Comments on: Anatomy Of A Smear, Part Two: The Bogus Blog http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103744 mtl Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:18:17 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103744 excuse me, the 'fbi' gets to ask... excuse me, the ‘fbi’ gets to ask…

]]> By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103742 mtl Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:15:55 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103742 I saw earlier that the nro was sharing al's claim that a gop-aide was the source. wasn't ready to do a correction at the time...but It would now appear that he was an unwilling source-ie he was never the actual whistle-blower. That would mean, if there was no gop-aide who is a whistleblower then the 'source' is the intermediary. No 'noble', 'acting the behalf story'... just the opposite. the intermediary, which is now shown to be the source, is a democratic operative. He was the one who saved the im's. He was the one who told abc news that 'jordi' was a minor. He was the one who falsely represented his own actions, presenting himself as bringing this for his 'friend' jordi. In time, you get to find out whose staff the actual source was on, maybe, rahm emmanuel? then you get to ask, why they sat on this til october. I saw earlier that the nro was sharing al’s claim that a gop-aide was the source. wasn’t ready to do a correction at the time…but

It would now appear that he was an unwilling source-ie he was never the actual whistle-blower. That would mean, if there was no gop-aide who is a whistleblower then the ‘source’ is the intermediary.

No ‘noble’, ‘acting the behalf story’…

just the opposite. the intermediary, which is now shown to be the source, is a democratic operative. He was the one who saved the im’s. He was the one who told abc news that ‘jordi’ was a minor. He was the one who falsely represented his own actions, presenting himself as bringing this for his ‘friend’ jordi.

In time, you get to find out whose staff the actual source was on, maybe, rahm emmanuel? then you get to ask, why they sat on this til october.

]]> By: too many steves http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103549 too many steves Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:00:09 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103549 Likewise, motivation is irrelevant if it is true. Likewise, motivation is irrelevant if it is true.

]]> By: HenryH http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103476 HenryH Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:24:00 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103476 Its not a smear if it is true. Its not a smear if it is true.

]]> By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103474 mtl Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:14:11 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103474 "The “source” is just an intermediary." The unnamed source of an unnamed source...yep you got something there. Let me take a wild stab at this... the 'intermediary' is gay, and if his 'source' actually exists, will also prove to be gay. If his source is not who he says it is, then that would make the intermediary the source of the info. This is why the dems never went near the 'page issue'. It was a freakin hunting ground for gay men in DC. I'm getting vision of high paid prostitutes of questionable age. Studds had his bevy to chose from, which kinda sets the precedent for the page system to be used as a meat market. The homosexual community kept it up and running, and now they have turned on each other. Every rep who isn't out of the closet, is about to get yanked, and quite a lot of aides on both sides of the isle are about to be put under the spotlight. That's progressive planning at its best. “The “source” is just an intermediary.”

The unnamed source of an unnamed source…yep you got something there.

Let me take a wild stab at this…

the ‘intermediary’ is gay, and if his ‘source’ actually exists, will also prove to be gay. If his source is not who he says it is, then that would make the intermediary the source of the info.

This is why the dems never went near the ‘page issue’. It was a freakin hunting ground for gay men in DC. I’m getting vision of high paid prostitutes of questionable age.

Studds had his bevy to chose from, which kinda sets the precedent for the page system to be used as a meat market. The homosexual community kept it up and running, and now they have turned on each other.

Every rep who isn’t out of the closet, is about to get yanked, and quite a lot of aides on both sides of the isle are about to be put under the spotlight.

That’s progressive planning at its best.

]]> By: Anonymous Liberal http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103457 Anonymous Liberal Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:37:45 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103457 <blockquote>Fair enough, Anonymous…but there’s still something funky about that website…I’ll admit the Hill story throws a bit of cold water on the idea of an organized smear initiating the scandal…but I also maintain there’s still a shoe to drop here…we’ll see…</blockquote> It appears that the source/intermediary tried to give the emails to various news outlets in July. Those outlets apparently felt they didn't have enough to publish. My guess is that the website was started either by someone connected with the staffer/source, or by a frustrated journalist trying to go around their editors. This is pure speculation

Fair enough, Anonymous…but there’s still something funky about that website…I’ll admit the Hill story throws a bit of cold water on the idea of an organized smear initiating the scandal…but I also maintain there’s still a shoe to drop here…we’ll see…

It appears that the source/intermediary tried to give the emails to various news outlets in July. Those outlets apparently felt they didn’t have enough to publish. My guess is that the website was started either by someone connected with the staffer/source, or by a frustrated journalist trying to go around their editors.

This is pure speculation

]]> By: Anonymous Liberal http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103456 Anonymous Liberal Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:34:14 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103456 <blockquote>The first paragraph indicates that the ’source’ received his info from a gop aide. you didn’t do well on the gre’s reading section, did you? </blockquote> Ha. Why don't you keep reading, mtl. Here's the very next paragraph: <blockquote>The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.</blockquote> The whistleblower is the GOP aide. The "source" is just an intermediary. The point is that these emails were given to news outlets by a GOP staffer. This isn't some nefarious left wing plot.

The first paragraph indicates that the ’source’ received his info from a gop aide.

you didn’t do well on the gre’s reading section, did you?

Ha. Why don’t you keep reading, mtl. Here’s the very next paragraph:

The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

The whistleblower is the GOP aide. The “source” is just an intermediary. The point is that these emails were given to news outlets by a GOP staffer. This isn’t some nefarious left wing plot.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103455 Mark Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:33:18 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103455 Fair enough, Anonymous...but there's still something funky about that website...I'll admit the Hill story throws a bit of cold water on the idea of an organized smear <em>initiating</em> the scandal...but I also maintain there's still a shoe to drop here...we'll see... Also, who is the source? How long did the source sit on this information? The Hill report doesn't answer ALL the questions... Fair enough, Anonymous…but there’s still something funky about that website…I’ll admit the Hill story throws a bit of cold water on the idea of an organized smear initiating the scandal…but I also maintain there’s still a shoe to drop here…we’ll see…

Also, who is the source? How long did the source sit on this information? The Hill report doesn’t answer ALL the questions…

]]> By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103454 mtl Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:33:15 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103454 even better-the 'source' will be named in the lawsuit foley has aginst abcnews. They may have taken the source at his word, that the im's were from a minor, and now are liable because of his false representation and their reporting. watch abc scramble to get his name out. even better-the ‘source’ will be named in the lawsuit foley has aginst abcnews.

They may have taken the source at his word, that the im’s were from a minor, and now are liable because of his false representation and their reporting.

watch abc scramble to get his name out.

]]> By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-103452 mtl Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:27:33 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/10/04/anatomy-of-a-smear-part-two-the-bogus-blog/#comment-103452 "The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide." The first paragraph indicates that the 'source' received his info from a gop aide. you didn't do well on the gre's reading section, did you? “The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.”

The first paragraph indicates that the ‘source’ received his info from a gop aide.

you didn’t do well on the gre’s reading section, did you?

]]>