This whole thing reminds me of the smear job the FBI did on Richard Jewell after the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta ('96). Jewell was innocent, you will recall. He was the security guard who found the bomb and tried to get people out of the way.
Then, as now, the FBI seemed to have no clue who committed the attack, but was under pressure to find a suspect. Then as now, the FBI just zeroed in on someone (anyone) in the hope of taking the heat off the organization. Then as now, the FBI leaked info to the press, cynically using the press to try to put pressure on the targeted individual. Then as now, there was zero direct evidence – just “profiling” and speculation. Then as now, the press seized on the leaked info to run breathless front-page stories about the man who “wasn’t an official suspect.” Then as now, the press publicly dissected the target, detailing his every foible for public consumption.
Pity there are no Clinton-administration officials still in office whom the FBI director could demand special prosecutors for. Whenever Freeh did that, the right-wing commentariat would laud the agency’s probity and integrity.
I’ll stun december now by essentially agreeing with him - the FBI’s handling of these serial murders has been moronic. One can only wonder what they do in less-important matters.
What I am most uncomfortable with is this trial by FBI leaks that seems to be going on. In my mind it paints a very ugly picture of the FBI. It looks a great deal like the Jewel in Atlanta and the Lee in Los Alamos situations.
Is there no way for FOX News to blame this on Clinton?
That’s why the OP quoted the article about the allegedly unfair accusations by Barbara Rosenberg, who “has served on a weapons panel under President Clinton” Gasp!
And I continue to dream of the day when any discussion can be held w/o resorting to the same old bullshit from both sides (casting disapproving motherly gaze over serveral posters).
when you’re chastizing some one for pulling in partisan bullshit in their op, it really, really does help when you don’t do the same in response.
on the (reworded) OP. Yes, it’s terrible when leaks to the press are made about pending investigations. Even if the accused is later demonstrated to be guilty.
It’s hardly partisanism to point out how partisanship affects the original argument’s basis. It doesn’t help to call the 2 things comparable at all, “Mother”.
so, then, Elvis, you could explain how this quote did anything but demonstrate very effectively, that the left is just as capable of adding bullshit to the mix?
Dr. Rosenberg has never named the person she suspected in her "Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks at www.fas.org. Several people (myself included) thought that she was referring to Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who was named by the Seattle Times and Hartford Courant as having been at Fort Detrick without authorization at the same time that “surreptitious” work on Anthrax was being performed there (as well as having a grudge against a fellow scientist, Dr. Assad, whom the anthrax mailer tried framing).
And as for the “a poster on another site called (her)a “leftist”” comment- that’s about the weakest argument I’ve ever heard. Should I accept what posters on this board say about you as gospel?
And yep, the FBI is bungling/has bungled the investigation.
Several posters have criticized the OP for bringing partisanship into this thread. In principle, I agree with you. There’s nothing Republican or Democratic about criticizing the FBI for improperly leaking information about Dr. Hatfill. The FBI’s smear campaign should be deplored by liberals and conservatives alike, and it has been on this thread.
However, for reasons I do not understand, this does seem to be a partisan issue among some of the media. The leaks and smears have been spread by liberal organs, such as CNN, the New York Times (Nicholas Kristof) and the Washington Post. OTOH the FBI actions were blasted most strongly by some leading conservative media, including Fox News Channel “Special Report” last night (particularly William Kristol), the New York Post, and [url=http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081202/content/stack_c.guest.html]Rush Limbaugh.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why this is a conservative issue? It sure beats the hell out of me.
Bloody hell, december, are you really that detached from reality? If the New York Times or CNN report a plane crash, is that part of the great liberal media conspiracy too?
BTW december- from what I’ve read the far left also thinks that the FBI is bungling the investigation as well. This article claimes that the New York Times is assisting in the coverup(?!?). And the far far left specifically accuses Lt. Col. Philip Zack for the anthrax attacks, claiming that he did it because he’s a “zionist” (read: jewish) that wanted to make arabs look bad. These are the same jagoffs that think that 9/11 was carried out by the Mossad.
On a tangentally related topic- a conservative magazine ran a column that:
-Labelled Dr. Rosenberg a “conspiracy theorist”
-Implies that NYT’s Kristoff “chickened out” by not naming Hatfill
-Doesn’t think that the FBI profile is accurate, specifically thinks the Anthrax mailer was a middle-easterner connected to 9/11
-Thinks that it was a Pakistani guy recently deported for check kiting who purchased a high-end food processor
-Goes on to name this “suspect” of his
And this was picked up by other conservative sites. But I’m sure you’ll start a new thread about the Weekly Standard’s poor journalistic practices shortly, right?
Fox News apparently didn’t feel the need to avoid “plastering” his name over the airwaves. In the past, I have seen various media outlets keep mum about a victims/suspects name, even though it was widely reported by other outlets, so Fox News doesn’t get any kudos on their behavior. Once again, I see no evidence that the “liberal” media is any better or worse than the “conservative” media in this case.
If you’re argument is that they took the high road by denouncing the leak, you need to remember that a show with a panel isn’t what most of us consider news reporting. If you show me a so-called left-leaning panel-type show that praises the FBI for this leak, I’ll gladly tell you how full of crap I find their arguments, but I don’t expect the Evening News with <insert actual newscaster name here> to debate all the background subtleties regarding every piece of news.
Upon further reflection, I once again have to ask if you have even a tenuous grasp on reality. It is beyond credibility to suggest that this is a “non-story” when the FBI executes a search warrant on one of a very limited number of people who was capable of perpetrating a crime that consumed the nation for fucking weeks. And claiming “they don’t have one thread of evidence” is complete horseshit, as even you indicated above in your “I may be wrong” post.
So on the whole, what the fuck do you think that Limbaugh quote demonstrates? Aside from the fact that people of like politics tend to stand up for one another?