May 29, 2007

Compare And Contrast: MSM/NYT Very Big On Reporting Krazy Konspiracy Kookiness In 1995; Now, Not So Much
— Ace

A 10,000 word article in the NYT Sunday Magazine mentioned the various conspiracy theories percolating on the John Bircher right.

NYT in 1995:

If today's conspiracy theories provoke a shiver in the night, some bedtime reading may help. A vast array of Cassandras echo through American history -- usually on the fringes of politics but occasionally accepted by the mainstream. Through the centuries the villains of the pieces have shifted -- from Masons to Catholics to Jews, for example -- but the alleged plots also have a lot in common: a foreign (or otherwise alien) connection, a tie to big money, a secret organization more powerful than any state.

Three decades ago, the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote the classic essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," describing a tendency to see vast conspiracies as the key to history...

The post-World War II years, a time as confusing as now, saw a real adversary, Soviet Communism, became blurred in some minds with a wider conspiracy; in this view, the United Nations and foreign aid and integration were all part of a Communist plot. (The high-schoolish grammar is that of the Times writer - I haven't altered it. PG) Robert Welch, leader of the John Birch Society, published "The Politician" in 1963, in which he noted President Eisenhower's support for these and concluded that Eisenhower must be a Communist himself.

Here's what the NYT has to say about today's conspiracy theories regarding the President acting with a cabal of international criminals: .

Gee, I wonder what could possibly account for the differing levels of interest in quite-similar cases.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

1

Why Ace and his claque are real scum:


As he is running away from his fuck up in the post on the Baghdad embassy Admin Notice and delayed convoys, this is worth reposting:


In the post on the embassy Admin Notice, Ace names a U.S. Embassy official serving in Baghdad and suggests, on the basis of a "source" and some convoluted theory about doc and pdf versions of the Admin Notice that the official might have been the source of the leak, speculating that the offiical converted the memo on "his home computer" (living quarters in the Embassy compound are trailers, so "home" seems a bit grandisose.)


This is mostly based on the fact that there are two versions floating around on blogs: a Word doc and an Adobe pdf.  He leaves out the fact that both versions have the same author (the same author on the one I received).  The dolt Ace or one of his invented or demented "sources" ignores the fact that when you convert a Word doc to an Adobe pdf using Acrobat (as opposed to a scan), the author information in the "properties" stays the same without regard to who or where or which computer the document is converted, unless you affirmatively change it.


Now, I know the official.  The official which big bad tough Ace names is the person responsible for distributing things like Admin Notices to people in the embassy, or the U.S. Mission more broadly.  He's on his second tour in Baghdad, probably has more than 12 months there now.  Getting fucking rocketed and mortared almost daily while Ace sits in safety and comfort on his ample ass.


I got the same notice on 21 May.  My copy of it, which was distributed as a Word .doc, had the same official named as the author. All ADMIN NOTICES have the same funny eagle on them.


State Department IT "OpenNet" and email accounts typically identify the author of an email by their last name and first initial.  Thus, if Ace Asshole were a State Department IT account holder (not likely, as he would shun any possibility of going anywhere dangerous, let alone the questions of intelligence and mental health), his email address would be assholea@state.gov and all documents authored by him on his DOS system computer would display "assholea" as the author in the document properties.  If there was another Ace Asshole, they go to middle initials and numbers: assholeaf or assholea2


Now, what Ace says is libellous, imputing falsification of documents, attempts to deceive in order to harm the mission, and maybe a violation of policy regarding State department computers.  I know a few lawyers in his neck of the woods who would love to kick his sorry ass with a hard working State Department veteran of Baghdad as the plaintiff.  So, I'm going to email him this webpage and ask him if he wants to make some money. 


It really is low to cook up some half assed bullshit and drag the name of a U.S. Government employee serving in Baghdad, where everyone has to worry about getting blasted by a rocket when they go to bed at night, through the mud.


Really, what scum.


 


Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 09:57 AM (B+qrE)

2 Ah, Icus.  Since you seem intent on repeating your comments in various threads, I'll repeat mine:

Now, what Ace says is libellous, imputing falsification of documents,
attempts to deceive in order to harm the mission, and maybe a violation
of policy regarding State department computers.


