Now The Times Discovers Walter Pincus

The NY Times finally discovers Walter Pincus of the WaPo, a mere three weeks after we were hollering about him.  And eventually, the Times will discover Google, or Lexis-Nexis, which will introduce more certainty to their reporting:

In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.

The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.

...Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.

Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.

Well, another clue as to Pincus' source, overlooked by the Timesmen, appeared in Editor & Publisher, with an article about Mr. Pincus that included this: "Libby was not my source but was someone I spoke to on a confidential basis," Pincus said.' 

Or maybe the Nov 26, 2004 WaPo can provide a hint: "Pincus also has said his source was not Libby."  Just trying to help.

The Times cites this Nieman Watchdog article, this Sept 16 2004 WaPo article, and this Oct 12, 2003 WaPo piece.  Careful readers may also suspect that Mr. Pincus is "another journalist" in this Sept 30 2003 WaPo piece.

Now, is the motive of the leaker of any interest?  In their very last paragraph, the Times reports Mr. Pincus' impression:

He wrote in Nieman Reports that he did not believe the person who spoke to him was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get him to write about Mr. Wilson.

[NOTE:  The Times gets this backwards - what Pincus wrote is:

"I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about

Wilson"]

Perhaps the Bush Brute Squad was making all of the the other phone calls to smear Wilson, intimidate potential whistleblowers, and get revenge.  But it sounds like this leak was an attempt to get the White House side of the story in play, which jibes with what Rove told Cooper when he warned him not to get too close to Wilson.

And we sense more uncertainty and backpedaling at the Times with this passage:

In addition to Mr. Pincus, the reporters known to have been pursued by the special prosecutor include...

Was it only last week that Adam Liptak wrote with such confidence that "Four reporters have testified in the investigation..."?  Now the Times standard is "Known to have been pursued". 

Maybe by next week the Times can let us know whether Nick Kristof or David Sanger, both of whose names reportedly appeared on White House phone logs in the key week of July 2003, were contacted by investigators.  Even if a White House staffer told investigators, "I got a message that Kristoff called, but I never got back to him", shouldn't Fitzgerald's gumshoes verify that?  Shouldn't they have called Kristof?

All The News.

UPDATE:  IF THE TIMES HAS THE TIME:  If inquiring into the involvement of Kristof and Sanger strikes uncomfortably close to home, perhaps the Times could try to pry a clear, unambiguous statement from Tim Russert - when Adam Liptak looked into this two weeks ago, he was forced to recycle an NBC press release from August 2004.  Mike Isikoff had the same problem, which he solved by ignoring the subtlety and misdirection in the original "denial":

Russert told Fitzgerald that he did not know Plame’s name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Libby, it said.

Did Russert tell Libby that Wilson's wife was a CIA analyst?  Lots of wiggle room there!

And Russert added virtually nothing when asked about this on Meet The Press - maybe the Times can give him a big platform and another chance for clarity.

Fitzgerald seems to be intent on finding out what Judy Miller and Tim Russert discussed with Libby - maybe the Times could help us find out.

Comments

[Steven J.]

So, exactly how many WH people were involved in outing Plame? Would this be covered under the RICO Act? Is there another taping system in the Oval Office?

Will Karen Hughes get to bunk with Judith Miller?

Man, gimme a beer and pass the popcorn!

[RedDan]

Indicative of what, exactly?

What's your point, TM?

[RedDan]

May I also suggest that you note the time of that reported communication: July 12th.

Well after several of the other now-reported (I hesitate to say "documented" because so little "documentation" exists, only single-source reports)...

So, source number three to Pincus seems to be a latecomer to the action.

Again, indicative of what?

[Veeshir]

The best part of this is that the media knows the deal and they aren't telling us.
They think this is going to hurt Rove, all I can see is that it is hurting the NY Times, Time and the Washington Post most as they keep changing their stories.
It's really quite fun watching the media totally implode in such spectacular fashion. This is even better than Rather's wacky memoes because it involves just about every, major print publication.

