MERRY FITZMAS!!!

MERRY FITZMAS!!! Today is the second anniversary of Karl Rove's indictment on May 12, 2006. This amazing journalistic scoop of a non-event was provided by that great investigative team of TruthOut fashion photographer, Marc Ash, deranged drug addict, Jason Leopold, and, of course, the Bostonian Drunkard himself, WILLIAM RIVERS PITT.

So how to celebrate Fitzmas? Of course, Pied Piper Pitt himself continues to remain mum in his turtleshell, refusing to even acknowledge the reality of his self-humiliation that has turned him into a Web laughingstock. I could have just reprinted one of the many DUFU Fitzmas threads from 2006. However, I was able to discover an untapped DUmmie THREAD from June 13, 2006, right after it was revealed that Karl Rove would NOT be indicted. This thread is titled, "Karl Rove Non-Indictment – Time for Jason Leopold and William Rivers Pitt to Pony up with Names and Specifics." Of course, neither of these two "journalists" ever did come up with names of their sources nor any specifics at all. The best Pitt could muster was his overlong self-pitying partial birth non-apology in the multi-volumn Pied Piper Pitt Performs Endless "Penitence" At DUmmie Canossa. Pitt will NEVER admit error in his Fitzmas scoop. Officially he is still waiting for confirmation of that Karl Rove indictment. Unofficially Pitt is praying that the whole world just forget about his supreme humiliation. Sorry, Pitt, but Fitzmas pretty much defined you. Whatever you do. Wherever you go. You will continue to be HAUNTED by Fitzmas past. And you are wondering why NO campaign in this heated political year wants anything to do with you? Look no further than Fitzmas. So let us now celebrate Fitzmas by watching the DUmmies back in June 2006 slam Pitt in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering if Sam Adams should be the official Fitzmas beer, in in the [brackets]:

Karl Rove Non-Indictment – Time for Jason Leopold and William Rivers Pitt to Pony up with Names and Specifics

[Two years later and STILL no names nor specifics.]

by Steven Leser

[I missed this thread the first time around so let us now enjoy some fresh Fitzmas entertainment...]

According to John Solomon of the Associated Press, Patrick Fitzgerald did not indict Karl Rove and reports have surfaced that he will not be indicted despite reports to the contrary. Truthout as well as Jason Leopold who reported that the indictment had in fact happened on Friday May 12 http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml and his editor William Rivers Pitt now have a responsibility to take readers through the process that led them to report the incorrect information. Depending on the way sources provided information, particularly if it can be determined that sources intentionally misled Leopold, those sources should be named along with details of what information they provided. Sources that lie or otherwise intentionally provide disinformation to the media should not have assurances that they will remain anonymous. Naming them will alert other journalists to be wary of any information those sources might provide as well as a deterrent to others who might act similarly.

[Leopold & Lib, especially Lib, have pretty much gone into a Witness Protection Program as far as providing any more Fitzmas Facts. So let us now watch the DUmmie reaction to Pitt's "scoop"...]

Agreed that Truthout needs to pony up a better response
then our cards are on the table. Some sort of explanation is needed or more information.

[Hey, don't you know? They were merely ahead of the news cycle.]

I don't trust John Solomon to be impartial, and neither should you.

[So place your faith in Leopold & Lib instead.]

Time for Leopold to take a hike... ... and join Doug Thompson and Wayne Marsden in the Hall of Assholes Who Make Things Up.

[aka Pied Piper Pitt Way.]

I'm not ready to go there yet, but ... as I said, I want to hear what happened. Until then, I am willing to forgo any condemnation

[It's two years later so are you still forgoing?]

Isn't calling out DUers against the rules?

[Pitt lost his Fitzmas immunity.]

there are two ways of looking at this it is one thing to call out a DUer on a thread that you disagree with, but in this case the DUer(s) are also public figures whose writing is published elsewhere and as such that writing can and should be debated like any other writing which is posted on DU.

