posted July 11, 2008 08:38 PM            

When I read of Matthews' articles I was struck with a deep sadness. I was not alive then, but it is not difficult to imagine the intensity of the time. Americans who were duped by Matthews' ignorance had to deal with the unveiling of the truth as they began to observe the reality of their rather unruly and tyrannical neighbor. But can you imagine the Cubans?!?! Those Cubans who were fooled by this "American" journalist (who was full of ****) got the bitterest end of the deal! I can only imagine what it must've felt like, those poor patriots who risked their lives for Castro's cause because they began to believe in him. And all they got in return was a dictator that was even worse than Batista! Matthews helped this happen.

I completely understand why Matthews might make someone see red. Believe me...

posted July 11, 2008 08:52 PM            

And talking about changing the subject? What did I say that changed the subject? Nothing. That's your tactic. Refer to the thread about oil, and how you tried to bring the NYT into it. Total non sequitur.

quote:

---

If you did, you would realize journalists and newspapers they work for have known since the late 1990's that they're losing readers because people simply don't believe them....exactly what I said.

---

Once again, we hear the argument that the business is hurting from credibility when no reasonable market analyst would or has come to the same conclusion. Even when the NYT management is criticized for not handling its business better credibility is never deemed a cause of NYT's troubles.

posted July 14, 2008 03:28 PM            

The best evidence is that what I said would happen has happened. Everything else is simply denial of facts on your part from your little leftist bubble world.

Journalists see the cause and effect. Pew sees the cause and effect. Only you acoustic don't get it.

The NY Times was brought into the other conversation because they're sooo deserving of recognition as a loser.

My purpose was to show a well run company...Exxon Mobil and a company being run into the ground by a grubbly little leftist moron..the one at the NY Times.

Stock market analysts don't consider it their job to tell corporations HOW to run their businesses acoustic. They report facts on the ground and deliver considered opinions on those facts. In the case of the NYT, that considered opinion is that the stock is overpriced and is going down further to $8 per share.

Pew says only 21% of Americans consider the NY Times a highly credible source of news. Period and end of the story. If that isn't changed...by the NY Times adopting the unique policy...for them...of telling their readers the truth, it may be the end of the NY Times...Period.

posted July 14, 2008 03:37 PM            

The New York Times and Matthews helped bring that about by casting Castro as an agrarian reformer...land reformer and not a communist.

posted July 14, 2008 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

The best evidence is that what I said would happen has happened. Everything else is simply denial of facts on your part from your little leftist bubble world.

---

Except that your argument merely misplaces blame. You blame "credibility" for something the internet is causing.

Further, as evidence that what you, "said would happen has happened," the other newspapers with similar numbers in that poll would have followed exactly the same course. They haven't exactly, and therefore your theory is just that: a theory.

quote:

---

NEW YORK (AP) — Top U.S. newspapers posted further declines in circulation yesterday with the exception of USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, which have held up better than others as more readers go online. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/29/circulation-falls-at-most-top-newspap ers/

---

Here are a couple websites for you to check out:

NEWSPAPER WEB SITES ATTRACT RECORD AUDIENCES IN FIRST QUARTER

Circulation off at most top newspapers but USA Today, WSJ up

There's no way you're ever going to convince me or anyone else who looks into this that you're right. Over and over again the internet is the number one cause of decreasing circulation. Beyond that, Pew research has said all along that issues of credibility are largely partisan. Of course I know that means that you have to tow the party line, but it doesn't mean that the party line is accurate.

If your theory was correct, then you would be able to find fact-checking errors in what the NYT, the WSJ, and USAToday prints as fact at any time, and on any day. When have YOU ever been able to do such a thing? Would you like to start today?

posted July 14, 2008 06:50 PM            

Gannett is down from $90 to $28 per share in the same time period NYT was going from $53 to $14. That's a loss of only $62 per share.

Gannett owns USA Today.

Gannett shareholders would love to lynch the whole mob of them since they've only lost shareholders 14 billion, two hundred thirty two million, seven hundred twenty thousand dollars over the last 6 years. Good work.

Leave it to you acoustic to go to newspaper stories to get their excuses as to why they're failing. Perhaps you expected them to say on thier front pages in 32 point bold headline type..."We done them wrong, we lied to them and they left us.

What I said would happen did happen across a wide range of newspapers Americans see as liars.

USA does not provide indepth so called news coverage, uses a different format and covers the US instead of a metropolitan area with a national news page or pages. Further, most USA Today sales are not subscription but rather news stand sales and paper machine sales. Because that's true we don't know what the hell their real circulation numbers are because unsold papers are pitched in the trash...however many they may be printing.