[ArminTamzarian]

Yes, there will be indictments on RICO, mail fraud, marijuana trafficking, grand larceny, felony murder, and perjury against all department heads, all White House staff above the rank of secretary, Ken Mehlman, Bob Novak, Jerry Falwell, Jonah Goldberg, and Mel Gibson.

[kim]

Mel Gibson? Marijuana trafficking? I thought that was gasoline in that big tanker.
==========================================

[kim]

Speaking of blood for oil.
==========================

[Martin]

So an SAO reported 6 reporters were leaked to by 2 SAOs. This NYT story confirms that six reporters have been questioned by Fitzgerald: Mr. Pincus, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Novak, Mr. Russert, Mr. Kessler, and Ms. Miller.

Pincus, Cooper, Russert, and Novak are all on record as saying the administration gave them the info that Plame was CIA.

The CIA says she was undercover.

Why the denial?

[AcademicFascist]

It turns out the source for all this was CONDI RICE. Who knew?

http://www.counterpunch.org/

These people are nuts.

[AcademicElephant]

Sorry for the inappropriate name on the above post. That's only supposed to be for Blame Bush!

[Appalled Moderate]

There are aspects about the way the NYT is covering this story that are driving me nuts. First, there's the blythe assumption that Pincus source is neither Rove and the mystery source we all know to be Libby. How does our NYT reporter know this? Well, the guy who gave the story to Pincus volunteered the info, and Rove's lawyers and Libby's friends said he didn't do that. Hmm. The idea that Libby and Rove's friends muight be putting out a self-serving message cross anyone's mind?

Second, we are told by the headline the investiation has taken a "new turn". Bullarkey! It's just the press coverage of the story has taken a new turn, probably because nobody was leaking yesterday. The investigation into the leak is done and has been since last Fall), with the exception of Ms. Miller's testimony. The only reason this story has gnerated motion is that folks keep leaking tantalizing little bits of info on a daily basis.

Boy, all of this sharp-edged reporting makes me really want a reporter shield law!

[RedDan]

Again, given the reported facts as they currently stand, and recognizing that we do not, by any means, have all the information we would need to make a solid determination, what do those facts indicate?

That on July 7, 2004 a memo marked secret that came from INR travelled on Air Force 1 with Bush, Fleischer, Powell and ?who else?

That on July 8 or 9, several journalists talked with Libby, Rove and ?another SAO named?

That the recounting of who said what, who initiated the exchange of information is unclear, with multiple journalists and one SAO (unnamed) claiming that the administration officials (Libby and Rove and unnamed) proffered info, and Libby/Rove, but not "unnamed" claiming the opposite.

That several CIA officials (former, and possibly present) have testified that they did, in fact warn Novak off the story in the strongest possible terms without actually breaking secrecy, asked him not to mention Valerie Plame, and said that the story was incorrect anyway, and confirmed that Plame was, in fact, a covert operative at that time...

Are the above reported facts accurately described?

If so, what do they tell us?

[Appalled Moderate]

RedDan:

On the CIA part, only one CIA person talked to Novak, and while that person claims he was firm, he did not say Plame was covert (because by doing so, he would have broken the law).

With respect to Rove, the known contradictions (whether Cooper called regrding welfare reform or not) are not material. Rove has not contradicted Cooper's account. How Rove came upon the information is unknown, and Rove doesn't remember.

With respect to Libby, there is contradiction. Libby says he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert says he did not give Plame's name to Libby.

I think you have the INR memo facts stated correctly. For the record, both Rove and Fleisher have testified that they did not see it. I don't know if Libby has been quoted on this matter.

What do these facts tell us? An investigation is in progress and Novak's a jerk. But multiple speculations are possible. (And I have indulged in a few)

[Steven J.]

ARMIN - "marijuana trafficking"

Once again, you get your facts wrong. It's not grass, it's heroin! (Afghanistan)

[boris]

On the CIA part, only one CIA person talked to Novak, and while that person claims he was firm, he did not say Plame was covert (because by doing so, he would have broken the law).

This is the catch 22 all the moonbats are trying to ignore. That V.P. was CIA was not classified. Her dormant status as an undercover operator was classified. The spilling of those beans are the likely focus of the investigation.