[Pitt's Fitmas escapade even made its way up to Hillary Clinton, who along with a big number of Michigan Democrats, stood up and cheered when the news about Karl Rove's Fitzmas indictment broke due to the TruthOut scoop.]

I've been thinking of this quite a bit and wonder if wrong information was deliberately given to them to try and discredit a progressive publication.

[Strange that the poor widdle victims never revealed who gave them the wrong information.]

NYT & Judy Miller lied us into war and you wanna nail Pitt to a cross?

[Would that make Jason Leopold Barabbas?]

spoke with Pitt on the phone in Mid May after this whole thing started... I do not think he would feel that my article was the equivalent of "nailing him or Jason to crosses". I think I raise some fair questions and make some good suggestions about what they should do.

[I spoke with Pitt (and Ty the Bouncer) on the phone in Mid January of the same year.]

TO gets one news item wrong and the world is ending....

[At least their standing as a Google news source came to a sudden ending.]

#1 - I was not overly harsh at all. I've shown a friendly courtesy to William and Jason and believe me they completely get that as my previous one on one voice conversations with them have shown. I am not condemning them or nailing them to a cross. They would expect the same from me or OpEd News if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

[Did Ty the Bouncer verify the Fitzmas story in every little detail?]

#2 - I would expect the same from any press organization that was found to have imparted incorrect information. This is something that needs a detailed explanation. If you do a search on google on my name and Andrew Taylor, you will see what I write about journalists who in my opinion flagrantly and intentionally violate standards.

[GASP! I hope you don't mean to imply that the ace reportorial team of Leopold & Lib flagrantly and intentionally violated standards!]

agreed-- those "solid sources" burned TO and through them...
...they burned thousands of readers. I don't have much sympathy for their sensibilities at this point. Selling lies to journalists is little different from running a disinformation campaign, and the public has the right to know who is trustworthy and who isn't.

[Solid sources like Sonny Crockett and Joe Wilson and David Shuster. Or was this just a Hail Mary pass on the part of Pitt who was DESPERATE to become famous on the back of a "news story" that he was sure to be true...at least according to David Shuster of MSNBC.]

If I made a substantial error in an article, I would be required to issue a retraction. Otherwise, it would significantly impact my future credibility and ability to get work as a writer. There is nothing unfair about asking people to follow journalistic conventions. Indeed, not requiring them to follow such standards only damages our side's credibility.

[The only retraction from Pitt is his perpetual retraction into his own shell as regards the entire subject of Fitzmas.]

For Leopold it's a double-edged sword. He's already ruined his reputation, but if he starts outing sources it will virtually guarantee no one will ever talk to him again. I don't think Pitt has done nerely as much damage to his own reputation if he's done any at all. Plus, it's not his story.

[Not Pitt's story? Um, he was only promoting it bigtime and standing up for the veracity of the drug addicted Leopold.]

It's as much William Pitt's story as it is Jason Leopold's...

"I am the lead writer and a senior editor for truthout
and as such, am centrally involved in the process of examining these stories. What happened before with Jason is widely known, but has no bearing upon current matters. Jason's sources for these Plame stories are as solid as concrete, and he has backed up each story threefold."

"Again: we would not run his stuff if he was not credible, and we have been 100% hands-on in personally vetting each story and each source. Jason's work is above reproach on this matter."

[BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanx mucho for digging up Pitt's own words!]

Is there any verification of Rove's lawyer's claim? I won't believe news reports based solely on what comes from Rove's camp.


[Perhaps the Rove indictment is still sealed after two years.]

Sorry, but I don't believe Rove's attorney. There are still a lot of facts that need to come out.

[Two years and STILL waiting for those facts that need to come out.]

Leopold, Pitt and TO have to either make an incredibly strong case with sources, etc. to justify their continuing to stand by their story, or they need to admit they were wrong and take us through how they were misled, etc. again by citing sources and specifics.

[PItt NEVER admitted he was wrong. Instead he tries to pretend that his Fitzmas scoop was just a bad dream that never happened. Please, pretty please make this just a bad dream so I can be something more in life than just a useless Trust Fund Kid. PRETTY PLEASE!!!]