excellent! keep us posted, Brad!

For heaven's sake.

Woo-hoo!!!

Thank God. That's wonderful news, Brad. Keep up the pressure...

Wonderful Brad Thanks for the update!

Imagine that.

Seymour Hersh perhaps? I can only hope. The anticipation is killing me.

Hersh is The New Yorker, but wouldn't it be nice! Followed, of course, by interviews on all the networks. And Brad and Clint would have to be included too, and.....

whooo hoooo

*bfg*

The anticipation is killing me. Hurry, hurry, hurry... (thanks)

This is good news! The walls are closing in!

Major American Newspaper?
NY Times?
Washington Post?
I've got it...The Wall Street Jour......Nevermind.

Whichever paper it is, be prepared for the Rupert Murdoch owned media to lash back. They'll go full force on the lies trying to discredit all of Brad's good work. Let's keep our heads above water.
Good news nonetheless.

Cheer! Keep us posted!

VOTERGATE anyone?

Coooll!!!!

Wonderful! I'll bet it's Seymour Hersh; if so, that's great news for several reasons. He's a great reporter with credibility among his peers, he checks his facts copiously, and he's unafraid of the Bush machine.

Thank you for your diligence! Truth might have a chance. by the way...has anyone heard of THIS "story"?
http://www.intl-news.com...ile=article&sid=1397

I'll hazard a guess that we find out who at FDOT was so kind to call the GA police and ask (command?) them to close the recently re-opened Lemme murder case.

Having worked in Florida government for the last 15 years - none of this surprises me.....

The "major new element" in the Clint Curtis story has my interest fine tuned ... way cool.

Here's the story from Lucy Morgan, St. Petersburg Times: Blogs spin tale of computers, conspiracies

Great news!! Some how I feel the MSM will pick up and act like this is a recent revelation when all along we know the pot has been simmering for some time! Brad, you do a great job and I don't mind donating to the cause! Keep on keeping on!!

It will be interesting to see how big-city papers play up an "interesting new angle to the Clint Curtis story" when they've never covered the old angles.

It's mind-boggling, really. A prominent Florida state legislator, Feeney, a former running mate of the existing governor (the presiden't brother) is accused in a sworn affidavit by Curtis of election fraud that might well have been decisive in the 2000 presidential election. Two years later the same man, having been the subject of an ethics inquiry in his home state, is elected to Congress.

Eight months after that, the man investigating wrongdoing in the same agency that was the center of the ethics inquiry against Feeney is found dead, an alleged suicide, and when the police reopen an investigation in response to questions, someone in the same agency he was investigating persuades the police to abort the reopened investigation, and immediately everyone shuts up about it.

That did not happen in the Philippines, or in Uzbekhistan. It happened in the United States of America. But readers of the New York Times and Washington Post don't have a clue about it.

Bill #22 Lets hope that is not the article that Brad was talking about.

It seems a bit slanted toward the Yang side in the sense that it seriously waters down many of the facts.

Re: Bill, #22 --

That article reads like government sponsored propaganda, the timing of which is released to counter the real truth. $10.00 says it is government propaganda!

I feel sorry for the citizens of Florida who have no alternative access to the real news. Is there a single Florida newspaper who dares print the truth?

RLM #24 I don't think Curtis has said the software "might well have been decisive in the 2000 presidential election".

The program he worked on was a touch screen operation and those type machines were not used in the 2000 election in Florida.

I think the implication is, even tho Curtis did not say it in his affadavit, that it was something in the works for future elections ... not just the presidential one either.

But you raise an interesting question about whether touch screen machines were used in other states outside Florida for the 2000 election.

Re: The Lucy Morgan article in the St. Petersburg Times

She won a Pulitzer. How depressing.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0771282.html

Great job Brad,

I hope this breaks open the bush lies and propaganda and exposes this little hitler wannabe for what he really is...

We are behind you all the way brad...

Thanks for the great work you are doing...

Well, that was sure a let down....looks like Morgan is part of the problem. Martians, indeed!!
Emma

I'm not sure that this is the story Brad was referring to. I don't see anything "new" in it. Anyone else?

The St. Petersburg Times is not much of a "major American newspaper."

BTW didn't Judith Miller win a Pulitzer? Just asking (knowing the answer is "yes").

Now if only the derelict MSM will report on the "SCIENTIFIC REPORT: Evidence Strongly Suggests 2004 Presidential Election Results --- Not the Exit Polls! --- Were Biased and/or Flawed!"

