Politico Story On Reid Crumbling

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:17:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Joining the 3 bloggers who denied that Sen. Reid called Gens. Petraeus and Pace incompetent, the Americablog bloggers on the call also deny that Reid said it, increasing the pressure on Politico to retract its story or be more forthcoming on its sourcing. As of now, Politico identifies "sources familiar with the interview."

[Edited to remove any speculation on Bob Geiger. As I wrote, I take Bob Geiger at this word that he was not the source. My apologies to Bob. ]

Here's exactly what Reid said:
"I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the Senate… Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was." So, did Reid utter the word "incompetent" in the same sentence with General Pace's name on the conference call? Yes, he did.

< Scooter Libby Denied Appeal Bond, Ordered to Report to Prison Within Weeks | The Extremist In Joe Klein >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Politico Story On Reid Crumbling | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Looks like there were (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Edger on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:59:20 AM EST

quite a few comments deleted from this thread?

: Yes, it does look like that (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:09:35 AM EST

BTD?

I cleaned the comments (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:12:53 AM EST

not BTD, don't blame him. I did it to conform with the editing of BTD's post.

: Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#57)
by oculus on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:15:55 AM EST

more like it's time for the Senate to yank (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:34:52 PM EST

Politico's credentials.

After all, wasn't there a rake-through of the information on its ownership, showing it's owned by some of the same wingnuts who brought you the Clinton impeachment business?

It's one thing to argue and speculate - that's fine. It's quite another to make things up out of whole cloth - and that's what Politico's been doing. That should be enough to get its credentials yanked - that it's doing it in service of the wingnuts is merely the cherry on top.

: Politico President (none / 0) (#5)
by KM on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:03:25 PM EST

and CEO

nice work, BTD. (none / 0) (#2)
by Compound F on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:56:32 PM EST

Maybe (none / 0) (#3)
by HeadScratcher on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:58:58 PM EST

It's more like Dan Rather's Memo being "Fake but Accurate"?

Be against all incomptence, not just when you don't like it.

Looks like Geiger has a recording (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:01:29 PM EST

If so, I hope he releases it. Damn, this "story" really isn't that important.

Oh cripes! (none / 0) (#8)
by Donna Z on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:28:19 PM EST

Now Lou Dobbs has that dunder-head Grange on this story.

Politico is just the echo chamber for Drudge-fox. Sounds as if Geiger stepped in it. Everyone who values the truth should stay away from Politico. No interviews.

Anyway, Politico reported this week that Fox hired Harold Ford (head of the DLC) because General Clark's not "hot" enough. This is what is peddled as news as Politico. BTW, Clark came to the end of his contract with Fox and took a job at MSNBC. I'm still stuck wondering what the hell Ford is doing at fox.

: Collecting a paycheck. (none / 0) (#12)
by kindness on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:46:06 PM EST

I mean, what's the DLC's budget right now? Probably pretty light. Still, to sell your sould to Phaux so you can be another Alan Combs is embarassing.

Geiger is not the source (none / 0) (#10)
by mcjoan on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:44:02 PM EST

I just had a long conversation with him, and he's as in the dark as the rest of us are as to who spoke with Politico.

Bob, like most bloggers, also has a full-time day job. He had meetings all afternoon, so that's why there was a delay in his posting.

Seems like the others on the (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:45:05 PM EST

conference call correctly stated what they recalled as to flat denials.

FOX is taking it a major step further now and (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:54:51 PM EST

is now reporting it this way:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is "incompetent."

In their story the words Harry Reid are a link, appearing (at first glance to someone who doesn't click it) to something that ostensibly will support the assertion that Reid confirmed and admitted to calling Pace incompetent.

That link is a circular self referential link to a FOX search page that presents links back to the same article.

This is lying turned into an art form.

That style of link is normal from FOX (none / 0) (#47)
by roy on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM EST

And not in a "lying is normal from FOX" way. It's just their (imho, silly) way of encouraging people to read more stuff on their site. You can see the same thing in many (most?) articles they host, including this obviously innocuous example about monkeys.

The FOX News site is not a blog. It doesn't follow blog style conventions.


You're not saying (none / 0) (#50)
by Edger on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:55:47 AM EST

that Fox is too stupid to know how the blogosphere will read it, are you, Roy?