The CIA did not want her employment for them made public because it would devalue her ability to ever go undercover again. But they could not give a valid reason to Novak not to publicize her CIA employment because the relevant information was classified.

Pretty stupid for an intelligence agency.

[Dwilkers]

"On the CIA part, only one CIA person talked to Novak, and while that person claims he was firm, he did not say Plame was covert (because by doing so, he would have broken the law)."

Is it really against the law? I'm wondering because it would seem to me they could throw down the gauntlet if a reporter called to ask about 007 and they wanted him to stop.

Or maybe what the CIA guy said is the normal warning off that they do in a case like this? If so, that makes Novak look really sleezy, especially since he's acted like he had no idea there was any real problem with his column.

The problem is its hard for me to tell, and since it has become obvious there are warring political factions at the CIA (!!!) it doesn't seem prudent to take it at face value.

[Tulsan]

Libby, Rove and Hadley ... the Vice President's office, the White House political staff, the National Security Council. ... all working together in that fateful week in July 2003 ... to devise a strategy on handling the retraction of the "16 words". But these 3 also coordinated the effort to deliberately leak the identity of Wilson's wife.

Coincidence? Conspiracy?

No ... just routine business ... 2 of the 3 have been promoted ... the other has kept his important job.

[Davis]

In partial defense of Novak ... His famous July 14/03 column did not headline the information about Plame, but included it near the end. He didn't deem it all that important. Also, this was his Monday column (his regular columns appear in the Sun-Times on Sun, Mon and Thurs.) The Sunday column would have been picked up by more papers and read by many more people; if he had thought this was a huge revelation he would have printed it on Sunday.

[Dwilkers]

Then why print it at all when the CIA guys asked him not to?

Mind you, I don't dislike Novak or particularly like him either, it just doesn't make sense to me. He's been doing what he does for 50 years. Why would he put it in a column at all if he thought it wasn't important when the CIA asked him not to do it?

Assuming, of course, that its true. I may be crawling out on a limb there.

[kim]

You know, when an organization is not getting good information, warring factions develop. God help Dr. Goss.
===========================================

[Syl]

"On the CIA part, only one CIA person talked to Novak..."

Well, there was also that Man on the Street. Who was he? CIA? Reporter? Administration Official? Neighbor of Wilson? Taxi driver?

We have only one name, Harlow, to go on. If anyone else from the CIA had any conversations with Novak, we simply don't know about it.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The most important thing about Pincus is that, as of his WaPo piece yesterday, he still doesn't understand what Wilson brought back from Niger:

'In a 2002 trip to Niger at the request of the CIA, Wilson found no evidence to support allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from that African country and reported back to the agency in February 2002.'

Even Joe Wilson himself is admitting he did find such evidence.

[Tulsan]

The Press will never tell all that they know ... it isn't a conspiracy amongst them ... they would all like to have the big scoop.

The reason they keep quiet is because they, and their big media companies, want to retain access to "senior administration officials". It is obvious that the President and Vice Pres. will never dismiss loyal staffers short of a criminal conviction. So all the players will likely stay in place until January 2008 ... and there are a lot of stories to file and publish between now and then.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

From Bobby R. Inman, former Deputy Director of the CIA:

http://media.nationalreview.com/070913.asp

'[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see, but she was working in an analytical organization, and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers. I watch all the hand-wringing over the ruining of careers… there are a lot of operatives whose covers are blown. It doesn’t mean the end of their careers. Many move to the analytical world, which is where she already was. It meant she couldn’t deploy back off to Africa, but nothing I’ve seen indicated that was possible in the first place.'

[Marcel]

Patrick, Wilson's July '03 op-ed stated his reason for the trip was to check out a report that "referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's". That would have been a serious matter, except that Wilson found NO evidence of such an agreement. Nor has any other credible source found any such proof. The attempt by an Iraqi official to discuss "trade" with Niger is suspicious, but hardly rises to the same level as an actual agreement.

[Slartibartfast]

It ought to be noted that Admiral Inman is yet another former CIA employee who wasn't in a position to know Plame's status.

