OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:56:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I was still out of context because it didn't include the question that
preceded it.

If you read back in the thread, you provided the context, vis a vis Imus.

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that
Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Anyway, did you try my little experiment? Interesting results, aren't
they?


Which experiment?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had
nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

And have you tried to track the "corroborating evidence" down? Good
luck!

That's besides the point. You said "Niger documents". Bush wasn't
referring to the Niger documents in his speech.

Besides the point? The British "corroborating evidence" was also bull****
and there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration knew it.
In all this hub-bub smearing Wilson, little effort seems to be given to
the two other officials sent to Niger. The other two officials who
corroborated Wilson's findings. But then, it's a little harder to
discredit a Marine Four Star General, and considerably more dangerous. ;-)

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Which experiment?

Disappointing, very disappointing.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Which experiment?

Disappointing, very disappointing.

Did I miss something?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:14:33 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Did I miss something?

Up thread, you were complaining about Media Matters because it's only
purpose was correcting conservative misinformation. I was making the
point, that there was a good reason for that. We, I think, agree that
this is Mitchell's quote (without the context question).

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Agreed? The first sentence would have you believe that Plame's name was
widely known. The last sentence qualifies that. Either sentence, taken
out of context, distorts the entire statement. Agreed?

The experiment was to put the first sentence in quotes and google it. You
will notice quite a few right wing sites come up, NewsMax, FreeRepublic,
WorldNetDaily, etc. And if you read those cites, you will see the last
sentence is left off. Distorted news from the "liebral" media?

Media Matters serves a valid purpose, correcting conservative
misinformation.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:14:33 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Did I miss something?

Up thread, you were complaining about Media Matters because it's only
purpose was correcting conservative misinformation. I was making the
point, that there was a good reason for that. We, I think, agree that
this is Mitchell's quote (without the context question).

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Agreed? The first sentence would have you believe that Plame's name was
widely known. The last sentence qualifies that. Either sentence, taken
out of context, distorts the entire statement. Agreed?

The experiment was to put the first sentence in quotes and google it. You
will notice quite a few right wing sites come up, NewsMax, FreeRepublic,
WorldNetDaily, etc. And if you read those cites, you will see the last
sentence is left off. Distorted news from the "liebral" media?

Media Matters serves a valid purpose, correcting conservative
misinformation.

The last sentence doesn't clarify whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's name
or identity. The last sentence simply says that Mitchell didn't know
Plame's "actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving WMD". But Mitchell knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she
did work for the CIA (she just didn't know in what capacity).

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:14:33 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Did I miss something?

Up thread, you were complaining about Media Matters because it's only
purpose was correcting conservative misinformation. I was making the
point, that there was a good reason for that. We, I think, agree that
this is Mitchell's quote (without the context question).

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Agreed? The first sentence would have you believe that Plame's name was
widely known. The last sentence qualifies that. Either sentence, taken
out of context, distorts the entire statement. Agreed?

The experiment was to put the first sentence in quotes and google it. You
will notice quite a few right wing sites come up, NewsMax, FreeRepublic,
WorldNetDaily, etc. And if you read those cites, you will see the last
sentence is left off.

Because the last sentence isn't germane to the question of: "did Mitchell
know Plame's identity and that she was employed by the CIA?" The first
sentence is an admission that "IT" was widely known...and "IT" is the fact
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:59:30 +0000, NOYB wrote:


" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who
among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number
of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual
role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving
weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Because the last sentence isn't germane to the question of: "did Mitchell
know Plame's identity and that she was employed by the CIA?" The first
sentence is an admission that "IT" was widely known...and "IT" is the fact
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Now, that is spin. Besides the last sentence being very germane with
regards to the IIPA, I would argue that good journalism doesn't decide
what is germane. Good journalism would print the entire quote, and let
the reader decide. Point two, didn't you complain about context because I
didn't print the question Mitchell answered? Well, if not printing the
question, means the quote is out of context, not printing the full quote
damn well is also.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:57:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The last sentence doesn't clarify whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
name or identity. The last sentence simply says that Mitchell didn't know
Plame's "actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving WMD". But Mitchell knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and that
she did work for the CIA (she just didn't know in what capacity).

As I mentioned, the last sentence is very germane to the IIPA. It's also
quite important with regards to the classified nature of her employment.
Most, but not all, CIA employment is classified. The last sentence more
than the first addresses that point.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:59:30 +0000, NOYB wrote:


" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who
among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number
of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual
role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving
weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Because the last sentence isn't germane to the question of: "did
Mitchell
know Plame's identity and that she was employed by the CIA?" The first
sentence is an admission that "IT" was widely known...and "IT" is the
fact
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Now, that is spin. Besides the last sentence being very germane with
regards to the IIPA, I would argue that good journalism doesn't decide
what is germane. Good journalism would print the entire quote, and let
the reader decide. Point two, didn't you complain about context because I
didn't print the question Mitchell answered? Well, if not printing the
question, means the quote is out of context, not printing the full quote
damn well is also.

The first sentence of the paragraph makes zero sense without first posting
the question that was asked.

The last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mitchell
knew Plame's identity.