"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:01:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.

I used the cite, for one reason, to get the complete quote.

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



" 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.

What was widely known? Oh yeah..."IT" was widely known. What's "IT"?

Here's a clue: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington
that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

"IT"="that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA".


Kinda changes the meaning of her statement, eh?

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?

"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?

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


Which experiment?

Disappointing, very disappointing.

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


Which experiment?

Disappointing, very disappointing.

Did I miss something?

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.

"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).

"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.