As circulation numbers dropped and so called news papers went digital, readers didn't follow along and neither did advertisers. Period. Only about 30% of Americans get their news online.

Both television news and radio news has always been free to viewers and listeners...always.

posted July 14, 2008 07:13 PM            

I didn't think you were up to the task.

quote:

---

What I said would happen did happen across a wide range of newspapers Americans see as liars.

---

60% see them favorably, and like you can't and aren't willing to fact-check them in order to come to a viable conclusion on the subject.

quote:

---

USA does not provide indepth so called news coverage, uses a different format and covers the US instead of a metropolitan area with a national news page or pages.

---

quote:

---

Only in the last 6-7 years have readers abandoned newspapers in droves and it wasn't for free internet news. They abandoned the lying morons because they found out they were lying morons who couldn't be believed.

---

posted July 14, 2008 08:16 PM            

Louis Hau, 04.25.08, 7:05 PM ET

Come Monday, don't expect to see many newspaper companies breaking out the champagne and party hats. It'll be time once again for the Audit Bureau of Circulations' semi-annual release of U.S. newspaper circulation figures.

A fresh batch of ABC numbers has seldom been a cause for joy during recent reporting periods as print circulation continues to tumble amid the migration of readers to the Internet.

But as you absorb the sure-to-be lower numbers, it's worth remembering that this ritual doesn't provide a complete picture of the newspaper industry's overall health. The industry's most pressing problem isn't the state of print circulation, which has been in decline since the mid-1980s. Instead, it is figuring out how to generate more advertising revenue from both its shrinking but still lucrative print product and its growing online properties.

In one sense, circulation data can understate the newspaper industry's financial challenges. Declining circulation can affect how much a newspaper charges for print advertising, its biggest and most lucrative source of revenue.

But print advertising has been sinking faster than circulation as the slowing economy and new Internet ad platforms like Craigslist have decimated newspaper classified ads, particularly for the help wanted, real estate and automotive categories.

Newspaper print ad revenue plunged 9.4% in 2007 to $42.2 billion, according to the Newspaper Association of America. Meanwhile, average daily circulation at leading U.S. newspapers fell 2.6% during the six months ended Sept. 30, from the same period a year earlier, according to ABC. While the two statistics don't measure the same time period or sample size, the trend is clear: Print circulation is holding up better than print advertising.

But in other ways, circulation declines can sometimes exaggerate a newspaper's operational problems. Many papers have been deliberately reducing circulation as they pull back from heavily discounted subscriptions and efforts to draw readers in outlying parts of their respective circulation areas where they have lower market penetration.

Doing so saves on marketing and newsprint costs and results in an "improved quality" of circulation that appeals more to advertisers, says Ed Atorino, a newspaper analyst for Benchmark & Co. in New York.

One such example: industry bellwether Gannett. During an analyst conference in New York in March, the publisher of USA Today and more than 80 other daily newspapers explained why the company's February operating results included a cumulative 4% decline in daily circulation and a 6% drop on Sundays.

"We've made some strategic decisions to cut areas where the circulation is not profitable and it's not serving the key audiences that our advertisers are looking for,'' said Bob Dickey, president of U.S. publishing for Gannett. "In some markets, we've also leveraged some new price increases and there's always a pushback when we raise our prices."

Similarly, New York Times Co. Chief Executive Janet Robinson said, during the company's annual shareholders meeting this week, that a key part of the company's efforts to cut costs was its "shift away from less profitable circulation by reducing promotion, production, distribution and other related costs."

Another reason why circulation declines aren't a wholly reliable barometer of overall performance is that the print editions of newspapers are incrementally accounting for a smaller proportion of a newspaper's total ad revenue. In 2007, Internet advertising accounted for 7% of the industry's total revenue, up from 5.4% in 2006, according to the Newspaper Association of America.

The transition to the Web is occurring more quickly at some newspaper chains. For instance, McClatchy reported this week that its online advertising revenue accounted for 11.3% of total ad revenue in the first quarter, up from 8.6% total ad revenue for full-year 2007.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/04/25/newspapers-circulation-advertising-biz-media-cx_lh_0425newspapers.html

posted July 15, 2008 01:12 PM            

Assuming USA Today is engaged in factual reporting makes an ass out of you. Not me though because I believe even less than "most" of those who took the Pew Poll about press credibility. If they're awake, they're lying through their little leftist teeth.

On the issue of credibility/believability, only about 20% of Americans find the various MSM news outlets "highly credible". About 80% find them less than highly credible. Asking the wrong questions gets you the wrong answers...unless what you're looking for IS the wrong answer. Are the press/journalists professionals...Yes, they're professional liars. Do they try to do a good job? Yes, they lie at every opportunity to do so.

Now, are the various print media outlets losing circulation and advertising revenues. Yes and neither their former readers of the printed news or their advertisers are going to their online websites. Only about 30% of Americans get their news on the Internet. So, newspapers and their reporters can publish all the bullshiiit excuses they wish but the handwriting is on the wall. Americans don't trust these press outlets to tell them the truth...in print or online. A liar is a liar no matter what the format happens to be in which they choose to tell their lies.

Journalists recognized back in the 1990s they had a huge problem with their credibility with the American people. Since then, it's been fraud after fraud after fraud, lie after lie after lie after lie. Their lies are legion and Americans have caught on.

Their declining circulation and ad revenues are tied directly to their lying...and the Pew Poll highlights their problem with their credibility with the American people.

Even the vaunted...to you...USA Today's circulation and ad revenues are down. Further, USA Today is part of the Gannett publishing company which has lost $62 per share over the period NY Times was losing $39 per share.

Since these liars refuse to acknowledge the reasons for their loss of readership and revenues, they're going even lower and I'll be there to cheer them on in their quest to totally destroy their remaining credibility...with people like you acoustic and the rest of the 20% who find them "highly credible".

I noticed you avoided posting any of the charts were the gold standard of press credibility are to be found...those using the language..."believe all or most".

I also notice you're still running to the very same news outlets who have destroyed their credibility with the American public to get their excuses as to why their circulation numbers and ad revenues are in the toilet.

As to who is up to the task...and whom is not; I already proved who is who in the only arena which matters. I was right about coming events and you were totally wrong. What I forecast came to pass in the real world. Your analysis was wrong and my analysis was right on target. Sorry about that acoustic.

posted July 15, 2008 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Assuming USA Today is engaged in factual reporting makes an ass out of you. Not me though because I believe even less than "most" of those who took the Pew Poll about press credibility. If they're awake, they're lying through their little leftist teeth.

---

So you would be ideally suited to the challenge I set for you. Go find something you yourself can fact-check, and bring it back here. According to the last sentence in the above quote, your task should be easy. Hop to it!

_____________________

Regarding the rest of your analysis, I think I've already disproven ALL of it. That you continue to push outright falsehoods is up to you.

I'm just really anxious to see you try to fact check something on your own. In fact, since your claim is so bold (If they're awake, they're lying through their little leftist teeth.) I may as well post some random articles to see how you do.

New York Times
Economy Will Stay Sluggish, Bernanke Tells Congress

Wall Street Journal
Impasse Over, FEC Is Back in Business

USA Today
Bush vetoes bill protecting docs from Medicare cuts

posted July 15, 2008 03:47 PM            

Lying to America is the cause of news media declining circulation and ad revenues.

posted July 15, 2008 06:41 PM            

quote:

---

You also don't set tasks for me.

---

"If they're awake, they're lying through their little leftist teeth." - Jwhop

Just asking you to put your money where your mouth is. If they're always lying, you should be able to open a paper, or go to their site at a moment's notice and be able to pull something out.

posted July 16, 2008 11:22 AM            

"How's the economy in your hometown?
By Barbara Hagenbaugh, USA TODAY

On the campaign trail and in homes across the USA, the debate is underway about whether the U.S. economy in 2008 will see its first downturn in seven years.
Despite the recent onslaught of negative news, it remains unclear whether the current state of affairs meets the economists' definition of a recession: a widespread decline in economic activity lasting more than just a few months. As in politics, all economics is local."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-03-04-local-differences_N.htm

The day before the released GDP report, a headline in USA Today read, "USA Today survey: We're in a recession, economists say." The first two sentences read as follows: "The U.S. economy is in recession, or soon to be in one. . . . Two-thirds of the 52 economists polled said the U.S. economy is in recession."

This USA Today we're-in-a-recession story showed a graph with the 52 economists' predictions. They (incorrectly) predicted 0.1% economic growth for the first quarter, 0.5% negative growth for the second, with positive growth for the next four quarters at 2.3%, 2.0%, 2.2% and 2.6%.

But they never showed that growth in the last quarter of 2007, while anemic, was still a positive 0.6%. In other words, assuming the traditional definition of recession — back-to-back quarters of negative economic growth — even USA Today's economic experts were not truly predicting a recession.

The next day, the actual number for this year's first quarter came out. Oops: USA Today's Web site headline for an Associated Press story read: "Weak 0.6% economic growth in Q1 is better than forecast." In English, this means that since the recovery began in Bush's first year in office, we have had zero quarters of negative economic growth, let alone consecutive ones.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63658
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295132664143777

An economic recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth of the economy, (GDP) Period.

The USA Today lie.

Bush administration's NSA spy progran is a domestic spying program.

Laura Bush backs domestic spying program
ACCRA, Ghana (AP) — First lady Laura Bush said Sunday that the U.S. government is right to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists, but a top Senate Republican joined a chorus of lawmakers who think domestic spying is on shaky legal ground.
"I think the American people expect the United States government and the president to do what they can to make sure there's not an attack by foreign terrorists," Mrs. Bush said just before landing here to begin a four-day stay in West Africa.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-15-bush-spying-program_x.htm

The USA Today lie...it's right in their headline.

Outing An Agent: The Valerie Plame Case
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/plame_case/flash.htm

Valerie Plame was not a secret agent for the CIA. Valerie Plame was a desk officer who drove through the gates of CIA headquarters in Langley Virginia every working day. Some secret agent. Further, Valerie Plame had not been assigned overseas duty for more than 6 years which disqualified her outing...by anyone at all...as being a crime under the United States Criminal Code.

Now, that's enough to show USA Today and it's reporters lie through their teeth. So does the Washington Post but at least to the WPO's credit, they had enough common sense to apologize to their readers for lying to their readers and pumping up a story for about 2 years....that the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame to retaliate against Joe Wilson for writing an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times accusing Bush of lying to America in his 16 words about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa.

This is so easy it's almost embarrassing. Akin to taking candy from a baby.

posted July 16, 2008 12:25 PM            

Gannett Profit Falls 36% as USA Today Ad Sales Plunge (Update1)

By Sarah Rabil

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Gannett Co., the largest U.S. newspaper publisher, said second-quarter profit declined 36 percent after advertising sales at USA Today plunged. The stock dropped to its lowest level since 1985.

USA Today's ad sales fell 27 percent in June, the steepest monthly decline this year and worse than the 16 percent drop reported for all Gannett publications. During the quarter, the company's national advertising slid 14 percent to $168.9 million because of cutbacks by retailers and carmakers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amMs.Pl3I77I&refer=worldwide

Advertising cutbacks by retailers and carmakers? Bullshiiit, advertisers go where the readers and viewers who might be interested in their products go.

That's not to print newspapers which are losing circulation and it's not online to those newspaper's sites.

It's just more evidence the so called main stream news media's lies have caught up with them.

Notice acoustic, the paper you've been hyping as a paragon of truth had their advertising revenues fall much more steeply than the rest of Gannett's publishing revenue....27% to 16%.

Quick now acoustic, go find a news source who blames the economic recession for falling newspaper revenues...the economic recession which hasn't happened.

posted July 16, 2008 02:43 PM            

You never ever do actually look at the assertions your bogus news sources put out, do you? We saw it in the McCain thread, and now we're seeing it here.

The article WorldNutcaseDaily cites is still on the internet:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-28-economy-survey-recession_N.htm

It does indeed include a poll of economists, but that's beside the point. Your assertion is essentially that USAToday was prematurely saying that the economy was in recession when they did no such thing. In fact, the article stated that if a recession were to happen it would be a short and shallow one.

quote:

---

The USA Today lie.

Bush administration's NSA spy progran is a domestic spying program.

---

There's no lie contained within that story. The wire-tapping did take place domestically, and did take place between Americans and foreigners.

quote:

---

The USA Today lie...it's right in their headline.

Outing An Agent: The Valerie Plame Case

---

She was an agent, and she was outed. How is that a lie?

Incidentally, according to this government pdf file:

"Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited by disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Mrs. Wilson's CIA status was covert. This was classified information." - Page 5

Special Counsel Fitzgerald stated:

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

The leak was illegal, and no one legitimately ever said it wasn't. There were questions as to whether or not the leak was intentional, however, and that's why only one person was convicted.

Not remotely a lie as far as the credibility of USAToday goes.

quote:

---

Now, that's enough to show USA Today and it's reporters lie through their teeth.

---

Clearly it's not, and further what is clear is that YOU can't take up the cause of proving that they lie.

Looking up articles on the basis that you think there MIGHT be a lie for presentation here isn't producing the intended results.

posted July 16, 2008 05:29 PM            

I made clear the lie in the recession piece USA Today published...and that was their definition of recession...which is not as they said it is but is rather 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth in the economy..GDP. Further, I used their own article and posted the link to their own story.

USA Today couldn't even get that right...though that's the definition the government uses, that's the definition our economic markets use...it's a question on the Series 7 Stockbrokers exam and that's the definition virtually every economist uses. Those who don't will be found to have an ax to grind...as in this case.

Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, there was no crime in releasing her name or printing her name in any publication and no one was prosecuted for revealing her name to Novak...contrary to what you're attempting to say. Plame didn't fit the definition of a covert CIA officer and had been assigned to stateside duties for about 6 years...which is one of the factors in determining whether or not one can be prosecuted for revealing her name and association. No CIA employee who drives through the front gate of CIA headquarters every day could be considered "covert". The very notion is imbecilic in the extreme.

Let's get this from the woman who actually wrote the law...shall we? Or, do you want to continue down "ignorance lane"?

Victoria Toensing..who actually wrote the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

"As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11?language=printer

So much for your bullshiit that "The leak was illegal, and no one legitimately ever said it wasn't"

Further, I watched and listened to Andrea Mitchell say on the air that all the "political reporters" knew Valerie Plame...Joe Wilson's wife...worked at the CIA. When Mitchell said that, she was sitting right beside Tim Russert...her boss at NBC. Russert later said he couldn't have told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA because he didn't know. Russert committed perjury in the Scooter Libby trial.

Sorry, you've swallowed leftist bullshiit again acoustic.

Legitimacy is something of which you have none whatsoever.

Oh, nice try with that House committee report...chaired by Henry "Know Nothing" Waxman. That's not to be taken for the truth of the matter but rather as a transcript of what the leftist demoscat House says happened.

posted July 16, 2008 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

I made clear the lie in the recession piece USA Today published...and that was their definition of recession...which is not as they said it is but is rather 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth in the economy..GDP. Further, I used their own article and posted the link to their own story.

---

Whatever you THINK you made clear, you clearly did not. Read what you wrote:

"Despite the recent onslaught of negative news, it remains unclear whether the current state of affairs meets the economists' definition of a recession"

After that they put a summarization of what a recession is, but they weren't lying to you when they said that the data might not indicate a recession, and they weren't lying when they said a recession is a widespread decline in economic activity lasting more than just a few months. True on both counts. Two financial quarters is more than just a few months. If they had been saying that we were definitely in a recession without meeting the proper criteria, then you'd have something legitimate to say.

quote:

---

So much for your bullshiit that "The leak was illegal, and no one legitimately ever said it wasn't"

---

Coming back with an OPINION PIECE/EDITORIAL does not strengthen your case. Any Special Counsel would have to know the law definitively in order to investigate this properly. There is no reason whatsoever not to have faith in what the Special Counsel said with regard to this matter.

Impugning Tim Russert's credibility doesn't fly either.

quote:

---

Legitimacy is something of which you have none whatsoever.

---

Said the man using an editorial to try to bolster his case against factual news.

quote:

---

Oh, nice try with that House committee report...chaired by Henry "Know Nothing" Waxman. That's not to be taken for the truth of the matter but rather as a transcript of what the leftist demoscat House says happened.

---

Once again, any entity engaged in investigating this sure as hell better know the law, or it's a moot point to begin with.

posted July 17, 2008 12:29 AM            

Obviously Waxman doesn't know a damned thing about the law or he and other demoscat morons wouldn't be running hearings on Bush firing 8 US Attorneys. Bush has the unqualified right to fire any or all US Attorneys at any time for any reason...just as Kommander Korruption fired every US Attorney...at the same time to get the one out of office who was investigating him and his corrupt wife in the White Water investigation.

USA Today misstated the definition for recession and they did it deliberately to bolster demoscats contentions the US is in recession when it's not. This is how they defined recession and I bolded it in the USA Today statement so it would stand out...so you could see it with your poor eyesight.
"a widespread decline in economic activity lasting more than just a few months" An obvious lie as anyone who knows jack about economics knows better.

Victoria Toensing wrote the law in question so, if you don't mind and even if you do mind, I'll take her opinion as to whether a crime was committed in revealing Plame's association with the CIA over yours and an out of control prosecutor any day of the week.

The proof no crime was committed by revealing Plame's name and association is in the fact no one was prosecuted for that so called crime.

Further, Patrick Fitzgerald knew within days of being appointed that no crime had been committed and he also knew exactly who outed Valerie Plame and it wasn't Scooter Libby. He also knew the White House didn't retaliate against the lying Joe Wilson...a proven liar...because Fitzgerald knew it was Richard Armitage who gave Robert Novak her name and association with the CIA.

Fitzgerald is a media hound who got his 15 minutes in the spotlight. As a prosecutor, he's a dud who should have shut down the investigation as soon as he discovered no crime was committed because Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA wasn't covered by the
1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

posted July 17, 2008 04:03 AM            

quote:

---

USA Today misstated the definition for recession and they did it deliberately to bolster demoscats contentions the US is in recession when it's not. This is how they defined recession and I bolded it in the USA Today statement so it would stand out...so you could see it with your poor eyesight.
"a widespread decline in economic activity lasting more than just a few months" An obvious lie as anyone who knows jack about economics knows better.

---

That's a ridiculous assessment considering the fact that USAToday didn't commit to saying that the U.S. is in a recession in that statement. It's hard to bolster the idea of recession when you're not even committing to the economists definition of it.

I shouldn't even have to tell you that. Your thinking is outside the realm of reasonable.

quote:

---

Victoria Toensing wrote the law in question so, if you don't mind and even if you do mind, I'll take her opinion as to whether a crime was committed in revealing Plame's association with the CIA over yours and an out of control prosecutor any day of the week.

---

Well, I'm sure you won't understand when I say that I'll take the Special Counsel's word on it as he consulted both courts as well as the sitting CIA chief on these matters, and concluded otherwise. Only a partisan Republican could construe his actions as "out of control."

Not to mention the fact that she is an obviously partisan Republican who is friends with Novak.

You should read up here: Whom Should I Believe? Victoria Toensing or My Own Lying Eyes?

It's an absolutely compelling argument, and thoroughly pokes holes in everything Toensing has said on the matter. Her recollection of the law she supposedly wrote isn't as good as she seems to think it is. Talk about "out of control."

quote:

---

The proof no crime was committed by revealing Plame's name and association is in the fact no one was prosecuted for that so called crime.

---

There was debate for some time over whether or not Plame was to be considered legally covert. Ultimately, the CIA's legal verdict was that she WAS INDEED covert. I don't know if this debate had something to do with that outcome or not, but we can say with certainty that she was covert, and therefore the revealing of her status was illegal.

No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Well, there you go. There's apparently a requirement that the offender knowingly gave out the information. That doesn't make sense to me, but it could be true.

That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case. That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels, something the leakers could have used in their defense at trial. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml

quote:

---

As a prosecutor, he's a dud who should have shut down the investigation as soon as he discovered no crime was committed because Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA wasn't covered by the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

---

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/

Can I get that cookie now?

posted July 17, 2008 11:15 AM            

Another USA Today lie...since this is not economists definition of a recession..."a widespread decline in economic activity lasting more than just a few months"

A recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth of the economy For those in or from Rio Linda, CA, that means at least 6 consecutive months.

At the time Patrick Fitzgerald discovered that Plame...because of her stateside assignment in CIA headquarters at Langley Virginia, was not covered by the 1982 Identities Act, he had a legal duty to fold his tent and take a hike because it became clear no crime was committed. He's a media hound pure and simple. Further, and get this straight acoustic....no one was prosecuted for revealing Plame's name and CIA association. Not Novak, not Richard Armitage who released her name, not Rove, not Cheney, not Libby and not anyone working in the Bush White House or administration. No one at all was prosecuted for revealing Plame's identity...Period.

As I said before, you don't read with comprehension and therefore most subjects are incomprehensible to you.

Whether the CIA considered Plame to be a "covert" agent is immaterial to a prosecution under the Identities Act. The fact Plame drove through the gates of CIA headquarters every working day absolutely slays the contention she was covert. A group of circumstances must be present for anyone to be prosecuted under the Act. Try to read this...with comprehension, this time.

"At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Got it now acoustic? Plame wasn't really on covert status, was not working under cover AND she had not been assigned to duty outside the US either currently or in the last 5 years.

So, you want to believe Fitzgerald but Victoria Toensing actually WROTE the law underlying the Identities Act. I'll take her word over an out of control prosecutor any day and over your interpretation as well. As to whether Armitage "knowingly" gave Plame's name to Novak, it's not a factor in whether the Act was violated or not. The other conditions were not met in the first place. The leak was not authorized by anyone. Armitage was an opponent of Bush in the Iraq War, not a supporter trying to retaliate against Plame's husband, the lying Joe Wilson.

No "covert" employee of the CIA would ever be permitted anywhere near CIA headquarters or anywhere near known CIA agents. Never, ever. Please, at least attempt to sound like you're awake with your brain in gear to think.

posted July 17, 2008 03:14 PM            

Another NY Times lie and they're still telling it.

July 17, 2008
The New York Times and the al-Dura Hoax
By Joel J. Sprayregen

Why won't the New York Times accept responsibility for repeatedly publishing a falsehood which caused many deaths?

Mohammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, became an icon in 2000 when French State television ("France 2") ran agonizing views of the boy, cradled in his father's arms, supposedly under fatal fire from Israeli soldiers during a Gaza battle. The incident, deplorable if true, was presented by international media (see below) virtually as a reprise of the Crucifixion. A French appeals court ruled on May 21-dismissing France 2's libel suit against the media watchdog who exposed the hoax-that the footage could not be accepted as true, citing testimony from the former Le Monde chief editor that "the theory that the scene [of the child's death] was faked was more probable then the version presented by France 2."

Have you read about exposure of the hoax in the Times or other mainline media (excepting the Wall Street Journal and New York Sun)?

That the al-Dura lies incited murders of many innocent people is indisputable. The Jihadis who beheaded reporter Daniel Pearl inserted repeated footage of al-Dura in their gruesome video. Osama bin Laden cited al-Dura as a justification for his carnages in a post-9/11 recruitment video which showed the boy's "death" 12 times. Streets and plazas--including the street on which Israel's embassy in Cairo is located -- were named after the boy.

Times reporter Deborah Sontag published a near-contemporaneous account -- under a headline stating "In Battling Gazans, Israelis Sow Seeds of Hate" -- on December 10 2000, which can fairly be read as justifying rather than explaining Palestinian suicide bombing. Sontag referred with certainty to "the boy shot dead as he crouched behind his father" and quoted a "cosmopolitan" Palestinian who wants a gun because he is "haunted by the image of Muhammad al-Dura."

Sontag, a serial second-generation fictionalist, recently published a Sunday front-page article portraying returning U.S. combat personnel as deranged murderers; the Times' Public Editor hastily acknowledged that her statistics were faulty.

The Hoax Unravels -- The Journalistic Saturnalia Continues

By April, 2002, the al-Dura hoax was beginning to unravel. A German film-maker showed that the Israelis could not possibly have shot the boy. France 2 refused to air her documentary. Notwithstanding the evidence, the Times chose to elevate the falsehood by punditry. On April 17, 2002, the Times published a column by Max Rodenbeck, Middle East correspondent for the London Economist (much British reporting from the region sounds as if it was commissioned by Dr. Goebbels), opining that Arab television was winning the day because it accurately reports just resistance to "brutal" Israelis:

"Palestinian casualties...are textured with memory. Some have become household names from Morocco to Muscat: Muhammad al-Dura, the 12-year-old-boy from Gaza whose father could not shield him from a hail of Israeli gunfire..."

By February, 2005, the Times, acknowledging that authenticity of the France 2 footage was disputed, quoted Professor Richard Landes of Boston University who concluded the video had probably been faked:

"Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in systematic staging of action scenes."

Nevertheless, the Times continued to publish opinion columns accepting the faked footage as truth, e.g., on August 21, 2005, the Times published a column by Palestinian publicist David Kuttab "Live from Gaza" referring to "an interview with the parents of Mohammad al-Dura, the boy who was photographed dying in his father's arms." The Times never published an opinion piece challenging the falsification.

The Times was not alone in this saturnalia of bigoted journalistic incompetence. Time Magazine Europe honored al-Dura as "Newsmaker of 2000." The editor of the Independent, concluding there was "no room for doubt," excoriated the press for insufficient hostility to Israel. The London Telegraph agreed that al-Dura provided "provocation for revenge." The London Review of Books published a Requiem for al-Dura, eulogizing him as "an infant Jesus." National Public Radio ran puff interviews acclaiming the France 2 team as journalistic giants. The Palestinian cameraman who faked the footage says: "Journalism is my religion." Journalism awards were showered on France 2.

The Contemptible Afterlife of Media Falsehoods: Will Anyone Accept Responsibility?

The afterlife of these falsehoods is even more contemptible than the initial reporting. Though the French Court decision was circulated by Reuters and the Associated Press (to which most newspapers subscribe) it was reported only in France and Israel. The New York Times has not published a word about the exposure so far as I ahve been able to find.

Were it not for a few truth-telling bloggers -- Tom Gross of NRO, Andrea Levin of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting) in the Jerusalem Post, Ed Lasky in the American Thinker -- the hoax would still be accepted.

To exacerbate its failures, the Times recently savaged Israel for several days for not immediately granting visas to Gaza Fulbright awardees (while not mentioning that three American diplomats were murdered in Gaza in 2003, with complicity of the Palestinian Authority, while in Gaza to conduct Fulbright interviews, an atrocity I reported contemporaneously in the Chicago Sun-Times.)

I have spent most of my life working as a lawyer while dabbling as a journalist. I once represented the New York Times in a case involving the reporter's privilege. Law and journalism are key pillars of a free society, although there is much that should be improved in both professions.

I am subject to discipline if I lie as a lawyer; there is no similar corrective mechanism against journalists who lie (though no sensible person wants to empower the Government to regulate the press). If the fakery rises to the crescendo of a Jayson Blair, someone may be fired. But the many editors who accepted the al-Dura hoax and then failed to report its exposure are free to continue business as usual, notwithstanding they have trampled truth. If the press wants the respect it craves, shouldn't it-starting with the eminent Times-accept responsibility for the al-Dura hoax and disclose what it will do to prevent repetitions?

posted July 17, 2008 03:19 PM            

quote:

---

At the time Patrick Fitzgerald discovered that Plame...because of her stateside assignment in CIA headquarters at Langley Virginia, was not covered by the 1982 Identities Act,

---

That's an outright falsehood, though. Regardless of her domestic position she was still covered, she was considered covert, and had served outside of the United States in the preceding five years.

quote:

---

No one at all was prosecuted for revealing Plame's identity...Period.

---

Apparently you didn't read that the requirement for prosecution is that it had to be proven that they knew her status at the time of the leak.

quote:

---

As I said before, you don't read with comprehension and therefore most subjects are incomprehensible to you.

---

Strike that. Reverse it.

Seriously.

quote:

---

"At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

---

She fit that description, and the CIA's legal verification of that point couldn't be construed as "immaterial." That's a ridiculous notion.

quote:

---

was not working under cover AND she had not been assigned to duty outside the US either currently or in the last 5 years.

---

Wrong on both counts.

quote:

---

I'll take her word over an out of control prosecutor any day and over your interpretation as well.

---

It's not MY interpretation. It's the LEGAL interpretation. Toensing was wrong.

quote:

---

No "covert" employee of the CIA would ever be permitted anywhere near CIA headquarters or anywhere near known CIA agents. Never, ever. Please, at least attempt to sound like you're awake with your brain in gear to think.

---

I'm glad you think that's funny, because you're only continuing to lose this argument. Everything I've posted here reconciles quite completely that all your notions about this case are wrong.

posted July 17, 2008 07:37 PM            

Wrong on both counts.

OK wiseguy, I'm going to let you prove Plame WAS working "under cover" and "covert"...as she drove through the main gate at CIA headquarters in Langley Virginia every day...and also that Plame WAS permanently assigned on overseas duty..outside the US within the last 5 years before Richard Armitage outed her to Robert Novak.

"It's not MY interpretation. It's the LEGAL interpretation. Toensing was wrong."

Again, prove your interpretation of the Identities Act is the LEGAL interpretation. Toensing wrote the damned law and negotiated every last word in the Act with the Congress of the United States...Congress then passed the Identities Act into law. Toensing isn't wrong on any particular.

To prove you're right, you're going to have to show that Plame was really "covert", "undercover" and HAD been on a permanent assignment outside the United States in the 5 years before Novak identified her. I know you can't do that unless the CIA has turned into a Keystone Kops" organization who don't know what "covert" and "undercover" really means. No CIA employee driving through the gates of CIA headquarters could possibly be considered either "Covert" or Undercover". Neither could it be said the CIA was protecting her identity.

The most moronic spy on earth could have photographed Plame driving in every day, followed her home, gotten her address, gone to the County Records Clerk and found out the name of the party whose name is on record as owning the property. Also, private autos could have their license plate numbers taken down and run through public records to find the identity of their owners.

Don't waste my time here acoustic. This is so elementary even a 10 year old could get it.

posted July 17, 2008 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

I'm going to let you prove Plame WAS working "under cover" and "covert"...as she drove through the main gate at CIA headquarters in Langley Virginia every day...and also that Plame WAS permanently assigned on overseas duty..outside the US within the last 5 years before Richard Armitage outed her to Robert Novak.

---

First, it is imperative to note that covert status doesn't require "permanent" assignment outside of the country. It merely requires that one perform service to our nation within a foreign land.

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship with the United States.
Unclassified CIA document regarding Plame's employment history

The definition of covert status for an American is as follows:

(4) The term "covert agent" means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen... (since this talks about a person other than a U.S. citizen, I'll skip this definition.)

She very clearly fits definition A. She was an officer within the CIA. Her identity was classified. And she served multiple times outside of the United States in the previous five years.

quote:

---

This is so elementary even a 10 year old could get it.

---