A libellous statement is or it isn't.  There is no "imputing" libel.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 09:59 AM (R8+nJ)

3 Oh come on, Ace.  Next you'll tell me that the NYT regards the filibuster as an obstructionist anachronism when the GOP uses it, but calls it our most sacred democratic institution when the Dems use it.

Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 09:59 AM (oyQH2)

4

Icus, you and everyone defending this memo remain retarded until you explain why a Hummel figurine is an official logo.


Sheesh, you'd think they learned their "fake memo" lesson with Rathergate.


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 10:01 AM (oyQH2)

5 The State Department employee in question would also have to prove injury.

Honestly, this "I'll sue ya" attitude is just ridiculously out-of-hand.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 10:04 AM (R8+nJ)

6

Oh, and I'm sure all the Fitzmas Elves will be demanding someone look into how a memo giving damaging information about the military situation was leaked to the press, and make sure those responsible pay for compromising national security and putting our troops at risk .


Just as they've been demanding Sandy Berger be tried for treason, for deliberately smuggling national security documents out of a secure area in his pants.


Ha.


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 10:06 AM (oyQH2)

7

What's up with Icus?


I mean, there are so many other reasons to call us scum, why harp on only one? That's just intellectually incurious.


Posted by: Ace's Claque at May 29, 2007 10:11 AM (ThMnZ)

8 I mean, there are so many other reasons to call us scum, why harp on only one?

I laughed out loud.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 29, 2007 10:16 AM (ATbKm)

9

@Slublog


A libellous statement is or it isn't.  There is no "imputing" libel.


Whatever.  Ace named a State Department official serving in the Baghdad embassy and said that he had altered and leaked a document to make the mission look bad. 


Are you so much of a suck-ass to Ace that you think it's OK to make up bullshit and smear the name of a U.S. State Department official serving in a war zone, Slublog?  Is that your patriotism?


Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 10:18 AM (B+qrE)

10 Icus is spamming the threads with his bullshit. Night of the Long Knives?

Posted by: ro-ro at May 29, 2007 10:18 AM (8xCvb)

11 Icus is spamming the threads with his bullshit

There are limits to his creativity.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 29, 2007 10:20 AM (ATbKm)

12

What's up with Icus?


Stupid and evil bothers me.


I mean, there are so many other reasons to call us scum, why harp on only one?  That's just intellectually incurious.


True, but I have a job and only so much time.  It's not a matter of incuriosity, otherwise why would I be slumming here?


 


Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 10:21 AM (B+qrE)

13 Ike was a commie!  And he had a little dick too!

I kept him drugged on opiates for his whole Presidency so he wouldn't turn the Country over to the USSR, which he intended to do... (And so I wouldn't get caught in a compromising situation with Estes "Donkey" Keefauver!

(Historical note:  Did you know that Estes Keefauver's coonskin hat was not really made from a racoon skin, but was in fact woven out of my shaven public hairs?  True fact.)

Posted by: Mamie Eishower at May 29, 2007 10:22 AM (KeOQp)

14

Ace named a State Department official serving in the Baghdad embassy and said that he had altered and leaked a document to make the mission look bad. 


So, your position is that Flappy is the official logo of the U.S. Mission Iraq, and he grabbed the memo in his righteous 1/20 ceramic scale claws of justice and flew it to Larry Johnson?  Because otherwise, some idiot forged and leaked this.


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 10:23 AM (oyQH2)

15
Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 03:18 PM (B+qrE)


Here's what I wrote in the other thread.  For convenience's sake, let's keep this particular slap-fest here.

Whatever.  Are you so much of a suck-ass to Ace that you think it's OK
to make up bullshit and smear the name of a U.S. State Department
official serving in a war zone, Slublog?  Is that your patriotism?


"Whatever" and ad hominem? 

That's your argument?

Telling, that.

Ace named a State Department official serving in the Baghdad embassy
and said that he had altered and leaked a document to make the mission
look bad.


Yes, and I pointed out that such a case would be very hard to bring, as libel law is not plantiff-friendly here in the United States.  Plus, there's the involuntary public figure status of the state department official and the utter lack of damage to contend with.

Let's face it - this site is not the New York Times.  I'd like to see your legions of lawyers prove damage in this case.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 10:23 AM (R8+nJ)

16

Icus, you're the Spammer of the Day! Please pick up your Hummel Eagle of Excellence in Spamming and get the hell out of here.


Posted by: Roy at May 29, 2007 10:25 AM (C5AAR)

17

Slublog,


Plus, truth is an absolute defense to libel anyway.


The best part? Icus is far more concerned that the actions of this poor innocent State official might reflect badly on said official if someone had the horrible temerity to actually report said actions, than the fact said official tried to create a bogus scare about our troops' food situation with a forged memo.


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 10:29 AM (oyQH2)

18 Ace and his claque

I hate claque, brings on the halitosis. I've got problems enough with my pseudo-Ron Jeremy back hair, odious B.O. and fungus-ridden toenails.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 29, 2007 10:32 AM (tVbxd)

19

Icus?  Just so we're clear here - I don't believe the memo was altered - only that it was leaked to make the mission look bad.


You feel better now?


Posted by: Rocketeer at May 29, 2007 10:33 AM (GFaLW)

20

So, your position is that Flappy is the official logo of the U.S. Mission Iraq


Yes, all Admin Notices and Security Notices of the Embassy have that funny eagle.  And they are distributed as Word docs.


Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 10:38 AM (B+qrE)

21 Hey Icus...

While you're on your high horse are you spamming Larry Super Spy Johnson's blog demanding that he apologize for his post where he calls Scooter Libby a traitor?  That seems like a pretty awful charge to throw at someone. Or how about his spreading the rumor that Dick Cheney hired prostitutes?

Are you cool with all of that or do you save your mighty wrath of jackasserey for people who question the authenticity of 'official memos' with Hummel figurine logos?


Posted by: Drew at May 29, 2007 10:44 AM (gNyUT)

22

@Slublog


Well, if you want an argument, yeah, it would be libellous to say that a State Department official altered an official document with the purpose of deception and leaked it.


 From http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1


Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and Damage to the plaintiff.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.


Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.


Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

Now what Ace said: a State Department official is falsifying official documents and leaking them, is certainly an attack on a person's professional character or standing.


As far as "public figure" goes that argument is laughable: you can't make someone a public figure by libelling him. 


Wasn't there just a big verdict upheld in Massachusetts where a judge sued the Boston Herald?  Libel is not at all impossible to make out.


As far as the "truth" defense, I'm confident it does not apply here, for the reasons I stated in the comment above.  The official who Ace named was the author of the Admin Notice as distributed to the hundreds of staff in the embassy, anyone of whom may have sent it out. 


So there's your argument, you punk-ass bitch-boy of Ace.


Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 10:46 AM (B+qrE)

23 So there's your argument, you punk-ass bitch-boy of Ace.

My, but you are an angry little lad, aren't you?

And "bitch-boy" is a bit...homophobic isn't it?

Now what Ace said: a State Department official is falsifying official documents and leaking them, is certainly an attack on a person's professional character or standing.

Great. Now prove it did actual damage to his reputation.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 10:47 AM (R8+nJ)

24

Stupid and evil bothers me.


I'm sure you can get a pill for it.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 29, 2007 10:49 AM (pzen5)

25 And by actual damage, I don't mean 'it hurt his feelings.'

Your team of super-lawyers would have to prove that somehow, this official suffered actual injury to reputation by being mentioned in a blog read by 0.0007% of the U.S. population.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 10:50 AM (R8+nJ)

26 Is Juan Cole gay?

Posted by: ro-ro at May 29, 2007 10:52 AM (8xCvb)

27 Icus, I thought that you said that you had a job and only so much time on your hands?

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 29, 2007 10:52 AM (tVbxd)

28

Slublog: LA libellous statement is or it isn't.  There is no "imputing" libel.


Icus:  Whatever.


Translation:  All my shoes have velcro straps.


Posted by: Warden at May 29, 2007 10:56 AM (d/K6p)

29

On LA Law it is not aloud to liebell someone. 


Posted by: Itchus at May 29, 2007 10:57 AM (d/K6p)

30

@Slublog


Great. Now prove it did actual damage to his reputation.


Next time I see the guy I'll ask him if anyone has questioned him about Ace's bullshit.


I'm pretty confident you could make a case out of it.  But are the legalities the only issue?  You can make legalistic and sophistic arguments all you want, but what about the morality of this?


Here's a guy serving in Baghdad, getting rocketed regularly.  Ever hear a 107mm or 122mm rocket flying and exploding?  You will never forget it.


Ace said he's a Human Resources Officer, which I can confirm is true.  Part of his job, along with all the inprocessing, personnel actions, check-out of people in the Embassy, is to make a final draft and distribution of these Admin Notices, which mostly deal with personnel policies.  His name ends up as a tag on a document which is leaked.  Then some rabid asshole picks his name out and says he's responsible for leaking the document and altering it to look more official .  And he says this on really no evidence, other than his name on the document.  Which it would be if it was legit (as it is) and he authored it in the course of his duties.


I can tell you a story about this guy.  On March 28, we got rocketed.  Two people were killed and several injured. The guy Ace named was taking phone calls all night, because part of his job is reporting on such incidents and helping make arrangements.  That's life in Baghdad Embassy.  Now, you don't have to believe me, but what if I'm right? 


 


Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM (B+qrE)

31 So where exactly did Ace accuse an embassy employee of forging a document to discredit US efforts in Iraq?

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 11:08 AM (I/w6Z)

32 Time for bed for me.  Ace, surprise me when I wake up with an apology for your unfounded slur on a State Department official in Baghdad.

Posted by: Icus at May 29, 2007 11:09 AM (B+qrE)

33 Icus is single handedly owning this blog from the comments section.

This is unclear, is Slublog really retarded or really fucking retarded.

I also really like the childlike cloying hummel figure thing.  So new and clever that strat!  I guess it helps ease the pain of seeing your humor hero get burnt when he was trying to be a serious person.  This reminds me a lot of when Glenn Reynolds wrote that idiotic piece of geopolitical strategy where he called for the assassination of scientists in Iran.  Cheerleaders, mockers and ramblers should never veer in to the hard sciences because they gain nothing and often lose what little they actually have.

Funtimes!

John Davidson



Posted by: John Davidson at May 29, 2007 11:10 AM (WJevH)

34 Funny thing is, the UN is a leftist device that had a charter written by, among others, Alger Hiss. Of the 17 US delegates who worked on it, all but one was later revealed to be a member of the Communist Party USA, according to state department documents.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 29, 2007 11:10 AM (wmgz8)

35 I'm pretty confident you could make a case out of it.  But are the
legalities the only issue?  You can make legalistic and sophistic
arguments all you want, but what about the morality of this?




Actually, you were the one who brought up the legal argument when you
threatened to unleash your cadre of super-scary lawyers.  I'm trying to
show you that "libel" is not just something bad that one person does to
another (which is the moral argument you've made), but it has a
specific legal meaning and is notoriously hard to prove in court.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 11:11 AM (R8+nJ)

36 'Nite, nite, Icus!  Don't forget your blankie!

Posted by: Warden at May 29, 2007 11:11 AM (d/K6p)

37 All my shoes have velcro straps.

LOL.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 29, 2007 11:13 AM (ATbKm)

38 Icus is single handedly owning this blog from the comments section.

You've done your best, don't feel disappointed.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 29, 2007 11:15 AM (ATbKm)

39
Icus is single handedly owning this blog from the comments section.

Apparently your idea of 'owning' encompasses 'proving to be a humongous jackass who thinks writing a lot is the same as making a defensible point'.

Hang in there John, you're right behind Icus when it comes to that special brand of ownership.

Posted by: Drew at May 29, 2007 11:15 AM (gNyUT)

40

  On March 28, we got rocketed.


PLV? Is that you?


Posted by: Entropy at May 29, 2007 11:16 AM (m6c4H)

41 I see where Ace said that Parvaz Khan was probably the author of the memo (based on a "source"), but I'm not seeing where he accused him of doing anything other than using the Hummel photo as a logo. What exactly is Icus going on about?

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 11:16 AM (I/w6Z)

42

Personally, I think it's rather endearing the way Icus pretends he's a government official in war-torn Baghdad.  For the moral authority, of course.


 


Posted by: A. Pendragon at May 29, 2007 11:16 AM (+DMjG)

43

John Davidson?  I loved you on Hollywood Squares.  You come across as a really nice guy.


A moron, but a really nice guy.


Posted by: Rocketeer at May 29, 2007 11:17 AM (GFaLW)

44

Yes, all Admin Notices and Security Notices of the Embassy have that funny eagle. 


Somehow I'm not taking your word for that one. How does a Hummel figurine become their official logo?


Or do they have "a funny eagle" but not that one?  See, that's the difference between it being a real memo and a forged one.


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 11:18 AM (oyQH2)

45 This is unclear, is Slublog really retarded or really fucking retarded.

Yes, I can see how dealing with questions of law would tax your faculties, limited as they are.

As to the substance of your statement - it really depends on who you ask.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 11:20 AM (R8+nJ)

46 Did "John Davidson's" post make any sense to anyone else?

Posted by: Roy at May 29, 2007 11:20 AM (RNbCq)

47 Wow Icus is brilliant, he's pwning you guys!

Posted by: not Icus at May 29, 2007 12:47 PM (wmgz8)

48 Icus sure is amazing in his posts, everyone should listen to them!

Posted by: Also not Icus at May 29, 2007 12:48 PM (wmgz8)

49 Icus' comments ought to be read into the congressional record, at the very least

Posted by: Not at all a sock puppet of Icus at May 29, 2007 12:48 PM (wmgz8)

50 Ace sure is a dummy, Icus has demolished him!

Posted by: Someone other than Icus at May 29, 2007 12:48 PM (wmgz8)

51 Is Icus a cocksucker? If so, he's probably real good....

Posted by: nikkolai at May 29, 2007 01:05 PM (oz2OQ)

52 Here's what the NYT has to say about today's conspiracy theories
regarding the President acting with a cabal of international criminals:
.

You mean he isn't?

Posted by: MegaTroopX at May 29, 2007 02:03 PM (dmLgp)

53 If that commie Ike didn't have those pictures of me in a really hot teddy, I'd have busted his ass all over D.C. for being redder than Chairman Mao.

Posted by: J. Edgar Hoover at May 29, 2007 02:32 PM (VgTsb)

54 That whole "Hoover dressed like a woman" meme is one I hope some day is put to rest. Like the most paranoid man on earth would let anyone take pictures of him like that, let alone let his maid get hold of them. He was a freak and scum enough without this stupid story.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 29, 2007 02:45 PM (wmgz8)

55 Eh, not so much.

Ickus must be a Giuliani acolyte. Talk about dumbing sh!t down.

Okay, I get it. This "guy" gets tons of cred for being in-country. Noone must ever, ever impugn the rearest of REMFs. 'Cause you know, he's in-country and sh!t. So when he can't pick up his melon balls its time to sound the general alarm.

Kiss it.

When he's humping the Triangle of Death every waking hour searching for his missing brothers-in-arms, I'll care. I would want those guys to have the melon balls instead. Maybe some of that nice AC they gots going back in this "guys" crib.
Getting fucking rocketed and mortared almost daily...I bet he's getting fucked by some nice home girls more than he's getting fucking rocketed.

I'll care when the men at the tip of the spear are cleaned up and allowed into the palace so they too can fuck some nice home girls.

Extra! Bonus time for them home girls: Women Who Engage In Condom-Free Sex Happier!


Posted by: meatwad at May 29, 2007 02:50 PM (uaWKk)

56 46 Did "John Davidson's" post make any sense to anyone else?

Posted by: Roy at May 29, 2007 04:20 PM (RNbCq)


Only if he is the secret square.

Posted by: TheSev at May 29, 2007 03:11 PM (JkjS2)

57 I'm so totally "pwning" you guys!   It's a good thing my "job" gives me enough free "time" to spend hours somewhere I'm not even "wanted."

Posted by: Isuc at May 30, 2007 06:31 AM (wvvkg)

58

I'm pretty confident you could make a case out of it.  But are the legalities the only issue?  You can make legalistic and sophistic arguments all you want, but what about the morality of this?


Got it.  You can't defend your silly argument on factual or legal grounds, but you're still in the right.  Because of the children.


Posted by: VJay at May 30, 2007 06:51 AM (qEool)

59 zxibmcr zxiguylj stwbofqy sqan aiscng wfblcdu unzo

Posted by: ztmrcaso ratqs at June 07, 2007 09:00 PM (8jpnN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
110kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 1.2182 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1431 seconds, 295 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.