Clark's doctored Iraq testimony purged from RNC and Drudge sites..

[Kahuna]

Whew! LOL! Gone without a trace. The RNC actually had mini audios of the snipets of testimony up this morning. Drudge still had a link to the story this morning. I wonder who got them to take this story off their sites.

[mmonk]

1. amazing

what a little light shown on the subject can do.

[funky_bug]

4. Just goes to show

being level-headed and seeking truth over rebuttal will prevail. Clarity indeed!

[Maddy McCall]

2. A good attorney :-)

LOL!

[salin]

19. that was my thought...

libel... slander... I don't think they really want the hassle.

In my best Simpson voice.... "Ha-Ha" on them.

The bad thing is that Rush and his echo chamber are, I believe, repeating this as if it is truth. Wonder if they can be silenced as well - or if the sources of the distorted/faked tapes can be held liable for rush et al repeating the libel (or is it slander) based on their promotion and distribution of the material in the first place?

[KittyWampus]

23. Could It Be That Their Attempt To Smear Clark Has Helped Him?

:think:

[Toucano]

31. Rush was back at it again today.

He repeated the lies over and over. I don't normally listen to him, but I thought he might have to make at least a quick retraction. Of course, he didn't.

I'd love to see Clark nail Rush. But I'm not sure it rises to the standard of slander.

[maddezmom]

3. Probably Rove

after Jamie Rubin called him out on CSPAN at the National Press Club. :toast: Jamie

[Kahuna]

5. I sent Drudge the links to the Washpost and NYTs articles...

my subject line read: BUSTED! I also sent him the link to the testimony transcript and suggested that he actually read it. Then I sent the transcript link to Lou Dobbs and suggested that he apologize and recant the report he gave on his show last night.

[maddezmom]

9. Love it!

:)

[MidwestTransplant]

11. What did Lou Dobbs say about it???

[MoonAndSun]

14. here is the link to the discusssion we were having about Lou Dobbs

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1024984>





Dobbs is an a**!!

[Kahuna]

16. Just a few lines about how 'Clark's testimony supported the IWR."...

You know. the sammo RNC talking points that were regurgitated all day yesterday.

[jfxgillis]

15. Actually, I'd not be surprised if Lou Dobbs complied with--

--your request.

He's been showing signs of producing anti-Bush-anti-bodies to his infection with the Bush-contagion-cognitive-dissonance virus lately. He's a sick man, yes, but he might battle through it!!

If your letter was polite and civil, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance he'll read it or something identical.

But maybe I'm dreaming ......

[xultar]

32. & I sent the links to about 50 newspapers! n/t

[DrBB]

6. Curious--being caught lying never stopped 'em before.

I wonder what's up? I mean, this was well within tolerance (theirs) for untruths being passed off as facts. I can't believe they've suddenly discovered a sense of integrity. Weird.

[Kahuna]

7. I turned to Rush at 1:00 est, He was still ranting about it...

It looks like he didn't read his emails yet.

[neverforget]

12. Rush will feel the General's bite pretty soon. Clark doesn't

let this crap get out of hand.

[returnable]

8. I can only hope the DUers who propped up that sad smear campaign...

...take notice, too.

Shame, shame, shame!

[maddezmom]

10. kick

:kick:

[11cents]

13. Absolutely. And thanks ...

... to the numerous supporters of Dean and other candidates who had the integrity to see this RNC forgery for what it was and say so. Really, we need to put our heads together, pool our observations, and understand the best way to respond to the blatant smears and lies that the RNC is going to push through its compliant press no matter who the nominee is. Today's Paul Krugman column is worth a read here.

[DrBB]

29. Damn straight. As a Clark supporter

...I've spoken up in Dean's defense dozens of times on this board and elsewhere. I DEEPLY resent the ease with which RNC talking points get taken up and disseminated around here. Not just that it's unfair to whatever candidate is getting bashed, though that bugs me. But look. We've been through this before. The strategy is to get this stuff out and echoing around before anyone has a chance to look into it and debunk it. Lazy pundits and journalists--not just rightwing ones, but lazy ones, which covers about 90% of the field--will go on echoing this crap for ever. If we don't get in the habit of rapacious skepticism toward anything like this, and responding to it with emails, LTTEs, blogs, whatever, then we're fucked from the get-go.

We saw what happened to Gore with this crap. How anyone can call themselves a Dem and participate in it again is beyond me. They lie. We KNOW that. Yet we go ahead uncritically passing this crud off as currency if it helps us bash the other guy's candidate.

For a counter-example: check out today's TPM. Josh debunks this anti-Clark smear and in the next piece he's debunking the anti-Dean one. That's the kind of thing some of us DUers are trying to do as well, but there seem to be a lot more soldier-fanatics around here than rational people at times.
</rant>

[Jerseycoa]

17. Excellent!!

Proud to be on the Clark side.

[windansea]

18. the smackdown continues

love to see the pukies backpeddle

[maddezmom]

20. LOL

wonder if they purged anything else from the RNC site? I think the General might have them running scared. :)

[Nashyra]

21. Jamie Rubin rules

and his wife Christiana Annapour, spelling may be off. I wonder how long she will last at CNN. Pretty well respected couple.

[maddezmom]

22. kick

:kick:

[salin]

24. can someone help me out?

I missed the main action of the story.

Saw the headlines yesterday - sounded trumped up (and inconsistent with my memory of the time) - so I skipped the story (as I have begun to do with many candidate stories that seem all spin and hyperbole and little substance...

So - here is what I understand (below) looking for corrections to my understanding - and links to the second half of the story (the debunking.)

So Drudge (and the RNC??) state that Clark said before Congress that he was supportive of the pres's policy re: Iraq. He (they?) put up video clip (?) and transcript (?)

The first (expected) reaction = the words were taken out of context and without the context the meanings of the words were changed.

BUT (?) it seems that there was also fabricated material stuck in with this ... re: fraud/hoax.

Somehow the deciept gets public airing - and pulled.

------------
Do I have the story correct? Can anyone link sources to the last part (the documented fraud)? Thanks.

*regretting that I sometimes sift through stories too quickly - and miss what turns out to be a big story... not the original story but the debunking of it*

[Mz Pip]

25. I'm e-mailing CNN

They ran this story without doing their homework. So much for high standards in journalism. Just lift it off Drudge and there you go.

Dispicable.

MzPip
:dem:

[Clark4VotingRights]

26. They're creatures of the night.

And can't survive in the bright light of day...or truth.

[maddezmom]

27. kick

[retyred]

28. The truth shall prevail

retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[maddezmom]

30. bad news

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_recap.htm

They are in the archives now. Interesting to see how many times they were either updated or changed. Also check out on first page he has a link to Jamie Rubin.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1506&u=/afp/20040116/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_clark_iraq_040116175427&printer=1

[gulliver]

33. Hit and run.

They couldn't leave it out there because it was wrong. The RNC are a bunch of lying cowards.

The move was backfiring too.