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).

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.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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.

It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's identity
before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly states that
Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the CIA.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:25:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
identity before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly
states that Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the
CIA.

So what? I know Porter Goss's identity and that he works at the CIA. So
what? Plame had an identity, and it was well known. So what? The last
sentence addresses the *legal* issue, her *role* at the CIA, her
*covert/classified* status at the CIA. Leaking Plame's identity isn't a
crime. There's nothing to leak. She had a public identity. Leaking
Plame's *classified* employment status was.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:25:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
identity before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly
states that Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the
CIA.

So what? I know Porter Goss's identity and that he works at the CIA. So
what?

So what?!?

The Fitzgerald investigation began because somebody supposedly leaked
Plame's identity to the media.



Plame had an identity, and it was well known. So what? The last
sentence addresses the *legal* issue, her *role* at the CIA, her
*covert/classified* status at the CIA.

Libby isn't accused of lying about leaking Plames' role or status. He
stands accused of lying about leaking her *name* (which we now know isn't
even a crime).



Leaking Plame's identity isn't a
crime. There's nothing to leak. She had a public identity. Leaking
Plame's *classified* employment status was.

Show me where Libby is accused of leaking Plame's employment status. He's
accused of leaking her name, and the fact she worked for the CIA...but not
her status with them.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:13:12 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The Fitzgerald investigation began because somebody supposedly leaked
Plame's identity to the media.

Wrong. She has always had an identity, and it has always been public.
Someone leaked her employment status, which was *classified* or, more
accurately, someone put Plame's public identity together with her
classified employment status.

Libby isn't accused of lying about leaking Plames' role or status. He
stands accused of lying about leaking her *name* (which we now know isn't
even a crime).

Come on. Her name has always been public information. The association of
her name, with her *classified* employment status was what is illegal.
Oh, and that is not what Libby is charged with lying about, but that's
another issue.


Show me where Libby is accused of leaking Plame's employment status. He's
accused of leaking her name, and the fact she worked for the CIA...but not
her status with them.

Uh, no, that's not what he is charged with. He's charged with obstruction
of justice, making false statements, and perjury. At this time, he is not
accused of leaking her name *or* leaking her employment status.

"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.

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.

"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.