: You know (none / 0) (#51)
by Edger on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:31:48 AM EST

how the freepers and powerlie readers will see that Fox article? They'll see, and tell their friends, that Fox reported Reid confirming what Politico said - AND they even had a link in the first paragraph, and the link confirmed what the Fox article said. What more could they ask for?

I am not clear why (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:55:46 PM EST

the sources are anonymous. What is the fear of knowing who the source was?

Finally, if there is a recording and it got passed around it is going to surface, so who recorded it?

It looks like they are doing their best (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:02:08 PM EST

to get the meme started and spreading fast before the story can be refuted.

Geiger recorded it (none / 0) (#20)
by mcjoan on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:05:12 PM EST

Reid's staff knows he recorded it. He was the only one who did. Reid's staff did not. They did not transcribe it.

Having been in the middle of all of this all day, and having talked to most of the players on the blogger side and in Reid's office, I'm convinced it was not Bob, and am a little surprised at your dogged pursuit of this. Bob's post rings true to me, someone who was on the call and who's been talking with the other parties involved.

The chances are, someone infiltrated the call, which would be pretty easy to do. There very easily could have been someone else on the call, because the system doesn't require you to announce who you are.

I would have to conclude (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:08:21 PM EST

that not only was it written was written poorly and inaccurately, it was purposefully written poorly and inaccurately to force people into having to take time to assemble strong refutations, while they use that time to spread the meme as far and wide as possible, and turn it into a he said she said situation putting Reid on the defensive.

"Call him a pig fu*ker and make him deny it", IOW.

: For (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:12:34 PM EST

example (from MSNBC).
And it gets worse.

Well, mcjoan says Geiger recorded and Reid (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:14:50 PM EST

knew it was being recorded. If so, laws against surreptious recording probably don't apply, so no need for any participant to hold back on giving us the details of the entire conversation, how it originated, who invited whom, etc. Doesn't seem likek the participants are really eager to share their privileged access to Harry Reid.

The whole thing (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:17:41 PM EST

has a suspiciously familiar stink to it.

Earlier today (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:23:30 PM EST

I did a google search on "reid pace incompetent" and there were quite a few articles (dated today) headlined "Reid calls Bush incompetent".

I can find none of those articles now.

they've really got you running in circles, BTD (none / 0) (#28)
by scribe on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:25:30 PM EST

but better still - is the Fox meme that Pace was not incompetent?

That Reid is full of crap because Pace really was not a slavish yes-man to The Unit?

That Reid is a bad guy because he spoke the truth?

Better that we call a spade a spade, and say out loud that these jackas*es are truly the jacka*ses they are. No more pussyfooting around with this one - and if the admin's sensitivities are so touchy, they shouldn't be in this business.

There's no more time left for f'g around with being nice or for being afraid that someone's sensibilities will be injured if the truth is spoken. And there's never been an appropriate time for Dems to be timorous before Faux.

But, more seriously, Ailes said a week or so ago to the effect that "Democrats who couldn't/wouldn't take on Fox, couldn't/wouldn't take on Al Qaeda." Remember that?

So, it's time to take on Fox. Let's start redrafting the Telecommunications Act to break up their business model - and impose the Fairness Doctrine. Keep it simple, keep it straight, and keep it clean, then ram it through.

OK?

I'll pour. (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:26:52 PM EST

You bring the matches.


If you think fox is (none / 0) (#30)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:40:23 PM EST

biased, why try to bring them sown through the gov't? Why not compete against them? Leave the gov't out of it. Next you'll be wanting Hugo Chavez to call the shots.


Your one refeence is so obscure, it makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by scribe on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:22:19 PM EST

and therefore merits no response, but as to "why try to bring them down through the gov't", it's like this:

Fox is a multi-media conglomerate. Newspapers, TV, radio, publishing, yadda, yadda. A whole lot of that depends upon the existing structure of the telecommunications laws. For instance, there (is)was a law governing cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations, precluding the same entity from owning both media outlets in the same market. Fox and Murdoch (get)got waivers so in NYC they could own, e.g., a TV station and a paper (the NY Post). And so on. A lot of this is very arcane.

A huge amount of their revenue and of the intrinsic value of Fox as a going concern depend on government licenses, the statutory structure areound which they have built their business (and, presumably, borrowed money) and so on. That structure is in the hands of the Democrats in Congress, who can change the statutory structure to seriously hurt Fox. Speaking hypothetically, say you slapped a 1 cent/text message tax on text messaging used in television talent contests, to be paid by the network hosting the program. All of a sudden, American Idol gets a lot less profitable. That's a rough example, but you can get the point.

Competing against them is both too hard, and will take too long - they've been building this media conglomerate for over 20 years (Murdoch even got US citizenship so he could own TV here). There is not enough time left to rein these jerks in before the damage they are doing is irreversible.


Ever heard of "slander" wile? (none / 0) (#31)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:49:16 PM EST

asdf (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:06:39 PM EST

??????


I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:18:35 PM EST

but it seems to me that Reid is being slandered, and so is scribe: "Next you'll be wanting Hugo Chavez to call the shots."


Think "public figure." (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:24:00 PM EST

Hmmm. (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:26:45 PM EST

scribe?


An unresolved question: is a (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:28:58 PM EST

blogger who goes by a user id and carefully protects his/her true identity a public figure?


: Also, no basis if (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:30:24 PM EST

writer is merely expressing an opinion.

slander (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:32:03 PM EST

A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

Yup (none / 0) (#53)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:19:14 AM EST

I have. So you still want gov't involved with what is shown on tv and radio? Why not get Hugo Chavez involved with calling the shots?


: Re: gov't involved with what is shown on tv (none / 0) (#54)
by Edger on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:07:17 AM EST

Heh. They really got you, didn't they wile?
Remember 2001?
"I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going.
There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid."

It was a Space Odyssey.

Hot Air (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:54:16 PM EST

Lefty blogger Bob Geiger was on the conference call and has what he says is the verbatim quote. And after having read it ... I'm still not sure.
Reid was talking informally about George W. Bush's refusal to dump Alberto Gonzales and told us what he said to Pace in a private meeting before Bush tossed aside the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff like a rotting fish.
Here's exactly what Reid said:
"I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the Senate... Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was."...
[I]n the context in which it was said -- and based on Reid's tendency to speak like the straight-talking, former boxer that he is -- it all makes sense. And to those of us not looking for a Matt Drudge-worthy story, it hardly seemed remarkable.
Was he calling Bush incompetent? I.e., "I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was" = "I told Pace what an incompetent man I thought Bush was"?

: This would not be the first time Reid (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:01:34 PM EST

has called BUSH incompetent, and given BUSH's track record he's right.
And it wouldn't be surprising to hear him call BUSH incompetent again... link

I still think the whole deal should be blogged (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:05:24 PM EST

by the participants. What else don't we know? Of course the bloggers on the conference call aren't our elected representatives, but I see them as kind of press pool representatives.

Reid in the reeds (none / 0) (#37)
by judyo on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:21:10 PM EST

It doesn't matter if the story is crumbling, it's "out there" now and, that's all the spear chuckers care about.
This lying Genie won't go back in the bottle.

Hard to put it back in, unfortunately. (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:23:49 PM EST

Maybe a new (none / 0) (#46)
by jondee on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:35:06 PM EST

poll needs to be taken in order to determine if there are any Americans besides the usual Rapture Ready 30% who consider the conduct of this occupation to be an example of anything other than gross incompetence from begining to the present.

Yeah, the story is "out there" and the only ones who care are the ones who are told by Hannity what to care about.


: We could put them on a reservation in Guyana (none / 0) (#48)
by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:48:00 PM EST

They could have their own "Jim Jones" day if they like the rapture idea so much. Let's see them put their money where there big mouths are for once.

Just me, again. What I really (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:27:00 PM EST

want to know [on further reflection] about the conference call is what did the bloggers, especially those from DK, tell Reid their position was about how Congress should proceed on Iraq? mcjoan advocates Reid/Feingold but oesn't have the FPers with her on that issue. Inquiring minds want to know.

The Right's playbook... (none / 0) (#43)
by Dadler on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:29:51 PM EST

...consists of one play, which is actually just a quote from Mark Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."