; joelauria; karlrove; markash; plamegate; rove; truthout; verbosity
Translation?
1 posted on 06/19/2006 10:32:34 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Ping.


2 posted on 06/19/2006 10:33:15 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"Translation?"

At this time we are covering our sorry asses, so please stay tuned and send money.

3 posted on 06/19/2006 10:35:00 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499


4 posted on 06/19/2006 10:35:16 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

What pure BS that all is!

Like virtually all liberals, they cannot allow themselves to take responsibility for their own wrongdoing.


5 posted on 06/19/2006 10:38:15 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Translation: Fake but accurate...


6 posted on 06/19/2006 10:40:40 PM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

the name of the site is pretty ironic.. :\


7 posted on 06/19/2006 10:41:18 PM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Translation?

We're Kooks with a capital K.

8 posted on 06/19/2006 10:42:14 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Translation?

I have no earthly idea. And I've read it twice.

9 posted on 06/19/2006 10:45:18 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Next on Truthout: Santa Claus exists! Our primary sources for this report are career elves working at Macy*s and North Pole, Alaska officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

I thought Truth Out was going to expose their sources if the story proved false. I'm still waiting....
10 posted on 06/19/2006 10:45:53 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

How come absolutely nobody is interested in sitting down with the Wilsons and Vanity Fair, and carefully going thru the V.F. article re the Wilsons, and see who said what, when and it how affects this whole crimminal scam??? Fitz sure as hell ain't asking any questions, is he?


11 posted on 06/19/2006 10:46:26 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Let's see.........Truthout's Motto..........

We report whatever we deem the TRUTH then we use fiction in lieu of facts to make our stories sound plausible when the TRUTH turns out to be false.

12 posted on 06/19/2006 10:46:32 PM PDT by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted?

Well, Truthout (and what a joke that name is!) could say this, and would have an unimpeachable source, for a change: Fitzgerald himself. I bet the DUmmies are falling all over themselves, thinking this self-absorbed tripe means they have another chance at Rove. HA!

13 posted on 06/19/2006 10:47:33 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

My big blue eyes.

14 posted on 06/19/2006 10:48:23 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
They can't face the fact that Rove won't be indicted. They're in total denial.

Jason Leopold vowed to name his sources if the report turned out to be untrue. Truthout did not address that issue in this latest screed.

15 posted on 06/19/2006 10:50:28 PM PDT by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors..."

ALL of them? Would you need BOTH hands to count them all?

There's a lot of passive voice in that bilge as well - a VERY bad sign.
16 posted on 06/19/2006 10:51:29 PM PDT by decal (Different Tagline Tomorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Its way too complicated for anyone but liberals who hate Rove and Bush


17 posted on 06/19/2006 10:52:55 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Is truthout a stoner website?


18 posted on 06/19/2006 10:53:36 PM PDT by dennisw (Fate of Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
Does anyone know whether Mark Ash (former fashion maven or whatever he is) is related to Mary Kay Ash (extremely successful cosmetics businesswoman)?
19 posted on 06/19/2006 10:54:33 PM PDT by decal (Different Tagline Tomorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"Translation?"

My attempt at a translation:

'Truthout is right and everyone else is wrong. Evidence that disproved them can't be proved. They're sticking by their story no matter how far down the hole it leads, and in fact its not about Rove now -- it's Cheney who's about to be frog marched.'

In other words, it's no longer about looking for Fitzmas, they're going for the Fitzrapture.

20 posted on 06/19/2006 10:56:10 PM PDT by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decal
Does anyone know whether Mark Ash (former fashion maven or whatever he is) is related to Mary Kay Ash (extremely successful cosmetics businesswoman)?

They are one in the same!

21 posted on 06/19/2006 11:00:40 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Rove executed//http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2006/06/stromata_exclus.html (Best satire of Truth Out.


22 posted on 06/19/2006 11:02:02 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The people at "TruthOut" are dumb as a board fence. Here's hoe we know that is so:

Since the passage of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which first established both the lower federal courts and their jurisdiction, every federal indictment handed down has been styled, "United States vs. [Someone]." There is no reason for the name "United States" to be concealed, since if this case number refers to an indictment, the first words must always be "United States."

Q.E.D., this case number on which "TruthOut" now hangs its hat, is NOT an indictment of Karl Rove, or of anyone else. If this is a real reference at all, it may be a collateral motion to prevent certain information from being publicly released. It might be "Somebody vs. Fitzgerald," and the name "Fitzgerald" would reveal that it is a civil motion within a criminal investigation.

The second reason this is an obvious phony is that when any court has a legitimate reason for concealing the name of any party to any litigation, the practice is to substitute "Roe" or "Doe" as the name of the party. Apparently the 10-watt bulbs at "TruthOut" have never heard of "Roe v. Wade," or if they have, they haven't spent a nanosecond reflecting on why that case had that name.