It is so hard to believe that this is being completely ignored by the media and everyone in power in our country. It is like the dirty little secret that everyone is afraid to talk about.

re #31. When it happens you will know it.

The story by Lucy Morgan in the St. Petersburg Times is a joke. I can't imagine that this is what Brad was referring to. She did not appear to have done ANY research at all. It reads like a press release from Feeney's office.

I checked with the newspaper. She is presently the bureau chief in Tallahassee. Sounds like she's in bed (figuratively and/or literally) with Feeney et al.

We'll see.

I take Winter Patriot's word for it, that we will know it when it happens.

Jeez I wish we were Canada instead of the U.S., so the Saturday paper were the big one instead of Sunday.... Of course if we were Canada the big scandal would be the abuse of $1 million by the Liberal Party. It is a fight for party survival!

Now it turns out it was Lucy Morgan, after all. Feh.

Well, Brad has now confirmed that the Lucy Morgan story WAS the one he was talking about.

I have to say I am thoroughly disappointed --- actually, appalled is a better word --- by her "reporting." This just proves that Pulitzers don't mean jack-shit anymore.

This story could have been written by anyone surfing the net in an afternoon, with a heavy bias in favor of Feeney. Other than the new bit about the polygraph test --- which, by the way, she does her best to discredit --- there is nothing new in this story. There are, as Brad notes, quite a number of mispresentations and outright errors.

I think it's nothing short of pathetic, definitely far more negative than positive in terms of trying to advance the story and get to the truth.

BTW, Tom Friedman has won three Pulitzer prizes --- which I guess is ample reason for him to be the only NYT columnist who does not advertise an e-mail address for reader feedback. After all, if he needed other people's input, he wouldn't have won 3 Pulitzers, right?

From now on "Pulitzer winning" should never be appended in an attempt to lend credence to a story.

Those goddamned prizes are a bunch of shit! And like all good suckers, the mere mention of the name "pulitzer" sends ass kissing chemicals through our systems.

re #34. OOPS! got another one wrong! I HATE when that happens!

IMO, this article is nothing more than yellow journalism. Below are just a few examples of the way this article used descriptive phrases to intentionally diminish the credibility of anyone who claims that the elections in FL have been rigged.

"Web sites that traffic in conspiracy theories"

"a series of apparently unrelated events"

"To the Internet blogs...the hero of this tale is Clint Curtis" - apparently we are supposed to infer that Clint Curtis would have no credibility were it not for the tin foil hat wearing web bloggers.

"self-styled book author" - a phrase that deligitimizes anything he may have published.

"Feeney thinks some of the allegations are so hilarious he ordered copies of Curtis' book, Just a Fly on the Wall, as Christmas presents. The book was published by Lightning Source Group, a print-on-demand business that markets through Amazon.com." - I suppose this might be interesting information for a gossip column, or maybe an article in the Enquirer. But what value does this have to a serious investigative report other than to implant the idea in the reader's mind that Curtis is a quack?

"Feeney also notes that Curtis never mentioned the accusations until recently." - Isn't this later disproven by the fact that Curtis made the allegations as far back as 2001? If so, why didn't the author immediately rebut this false assertion by Feeney?

One hopes for better work than this sloppily written piece of trash from a Pulitzer Prize winner, but as others have noted, Judith Miller is a perfect example of just how meaningless that award is these days.

This story by Lucy Morgan is very disheartening.

Brad obviously was in contact with her and she wrote this bull. She stooped to the level of National Enquirer by even including Feeney's "purple Martian Invasion" remark. "GREAT JOB Lucy Morgan! PS wipe your nose."

By not giving Clint Curtis equal time to rebutt Feeney's statements, Morgan has continued offering up a steaming plateful of WH propaganda --instead of practicing the Journalist's Creed. How long has it been since any current journalists have even read this, much less ?

Journalist's Creed

The Journalist's Creed was written by the first dean of the Missouri School of Journalism, Walter Williams. One century later, his declaration remains one of the clearest statements of the principles, values and standards of journalists throughout the world.

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best --- and best deserves success --- fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world.

Missouri School of Journalism

Look beyond the lousy reportage and note that someone is actually paying a private investigator to track down vote fraud. Who might that be? If he's talking to Curtis, then he will sooner or later have to address Lemme's death, Yang, and the rest of it one way or another. It's nice to know others are looking for the smoking gun.

I stand by my original bet; $10.00 says this article is government sponsored propaganda. Pulitzer Prize my ass...

Dear Folks,
Just read the St. Petersburg Times article. As you stated above, there are differences in the stories I've read here and the msm paper in Florida. It is a crack in the stonewall of this administration. Before the end of his term, he will have to resign. I do believe this will happen. I do not believe the American people will let him get away with what he's done. We have a really lame duck in office. Isn't that nice. Thank you for letting me speak. spoontheclown

Torqued, would be interesting to see if Ms. Morgan goes on a cruise sometime soon...ala Feeney.

We have 2 possible wins in the article - the fact that Curtis took a lie detector test and passed, and the fact that there is an investigator involved (as per VDRES #44). I only hope Morgan's mention of him is not another attempt to discredit the validity of Curtis' claims.

Kevin Walsh is a former member of HSCA (House Select Committee of Assassinations.) History Matters

"In the wake of Watergate and President Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974, a "reform" Congress undertook investigations of the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies--the Church Committee published 14 reports containing its findings. With the public airing of the Zapruder home movie of the JFK assassination showing Kennedy reacting to an apparent shot from the front, there were calls for reinvestigation of this and other political assassinations of the 1960s.

In 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook reinvestigations of the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1979, a single Report and twelve volumes of appendices on each assassination were published by the Congress. In the JFK case, the HSCA found that there was a "probable conspiracy," though it was unable to determine the nature of that conspiracy or its other participants (besides Oswald). This finding was based in part on acoustics evidence from a tape purported to record the shots, but was also based on other evidence including an investigation of Ruby's underworld connections. The acoustics evidence was disputed by a panel of scientists, but that "debunking" has itself come under attack recently."

-more-

Kevin Walsh is one of our Patriotic heroes:

Live by the Sword

"Next I made a trip back east to confer with former HSCA investigator Kevin Walsh. Since his days with the HSCA, Walsh, now a private detective, had become a one-man lobby. For ten years, he had mounted a behind-the-scenes campaign to encourage legislation freeing the HSCA's material. Kevin gave me a letter he had been trying to get to Stone that essentially corroborated what I had been trying to tell the Oscar-winning director. Upon returning to Dallas, I hand-delivered the letter to Stone. By now, he was convinced.

The closing credit phrase was inserted, and while Warner Brothers printed up some postcards, the film's distributor eventually backed out of this strategy. Instead of giving up, a few volunteers and I decided to stand outside theaters to hand out the few hundred postcards we managed to obtain.

As I had hoped, Stone's film, while completely misleading, created a hurricane of controversy, and made the Congress see the political benefits of freeing the records. A number of us began working feverishly with the relevant politicians to draft legislation. Among those who deserve acknowledgement are Kevin Walsh, Jim Lesar, Eric Hamburg, and Mark Zaid. Oliver Stone himself should also be recognized for his travels to Capitol Hill. They encouraged the legislation's passage. As it turned out, public support for the bill was virtually unanimous, many on the outside of the policy-making loop were convinced that total disclosure would indicate the government's role in JFK's assassination, while the politicians they implicated were convinced the released material would vindicate them. The legislation (the so-called JFK Act) passed easily in 1992."

This is great news but let's remember that Morgan's piece was a propagandized write up where she did her best to lighten the wieght of what's really going on.

The corruption in Florida and Washington is at an alarming rate. It's time for us to strengthen our movement and really push this issue to the front page.

CT Patriot #42, you summarized my thoughts exactly.

What an irresponsible bitch. The subject matter is just as important as terrorism.

Dear Lucy Morgan,
Crackerjack needs it's prize back, the one you call a Pulitzer.

If Lucy Morgan had credibility she would have asked why Feeney has not passed a lie detector test nor even taken one!

Hell, it is like pulling hens teeth just to get Feeney to say anything on the record.

So in this tale told by Lucy in the sky she castigates the one who talks on the record, is open, and who was willing to even take a lie detector test.

Shoot the valid messenger and kiss the ass of the ones who are hiding from disclosure?

That is not journalism ... it is sick propaganda.

-----
"If Lucy Morgan had credibility she would have asked why Feeney has not passed a lie detector test nor even taken one! "

Dredd
-----

you see that's reason she wrote this, she has NO credibility. She is nothing more than a republican ( Jeb/Feeney) shill.

Too little, too late, too bad.

Almost forgot to say, Thanks Brad. It must be frustrating, dealing with this kind of MSM treatment, over and over.

