Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Can't Anybody There Play This Game? | Main | Notes From The Clownhouse »

June 24, 2006

Comments

Rick

Cut Greenwald some slack. Obviously, he took seriously Komrad Kos's instructions for handling the email: "Burn Before Reading."

Cordially...

noah

Too bad our host doesn't take the host of TL as seriously. Kos is a certifiable idiot (except for the cash). OTOH JM is a dangerous enemy of our values, in spades.

verner

You know, I don't really follow Labor, but some interesting things are going on right now. It seems that Stern and SEIU are currently at odds with Paul Booth and AFSCME--or at least were last year when they had all the dust up at the AFL-CIO (Booth is a Sweeney supporter--Sweeney was a former pres. of SEIU) Who knows what's going on behind the scenes with those people!

SEIU is a client of Fenton Communications. It also appears more radical than Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. One of Stern's strategies is to support CAMPAIGNS instead of CANDIDATES--reflecting the utter failure of labor in supporting the Democrat Party--they spent $100 million for nothing last time around. Now, doesn't that sound like what KOS is doing?

lurker

Andy Stern

Wow. Verner, you've been fabulous.

lurker

Verner and topsecret, none of your links work via FireFox and IE on Windows. Think they work on Linux, though.

If you could use BB tags, that would help.

Yes, that's what it looks like, verner.

lurker

Verner, do you know if discoverthenetworks has a page devoted to ANSWER and Ramsey Clark? Wonder if they are connected to all of this...

lurker

I found Ramsey Clark.

verner

As I understand it, for various tax reasons, Win Without War and US Labor against the War could not be under the same roof. But they most certainly co-ordinated efforts--and ALL of the major players were clients of Fenton.

Also, many many of the orgs. mentioned above in the WWW list have been linked for years--through both the Vietnam anti-war movement (SDSers)and the nuclear disarmament movement during the 1980s. To give you an idea of just how close--Heather Booth, (Who founded USA ACTION one of WWW's member orgs) is married to Paul. She was Fenton's Ira Arlook's and WWW's Tom Andrew's boss at Citizen Action. Arlook is married to KAren Nussbaum, who served in the Clinton Administration. Booth has worked with David Fenton on various projects for years.

David Cortright, who I mentioned before, is married to KAren Jacobs of WAND.

I could go on, but I'm afraid your eyes would glaze over.

And if KOS is being bankrolled by SEIU and Soros (or either of the two) well, he fits right in there somewhere. The word Grassroots is the key. They always call themselves grassroots!

In other words, The kingdom of KOS is nothing but another agitprop left wing org., just like all the rest of them. I seriously doubt he's calling the shots--he's just the public face. Another attempt to repackage the "message" and fool the public about where it's really coming from.

lurker

Dan Reihl should be made aware of these connections. Clarice! A candidate topic for your next article!

lurker

Or you can write one for AT / FrontPageMag.

verner

I'll tell you what lurker. Here's all you have to know. The "progressive" movement operates like the BORG in startrek.

MayBee

great progressive organizations that joined in to make it happen -- People For the American Way, MoveOn, DFA, UNITE-HERE, SEIU, the Rappaports

This is who Kos acknowledges for helping fund Yearly Kos in his post about how an attack on him by the right-wing TNR is an attack on everybody. Not that he's the leader, though.

Another poster said the AFL-CIO put a lot of money into it, but didn't get any love.

MayBee

https://www.yearlykos.org/node/409
---
The named sponsors of YKos:
SEIU
Wake Up Walmart (poor Armando!)
Air America
People for the American Way
MyDD
Unite Here
Good Storm
NDN:NDN is lead by its founder Simon Rosenberg. NPI is lead by Peter Leyden and Theo Yedinksy.

verner

SEIU--Andrew Stern

Wake Up Walmart (poor Armando!)--a pet project of Stern's

Air America--who cares, nobody listens

People for the American Way--Fenton Client, Tom Andrews of WWW worked for them before he went to Citizen Action. Founded by Norman Lear.

MyDD-See Riehl World

Unite Here--Union in alliance with SEIU

Good Storm--don't know

NDN:NDN is lead by its founder Simon Rosenberg. NPI is lead by Peter Leyden and Theo Yedinksy--don't know about them either.

Well, at least we know where ole KOS is getting most of his advertising money from! LOL

clarice

lurker--this one is Verner's though I think it might be fun to gather up the lighter articles on it. IN any event, my position is clear, I'd like Kos and Armstrong to stay in business..0-21 are the kind of odds I want for opponents.

verner

Oh, Maybee, you forgot moveon.org on the sponsor list!

NDN looks like a typical Democrat push the message kind of thing. Worth looking into. They may be the real brains of the outfit, so to speak. And did you notice Warner's name!

MayBee

verner-Yes, you're right. I missed moveon.org when I retyped the list. Shows you how long my attention span is.

clarice

Maybee , do you recall where you saw that Matt Cooper was leaving Time?

verner

Interesting picture emerging.

Joe Trippi--Howard Dean's old manager--is in with NDN.

KOS is being heavily backed by SEIU.

Moveon.org is in alliance (Dean and Soros)

We know that KOS was paid by Dean.

Riehl has shown the financial relationship between Kos, Armstrong and SEIU--plus a little action from Warner.

What a bucket of slop--or maybe we should say a pot of gold.

And I have one question. Semanticleo--are you a card carrying member of SEIU?

Anybody want to take bets?

MayBee

clarice-
https://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/print/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727178>Here
via Talk Left

MayBee

Interesting that one feature on the NDN website is a conversation with SEIU president, Andy Stern.

MayBee

Looks like NPN/NPI is in the business of telling politicians how to spend their advertising money (hint:new media)

https://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/04/for_tuesday.html>here

I don't know what it all means. It interests me, though, that most of the Yearly Kos sponsors are somewhat disconnected from the interests of the attendees.

clarice

Thanks, MayBee. The first issue of Portfolio isn't due out until late April of 2007..Hmm.

topsecretk9

Link 1 (and scroll)

Link 2


Lurker-- I was being lazy

PeterUK

Oh course,if one wanted to discredit two genuine emails,sending a third and denying authorship would be the ideal way to do it.Everything comes in threes for thesespeople,the Three Wise Monkey',the Three Stooges.

PeterUK

Mr Ballard,
"The people being fleeced by Kos and his ilk deserve to be fleeced - it's part of their educational experience. "

How can you say that when these people have hard working dealers to support.

MayBee,
Actually more than a 1000 turned up for the Kos Konference but were turned into pillars of salt on the outskirts of Las Vegas.

M. Simon

OK,

We have one e-mail that was not from the list which changes nothing about the fact that Kos was trying to give the netschlongs their marching orders.

One errant fact has not invalidated the story.

jerry

Maguire, you owe Greenwald a retraction and an apology. It's that simple.

That you can't do that shouts volumes.

Tony Computaro

Gary Maxwell wrote:
Sheesh I wish I had vocies in my head or been up for 64 hours as an excuse. Cant type, never could. Maybe voice conversion software will show up soon.

You expect us to believe that poor typing skills is your problem? Dude, to me you seem at least borderline retarded.

Rick Ballard

Jerry,

The fact that you didn't cut and paste from Tom's post saying "see look right here - you owe a retraction for that" screams huirricanes.

Go ahead - cut and paste the part that requires retraction.

MayBee

That you can't do that shouts volumes.

I always find it easier to apologize to people that I believe have some amount of goodwill.

PeterUK

"That you can't do that shouts volumes."
This would be one of those newfangled "Talking Books"?

Steve Smith

Ah, the old "fake but accurate" meme....

ed

Hmmmm.

Vastly amusing, far beyond the limits of mortal man.

The really funny part of all this is the ridiculously excessive overemphasis on the Gillard email, which is largely irrelevant. But the exercise is a pathetic attempt at misdirection and redirection. To push the debate from the TWO confirmed emails to the third. Thus the debate morphs from one of Kos's seemingly rather unethical behavior to one about the veracity of an email.

The important thing to remember is that even if Gillard didn't write that third email. The third email concisely represents his actual and accurate viewpoint.

That's rather hard to overcome. But it'll be amusing to see the lefties try it anyways.

Charlie (Colorado)

Well, he will have a hard time if he confines himself to the facts.

Charlie (Colorado)

Well, he will have a hard time if he confines himself to the facts.

NOt that this is likely to be a problem.

Charlie (Colorado)

WTF?

Sorry, somehow my "preview" turned into a post...

Charlie (Colorado)

Maguire, you owe Greenwald a retraction and an apology. It's that simple.