The third reason that this is a phony is that any legitimate case number also includes the initials of the judge to whom the case has been randomly assigned, as soon as the case becomes real by having an initial pleading filed. There are no judicial initials on this case number. Again, there is no reason to conceal the name (initials) of the assigned judge, as that information reveals nothing about the parties to or contents of, the case.

The so-called "editors" at "TruthOut" are merely wallowing in their own ignorance, nothing more. And anyone who takes them seriously is wallowing in the intellectual mud with them.

I trust that covers the waterfront on this latest scam by "TruthOut."

P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Presbyterians Running Loose in America!"

23 posted on 06/19/2006 11:03:27 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Rove always voluntarily cooperated fully with Fitzidiot. OutofTruth claims Fitzidiot used them to force Rove to cooperate so Fitz wouldn't reveal indictment. Sort of like "If you confess, we'll keep it secret from everyone."

It makes no sense. The only scenario that will fit the results is that Rove committed no crime regarding Palme or the investigative process.

To force this into the open the White House should discontinue all cooperation with Fitz in all matters. He would be forced to pop his indictments, if they exist, to proceed or fold tent and go home.

24 posted on 06/19/2006 11:03:29 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Striving to obtain liberal victim status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
"They are one and the same!"

Would it were so - Mary Kay died almost five years ago...;)
25 posted on 06/19/2006 11:03:30 PM PDT by decal (Different Tagline Tomorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter.

These clowns write like a bunch of college sophomores at a late-night bong session.

26 posted on 06/19/2006 11:04:35 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decal
Mary Kay died almost five years ago...;)

That is what you have been led to believe....

27 posted on 06/19/2006 11:05:00 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Before one can truly understand one must know of the Lizard People:


LIZARD PEOPLE NOT YET FOUND UNDERNEATH LOS ANGELES


There are 270 tunnels beneath Los Angeles, arranged in a network. Since they have, for the most part, been sealed up with fences, they are no longer used for street-crossings.

There are older tunnels, under Bel-Air estate, UCLA, and El Pueblo de Los Angeles State Historic Park not far from Olvera Street. The latter tunnel is alleged to have hid many during the 1871 massacre of Chinese, recounts Cecilia Rasmussen in her article "L.A. Scene: The City Then and Now" in the July 22, 1996 Los Angeles Times.

Hopi Indian legend reports a sub-surface maze existing almost 5,000 years ago. G. Warren Shufelt, a mining engineer, went in search of it during 1934. That year, using a dowsing rod he called a "radio X-ray," he claimed to have secretly discovered caves beneath downtown L.A.

He claimed to have consulted Little Chief Greenleaf, a Hopi leader, and was told about the Lizard People, who lived circa 3,000 B.C. Before the destruction of their culture by meteors or a fire, they were said to have created three underground cities around the Pacific Coast, including one under Los Angeles and another beneath Mt. Shasta.

The Lizard people reportedly made the caves housing thousands by using chemicals to melt bedrock. According to Shufelt's version of the Hopi legend, the city was in a lizard's shape, and extended from Dodger Stadium to the Central Library.

Whether the Lizard People were reptiles or humans, Shufelt did not clarify. (There is a post-Shufelt account of a humanoid "reptile" clad in both trousers and a shirt on Mt. Shasta in 1972.) Paul Apodaca, of Chapman University, said that Shufelt's account of Hopi history was "exaggerated and corrupted." (Hopis did have a social division called the lizard clan, however.)

The [L.A.] Times of January 29, 1934 reported Shufelt's claims of radio X-ray pictures of the subsurface rooms.

Shufelt said he thought he had found under Ft. Moore Hill a treasure room. With the permission of L.A. authorities, he had a 350-foot hole drilled. Cave-in worries stymied further drilling. After that, Shufelt vanished from public view.

Some five weeks prior to the drilling, Edith Elden Robinson had described her psychic vision of "a vast city...in mammoth tunnels extending to the seashore." The American Society of Psychical Research subsequently recounted her story of this supposed artifact of a vanished race.

On a website entry (http://www.lapl.org/central/urbanleg.html) dated March 29, 1996, Los Angeles' Central Library notes that, quite appropriate to the later library setting, the Lizard People owned golden tablets which delineated the story of the world since its beginning, the Lizard People's history, and even the origin of humanity.


28 posted on 06/19/2006 11:06:48 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne


Spin - Spin - Spin
29 posted on 06/19/2006 11:07:26 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.

Oh, puleeeze... Wrapping yourself in a flag that you despise is not going to convince anybody, and it will just tick off the other moonbats...

30 posted on 06/19/2006 11:08:36 PM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
". . . For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: 'I have no comment.' . . ."

I can translate this for everyone.

Under federal law, a prosecuting attorney representing the United States of America, i.e. "the people," and anyone involved in the process, except witnesses, may not relate anything regarding the grand jury process.

I quote the following from an online press source explaining disclosure of grand jury proceedings (bold print and underline emphasis mine):

". . . Grand jury proceedings have been held in secret since the 1600s. The secrecy rule, adopted from England, has become an integral — some say essential — part of the American criminal justice system. There is no First Amendment right of public access to grand jury proceedings. Participants, except witnesses, are forbidden from disclosing matters related to the grand jury, even after the grand jury’s activities have concluded.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 identified several reasons for maintaining such secrecy. First, without the assurance of confidentiality, many prospective witnesses would hesitate to come forward willingly, knowing that the people against whom they testify would find out about it; second, those who did come forward would be less likely to testify “fully and frankly” because they would be vulnerable to retribution and inducements; third, people about to be indicted might flee, or try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment; and finally, it protects those who are accused, but not indicted, from public scorn. (Douglas Oil v. Petrol Stops Northwest)

Courts take apparent — and not-so-apparent — violations of the grand jury secrecy rule seriously. . . .
"

So what does this mean? I'll tell you. It means that Mark Ash and TruthOut.com knew before they ever called Patrick Fitzgerald's office that they would not receive an answer to any of their questions because that would be a violation of law.

Why didn't Mark Ash and TruthOut.com tell their readers that Fitzgerald's office is forbidden by law to discuss the details of the grand jury proceedings?

As presented in the above article TruthOut.com is giving the implication that, because they received only a "no comment" response from Patrick Fitzgerald's assistant when they spoke with her over the phone, that there must be something to the substance of their questions. That is pure deception. They could have asked Fitzgerald's assistant if he raised questions about the JFK assassination and she would have had to have answered "no comment."

There is more of this deception in the TruthOut.com article (again, bold print and underline emphasis mine):

". . . On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report. . . ."

Boy, aren't these guys fair? They know before they set out their rules that Fitzgerald's office is NOT going to issue a public statement about the grand jury proceedings because the law prohibits them from doing so, but to prove they're fair-minded they set the standard of retraction that Fitzgerald's office must first break the law and refute their story.

And just who were these "senior editors" who discussed whether or not to retract the story? Mark Ash, his squeeze, and the pizza delivery guy? Gimme a break!

This is the mainstream media in action. Bogus, bogus, bogus . . .
31 posted on 06/19/2006 11:13:04 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Its way too complicated for anyone but liberals who hate Rove and Bush

A liberal's idiocy is directly proportional to his/her ability to believe his/her own bullsh!t.

32 posted on 06/19/2006 11:17:38 PM PDT by onehipdad (Praying for the enlightenment of dumba$$ liberals everywhere....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Mark Ash

You don't think it's...

Nah.

Couldn't be.


33 posted on 06/19/2006 11:18:04 PM PDT by Peter W. Kessler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
What is "Truthout"? It sounds like some liberal rag or blog---or whatever. It has to be. They are the only ones who were "praying" (if a lib ever does) that Rove would be indicted. "Covering their asses" seems to be an appropriate assessment.
34 posted on 06/19/2006 11:44:44 PM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
I think, according to this article, they have raised their sights beyond Rove and are looking to "indict" Cheney.

I find it ironic that they go to such lengths to defend Fitz, when he hasn't actually proven anything!! I remember the way they vilified Ken Starr and he determined more facts than this jerk ever will.
35 posted on 06/19/2006 11:50:18 PM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

They greatly exaggerate their importance---that is a fact!!


36 posted on 06/19/2006 11:58:44 PM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response.

....and now to Dan Rather and Jason Blair for the "Fake But Acurate Report", followed by "The Andy Rooney Senality Commentary"!

37 posted on 06/20/2006 12:22:39 AM PDT by Bommer (Attention illegals: Why don't you do the jobs we can't do? Like fix your own countries problems!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

When they sign on, truth signs out. Could be their new slogan.


38 posted on 06/20/2006 12:24:57 AM PDT by Uriah_lost (http://www.wingercomics.com/d/20051205.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Translation?

I think that's Chinese. Sorry I can't help.
39 posted on 06/20/2006 2:31:07 AM PDT by Jaysun (In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now.

Translation: This is gonna get deep.

Thanks, Michael Moore doesn't have to land on me, I took the hint. I'm outta here.

40 posted on 06/20/2006 3:07:15 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Isn't it interesting that Pravda means truth in Russian? These guys probably consciously took the name with slight modification.


41 posted on 06/20/2006 4:13:11 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Interesting not a peep that I can find about this over at DUHmmy land.

I wonder if they are afraid of it.

42 posted on 06/20/2006 4:28:46 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
TruthOut.argh!

This Marc Ash has to be he of the infamous "Ash Alert" of yesteryear. But, then again, all liberals have a tendency to be obstinate no matter how wrong they are because they "feel" they are right.

43 posted on 06/20/2006 4:40:05 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler

You're just nostalgic...


44 posted on 06/20/2006 4:43:04 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; All
it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument.

They are victims.

45 posted on 06/20/2006 10:06:54 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
And liberals complain that GWB can't say "We made a mistake"...

Sheeesh!

46 posted on 06/20/2006 10:10:55 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson