DUers are divided over TO/Leopold-Luskin, not over Fitzgerald/Wilson-Rove

[BurtWorm]

True or false? If true, this may explain why some of us skeptics are baffled over the apparent profundity of the rift between us and the Leopold party, who seem to want to make this a shibboleth for determining who are the "real" lefty-DUers among us. The disagreement is not over the substance at the heart of Wilson affair. We all agree that the Bushists lied to start the war, that they got pissed when Wilson called them on their lies after Bush boy declared "Mission Accomplished," and concocted a pathetic scheme to discredit Wilson through his wife. That's not in contention as far as I know.

What we disagree about is the trustworthiness of one lousy story that appeared in the midst of it all. One lousy story.

It pains me. I don't get it.

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. Exactly. Asserting that Leopold was wrong does not imply support for Rove

nt

[meisje]

2. The division is among the delusional and Reality based DUers

[Zen]

7. When you refer to DUers as delusional, is this your way of making peace?

...or are we going to fight about this issue and others like it ad infinitum?

[tridim]

11. Flame-bait posts like that are a big reason why there's a division here

That was completely uncalled for.

[grytpype]

17. Word.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Like Molly Ivins said, "there's two kinds of people in the world

People who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and people who don't."

While those questioning Leopold certainly prevailed on this issue, I certainly wouldn't consider every post that attacked the story to be reality based.

[DoYouEverWonder]

56. Here's the reason

There is a group that continually resorts to putdowns and insults everytime they disagree, instead of discussing the topic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. I Agree With You On The Greater Point.

It is all about the shame of an administration that used such deplorable tactics in an effort to silence honesty.

But I do feel that many posters bashing Leopold are just posting their supposed outrage merely as a need for attention (i.e. "Hey! Look over here! I'm bashing T.O., Jason or Will! I'm cool now right?".

[Pale Blue Dot]

18. Both sides are using really inflammatory rhetoric

I supported Leopold at first, and was called a "nazi" and a "koolaid drinker". Now that I think his story has been obviously debunked, I fabricate outrage purely for attention.

We need to make our arguments based on merit, and not on name-calling.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Maybe You Missed This Important Phrase In The Overall Comprehension

of the sentence:

"that many posters..."

Many <> All

If you aren't one of them, you aren't one of them. Don't use a sock as a blanket.

[Pale Blue Dot]

30. You still aren't discussing the merits of your argument

Whether you say "all" or "most" it doesn't matter. It is inflammatory rhetoric meant to marginalize your opponents whether having to present arguments of any substance. Both sides have been guilty of it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. No, Not By A Long Shot.

First of all, I didn't say all and I didn't say most either. So right off the bat your reply is misguided.

Furthermore, there is most definitely a difference between all, most or many. A simple dictionary could make that point clear.

And it is not inflammatory rhetoric, it is merely an observational opinion. From what I've read it does appear to me that many are overdoing the drama merely for the sake of attention. That means many aren't. But I feel that many are. That is my observation and if you disagree with it that's up to you. Doesn't really bother me either way.

[arwalden]

52. "is not inflammatory rhetoric, it is merely an observational opinion"

<< And it is not inflammatory rhetoric, it is merely an observational opinion. >>

Heh! That's been tried before... and not very successfully either.

It really doesn't do much good to try and disguise inflammatory rhetoric as being "merely an observational opinion". Others have also tried to use the same tactic to try and cleverly circumvent several DU rules.

But, they quickly found out that not only do DU rules prohibit them from calling someone an <insert-pejorative>, it ALSO prohibits them from saying things like "It is my observational opinion, madam, that you are behaving in an <insert-pejorative> like manner."

People who use such heroic tactics to sidestep the rules will eventually try this one: "Well, I would call you a <insert-pejorative>, but that's against the rules, so I won't do that."


<< That is my observation and if you disagree with it that's up to you. Doesn't really bother me either way. >>

Well, you SAY it doesn't bother you... but your determination to have the "last word" indicates otherwise.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Way To Twist Reality There.

You wrote a whole lot of words there but none of which apply to my post. My post did not call out anyone directly nor did it speak to anyone directly. It also did not try to circumvent the DU rules in any way, shape or form, so your entire comparison is thoroughly inaccurate within that context.

The statement was quite simply that there are posters (non-specific) that seem to be fueling the fire for sake of attention. That is quite simply an observation, and though you could try and twist and warp the sentiment in any way you'd like it doesn't alter the reality that it is simple statement and is perfectly fine with the rules of discussion. It is an observation. Now if you disagree with that observation, that is your right. But a quick scan of the Leopold reference threads would show many examples that would lend credence to that concept. If in the end it is true or not is not known, hence why it is an opinion, and up to each individual to choose their own on whether or not some are in fact posting the inflammatory rhetoric for sake of attention. My opinion obviously is that some absolutely are. But regardless, saying such is not an attack or a circumvention of DU rules. It is simply an observation of a potential root cause for some of the rhetoric.

And on a last note, I'm not sure what rule of reality states that in order to reply to a post you have to be "bothered". :rofl:

[arwalden]

58. Your denials are unconvincing.

Yeah, right... you're just "observing". :eyes:

<< And on a last note, I'm not sure what rule of reality states that in order to reply to a post you have to be "bothered". >>

Who said anything about there being a rule for such a thing. I find it curious that you'd need to deny something so obvious.

Yet earlier you said: << Doesn't really bother me either way. >>

Clearly it does. :shrug: Go figure.

The rest of your post is just irrelevant and babble, bluster, navel-gazing. Nothing of consequence or deserving of my attention.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Truth, Reality And Fact Require No Convincing.

Sorry such a sentiment bothered you so much that you feel the need to reply as if you are so personally affected by it, while putting such effort into trying to twist the statement into something more personal and vindictive then it was. But it is pretty clear cut that not only is the statement accurate, but that it is merely an observation, and one that the majority of DU'ers could easily make themselves.

Now if you could show justification for a deep need to declare that sentiment as false, then I'd love to hear it. If you can address the opinion itself and show your personal reasons for why you feel that there haven't been posters that have engaged in provocative rhetoric against Leopold, T.O. and Will for sake of attention then feel free to please. Because you haven't addressed that issue yet, and since that is the whole issue you are so passionately arguing with me against right now then maybe you should actually address the issue itself, rather than reply after reply of a personal vendetta against me.

Do you disagree that many may have posted inflammatory rhetoric against Leopold merely for the sake of attention? If you do, can you explain why you feel that there haven't been any that have done so? That's all this is really about ya know. No need for personal bickering and battles, as no one benefits from such ill advised garbage anyway. Just address the issue, which would be the two former questions.

Thanks! :hi:

[arwalden]

60. ~

<< Sorry such a sentiment bothered you so much that you feel the need to reply as if you are so personally affected by it, while putting such effort into trying to twist the statement into something more personal and vindictive then it was. But it is pretty clear cut that not only is the statement accurate, but that it is merely an observation, and one that the majority of DU'ers could easily make themselves. >>

What are you babbling about? :shrug: Apparently you enjoy typing more than people enjoy reading your nonsensical tripe.

<< Now if you could show justification for a deep need to declare that sentiment as false, then I'd love to hear it. If you can address the opinion itself and show your personal reasons for why you feel that there haven't been posters that have engaged in provocative rhetoric against Leopold, T.O. and Will for sake of attention then feel free to please. Because you haven't addressed that issue yet, and since that is the whole issue you are so passionately arguing with me against right now then maybe you should actually address the issue itself, >>

I really do have no idea what you're going on about. It appears to be some sort of challenge where I'm suppose to be a mind reader and determine the motivations of others. Sorry, I will not indulge your vanity demands to be entertained.

<< rather than reply after reply of a personal vendetta against me. >>

Now *you're* playing the victim? Poor you.



<< Do you disagree that many may have posted inflammatory rhetoric against Leopold merely for the sake of attention? >>

No more than the disgusting displays of toadying and sycophantic adoration and swooning that certain others around here engage in. And all for the approval and the attention of their idols. Personality worship. :rofl:

(Oh sure you've seen the ones with messages similar to: "Did you see my thread Will? I stand by you! I love you. You're the greatest. I've been supporting you all along. Can I have your autograph? I have ALL your books. You're DU royalty." :eyes:)

It's nothing more than projection when you assume that valid criticism of TO/Pitt/Leopold is only "for attention". You really don't have to look very far to see the true attention whores (groupies, toadies) are right before your very eyes. The very act of replying to one of their idol's posts makes them feel "connected" to them, and I can only imagine that judging from the zeal with which many of them defend the honor of their idol is must be damn near orgasmic for them.


<< If you do, can you explain why you feel that there haven't been any that have done so? That's all this is really about ya know. No need for personal bickering and battles, as no one benefits from such ill advised garbage anyway. Just address the issue, which would be the two former questions. >>

Just as before, such vanity demands are... in a word: Irrelevant.

[arwalden]

48. A Much More Convincing Argument Could Be Made About The Pitt/TO Toadies...

"Hey! Look over there! Did you see my thread supporting you, Pitt? You're the greatest! I'm cool now right?" (Swoon!) :eyes:


:puke:

[Rex]

4. So baffled is the new word eh?

I love the divide and conquer attitude. So we are either with the Leopold party or against "real" DUers? Now I'm baffled.

[BurtWorm]

8. Who said that?

I'm rebaffled. I didn't say anything about who is or isn't a real DUer. I've seen plenty of posts by people on the other side hinting that skepticism of the Leopold story is just what Rove wanted.

[Rex]

10. I dunno anymore.

I think I'm fullblown confused now.

[tlsmith1963]

29. I'm a Leopold Skeptic Now...

...but I am certainly not pro-Rove. I wanted Rove to get what he deserved, & the TO people got my hopes up. I feel like I was led on. I feel betrayed. TO needs to understand that the neocons are destroying America, & people feel very strongly that they all need to be in jail. When people are led on like this, they feel very hurt & angry. The last few years have been very hard on progressives. We hear so much bad news, can you blame people for embracing any small shred of hope? I *want* good news. I'm sick of all the bad news.

Tammy

[BurtWorm]

39. I hear you!

:toast:

Rove is long overdue for justice. He came into the WH overdue.

[AuntiBush]

42. Yup! You said it, Tammy!

Thank-You! You speak for this Duer.

[Catherine Vincent]

5. I think it's the trolls stinking up these threads.

[Zen]

9. Oh, trolls - they're cute! Tell me where the trolls are...

I want to pet them!

[Jigarotta]

25. Fightz!

:)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Why would it baffle you? This happens over every big story here.

The only thing is this division is multi-factorial and goes as follows:
Some question the story
some believe the story
some hate Will and use the story as a means to express it
some like Will and hoped the story would be true and were a bit aghast at his "defense of his story" thread
Some are ambivlent about Will, ambivalent about the story, and simply chimed in
Some believed it then felt duped.
Some never believed it and feel vindicated


I am sure there are more categories but as near as I can tell, there isn't any MAJOR story here that does not get passions flaring.

BTW...I listened to Leopold on Ed Schultz today and wasn't impressed.

[BurtWorm]

13. So maybe I'm just reading a black and white bipolarity into this?

I hope you're right. I can't help but notice that every "pro-Leopold" thread immediately racks up dozens of recommendations. I'm having a hard time not seeing it as groupthink.

One thing you're definitely right about: we don't need no steenkin' freepers here to have a good flamefest.

(It's really great to have you back and present! :loveya: )

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. In and out more than back and present

but if you recall the primaries and the Nader/Nader hater threads...people tended to do the same thing...we just didn't have the "greatest" feature back then

(but you're just jealous that you aren't K and R so I'm gonna recommend this just cause I can :D )

[BurtWorm]

24. True!

Frickin' greatest feature! ;)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Look!

You've got ONE FUCKING VOTE! :D

[BurtWorm]

31. That makes a grand total of 4 for the week.

:rofl:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. OH!

so you saw my other three? :rofl:

[Pale Blue Dot]

21. I miss you, nsma.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Hey you!

:hi:

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

37. That's a good summation. I would categorize myself as:

- Questioned the story, then questioned it more after learning about Jason Leopold's track record from posts on that May 12 thread.

- Began to dislike (not hate) WilliamPitt's work/posts (not the person) as a result of this story and his coincident behavior and used this story as a means to express it. I don't like the hubris and bullying he exhibited here.

- Never believed it and feel (somewhat) vindicated. I had hoped that Rove would be indicted, but just doubted Leopold's version/timing. I take no pleasure from that slimy worm remaining un-charged. The ongoing pogrom by the faithful against us nay-saying infidels negates any self-satisfaction. Hell hath no fury like a true-believer scorned.

Two additional categories to which I admit membership and the negative behavior that can ensue:

- Avowed skeptic. People who take anything on face value or blind faith without question irritate me. People who don't listen to reason or reject facts really irritate me. People who cynically invent stories or conspiracy theories to bolster themselves really, really irritate me. When I get irritated I can be a complete...

- Bastard. Mocking people who fall into the category above. I do try to present facts, but get quickly frustrated when these facts bounce off the tin-foil. The credulous are frustrating. I have no time for cynical manipulators at all and I consider Leopold to be one of them.

I'm a Skeptic. I think that Skeptics act as a protective buffer between the Cynics and the Credulous.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. It really depends on how one practices their skepticism

Some skeptics are almost as fanatical about it as the fanatical religious. If you say rocks are hard and water is wet, one doesn't expect a long diatribe questioning the obvious. I appreciate your candor though. It's refreshing. And hey...it appears you were correct.

I'm still quite curious about the sources for this story. I, too, felt that Leopold's reputation precedes him in matters of accuracy, but apparently others did check with the sources and were duped too.

As far as Will is concerned...I think he has been very dedicated and done a lot of good but agree he damages himself with the tirades.

[maddezmom]

50. good post. :)

Nice to see you around again. :hug:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

12. The Bottom Line Is

We ALL lost today. Like Dean said, THEY WON, and the American people lost.

But more than that, WE here at DU, us LIBERALS, WE LOST. AGAIN! But at least we're consistent. We don't seem to get many victories. Or should I say ANY victories.

That's what is depressing. Not whether Leopold was wrong or right(he was wrong), but that rover was not indicted. Just another victory taken away from us.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. That's what life looks like under single party rule

They have it all right now. It's cyclical.

[BeFree]

14. Yeah, whats the big deal

Why are some anonymous posters so fervent about this twitch in the media? This one little twitch amongst so, so many twitches? Haven't they anything better to do? Like wash their bathtubs?

To say we are divided is a stretch, anyway. They are but a small minority of posters, they are just making some noise. Bad noise, yes, but really, just noise.

Noise that annoys? Now that there has to be some kinda literary term, eh?

[pinto]

16. DU has never been a monolith.

[eallen]

20. Bingo. In a just world, Rove would be in prison.

But that in no way excuses bad journalism, even if it is based on the wishful thought that this is a just world.

:hippie:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Actually in a just world, Rove would be fired.

I don't know that he would be in prison because the two charges that one would have hoped to have seen i.e. the illegal outing of a CIA agent and perjury are very hard to win and get convictions on...but in a just world, he would have been fired or stepped down after doing what he did

[DancingBear]

32. Great googly-woogly!

Somebody understands!

Be still my heart.

[tom22]

34. THE STORY IS OVER. leopold was inaccurate. It is time

to reenter the world of reality.

[OzarkDem]

51. Sorry to disappoint, but we're doing just fine

Its the right wingers who live in an unreal world.

[Patsy Stone]

36. We do this all the time.

Bev Harris, Kerry's concession, protesting the count in Congress. There are always people on every side of every issue -- and some you haven't even thought of yet.

Let those who want to say they knew, say they knew. Let those who wanted to believe, mourn. Let those who want to know what else the letter said because they are curious to know the whole story, free of spin, be allowed want that. Live and let live. Some people also just like to get in arguments (Argument Clinic) and stir shit for the hell of it.

In addition to trolls (regardless of post count), and contained in all these groups, there are those who feel embarrassed for telling people and being made to look bad. Caveat Emptor.

This too shall pass. Have some wine.

[Raster]

45. "Have some wine."

That's my girl.

[AuntiBush]

40. False...

on my end.

Have not, nor will ever change my positive position with regards to Truthout. And, admire Will Pitt, as well.

It's the Rovian-crap that those of us not so politically-game-minded whom must learn to filter those "in one ear, and out the other."

Yet, agree with your post about DU in disagreement. It only boosts GOPs tricky cons and all a DISTRACTION!

[RandomKoolzip]

43. Really?

Have not, nor will ever change my positive position with regards to Truthout.

So they could tell you that cow dung tastes like cotton candy, and because they're political allies, you'd be okay with that?

[AuntiBush]

44. Now, now...

I support Will Pitt and Truthout.

Have you ever been duped? Lied too? We all have. What if the messenger was duped, as well? Does that mean it's time to start shooting from the hips at the messenger and the one reading/listening?

I think you're creating a flame-post here. Stop, please and be more respectful.

Edited to Add: We do NOT know the truth yet, do we? No! From this lousy-worse then ever Mis administration, it will be a long time before any one knows the truth, and more then probable we'll never know at all. Everyone's got to learn sometime...

[RandomKoolzip]

41. Yeah, me too.

Whether you "stand with" Leopold shouldn't be a litmus test for whether you're a liberal or not. I find that particular conceit most puzzling.

[OzarkDem]

46. No, there's no reason to go after TO

Attacking them is unjustified and suspicious. Sorry, it just is.

[BurtWorm]

47. You're suspicious.

You think criticizing TO is suspect. Not just a point of grammar and semantics. Needless to say, I disagree with you. To me, an arbitrary prohibition on criticism for any reason is suspect. Not to say Stalinist or Nazi.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

53. Sorry I missed you.

I can only imagine... :eyes:

[DisgustedTX]

55. You're beginning to understand the multiple flavors served

:)

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. There is actually a third group

A group who is not for or against Leopold but who question Rove's lawyers version of reality. Who have studied and followed the story since it first broke. Everytime anyone tries to discuss the case who is not a lawyer, the hound dogs do everything they can to shut the conversation down. However, instead of discussing the issues and the merits of the case, they resort to insults and putdowns. Some are more subtle then others, some work in teams. So far they are succeeding in pitting DUer against DUer and it needs to stop.

I don't care who believes what. Or in the end who is right or wrong. What I do care about are the people who are trying to destroy this site by dividing us into camps. It's time for the Admins to intervene and re-establish some rules around here. May I suggest starting with 'no more put downs.'