Jerry, it would a lot simpler if you would quote what Tom said that you think was false and deserves a retraction. I can't seem to find it.

Pisistratus

I'd start with the title of this post Charlie: "Glenn Glennwald's Career in Comedy."

Everything Glenwald stated was accurate.

TM's career in comedy is not as promising since he's a bad joke.

Joe

Oh Pissy, I think that the whole episode proves that Glenn trying to pass himself off as an independent thinker is high comedy. This Pod-people powered politics is pure gold.

Azael

What's real comedy gold is that Joe's comment is a robotic repeating the approved line from his own line of Pod people - without even a hint of creative input to the mainline meme.

C'mon, Joe! You can do it. One more try.

topsecretk9

AZ

IS that what Townhouse told you to say too?

Joe

Actually Azael, that was a riff off "an aide to a Democratic presidential candidate who asked not to be identified while the boss was angling for Moulitsas's support" from the latest Newsweek article who described you guys as something like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Check tomorrow's horoscope for your next set of instructions.

Tom Maguire

Maguire, you owe Greenwald a retraction and an apology. It's that simple.

That you can't do that shouts volumes.

Hmm, that you can't actually print the bit I wrote that merits a retraction whispers "BS".

And from Pissant:

Everything Glenwald stated was accurate.

OK, from near the top of his post:

Zengerle caused The New Republic to print a completely fabricated e-mail and then falsely attribute it as one Gilliard sent to the Townhouse list.

I'll accept that it was falsely attributed to Gilliard (a point I never disputed, BTW).

Please show the evidence that the email was "fabricated", as opposed to, for example, mistakenly attributed. What we have from Zengerle is this:

Here's how the error happened: A source forwarded The New Republic three emails purportedly written by members of the "Townhouse" list--Glenn Greenwald, Mike Stark, and Steve Gilliard--expressing concern about the Armstrong-SEC story. The emails lacked timestamps and headers, so TNR checked the emails with two other sources who belonged to "Townhouse." Both of these sources vouched for the authenticity of all three emails (and two of the emails, Greenwald's and Stark's, are indisputably authentic). After returning to these two sources this weekend, TNR learned that when initially shown the three emails, both sources immediately recognized the 181-word Greenwald email and the 389-word Stark email; having determined that those two emails were authentic, the sources just assumed the 22-word Gilliard email was authentic, as well. We now know it wasn't. These were clearly honest mistakes on the parts of the second and third sources; and TNR has been unable to determine why the first source--who has not responded to messages--included this one piece of incorrect information along with the accurate information the source sent us.

So Pissy, you are certain that the only plausible scenarios are that, hmm, (a) Zengerle is lying and made it up himself, or (b) the source was lying and fabricated it himself?

As to a hypothetical (c) the source copy/pasted an email from a different list and lost track of the author, you can prove that to be impossible because...

Good luck.

As to retractions and apologies, Greenwald ought to explain this:

...who [bloggers] spent the day giddily claiming that the e-mail was authentic and/or that no basis existed for the claim that it was false.

Help out your guy - show a passage where I claimed that.

Or go tell Greenwald he owes me a retraction and apology.

No worries, Pissy - this is a test of both your reading comprehension and integrity, so I have no doubt of the outcome.

Tom Maguire

Hmm, re-reading my original post, I do see the problem - I made quite a show of pointing out the low probability of Greenwald's hypothesis without troubling to offer a competing hypothesis of my own.

Actually, that was deliberate - it is not my job to guess, it is Zengerle's job to explain. And I never really focussed on the possibility that folks would be unable to conceive of any alternatives other than "Zengerle (or someone) faked it".

Honest Injun, Pissant and Jerry, did it never occur to you that maybe Zengerle's source just mis-attributed the email? C'mon, even Greenwald distinguished between fabricating and attributing in his post.

Well, if that is your position, maybe Jerry is right and I do owe someone an apology. How this - I'm sorry I over-estimated your intelligence and imagination - it never dawned on me that Greenwald's lackeys would be unable to conceive of two or three plausible alternatives.

And I'm sorry I wasted my time writing caveats such as "Mr. Greenwald's more complete hypothesis seems to be that Mr. Zengerle had two genuine emails and fabricated a third. Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit...".

I propose a time-saver - why don't you write up what you think I said, and I'll apologize for the failure of our nation's education system?

tbogg

...Or you could be a man about it and just admit that you fucked up.

Or at least pretend that you're a man.

Gary Maxwell

I'm sorry I over-estimated your intelligence and imagination

You forgot the vow to never do so again! too funny TM.

Pisistratus

TM-what's amazing is that you actually believe you have a good defense.

No wonder you give money to Libby.

Davebo

Well it's official.

A simple "I was wrong" is something Tom is incapable of.

But hey, you can always get out of it by debating the meaning of "is".

Gary Maxwell

Davebo I think your hero was the guy with the various definitions of "is". What is official is that its clear you want to ignor what TM says and put words in his mouth and then ask him to admit he is wrong. But keep kicking up dust, enough might obscure what is really going on in the astrologically guided Townhouse.

HeavyJ

I enjoy your journalism classes immensely. If, for example, Jeff Goldstien wrote an email saying "I dreamed about sucking George W. Bush's cock," and I wrote an article for TNR about Tom Maguire's presidential fellatio fantasies, attributing said quote to Messr. Maguire, would that be:

a) Misattribution

b) Fabrication

c) A royal fuckup, demanding immediate dismissal

d) All of the above

A Hermit

So Mr. Maguire has joined the Dan Rather school of justification; "the e-mail was false but the substance of the story is true so it doesn't matter."

Heckuva job Tommy.

Greenwald just handed you your ass; accept it with humility, admit you were wrong and try to be smarter next time.

Or better yet, just shut up.

Gary Maxwell

Greenwalt could not find his own with two hands and a Rayovac flashlight, let alone handing anyone anything.

Monnbats sure are entertaining when they finally get the memo on what the meme should be though. Cut and pasting to a near art form.

Walking with Cheney

Yup, it's amazing that Greenwald bothered to post here considering that he couldn't be sure anyone here is bright enough to read him. Greenwald may, at times, rant and rave but by God he does his research and sticks to the facts, mam. And the guy can hold a thought for more than a blog post.

Ass. Handed. On. A. Platter.

Carry on, please. Me? Well, this ex-Republican is going to finish reading What Would a Patriot Do?

S.D.

Dan Rather, You Screwed Up. Be big enough to admit and be done.

No Wait...

boris

Gosh, would somebody post the claim that turned out to be "wrong"?

The money quote (authentic) is ...

"My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story."

If all of the TANG memos but one had been authentic pretty sure Mapes and Rather would still be at CBS. If the one were simply about a different GWB, Gerry W Bush, it would have been dropped from the story without further ado and Kerry would now be president.

isitstinky?

hahahahahaha.

Why do you guys even try?

hahahahaha

Joke.

Ffakr
Please show the evidence that the email was "fabricated", as opposed to, for example, mistakenly attributed. What we have from Zengerle is this:

Mr. Macguire,

I think this would be relatively obvious to you if you were willing to admit that you were in the wrong.
The email in question was submitted with 2 other emails from the Townhall list. One would only assume that source1 had access to Townhall.
Source2 and Source3 had access to the TownHall list in that they confirmed the authenticity of all three of the emails. Somehow, they were able to easily confirm that the two much longer emails were entirely accurate but not able to confirm that the much smaller email was accurate and properly attributed.

Zengerle provided 3 sources with access to TownHall that were all incorrect about the authenticity or at the very least the attribution of the 1st email.
You must accept that Zengerle has sources with access to Townhall mailing list archives.

If this was simply a case of mis-attribution, why has the real source of the email not been announced? This story has been festering for days now. Zengerle has at least 2 sources that he remains in contact with who went throught the trouble of verifying two long emails. I would hope they verified the attribution AND the contents of those emails.
Here's the big question:
If this is a real email that was mis-attributed why can't Zengerle or anyone else find out who really wrote it?

I think the conclusion is obvious.
It is most likely a fabricated email. Fabricating email is not difficult. If you'd like, I'll send you an email from you and it will be untraceable to me (I work in IT). You'll even have real (appearing) headers. Not only was this email, by ALL appearances, forged it was poorly forged. Anyone with a minimum of IT experience can connect to an open SMTP port and send a bogus email anonymously.
Unfortunately I don't have access to TownHall records as Zengerle does or I could verify definitively in short order that this email never passed through that list.

ffakr.

john

Tom wrote:
"Hmm, that you can't actually print the bit I wrote that merits a retraction whispers "BS"."

