Were's Brad? I haven't seen any real news here in a while. What's up?

WP --- is Brad still tied up? When are you going to let him go I mean, come back to blogging?

Aw shucks --- I put *ahem* inside less-than/greater-than signs and it disappeared. poo.

Here's what it should have looked like (not that it makes a great deal of difference :sigh:

WP --- is Brad still tied up? When are you going to let him go [ahem] I mean, come back to blogging?

Brad is safe. Nobody is going to hurt him. But we cannot tell you where he is.

You haven't seen much news here lately because we have been doing something different for the last few days. It's called a BLOGATHON and one of the basic ideas was to raise some money for our hostage friend Brad, and for his blog, and for his radio show.

Unfortunately for all of us, the fundraising has not been especially productive, and we may be forced to extend the BLOGATHON for a while longer.

If you don't like it then it's time to put some money where your mouth is.

And if you do like it then could you please help us pay for it?

Please Visit The BRAD STORE and/or Donate via Credit Card or PayPal and/or Donate via Snail Mail.

Rove seems to be busted. Is the white house trying to recruit a guy who will say "I leaked and not Rove".

Rove is going to jail

Is Brad at the same "secret location" Cheney has been sent to a hundred times?

For that matter, do we know that Brad and Cheney are not one and the same person? Has anyone ever seen them together?

I demand answers to these questions.

Rove has been a very bad boy.

Rove has a secret plan to hide on the Shuttle.

{long irrelevant comment deleted. WP}

Nah, Brad's cute - and funny, especially when he's being a smartass.

And Rove is an asshole, pure and simple.

I was listening to "Swampsong" by Tool today and for some reason it reminded me of Rove:

"My warning meant nothing.
You're dancing in quicksand.
Why don't you watch where you're wandering?
Why don't you watch where you're stumbling?
You're wading knee deep and going in.
And you may never come back again.

This bog is thick and easy to get lost in
when you're a stupid,dumb ass, beligerant f**ker.

I hope it sucks you down.

Wander in and wandering.
Noone even invited you in.
But still you stumble in stumbling.
So suffocate
or get out while you can.

Noone told you to come.

I hope it sucks you down."

Sorry, my "nice" filter is malfunctioning tonight, this is me straight up and unfiltered. Maybe I need to go meditate or something *L*

I know it shouldn't feel this good to watch another human being nosediving towards bottom, but Rove soooo deserves it.

{long irrelevant comment deleted WP}

Jimmo may be right about Rove being a non-story. Jimmo may be right that there is no crime on Rove's part. The Prosecutor, however, is apparently not after Rove unless he was the source of the leak which exposed Plame. Unlikely. Rove ought not have access to information about CIA "operatives" and missions. But as an accomplice to disinformation, Rove is just one link in the chain of evidence. That chain has been extended into the White House and higher-ups. I do not care about Rove at all. It is the smaller,tighter circle of Bush leakers--the likes of Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld and maybe the Bushbaby himself--that interests me. I hope the prosecutor is interested too.

{several hundred identical lines deleted! WP}

Ooo --- lying, partisan, publicity hog sounds just like the resident squatter! Great description, scooter, thanks.

Listen to all the whining and flaccid argument.

It's really amazing that anyone could frequent this blog as much as that certain entity and still be mouthing solidarity with the current bunch of crooks who don't have any plans to be loyal to the likes of him or most of the rest who think they're in the club.

Funnee.

Constant - that's a good photo from space! Cute.

re #7: Robert Lockwood Mills wrote:

Is Brad at the same "secret location" Cheney has been sent to a hundred times?

For that matter, do we know that Brad and Cheney are not one and the same person? Has anyone ever seen them together?

I demand answers to these questions.

Ah yes, you're good, Robert, but you're not good enough!!

Asked and Answered!

Well the press recovers some backbone. Next year will be the
year of 9/11 truth as the five-year anniversaries roll by, starting
in January with commemoration of Bush's order that the FBI
stop investigations of suspected terrorist financiers, and
Condi's meeting with Richard Clarke in which she rejected his
plan to go after al Qaeda militarily and financially.

We'll observe the anniversaries of all the warnings, all the
obstructed FBI investigations. By 9/11/06 Bush's incredible
negligence (at best) will be clear to all. In November we'll have
a Democratic sweep and in 2007 we'll have impeachment.

Because of the cheap dollar people from all over the world will
swarm to the United States, buying us beers and congratulating
us.

people from all over the world will swarm to the United States, buying us beers and congratulating us.

Please kick the following DU threads when ya get a chance.

Blogathon continues on BRAD BLOG. Final Days!
Interview with Karl Rove's friend Bill Israel (This is great!)
WHITE HOUSE BACKS AWAY FROM ROVE!!
FITRAKIS: Hocking County Activists Go To Sheriff's Dept!

04:46 AM EDT replay on C-SPAN
0:31
News Briefing
White House Daily Briefing
White House, Briefing Room
Scott McClellan , White House

LINDY: what was that?

Is it just me, or is Scotty McClellan looking more than a little worn these days?

He's looking and sounding more and more like Ron Ziegler every day. Ziegler was Nixon's press secretary, and as the Watergate revelations went from a trickle into a flood, his frown became permanent, his voice became like a vibration, and his excuses for Nixon's conduct became laughable.

We're at the same point in history now that we were at a few months before Nixon resigned. It wil probably take longer this time, because the G.O.P. controls both houses of Congress...there's no Sam Ervin around. But we're getting there. If Rove isn't fired, he will become the focus of the 2006 election campaign...his historical counterpart in Watergate is either Haldeman or Ehrlichmann, and Nixon pulled the rug out from under them knowing that otherwise the 1974 midterm elections would be about their misdeeds. That was before things got white-hot and Nixon had to quit himself.

Brad Friedman deserves a huge amount of the credit for getting us where we are...in the face of a Republican White House and Congress, a compliant press (and no Deep Throats, yet), and right-wing wackos all over the radio. It's a miracle.

I've been following this Plame-gate story closely. There is one (somewhat irrelevant) point that I can not wrap my head around.

Please dont misunderstand...I'm a flaming liberal, but I talk to so many Moonbats (or is that Shoebats) that I want to make sure I get it...ALL of it. Rove (and probably a second person) leaked classified info. If he admitted it to Bush and Bush still stonewalled, impeachment and treason charges should follow.

But heres the thing I trip on: So Plames name was leaked to somehow discredit or embarass Wilson? How exactly does the thought process go where the leak accomplishes that? Wilson is embarassed that his wife helped him get a job? The fact that they are married somehow compromises his opinions? The fact that he is married to CIA means he shares some (unknown to me) CIA bias against cowtowing to the WH line of BS?

Please help me understand how Wilson was to be discredited by being married to Plame.

Thanks-

Grasping at straws now. Good point! I think the white house press corpse are tired of being treated so shabbily during the bush reign...getting their dues. They might not be committed to getting the news out..but PRIDE. That is something you can count on from most of us. It'll work for good. Who hasn't been treated shabbily by bushco. Gannon and Karl. Karl's gone. Where is Gannon when you need him?

RE: COMMENT #21 [link]
...Winter Patriot said on 7/12/2005 @ 2:58am PT...

LINDY: what was that?
==========

Sorry, Winter!!
I was simply posting the C-SPAN replay of the White House briefing w/ "Squirmo" McClellan that was coming up. That's for the benefit of those who might not be able to view videos for one reason or another!

Good news abounds today for some actual main stream reportage! How about that?!

It is a strange thing to me that the words, "cover-up," and "conspiracy charges" are not used in connection with the Special Prosecutor's investigation.

Hi, Lindy

I was simply posting the C-SPAN replay of the White House briefing

Yes I gathered that --- but what does this part mean?

04:46 AM EDT replay on C-SPAN
0:31

Sorry --- I must be a bit dense.
But that's not news!

Walrus Gumboot wrote in comment #24

But heres the thing I trip on: So Plames name was leaked to somehow discredit or embarass Wilson? How exactly does the thought process go where the leak accomplishes that? Wilson is embarassed that his wife helped him get a job? The fact that they are married somehow compromises his opinions? The fact that he is married to CIA means he shares some (unknown to me) CIA bias against cowtowing to the WH line of BS?

Please help me understand how Wilson was to be discredited by being married to Plame.

It wasn't done to discredit or embarrass him but to take revenge on him [and his family] and to discourage others from telling the truth about things this administration would prefer to lie about.

Wilson has nothing to be embarrassed about --- but as I read it this, he was not supposed to be embarrassed as much as he was supposed to be terrified --- to find that his undercover wife has been outed and of course that means that everyone who ever worked with her is now either dead or in mortal danger.

The very thought that a high level administration official could have done something like this would have --- has had --- a chilling effect on anyone else tempted to think it might be a good idea to tell the world that bush lied about his reasons for going to war. Among other things.

Does this make more sense now? Ask more questions...

A good question to ask would be : How did Rove get access to confidential files at the CIA? My limited understanding is this info is on a "need to know" basis.

Someone with this info had to give it to him, someone had to authorize Rove to get the info.
Jeopardizing not just the agent but all the operatives involved is more than vindictiveness. But anyone who has read more than one book on Bush & Co. realizes they aren't just happy at conquering, they like to grind the opponent into the ground and hurt him. Lots of fair play this group.

One more thing Dana Millbank at Washington Post has two strange comments today, first he doesn't get it why the public is so angry at Rove with all the other problems in the world, then, his last comment to a caller was ; Washington is Rove's city Bush will be gone before Rove.
Actually I believe him, Rove has been building his evil empire for years and years. See what you can do without a college degree !

Winter in response to your:
"Yes I gathered that --- but what does this part mean?
04:46 AM EDT replay on C-SPAN
0:31
Sorry --- I must be a bit dense.
But that's not news! "

It meant at 4:46 A.M. EDT C-SPAN was going to replay the 31-minute McClellan press conference. That is how C-SPANs schedule shows it. I posted it prior to the airing so it was news at that time. Your postings reflect PT!

For Walrus Gumboot: Leaking Valerie Plame's C.I.A. identity in response to Joseph Wilson's column in the New York Times was a signal to other potential whistleblowers that the White House wouldn't tolerate anyone telling the truth about their treachery.

Wilson had already written the article, and had been outspokenly critical of Bush otherwise. Bush can't tolerate criticism, and that's why Valerie Plame's cover was blown...to warn others of what would happen if they emulated Wilson.

I guess what I'm struggling with is this: why was the link via marriage between Wilson and Plame valuable to the reporters it was leaked to?

Clearly the Bush Admin. wanted to punish the couple by ruining her career. And in ruining her career they ruined WND undercover investigations. I have understood these points since this first came up a long time ago. I clearly see the Bush/Rove point of view.

What I don't understand is this: from the reporters point of view, how was this information pertinent to anything?? What was the "reporting" reason to publish this fact? That is, if they were NOT intimately involved in the effort to smear Wilson; how was this newsworthy? I have found an article since my last post which [paraphrased] says that the reporters were being told not to give much creedence to Wilsons report because he was sent over to Niger by his wife. THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME! What does their relationship have to do with the accuracy of his report?

Saw on RawStory that the RNC has issued some talking points about how Wilson has denied being sent over there by his wife/denying that he was recomended for the mission to Niger by his wife. This leads me back to my confusion: SO F-ING WHAT?!?! What does who put him up to the mission have to do with anything? Why are righties trying to prove that his wife was involved in getting him the job? Why did Rove leak Plames name, thereby violating Federal law, simply to prove she was involved in him getting the job.

If you take ruining his wife's career and thereby punishing Wilson out of the motivation, why did anyone publish this fact? How was it newsworthy unless it was known to the reporters that they were participating in a smear campaign? This is still quite unclear to me.

Hello Mr. Walrus,

Don't think it's really newsworthy either, the fact that Wilson's wife offered his name as someone to investigate the uranium tube claim in Niger...however, it was Rove/Libby/Cheney's way of trying to spin. They apparently thought if the facts were twisted, and the public perceived that Wilson's wife pushed for him to be the one to go, it would somehow offset the tenor of his comments.
Doesn't make much sense, really, but that's I guess all they could come up with. Plus they thought it a way to get someone in the press interested in outing Plame--an angle. The press for the most part agreed with YOU, apparently...No one carried their water but Novak.

When you have a guy in the press like Novak, who does whatever the administration wants because of ideological bias, that's all you need. You don't need reporter(s), you need one guy.

Aside from Novak, they had Miller and Cooper, neither of whom fits the description of muckraker. Miller, in particular, had been published the Bushnik line throughout the WMD/Iraq period.

Front page of today's Times...feature story on Karl Rove and White House loyalty.

Lead editorial in today's Times...about Karl Rove.

The Times admits it often uses confidential sources, but suggests this case is different. No shit, Bill Keller. Though it stops short of calling for Rove to be fired or accusing him of a crime, it accuses him of outing Valerie Plame for political reasons. Since she was a C.I.A. agent then operating undercover, it sounds like a crime to me.

The good news is that the story is alive and isn't going away like so many others have. This is now Watergate redux, and Rove is either Haldeman or Ehrlichmann. They both went to jail. And their boss should have, but got lucky because his successor couldn't stand the heat but stayed in the kitchen.

#32: "How was it newsworthy unless it was known to the reporters that they were participating in a smear campaign?"

That's a BIG "unless"!

Thanks for the replies. I realize that assuming the reporters were not involved in the smear was a big assumption. It took me thinking on this the past couple of days to see that that is really my point: why is no one blaming the reporters for INTENTIONALLY SMEARING WILSON, to say nothing of leaking classified information.

Then I saw Brad's post on another blog where he said:

"I think that the press does have considerable agency--that it is not acting as a stenographer, but as an unindicted co-conspirator with the Slime Machine. "

The thread with the above quote crystalized what was a tadpole in my mind when I was posting previously. We can talk about who knew what, when they knew it and was it treason. But I am becoming even more interested in this: that reporters, using inside information from the highest levels of government, publishing as "news" personal slander and smear that is only newsworthy because of the source it came from...yet the source must be unnamed in the article and thereafer until jail becomes a very real threat.

Why aren't there any repercussions for this behavior by "journalists". I'm not talking about concequences for not revealing sources. I'm talking about punishment for knowingly, willingly being a tool of government propaganda. Can Wilson sue for slander? This is not some "oops my source was incorrect" mistake. This is knowingly participating in spreading political propaganda. If someone prints something in a newspaper that's only possible value is to serve as a tool to manipulate readers, is that not a crime?

Don't confused slander and libel. Slander pertains to the spoken word, libel to the written word.

In "The Lindbergh Syndrome" I discuss the roots of press freedom, the John Peter Zenger trial in 1735. This was the reverse of the current situation, in that Zenger printed BAD facts about a public official, Colonial Governor Cosby. Because Britain has always had a low threshold for libel, Zenger was brought up on libel charges...but acquitted because he wrote the truth (King George II thought the truth was irrelevant).

This case set a precedent. Journalists were given plenty of leeway to expose evil, provided they printed the truth...that couldn't be libelous. In the Plame case, Novak was helping a corrupt administration, not exposing one; yet what he reported (that Valerie Plame worked for the C.I.A.) was in fact true. So press freedom isn't the issue here; the issue is the 1982 law making it a crime to out a C.I.A. operative working undercover.

>Don't confused slander and libel. Slander pertains to >the spoken word, libel to the written word.

Duly noted.

I'm still thinking on this one from a journalistic perspective. Found this interesting:

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL:
Furthermore, is there a journalistic privilege here if your source was misleading? And that's a very interesting question, because I believe that journalists should not protect bad sources. In fact, there's an internal New York Times policy about that. Is it being adhered to? These are questions that the Times really must answer internally right now, as their own reporter languishes in jail, now in her ninth day.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that policy for one minute?

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: The policy is that if a --- journalists make arrangements, contracts, if you will, with sources about information, and they agree to protect their anonymity, but not to an ultimate degree. If a source is not acting in good faith, has provided you with false information, damaging information, damages the credibility of your news organization, then your obligation to that source is invalidated. That's an internal New York Times policy. It's the policy of many newspapers and news organizations. But the Times is not upholding its own policy, as I understand it.

http://www.democracynow.....pl?sid=05/07/15/1340214