[scott ferris]

With at two, and possibly three, sources for the Plame leak coming from the administration is there any question the WH is the source of the leaks? Blaming the media seems a little far fetched when there are so many confirmed sources of the leak inside the WH.

[Davis]

Maybe the "I got it from a reporter" defense is not as far-fetched as many believed. Even within the New York Times there are those who believe that Judith Miller got the "Joe Wilson's wife is CIA" information from someone at the CIA, then discussed it with White House officials. If that is the case, Rove would be in the position of discussing information already made public.

[scott ferris]

Did Rove check with the CIA, if not, why not? Does the WH repeat every rumor it hears? Incompetence isn't great defense.

[Jeff]

TM - I eagerly await the deployment of your superior interpretive skills on the bizarre paragraphs about Miller in the NYT piece. On this subject, see the Times gossip -- er, debate -- that Huffington is (and now I am evidently) working to get into circulation. I'll admit I'm still skeptical of the theory of Miller as a more active player.

On the Pincus source, I'm now inclined to think it was Hadley and not Tenet (although the idea you suggested that Tenet was reporting tp Pincus what the bozos at the White House were saying, and discounting it, rather than pushing their line is intriguing). Hadley keeps popping up as part of the pivotal trio with Rove and Libby working on the twin attacks on Wilson and on the CIA during July 6-14. And rereading the Pincus piece from the 13th, it's clear he spoke to a bunch of people on the 12th, and Hadley shows up as a subject -- and I suspect as a source -- prominently in the second paragraph. Plus Hadley fits Novak's description of his first source as not a partisan gunslinger -- fits it better than Libby, certainly. Of course Tenet fits Novak's description as well. The idea that it's Hadley requires reading the WaPo's "current or former administration official" as a piece of in- or misdirection. Finally -- I will attribute no explanatory power to this -- I can't resist observing that Hadley has gotten an awesome promotion.

I'm glad you like my idea of campaigning to get Cliff May to tell us who his cocktail party interlocutor is, and when s/he told him about Joe Wilson's wife. Let's get to work. And I'm still waiting for clarification from Russert. Russert, May, Miller, Novak -- not exactly the liberal MSM!

Patrick, you might want to check out Inman's disappointment with the way what he said was used by the good folks at the National Review, reported by Larry Johnson over at tpmcafe, and the clarification of it there.

[boris]

Former Deputy Director of the CIA: and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers

The money quote right there folks.

That V.P. was CIA was not classified. Her dormant status as an undercover operator is what was classified. The spilling of those beans is the likely focus of the investigation.

Forget the blown cover crap. There's no there there.

[Lesley]

Joe diGenova interview:

“I believe the agency didn’t properly protect [Plame’s] identify because they didn’t want to and clearly didn’t try,” he said. “To think that journalists are being put through this is crazy. Where we are now is absolutely absurd.”

DiGenova says he hasn’t changed his mind from what he told me in March, when we had a long conversation just before I left for a reporting trip to Iraq. He pointed out that the statute that protects the identity of covert agents “has a very high standard for prosecution.

“The only way an investigation can begin is if the agency swears — swears — that it took every conceivable step to protect this person’s identity.”

For example, the CIA had to answer 11 specific questions about what steps it took to protect the identity of a covert agent. But diGenova questions whether some of the information the CIA provided the Justice Department on those 11 questions “was materially false.”

In addition, he pointed out that the CIA paid for Wilson’s trip, didn’t ask him to sign a confidentiality agreement, didn’t object to his writing the op-ed article in the Times and allowed him to conduct TV interviews and to appear in a photo with his wife in Vanity Fair, he noted.

“The CIA isn’t stupid,” he said. “They wanted this story out. I’m raising the question: Did the CIA mislead Fitzgerald?”

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/AlbertEisele/071305.html

[Appalled Moderate]

Jeff:

The Huff piece makes for fun speculation, but is there a scintilla of evidence for any of it?

On the same set of assumptions Huff offers -- one can construct a theory that Miller talked to colleague Nicholas Kristoff about the Niger leaks he had in his column, and learned about the Wilson mission and the Wilson spouse that way. One can also presume, in order to protect Kristoff, Wilson and Plame, Miller, who -- given the NYT's humiliating renunciation of her WMD reporting -- has got to be feeling a little bit of job stress right now, feels that she has to take one for the home team.

If Miller's guilty, by the way, wouldn't Rove and Libby been innocent of anything criminal? (Unless Miller also passed along word of her covert status)

[Marcel]

Jeff, another person who claims he knew Valerie Wilson was CIA before Novak's column is Fred Barnes at Fox News and The Weekly Standard. For each of them, it is important clarify how and when they knew. Unless both of them have been blowing smoke.

[boris]

... reported by Larry Johnson ...

Who is Larry Johnson ???

[Cliff May]: You’ll recall the July 10th 2001 New York Times op-ed by Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA and State Department counter-terrorism specialist (now one of those campaigning against Karl Rove).

In it, Johnson wrote that terrorism that “Americans have little to fear” from terrorism, Fears about terrorism, he added, were only being stirred up by “24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story,” by “pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data,” as well as politicians who “warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.”

Hmmm ... July 10 2001 ... 2 months later what happened ??? anyone .... Bueller ??

Yessssssss 911

Who is Larry Johnson ??? Naysaying poopoo spouting moron, that's who.

[spongeworthy]

That's pretty weak from Larry Johnson. Since when is quoting someone directly a "lie"? If you follow the link to the Spruell column, the subject is the culture of CIA leaking. The Plame reference is more of an aside, so there's no context there for Inman's quote to be plugged into so it can be misconstrued.

I call BS. Inman said it and Larry Johnson has no response except that NR lied. Well, unless Inman claims they're making his words up (he doesn't), then Johnson's the only one playing fast and loose with the truth.

Weak.

[Tulsan]

Who was the 3rd source? Maybe John Bolton was one of the 3 ... Novak might have considered Bolton to be "no political gunslinger".

Until now there has speculation about 2 sources ... now there seem to be 3 ... how many more might there be? They will still try to pin it on Ari Fleischer.

[Dwilkers]

"If Miller's guilty, by the way,..."

Don't get caught up in that one. Miller cannot be guilty of being "the source" in the way that Huff piece implies. She's just a reporter, whoever told HER is the guilty one...if anyone here is guilty of anything besides politics.

[Jeff]

Marcel - can you get me a cite and/or link on Barnes? I'd appreciate it. Isn't it interesting that these journalists making these claims are all certified right wingers. It would be really interesting if the circulation of this info was all happening in the relevant time period - say March or April 2003 to July 2003. And of course I'm dying to know who was telling them this. So let's add Barnes to Russert, May, Novak, Miller -- long live the liberal MSM!

AM - I agree, hence my remaining skepticism and also my observation that Huffington was putting it into circulation, the idea being getting others to start asking questions and do some reporting. It is interesting to note that today's NYT piece, as Mark Kleiman notes, does take the media and the Times itself in particular as players in this story and targets of reporting.

boris - I'm sorry, but here as usual you're not worth responding to.

spongeworthy - note the congruence of your "there's no context here for Inman's quote" and the idea of being quoted out of context.

[jukeboxgrad]

DAVIS: "[Novak] did not headline the information about Plame, but included it near the end ... The Sunday column would have been picked up by more papers"

I think Novak knew exactly what he was doing. He had been dispatched on a mission to exact revenge on Wilson by outing Plame. He knew even "near the end" of a Monday column would be more than sufficient to accomplish this aim, while still giving him some of the kind of cover that is impressing you.

"If that is the case [if Rove got if from a reporter], Rove would be in the position of discussing information already made public."

Nice try. "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information" (link).

[jukeboxgrad]

PATRICK: "Pincus ... still doesn't understand what Wilson brought back from Niger ... allegations that Iraq was seeking"

"Was seeking" sounds like present tense. It's not the same as "had once been seeking, some time ago, maybe."

Wilson did indeed find no evidence that Iraq was currently "seeking." By the way, even Bush didn't say "seeking." He said "sought."

What you're doing is an interesting variation on the tense-manipulation that is used to defend Bush's statement "he wouldn't let them in." An example of that can be found here.

[jukeboxgrad]

BORIS: "That V.P. was CIA was not classified."

How do you know?

AM: "If Miller's guilty, by the way, wouldn't Rove and Libby been innocent of anything criminal?"

I don't see why. In my opinion, it doesn't matter much where they heard. What matters is what they said.

[Martin]

Ok-I'll respond to Boris.

Boris-perhaps Johnson would have amended his July 2001 statement on terrorism if somebody had, oh, lets say, given him a memo on August 6, 2001 based on the latest intelligence and titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"

At least I hope he would. There can't be another person as stupid and lazy as Bush can there? After all, we know what Bush did the next day-go on vacation.

(I still can't believe that btw!)

[Dwilkers]

"I don't see why."

As Yoda would say JBG, "That is why you fail".

[Marcel]

Jeff; Fred Barnes made the comment (that he had known about Plame's CIA identity) earlier this month when he was filling in for Brit Hume on Fox News. I'm sorry that I don't know how to find old Fox clips or transcripts.

[Al]

"In my opinion, it doesn't matter much where they heard. What matters is what they said."

Why is "what they said" the only important thing and not "where they heard" it?

Seems to me you have it precisely backwards: repeating what a reporter tells you is not wrong in any way; repeating the very same information that you learned from a classified source very well can be wrong.

Heck, are you saying that every person in the entire government stating what they read in Novak's column was doing something wrong or illegal? Or is there a difference between hearing it from Judy Miller and hearing it from Bob Novak via his column?

[TrueLiberal]

The main person on the African trip with this report in hand was Colin Powell. He would certainly not be described as a partisan gunslinger by anyone including Novak. Ya think the Times etc ... know this, but figured a run at Rove was better for the Dem's in 2006 and 2008?

[boris]

BORIS: "That V.P. was CIA was not classified."

How do you know?

Former Deputy Director of the CIA: and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers

How do I know ??? Know what ??? Oh you mean like how you moonbats know what Rove did and why he did it ??? Is that what you mean by know ??? No thanks.

Why is it a logical claim ...

Hint ...

Former Deputy Director of the CIA said so.

[pamela]

Martin-
You often have a good perspective, but spoil it (and make me question your 'good' perspective) when you call people names and question the president's intelligence. Please. Just because you think he's a moron doesn't mean he IS.

And your characterization of the PDB of Aug 2001 as 'the latest intelligence' then suggests to me that, perhaps, YOU are the one lacking in brain power. I read that declassified PDB back during the hearings into Sept 11. NOTHING in that PDB was more current than 1999. (Actually, IIRC, it wasn't more current than 1997 or 1998, but I'm giving the latest possible year.) So, not only was it NOT 'the latest' info on Al Qaeda and Osama, but it surely was then, by your own implication, available to Larry Johnson before he wrote his July 2001 column.

I haven't come down on one side or the other on who is 'guilty'. Mainly because none of us can possibly know until such report as Special Counsel Fitzgerald releases, along with any indictments the grand jury returns.

ALL leaks to newspapers are treated by me with suspicion, given that all such leaks will be self-serving and designed to influence public opinion so that, no matter what eventually the 'truth' is determined to be, it likely will not dent the 'facts' that people are convinced they already know.

But I have noticed that you, and others posting here, take tpmcafe and mediamatters as only posting truth, while you write with derision about the postings of 'right-wing' sites, as though 'truth' and 'facts' are only dealt with on the former, while 'spin', 'lies', and 'conspiracies' are only trucked on the latter. The reality would seem a bit more complicated than that.

[spongeworthy]

Jeff

spongeworthy - note the congruence of your "there's no context here for Inman's quote" and the idea of being quoted out of context.

I don't know what you're getting at. Maybe you should read the piece and explain how Inman's being taken out of context. While you're at it, defend LJ for calling a direct quote a lie.

Inamn's not even claiming he was Dowd-ified, though I may make that claim for your editing of my own statement.

The important thing to note is that to take him out of context, there would have to be some surrounding context to be taken out of. What context would negate Inman's direct quote? Feel free to use your imagination because I cannot imagine any that would make NR the liars here.