Lucy Morgan: Imagine if this were any other serious subject matter, and if you treated it in the same careless, frivolous, and most irresponsible way. Your whole introduction is to discredit everything that follows before you introduce what it is. It would take hours to go back and re-read everything Brad has reported and to then point out precisely the large sections of your article that are totally irresponsible. I'm sure others here will point out egregious errors. One thing that concerned me greatly was the frivolous attitude you gave the subject. What subjects do you consider serious, Lucy Morgan? Murder? Corruption? National Secruity? Ripped off tax payers? Espionage? Billing fraud? And all that besides the possible vote tampering. Yet again, another half-assed job by the MSM complete with "No one has proven ANYTHING". As we say here, WTF?

Does anyone have an e-mail address for the...ummm..."writer"...of the..."article" (Lucy), so I can tell her what I think of her "reporting"? Thank you.

Hi, Brad - While I know you will respond with a letter to "Lucy" (please post it for us to read also), would you also write a shorter letter to the Editor of the St. P's Times, rebutting her article - one that the Editor would find of the proper length and tone to publish, with some points that will catch the readers' attention. I read the letters to the Editor of my local paper all the time - often it's the best part of the newspaper - some of the readers/writers are very savvy people who have some great ideas and comments and are paying attention to what's happening. Thanks, Brad.

I'm beginning to understand "head-bangers." The brick walls we keep running up against...

I was just over at Raw Story and clicked on a headline, "President seeks access to hundreds of millions of accounts 'to prevent terror.' " A Reuters page came up, with the legend, "We're sorry. This story is not available."

A-A-A-A-RGH!!!

St. Ptersburg Times ownership group: The Poynter Institute, Website can be found here.

According to the book THE VANISHING NEWSPAPER by Phillip Meyer, The Poynter Institute is a non-profit organization.

What kinds of stories can be reported, and how it is reported is heavily influenced by the owners and editors.

I can only assume that Lucy Morgan was allowed to report on this subject with a leash around her neck.

Re: PEGGY #54
Lucy Morgan's email is: morgan@sptimes.com
Pulitzer prize winner - my arse!

Lucy Morgan's ass is a Pulitzer Prize.

...Dredd said on 4/9/2005 @ 5:16pm PT...
"If Lucy Morgan had credibility she would have asked why Feeney has not passed a lie detector test nor even taken one!"

Right on, Dredd! Exactly what I thought! I wish I could find odds in Vegas as sure a thing as Tom Feeney not being able to pass a lie detector test. I'd be a rich man (maybe he just needs time to go into training to learn how to beat such a test).

By the way, what kind of lousy reporting is that? Lucy Morgan slants her writing to everyone being a crackpot EXCEPT Tom Feeney-and-company.

I'm getting very frustrated with this kind of reporting. It's like swimming through mud getting through to the truth. I'm so nervous about them doing something to Clint Curtis BEFORE this stuff gets exposed in a major enough way. It's always "tin-foil hats"-"Commie"-bullshit when they come back against these charges.

It's my opinion that those in the MSM consider this story too hot to handle. How could anyone look at all this and think this crook Feeney is an innocent man? Is anyone really that blind? I doubt it. I think they're just scared. Are there no Woodwards-and-Bernsteins in the 21st century? Anyone with the GUTS to follow this through?

But...at least this much has made it to a newspaper. It is a step forward, though Lucy Morgan did her damndest to neutralize it to favor Feeney.

Do you know what? This SP Times scam was one of the cruelest, most sadistic switcheroos to be pulled on an honest public in my lifetime.

Brad was led to believe that, finally, his investigations would be receiving honest attention; and his "Pulitzer" vindicator turned his investigative reportage into sleazy blue journalism simply by implication. Something has GOT to be done. And I'm not blowing into a bag. We have GOT to get some information freely circulating.

Does anyone have inside addresses for Seymour Hersh or any one of the excellent NYT editorial writers? Can't we easily expose this travesty? I'm doing some inside homework.

Also, I'd like to know WHY the St. Pete Times is considered MSM. Because they're feinters with the truth, perhaps?

KIRA #47
"We have 2 possible wins in the article - the fact that Curtis took a lie detector test and passed, and the fact that there is an investigator involved (as per VDRES #44). "

Correct on both Kira and VDRES ,lie detector test results can now be included in any discussion or arguments we have with "non-believers".

The new political mantra
"Would you be prepared to state that under a polygraph ?"

:crazy:
This bad reporting is very frustrating. Brad, keep up the good work and let us know what we can do to help.
I think one thing driving MSM is a feeling of superiority to and fear of bloggers.

Brad
any chance of obtaining the list of questions put to Clinton Curtis for the polygraph?

May who pays the "investigator",
Live long and Prosper.

Feeney says "He (Clinton Curtis)accuses me of participating in or committing treason, murder, even worse - everything you can think of in the book he publishes in the summer of 2004," Feeney complains, "but he doesn't accuse me of tampering with an election until the election controversy in Ohio arose," referring to unproven allegations of voting irregularities in 2004 that some Democrats say cost John Kerry the election.

Why doesn't the lying SOB Feeney sue Clinton Curtis's arse off for defamation

"Sometimes it's hard to set the record straight.
That's because it's hard for some people to admit mistakes." .... and finally,
"In this world of journalism, seems to me we are getting awfully thin of skin when we cannot admit we made a mistake.
We all make them."

Quotes by LUCY MORGAN, Times Tallahassee Bureau Chief
Published January 8, 2005

Lucy, we trust you will swallow hard on a few cc's of your own medicine and "set the record straight", once Brad has set you straight on a number of serious errors and omissions in your Curtis/Feeney/Yang story.

We live in hope!

Ches #67

Ches said, "I think one thing driving MSM is a feeling of superiority to, and fear of bloggers."

This is exactly right, and was my first reaction to this so-called Pulitzer Prize winner's *work*.

Bloggers, and investigative news sites like Bradblog, Dkos, Rawstory, Nashua Advocate etc., are a serious threat to RWCM and what they percieve as their territory.

I have to say one more thing, and I will qualify it by first saying that I have been participating at Bradblog for 4-5 months now and reading without commenting for a little while before that. I have the utmost respect for Brad and monumental effort he is making toward revealing the crimes of this Adminstration, and the failure of the media to report the facts. As well, I have contributed to help Brad in his efforts and wholeheartedly support him, but I have to say that I felt somewhat mislead by the headline to this story above. Clearly the resulting article is crap and does more damage than good to the cause of breaking out of the RWCM imposed news blackout. While the fact that Clint Curtis passed a polygraph test is certainly good news, the original teaser led me to believe that a major breakthrough had been achieved, and clearly that has not happened. I just think the lead-up was overblown and wasn't necesarry. Just my opinion.
Flame away if you must.

Peace

That was well stated Supersoling #72.

I think that is the nature of headlines no matter who, good or bad, is the journalist. There is an impulse to catch and alarm the reader, and the headlines in all their enthusiam so often overstate the case.

here's contact info for the St. Petersburg Times for all those wanting to send a letter to the editor.

Letters to the editor: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/

Lucy Morgan's email: morgan@sptimes.com

Full contact page: http://connect.sptimes.com/

Ron Brynaert #65
I agree Ron,
SP Times Managing Editor, Stephen Buckley hardly comes across as a BU$H ADMINI$TRATION cheerleader in this piece.

...CONTACTS...
Send an Email to Lucy Morgan.
Send a Letter to the Editor.

My letter to the editor of Lucy Morgan's newspaper:

"Greetings,

sincerely,
[name and address]"

This is extremely disappointing news. Morgan's article has done nothing to bring the Curtis story into the mainstream. If anything it is an attempt to quash it. The way she presented it, it will not pique the interest of other MSM to report further on it.

On a side note: Brad, please take up the offer of some of your readers to do free proof reading of your blogs. There are several typos in this blog, including the title of Morgan's article. These errors diminish your blog unnecessarily.

Bushwacker #75

I understand that the managing editor doesn't come across as a Bush supporter, but the Curtis story is less about Bush and more about Feeney and the political elite in the world of Florida politics.

Editors have a large say in how the story gets reported. Owners have an even larger say in what gets reported. Although the St. Petersburg Times is indepedently owned, they're not immune to the powers that be. In fact, I'd say the board of directors probably go to the same golf clubs that many high level republicans and republican supporters go to. No major media organizations want to be first in responsible reporting for fear of the Rupert Murdoch's of the world.

They can have their paper and newschannels. I'll stick to the internet myself.

Morgan's piece was disappointing, but it put Curtis's allegations
out in public view for perhaps the first time. The San Francisco
Bay Guardian recently did an article on the 9/11 truth movement
that like Morgan's piece was careful to distance itself from the
allegators but actually did a nice job of presenting the issues.

Morgan's work will pique curiosity among some, and astute
readers will be able to read between the lines and recharacterize
some of them--"Feeney laughed the charges off."

Morgan doesn't want any anthrax letters, nor does she wish to
be "necklaced" with charges of "tinfoil."

It's disappointing, as were the WaPo and NYT articles about
the election fraud studies, but it's better than nothing. Let's
see if they publish any of the letters.