How can their *facts* be so wrong?

[warsager]

REPOSTING IN GDP

Ok I believe in 'knowing thy enemy' and also I am just plain 'ol curious about what Republicans think and say. The truth is I don't really associate with many (actually any) right wingers and therefore I don't even really know what their arguements are. I just think it's important to understand the other side. So anyways I started googling to find some right wing message boards.

I found this one. The title of this topic struck my interest....

"Media leak Poor Wilson Wife, Rove did NOT!!!!!!

Obviously I thought, oh geez, whats this??

So in this post (which is not very long) somebody makes these "points"

begin quote
1. She hadn't been and undercover agent for years when Rove talked to the reporter about her, since she had been disclosed by Aldrich Ames, a traitorous spy. President Bush cannot prosecute Rove, because he didn't break the law. Just ask the people who wrote the law. They all side with Rove.

2. She disclosed her own identity to Wilson on their third date while she was still undercover.

3. It was already common knowledge she worked for the CIA as she told many people and they even did an article in Vanity Fair about her and Wilson with their full cooperation and even a photo, albeit with her disguised. The only thing he did was warn the reporter not to believe Wilson, since it was Plame that pushed for him to go to Niger, not VP Cheney.

This whole story is a bunch of false crap and once again the Dems stepped in it up to their necks, just like Rathergate. It couldn't have happened to nicer people.
end quote

OkAY. Um so like, isn't #1 a total complete lie? #2 irrelevant. #3 Um again, like a total lie?

Okay okay okay, I BET anyone responding is going to say, 'oh come on why bother they all lie blah blah blah' but I am so naive I guess. How can someone say these things? Where are the links too?? That's another thing, on Dem sites people ALWAYS post links to back up their statements.

Anyone heard any of that crap and care enough to show me where this person might have gotten these 'facts', other than out of his ass of course.

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum5/51569.html

[lvx35]

1. Its mostly a lack of facts that informs their thinking.

Like, this guy doesn't understands that Plame was part of a FRONT COMPANY which was her non-official cover, brewster jennings, and furthermore, that brewster jennings was still the cover for people in the field.

[The Straight Story]

2. Been checking elsewhere as well (on places not named)

Interesting to see the spin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444282/posts


And:
He stated that, two days after the original Novak article, David Corn published some details of Plame's undercover CIA work that weren't mentioned in Novak's article. Corn's only attributed source for his article was none other than Joe Wilson himself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443739/posts

And so on. The battle of two sides and two sites, interesting to watch really the way things pan out. Which side will come out on top? Which site has it right. Tune in next week on 'As the web turns' :)

This will get interesting.....

[warsager]

4. found this

October 11, 2003

The Wall Street Journal has discovered that Brewster Jennings Associates, Valerie Plame's cover firm, was registered with Dun & Bradstreet in 1994, registered at a Boston address, 101 Arch St. as a legal services firm, that has no record of the firm being located there. Nor does the MAssachusetts Bar Association have any record of Victor Brewster, listed as a partner in Brewster Jennings in Dun & Bradstreet's business database.

Interestingly, Nicholas Kristof notes in his NYT column Saturday, "the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Interesting the timing of the CIA's "creation" of the Brewster Jennings cover, in May 1994, just three months after Plame was apparently brought back to Washington by the CIA to protect her from potential exposure caused by Aldrich Ames' suspected leaking of her identity to the Russians.

So Plame's "non official cover" as an energy analyst with Brewster Jennings was not apparently used until 1994 -- because the firm didn't "exist" as a cover until 1994.

Amazing in this day and age, the CIA doesn't seem to provide more solid cover to its NOCs than the fabulist Stephen Glass did for his own faked articles.

The WSJ also has an amusing look at the possible inspiration for the name of the CIA cover firm
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000110.html

And regarding your interesting post (to which the person claimin this about David Corn posts no link, of course, I found this:

"July 15, 2005

The Rove Scandal: Now I'm Smeared as the Leaker

I have rarely read a column as stupid, absurd and wrong as the one posted today by Clifford May, a former New York Times reporter who left journalism and became a spokesman for the Republican Party. It begins:

This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA

Who did? Apparently, I did. And, by the way, Mark Felt was not Deep Throat; it was me.

May notes that in Bob Novak's column that first outed Valerie Wilson, Novak described her as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He argues that this did not reveal Valerie Wilson as a truly undercover CIA officer--what's known as a NOC (an officer under "nonofficial cover"). He then points out that when I wrote about the Novak column two days later, I referred to Valerie Wilson as "a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital important to national security." Breathlessly, May writes, "Since Novak did not report that Plame was 'working covertly' how did Corn know that's what she had been doing?" His answer: Joseph Wilson must have told me when I interviewed him after the Novak leak. Thus, Valerie Wilson was really outed by me because Joe Wilson leaked to me.

Got that?"

http://www.davidcorn.com/

[skids]

3. This article can help put it in perspective.

Damage from Plame's outing wasn't as horrible as it could have been, but Rove had no way of knowing that it wouldn't completely roll up a large operation. And there was some damage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-cia16jul16,1,5950139.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[Glenda]

20. Interesting article - thanks! n/t

[sam sarrha]

5. If you tell a lie enough times, ...you are a Republican.

[hickman1937]

6. If you really want answers, repost this on monday.

I've only been at DU for a year, but I've noticed that week-ends are slow.

[warsager]

7. thanks for the tip

i will kick it up on monday!!

Thats an interesting Davd Corn article I linked above by the way. Interesting read.

:hi:

[hickman1937]

8. Look here.

David Brock used to be rw.

http://mediamatters.org/

[93ncsu]

9. I can respond to these ...

First off , #2 is irrelevant and #3 I'm not sure about.

But #1 is actually correct.

If you read the actual text of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, there are very specific definitions of what constitutes a covert operative. If you look at those definitions and look at Ms Plame's recent career, you will see that by the definition of the law she was in fact NOT a covert operative. As for the Aldrich Ames link, I'm not sure on that one. It is also true that the two people who crafte dthat law have both said that Rove is not in violation of it, because of how it defines a covert operative.

[snowbear]

10. OMG...

Another one.. :eyes:

[Lex]

11. Yeah, but Rove's going to jail for lying to the federal investigators

about what he did. And conspiring with others to lie.

That's what got Martha Stewart in the pen. She wasn't found guilty of the underlying crime, but the obstruction of justice--the lying after the fact.

[93ncsu]

12. As far as I can tell ...

from the public record, Rove has not lied to any investigators. I have seen where he has testified three times over the last 18 or so months, but no indication of perjury or obstruction as far as I can see.

Sorry for being so picky, but as a lawyer it's kind of ingrained.

[snowbear]

13. In other words..

Just like the rest of us, you don't know diddly squat yet.

I wouldn't be so quick to defend Mr. Rove.

[93ncsu]

14. And that's why I said ...

"As far as I can tell from the public record"

I have no idea what has been said in the grand jury testimony (except for what has been supposedly leaked).

As a defense attorney, it is my ingrained belief that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty. So I am not defending Rove, I am just ascribing the same standard to him that I would to any other human being in his situation.

As a Democrat, I would like to see us take the high road in these situations and not be too quick to judge.

[Lex]

15. LOL!

I think more precisely the COURT and the LAW has to presume everyone innocent until proven guilty.

As a defense attorney, you'd have to be a moron to personally believe EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty. I assume you mean then that if you are defending a child molester, you'd have no problem letting your kids hang out with him because, after all, he's innocent until proven guilty, right?

What you mean is that THE LAW demands that LEGALLY the person is innocent until proven guilty.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Oh, is #1 correct?

That's funny. The only source I can ever find for that claim is a Nicholas Kristoff column of two years ago, in which Kristoff claims that the CIA "suspected" that she MAY HAVE been compromised by Ames sometime before his 1994 arrest on espionage charges. Kristoff never cites anyone on this - even as an anonymous source witjin the agency, but that hasn't stopped the right wing blogs from trumpeting this claim from the rooftops as if it is established fact. Your post, for example, matches the NewsMax spin on this point for point - including the bit on the crafters of the law, espcially Victoria Toensing, a right wing ideologue who would have no information pertinent to this investigation, though she's not shy about spinning for her right wing lunatic foundations, etc., about it. That Victoria Toensing, a shameless GOP apparatchik, woiuld parrot the Rove talking points is no surprise, but that makes her automatic spiel no more convincing. She is identitifed by NewsMax, of course, as a Deputy Attorney General, though she held that post 1984-1988 (more NewsMax dishonesty meant to drape her current punditry in official colors) - needless to say, she has no more insightful information on the specifics of the case than you or I.

But all this begs an important question. If Ms. Plame was so clearly not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act that a complete outsider like Victoria Toensing could claim that its inapplicability is obvious, why would the CIA refer the matter to Justice at all? And why would Justice feel the need to appoint a special prosecutor? And why would the special prosecutor empanel a grand jury, and delve into the matter for twop years, taking at least one issue all the way to the Supreme Court? If it is so obvious that this law wouldn't apply to Plame, how can you explain that series of events?