This certainly does:
"What a tangled web we weave."

Catch22

Odd how you can twist the fact that you were wrong and Glenn Greenwald was correct, into an ongoing attack on him.

It was fake, however it was manufactured or taken from something else.

Catch22
Let me add that I thought Steve Gilliard came across as a stand-up guy in this post, where he explained that he had not written that email to the Townhouse ListServ, but did hold the sentiments expressed therein

Perhaps you should include Gilliards subsequent comment on the issue:

"I don't think Zengerle has handled this well, and this grudging article tries to minimize the gross error he has committed.

I don't think this is a minor error, nor does Frank Foer. Zengerle attributed to me words I have no record writing and is still protecting a source who sent him an e-mail which cannot be verified. He admits that he doesn't have have the headers to the e-mails he was sent from the list and then gracelessly raises the same issues for which he has relied upon on at least
one unverifivable e-mail for.

What I would have liked to see is an admission that his refusal to actually consult with anyone he quoted was a fundamental mistake. His first reply to me snottily suggested that I didn't know anything about journalism for wondering why he quoted my words to a private e-mail list.

Well, I stayed awake when my journalism advisor discussed these things at my college paper and in class. I paid attention to the idea that you confirmed quotes when you didn't hear them personally. I also learned that fairness was an objective goal. So before quoting me, it would have served us all well to make sure those were my words.

Matt Stoller may be wrong in accusing you of making up my words, but you are still protecting a source who clearly sent you a doctored e-mail. So until that person is revealed, he can, like Zengerle, assume facts not in evidence.

Glenn Greenwald isn't the only one demanding that you reveal your source for my e-mail. As I have said in private comunications with the TNR editors, I want the chance to compare that e-mail to any I may have written. I fully expect that unreliable and probably dishonest source be revealed, expediciously .

I do not do this lightly. I was taught as a teenager that one protected sources at all cost, even going to jail. Myron Farber was a collegue of many of my professors, so this was taken seriously, even in class. Sources need to be protected, as I do and many other bloggers do. But not dishonest and mailicious ones.

But until the person who lied to the the New Republic is exposed,this apology is hollow. This person thought they were defaming me by using words I have no record of writing. They refuse to answer questions from Zengerle, and now I expect, Frank Foer. This clearly reeks of malice to imply, falsely, that I said something I didn't. To continue to protect this source serves as an ongoing wrong to me.

And I'm sorry, I don't think this is minor or a disraction. I find it unseemly to attempt to defend yourself after commiting a major breach of journalistic ethics by repeating the unproven charges which landed us here in the first place. This stoppped being about Kos the minute TNR published an e-mail which they cannot confirm coming to me.

Then it became about their ethics and practices.

All of the questions Zengerle has are legitimate, but he should do some reporting and talk to people about them, not just sit back and draw conclusions from purloined and now unverifiable e-mails.

Do I agree with TNR? No. I don't even agree with all the conclusiuons in Frank Foer's soccer book, which I liked. But I have tried to treat them fairly in all this, because that is the way to handle such matters.

Again, and I will be e-mailing Foer with the same request: I fully expect TNR to reveal the source of the e-mail I was quoted from and in a timely manner."


https://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/06/apology.html

topsecretk9

Irony never better...Jerome? Jerome?

Matt Stoller at MyDD:

"The right-wing blogs are aflutter, unsure how to handle the unethical conduct of their colleague. "

"But not all is well in right-wing land. Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Reynolds are still silent. This is especially notable because Ben edited Hugh's book and Malkin's latest book.

And Redstate? Ahh, Redstate. That loveable community is torn between pompous screeds like 'We Must Defend', 'We Must Attack', 'We Must Continue', and simply lying:"

"We're now seeing the rot from the inside. The conservative movement is nearly totally bereft of ethical standards. Torn between loyalty and integrity, they pick neither, a lukewarm mixture of contempt for those who point out ethical violations, a reflexive angry defensiveness, and a melancholy regognition that supreme self-righteousness might not be the most appropriate attitude in every instance."


https://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/24/11252/1845

Barney Frank

"This person thought they were defaming me by using words I have no record of writing."

"Zengerle attributed to me words I have no record writing "

"As I have said in private comunications with the TNR editors, I want the chance to compare that e-mail to any I may have written. I fully expect that unreliable and probably dishonest source be revealed, expediciously ."

Gilliard won't even go on record as saying he didn't write what TNR published but TM is supposed to admit that he was wrong because he said Greenwald was being hysterical for comparing Zengerle to Stephen Glass.
Welcome to the reality based community.

topsecretk9

Can't imagine Gilliard doesn't know who he "communicated" words to this effect.

Sounds like maybe all this tut tutting is so that they don't have to reveal who betrayed the confidence of Townhouse.

Davebo

Barney,

Gilliard writes a lot of stuff. Posts, emails, actual news stories, etc.

And if you read JZ's mea culpa even he admits that of all concerned in this affair, Gilliard took the high ground and behaved responsibly, even more so than JZ himself.

But hey, JZ has been shown to offer up false facts in the past, perhaps he's lying about this too?

Sue

::grin:: I know Leo told me it was hard to take me seriously, since I ::grin:: at everything, but I can't help it. I find it humorous that the left is still claiming fake, fake, fake, and the right is saying so what? Accurate, accurate, accurate. I guess it really does matter whose ox is being gored.

Tom Maguire

Davebo, did you ever tell me what the problem was with my logic upthread?

Let me see if i can help Davebo, who wrote this:

So because two of the emails are legit, the third is irrelevant.

No, that is not what I said. What I have been saying is that the presence of two legitimate emails changes the likelihood pf various scenarios that include a bum email.

For example - suppose Zengerle simply confused a header and a footer on a forwarded list of thirty emails. In that case, all three emails are "authentic", but one was not by Gilliard, but instead by another Clownhouser. That would hardly change the thrust of the Zengerle article.

Of course, someone who did not realize that two authentic emails were part of the story might not hit upon that hypothesis. And someone reading greenwald's post might not realize that two emails were legit.

I am not, Greenwald's distortions notwithstanding, saying that a fake email is irrelevant; I am saying two or three real emails make the fake story a bit harder to understand.

That seemed awfully clear to me, although for some reason (gee, maybe clarity *was* the reason) Greenwald didn't cite that when he cherry-picked my comments.

boris

Unlike the TANG memos, the email might be Gilliard's but he has no record of it.

Compared to Cheney "behesting" Joe Wilson, this screeching about verification of quotes falls a little short.

Barney Frank

Davebo,

I'm not sure what you're point is.
Let me clarify mine.
TM is being prodded to confess he was wrong about something he never said.

And yet Gilliard himself is still hedging his bets in case the words JZ used were in fact words that Gilliard has used.
All we apparently know for sure is that the e-mail was not sent to Townhouse. Even Gilliard doesn't know whether the e-mail reflects words he has actually written.
Its entirely possible that the attribution of the e-mail was incorrect but that the words are in fact Gilliard's, according to Gilliard himself.

topsecretk9

Maybe we oughta say uncle to Glenn -- Gee, I am sorry for x, so now that we have that out of the way...can you tell me a little bit more about Townhouse and the **contents** of YOUR authentic email Glenn?

Moses

Be a man, admit you jumped the shark and were ill-used by a liar with dubious facts and/or integrity. As it is, the more you fight, the more apparent it becomes that Greenwald is kicking your butt all over the ring and you're looking like you're too stupid to even understand when you've lost.

topsecretk9

i.e...call his bluff on side-stepping...

Also...I like to no how "Townhouse" differs from our Cult -- other than our's apparently does not have a "Townhouse" message maker email machine...

I'd also really like to know what operatives and journalists are Townhousers

topsecretk9

know - shoot

Tom Maguire

Be a man, admit you jumped the shark and were ill-used by a liar with dubious facts and/or integrity.

I don't have time to count, but that uis the second or third exhortation to "be a man". What do lefties say to women?

Anyway, I am so dazed by my defeat that I have a whole new post up graciously surrendering. To my Dark Side.

It probably won't help Moses, however, because you actually have to read it and think about the facts in evidence. But no worries - I am sure Glenn will tell you what to think about it soon enough.

Crust

I think it's time to coin a new term, the "Zengerle defense" (or maybe the "Maguire defense"?) as in, in a perjury trial, "Yes, your honor, that statement is false, but I made two other statements that are true, so what's the big deal"?

Seriously, Tom, you're usually a pretty fair guy, but somehow whenever you tangle with Greenwald you seem to go a little crazy. I probably missed some earlier exchange where he picked on you unfairly or something, but really, you are better than this.

Brian

You are actually claiming the "fake but accurate" defense. Laughable! Better watch out or you'll get kicked out of the lizard club.

boris

actually claiming the "fake but accurate"

Actually the accurate part is admitted. The fake part would be more accurately termed "unclaimed".

Whatever the source, it was on current events and for all intents and purposes the content was not disputed, only the source. It would be most accurate to refer to the email as "unclaimed" at this point. Certainly of a pattern with the others which makes it's existence and attribution plausible as a small fubar of some sort, not a malicious forgery.

boris

"Yes, your honor, that statement is false, but I made two other statements that are true, so what's the big deal"?

"Yes, your honor, all three statements are true, but I attributed the last one to Thomas Jeffereson when it was actually Benjamin Franlkin who said it. So what's the big deal"?

Brian

makes it's existence and attribution plausible as a small fubar of some sort, not a malicious forgery.

Oh yes, an honest mistake. Made by an anonymous maligner, who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers, and then once he was called on this mistake refused any longer to respond to his email. Why, this poor honest soul has already proven himself of such integrity, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, eh?

"Yes, your honor, all three statements are true, but I attributed the last one to Thomas Jeffereson when it was actually Benjamin Franlkin who said it. So what's the big deal"?

First of all, you inaccurately reworded the scenario to make it more favorable to your point. But playing your game anyway... If the statement was "I was complicit in an attempted coverup," then it's quite a big deal, wouldn't you say?

Steve Colbert

Tommy my boy! You were thinking with your gut again! Good for you! Zengerle's faked email sure as an element of truthiness to it! So does your blog!

Woohoo!

topsecretk9

--Made by an anonymous maligner, who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers, and then once he was called on this mistake refused any longer to respond to his email. --

Jason Leopold did the same exact thing to the Enron emails - strip the header - that duped Salon and Paul Krugman.

Barney Frank

Uhmm,

I'm having a hard time seeing any maligning in an e-mail that the purported victim says very possibly accurately represented his words.

Brian

I'm having a hard time seeing any maligning

Thus, you play the typical "word hyper-parsing" game, instead of learning or saying anything substantial.

Fine then... "Made by an anonymous SOURCE, who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers, and then once he was called on this mistake refused any longer to respond to his email."

Does that paint the picture of a more trustworthy soul?

boris

who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers

Imagined malice that could only make sense to the paranoid.

Whatever the source, it was on current events and for all intents and purposes the content was not disputed, only the source. It would be most accurate to refer to the email as "unclaimed" at this point. Certainly of a pattern with the others which makes it's existence and attribution plausible as a small fubar of some sort, not a malicious forgery.

There's no implication of "an anonymous maligner" rather than accidental misquote in there.

The sentiment expressed in the unclaimed email was in sync with the topic and the participants. There would be no point in making it up and attributing it to a party perfectly capable of disputing its authorship if not its content.

clarice

Why didn't JZ just follow "accepted journaolistic standards" and simply state that the email was filed with the Court (Sealed v. Sealed) and all will be disclosed in 24 business hours?

boris

Suppose Mary Mapes and Dan Rather had 4 genuine authentic TANG memos to use against GWB ...

... Would they say to themselves "Say we can really stick it to W if we add just one more fake memo! Too bad we don't have any of those old typewriters ... hmmmm ... just use MS word nobody will notice the difference ..."

Well, that's almost believable actually ...

... nevermind.

Brian

You are obviously a defender of truthiness, rather than truth. Flailing around trying to deny or explain away the facts just makes you look silly. Debate used to have truth as the foundation, but apparently no more. Good day.

Barney Frank

"Made by an anonymous maligner",

Hey Brian, when you call someone a maligner you are implicitly stating that someone has been maligned.
If taking you at your plain written word is 'parsing' in your book then you need to take a sedative and reread your Funk and Wagnalls.
You implicitly stated Gilliard was maligned. I pointed out its pretty tough to malign someone when he says he might very well have said the words. Do you not know what malign means?

gay spank

great site!!thanks for the service https://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/

gaia gold

Gaia online is a very good game. Through buying gaia gold, I find fun in it.

LOTRO Gold

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame