| Home | About Us | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

The Truth About Thomas Lipscomb: Conservative Propagandist, Destroyer of Veterans

by Pamela Leavey

Thomas Lipscomb heads up the swift lie assault on John Kerry today on RealClearPolitcs. Lipscomb’s claim is that the NY Times had “embarrassingly poor coverage of Kerry in the face of the Swift Boat Veterans’ for Truth charges in the 2004 election.” I must say I agree with Mr. Lipscomb, but not for the same reasons.

The NY Times did do a piss poor job of covering the truth about the swift boat lies. That fact has now been well documented by Eric Boehlert in his new book “Lapdogs” (see posts here and here).

So here’s a little taste of the truth about Thomas Lipscomb: Thomas Lipscomb is a Conservative Propagandist and a Destroyer of Veterans…

The Right-wing Blogosphere’s (and Lipscomb’s own) Wildly Exaggerated Claim that Lipscomb Was Nominated for a Pulitzer for his “Kerry” Reporting…

Thomas Lipscomb is an independent investigative reporter who was nominated for a Pulitzer for his reporting on Kerry during the 2004 elections. He is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future (USC).

Funny thing about that claim that Lipscomb was nominated for a Pulitzer — Pulitzer.org provides lists of all nominees and winners on their website – Lipscomb’s name is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND in 2004 or 2005.

If Thomas Lipscomb would lie about being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, ask yourself this question… “What else would he lie about?” Here’s the answer – John Kerry’s military service.

Need more clarification about Thomas Lipscomb? Let me lay it out for you…

Lipscomb Has Been Placed in Right Wing Circles in the Past by White House Flack and Press Puppet, Tony Snow:

“An old pal of [Lucianne] Goldberg” (so says Tony Snow)…

The Minions of Bill pounced on Linda Tripp the moment she made her way toward the grand jury room Tuesday. Catty reporters graded her hair style, accessories and accouterments – and pronounced her a well-dressed hag. Next came Clinton acolytes, saying Tripp taped Monica Lewinsky because she wanted a big-money publishing deal…. The problem with the scenario is this: It assumes that Goldberg and Tripp (both friends of mine; I gave Linda’s phone number to Lucy more than three years ago) are at the same time evil geniuses and complete imbeciles. Thomas Lipscomb is an old pal of Goldberg’s. He also has run three book companies and published authors as diverse and Che Guevara and H.R. Haldeman. (Tony Snow column, as published in St Louis Post Dispatch, 7/2/98)

Before Thomas Lipscomb Became a Full-time John Kerry critic, He Smeared Wesley Clark’s Service…

But in one astonishing statement three days before General Clark announced his candidacy, his former boss, General H. Hugh Shelton, raised the most serious questions about General Clark’s military record, which is, of course, all he really has to run on. General Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, said: “I’ve known Wes a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character, issues that are very near and dear to my heart.” According to military historian Thomas Fleming, “This is the most critical statement by one senior military officer on the record on the conduct of another in the history of the United States armed forces.” General Shelton is not alone in his opinion. General Clark is widely disliked in the Army. Many commentators wondered at the time why General Clark “came out of Europe early.” It was unheard of for General Clark or any NATO commander to be relieved months before his tour was up and quickly retired. Now General Shelton has revealed that the reason General Clark was relieved involved issues of “integrity and character.” Within the military code there could be no more damning statement. (Lipscomb op-ed, New York Sun, 10/7/03)

And, Just for Good Measure, Lipscomb Made His Bones Smearing the FBI, Too:

Lipscomb Has claimed FBI action re Elian Gonzalez “would have made Hitler’s Gestapo proud…”

Seven Aprils later Reno concluded another siege with another full-scale attack — this time in a classic pre-dawn nacht und nebel raid in her home state of Florida that would have made Hitler’s Gestapo or Dzerzinsky’s Cheka proud of her. (June 2001 Lipscomb column, as published on “Jewish World Review” web site.)

Thomas Lipscomb Was a Handpicked Shill for Nixon Hatchetman, HR Haldeman…

Thomas Lipscomb, who grew up in Portland was H. R. Haldeman’s editor on THE ENDS OF POWER The former president of the New York Times book division, he is a nationally-syndicated columnist, the head of a number of organizations including digitalfuture.org (so new that the website is still under construction), and is the Berlin Bureau Chief for Oregon Magazine.

With a New Tin Foil Hat In Hand, Thomas Lipscomb Claimed to be an Expert On Kennedy Assassination…

Just last month… Lipscomb’s latest guise was that of an expert on the Kennedy Assassination?!?!?!

A group of “assassination pros” this week will call for a “broader probe” into John F. Kennedy’s assassination. “Among the new concerns” to be presented in DC today: “possible hanky-panky” with the Zapruder film — “maybe to disguise another shooter” — and “suggestions that a second brain was used in an autopsy coverup.” Miller Reporting pres. Paul Kuntzler is “leading” the charge. “Among those questioning the old evidence”: Times Books founder Thomas Lipscomb, who compared Zapruder to photos taken at Dealey Plaza. “One discrepancy: Two women at the slaying site are shown wearing white sneakers when they actually wore black shoes.” His “stuff is so compelling” that Fox and ABC “are negotiating to buy it” (Bedard, U.S. News, 5/22 issue). (Hotline, 5/15/06)

Thomas Lipscomb is nothing more than a hack for the right-wing.

Let Thomas Lipscomb know you don’t believe his lies — tom@digitalfuture.org and while you’re at it, let the Annenberg School for Communication know that Lipscomb is a disgrace to their organization — digitalcenter@digitalcenter.org.

16 Responses to “The Truth About Thomas Lipscomb: Conservative Propagandist, Destroyer of Veterans”

  1. This guy is slime, but he happens to right about the Kennedy assassination (in that there’s much more to it at least).

  2. Great catch on the Pulitzer nomination. It gets worse….

  3. Pamela,

    Lets not forget this lil jewel of his:

    The Middle East and the United States should be so lucky as to have Iraq turn out to be “another Vietnam.”–Thomas Lipscomb, Jewish World Review May 3, 2005

    A scumbag above the rest!!

  4. Lipscomb clearly never saw Fog of War, the ’04 documentary with extended interviews of Robert McNamara. That would be the guy who earned the association of “McNamara’s War” to Vietnam.

    As far as this comment on Wes Clark’s career and retirement,

    It was unheard of for General Clark or any NATO commander to be relieved months before his tour was up and quickly retired. Now General Shelton has revealed that the reason General Clark was relieved involved issues of “integrity and character.”

    Wikipedia carries these comments.

    The U. S. Army once tested a thousand of its officers to see how well they extrapolated future trends from current patterns, and Clark, long before he became a General, finished in first place.

    A… controversial part of Clark’s command in Kosovo came after the end of the military campaign and involved the use of a Kosovo airfield by the Russian military. After a small Russian force suspiciously left their peacekeeping station in Bosnia unannounced and took control of the Slatina airfield, near Pristina, on June 10, 1999, there was a “battle of wills” between Clark and the British NATO commander, Lt. Gen. Mike Jackson. Clark ordered British forces to block the runways to the airfield, to prevent the Russian troops from being resupplied from their homeland…..Jackson did not comply, reportedly later saying: “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.”

    Clark stated that he called the Pentagon, looking for support, and was told by [Hugh] Shelton: “We don’t want a confrontation, but I do support you.” Clark said that he told Shelton: “Then you’ve got a policy problem”.
    John McCain would go on to say that later intelligence reports of massed Russian troops waiting for airlift to enter Kosovo and split control from NATO proved Clark’s assessment of the situation with the Russians to be correct.

    In April 2005, Clark again appeared before the HASC , where he again outlined suggestions for Congress towards how to deal with the Iraq quagmire. He was praised by members of both parties for his keen foresight and predictions regarding costs and consequences of the Iraq war and in US foreign policy.

    I suspect that if, in fact, Clark was “widely disliked in the Army” it was quite possibly because he was intelligent enough to think ahead- combining his military and diplomatic accuity- than the commanders in power.

  5. Terrific post, Pamela.

    It drives me nuts that the right is gearing up for this whole farce once again, although I’m pleased that Senator Kerry and friends aren’t letting all the lies go.

    You might want to take a look at Tom Maguire’s site; he’s been rubbing his hands together, basically saying “bring em on” bacl to Kerry.

    What makes it so difficult to countert the lies is the tendentious nature of their arguments. But it must be done.

    Ginny in CO,
    great comeback on Clark. Thanks.

  6. Actually Lipscomb was a Pulitzer nominee. Pulitzer only lists the top 3, of which he wasn’t. But, he was still an official nominee, and it is common practice for newspapers, etc to refer to everyone, not just the top 3 on ths list, as a nominee. Just thought I’d make sure you now have the correct info:)

  7. Mr Bear

    Right – Lipscomb is a liar.

  8. Pamela Leavy…Not according to Pulitzer:) Glad I was able to help you get the facts straight:)

  9. Mr Bear

    Perhaps you might want to think twice about who has the straight facts:

    Lipscomb has altered his bio, he no longer claims to be a Pulitzer Nominee…

    Thomas Lipscomb Alters Bio – No Longer Claims to be a Pulitzer Nominee

    Thomas Lipscomb is an independent investigative reporter whose work was entered for the Pulitzer for investigative reporting in 2005. He is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future (USC)

  10. Pamela Leavy,,,well, he’s certainly allowed to do that. Doesn’t change for one second, the fact that he was a nominee though. Ask Pulitzer, according to them he was:) Facts are facts:)Nice try though:)

  11. You should take this up with Pulitzer, they are the ones who are saying he was a nominee:)

  12. Mr Bear

    I don’t see any big annoucements on Pulitizer.org about Lipscomb, as a matter of fact they verify what I have said.

    So, thank you for sharing. We’re not drinking the Lipscomb koolaid.

  13. Pamela Leavey,
    Again, Pulitzer is only listing the top 3. If you look in the entire list, Lipscomb’s name is in there, thus; making him a nominee. I do not know if the entire list is on their website, but that the entire list is where you need to look to confirm for yourself that this is true. As for kool aid, I never touch the stuff:) Thanks anyway:)

  14. Mr Bear

    I have looked through the entire list – so have many others – it’s not there. Further more, if it was there, why would Lipscomb change his profile to reflect that he was not a “nominee” but an entrant.

    I’ll tell you why – because he was exposed as a fraud.

  15. No Mr. Bear, if YOU had actually looked at the Pulitzer site, you would notice this (caps mine0:

    >>>By February 1, the Administrator’s office in the Columbia School of Journalism has received the journalism entries -in 2004, typically 1,423. ENTRIES FOR JOURNALISM AWARDS MAY BE SUBMITTED BY ANY INDIVIDUAL from material appearing in a United States newspaper published daily, Sunday, or at least once a week during the calendar year. (History)

    [. . .]

    Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an ENTRY or SUBMISSION. No information on entrants is provided. (Terminology)

    [. . .]

    The three finalists in each category are the ONLY entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees.(History)


  16. PS, in case you didn’t notice, Mr. Bear, it also said NO information on entrants is provided. In other words, there IS no “entire list” with Lipscomb’s name on it.