It is intellectually dishonest at this point for anyone to assert that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act has "IN FACT" been violated. It is also intellectually dishonest to assert the opposite. We should admit at least that. It is a flaring, flaming, sun-burst-in-the-sky piece of intellectual dishonesty, moreover, to support the claim that the law didn't apply to Ms. Plame on the basis of the Aldrich Ames suggestion supplied with no sourcing and no support by a columnist! Unless, that is, you have more complete information on this claim? But you appear not to: "As for the Aldrich Ames link, I'm not sure on that one."

You appear to have three choices:

1. Are you willing to retract your claim that the Aldrich Ames information is absolutely correct?

2. Are you willing to provide something more than Kristoff's assertion, later funnelled through the right wing sites as "fact"?

3. Or are you intellectually dishonest?

You choose, chief.

[warsager]

26. I was kinda thinking

the same thing.

If she hadn't been a covert agent for 'years' why would this investigation be going on???

Seems kinda stupid.
:crazy:

[DouglasRussel]

16. They don't care about facts....

The Republicans know that they don't need facts. They make up a version of reality that suits them and accordingly distribute "talking points" to the leadership throughout the country. This gets their fabrications into the mainstream media repeatedly.

This woman's points seem like an even further skewed version of crap she heard on the news or something.

#3 is not a TOTAL lie. They did do a Vanity Fair article...AFTER Novak outed her!

[Skittles]

17. I'm convinced conservatives know they are being lied to

but they don't mind because they approve of the lies being told

[warsager]

19. didn't know that!!

Do you by any chance have a link to the Vanity Fair article? Of course I can look for it too...

:hippie:

[madeline_con]

18. "She disclosed her own identity ...

to Wilson on their third date while she was still undercover."

Where does this poster think this has anything to do with Rove?

[Glenda]

21. I just got Wilson's book... and he had some kind of security

clearance as well, so it wasn't like she was disclosing her identity to just anyone on the street

[madeline_con]

24. "... just anyone on the street..."

This poster seems to think it's the same as telling Rove. :eyes:

[Virginian]

27. Is that in the Vanity Fair article?

In other words, did that come from Wilson or is that one of those made up lies that seem to get circulated but have no source?

[Mnemosyne]

22. .

:kick: :kick:

[stevedeshazer]

23. They just make shit up.

It's really just that simple.

[warsager]

28. "Double Exposure", Vanity Fair, January 2004

Here is a link to the VF story

"Double Exposure", Vanity Fair, January 2004

On a sunny Wednesday in mid-October a mixture of journalists, lobbyists, and the odd politician were sitting down to plates of cold salad in a stuffy dining room at the National Press Club in downtown Washington, D.C., when Valerie Plame (Wilson), wearing a sharp cream pantsuit, entered the room. The occasion was a lunch given by The Nation magazine's foundation and the Fertel Foundation to present the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling to her husband, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Surprisingly, given that Plame was at the center of a Justice Department investigation that could conceivably cause serious damage to the Bush administration, hardly anyone paused to take in the slim 40-year-old with white-blond hair and a big, bright smile. In July the syndicated conservative columnist Robert Novak published an item revealing that Plame was a C.I.A. "operative." The information had been leaked to him by "two senior (Bush) administration officials," who were trying to discredit a report her husband had done for the C.I.A.-the implication being that Wilson got the job only because his wife got it for him. Evidently the "two senior administration officials" did not realize it is a federal crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover C.I.A. agent. As a result, Plame is now the most famous female spy in America-"Jane Bond," as her husband has referred to her. However, even in Washington circles, few people yet know what she looks like. Quietly she threaded her way around the tables until she reached Wilson, a handsome man with a full head of gray hair and dressed in a Zegna suit, pink shirt, and HermEs tie. Plame kissed her husband's cheek fondly and took his hand. He looked thrilled to see her. They sat down side by side. Senator Jon Corzine, a Democrat from New Jersey, crossed the room to pump their hands. Suddenly necks craned and chairs swiveled as people tried not to stare too obviously at the telegenic couple who, together, have caused a maelstrom that some in the nation's capital feel may yet rise to the level of a Watergate.

Wilson, 54, is a retired American diplomat who wrote a July 6 op-ed piece for The New York Times that told of his February 2002 fact-finding mission to Niger, taken at the behest of the C.I.A. His mission was to verify-or disprove-an intelligence report that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy from Niger "yellowcake," a uranium ore, which can be used to make fissionable material. The information that Saddam did try to buy it found its way into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This was a key piece of the president's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-which in turn was Bush's main justification for going to war with that country.

But, on his trip, Wilson had found no evidence to substantiate the president's assertion. His New York Times piece was titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Had he been wrong?, he wondered in the article. Or had his information been ignored because it did not fit with the government's preconceptions about Iraq? On the Sunday his piece ran in the Times, Wilson appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to discuss it.

***much much more***
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_plame.php

[warsager]

29. kicking

back for the monday crowd

:hi: