Joe Miller of FactCheck.Org Got Played for a Fool

You’d think after Porter Goss once again failed to refute Nancy Pelosi’s central assertion, "Fact Check" organizations would get the hint.

But no–they’re still out there refuting themselves!!

Here are the details that FactCheck.Org uses to claim that,

So we’re left with Democrats offering one (not always entirely accurate) story and the CIA and some Republicans offering a different (and, again, not always entirely accurate) story.

Pelosi, February 25:

Pelosi: We were never told they were being used.

Maddow: You were told they weren’t being used?

Pelosi: Well, they just talked about them, but — the inference to be drawn from what they told us was that these are things that we think could be legal. And we have a difference of opinion on that. But they never told us that they were being be used, because that would be a different story altogether. … And they know that I cannot speak specifically to the classified briefing of that kind. But I can say flat out, they never told us that these enhancement interrogations were being used.

Pelosi, April 23:

Pelosi (April 23): At that or any other briefing, and that was the only briefing that I was briefed on in that regard, we were not I repeat, we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.

Pelosi, May 14:

The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed.

Porter Goss, April 25:

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed;

Given that both the Democratic and Republican Member of Congress at that September 4, 2002 briefing describe a briefing in which "they" (the CIA) spoke to "us" or "we" (the members present for that briefing) of waterboarding in a hypothetical sense, you’d think people would finally cop on that Pelosi’s point all along has been that the CIA came to Congress, claimed to brief them, but then left out the all-important detail that the CIA had already been using torture for over a month. You’d think that a "fact check" organization would then note the consistency between Pelosi’s and Goss’ story, note the abundance of errors in the CIA’s briefing, and realize that the CIA was probably wrong and all the journalists and fact check organizations covering this for the past month have been played like out-of-tune fiddles. 

But no. That’s not what Joe Miller did. Instead, he ignored the tense in Goss’ language so he could claim he refuted Pelosi. He ignored additional errors in the CIA’s own record, particularly the ones pertaining to Republicans. Decided to "take" we "to mean" Pelosi and the Democrats rather than Goss and Pelosi. Took Crazy Pete Hoekstra’s statements as relevant in the least, even though he wasn’t at the briefing in question. And then he decided, after admitting that, "Pelosi has never wavered from her assertion that at her Sept. 2002 briefing, the CIA presented its interrogation program as a theoretical possibility and not as a fait accompli," that Pelosi is wrong because Miller has decided Pelosi should be speaking about whether she ever knew about waterboarding and not about whether the CIA fulfilled their legally required obligation to inform Congress before they start a torture or other covert op program. 

Voila! Because Republicans decided to claim Pelosi was saying something (that she had never learned of waterboarding) that she was not saying, Joe Miller decides to suggest that Pelosi (whom he admits has never wavered from the point she was trying to make) was not accurate.

Let me help you out here, Joe. Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi have a dispute. That dispute is over whether she should have just assumed that if the CIA talks prospectively about something, she should assume that meant they were going to do it. Goss has pointedly refused to weigh in on whether he thinks the CIA should inform Congress after they’ve tortured (or god forbid, before, like the law usually requires) that they’ve done so; he equally refused to weigh in about whether he’s bothered that CIA apparently didn’t do so in that briefing on September 4, 2002. So Goss and Pelosi have a dispute, but it’s not the one FactCheck makes it out to be.

As to the other Republicans? They weren’t in the fucking briefing, so who cares what they say? Anything they’d be saying would simply be irrelevant at best or grandstanding at worst. But FactCheck willingly makes itself the tool of such irrelevant grandstanding, all so it can proclaim a verdict that is not, in fact, the dispute at issue between the people actually in the briefing.

23 replies
  1. JohnForde says:

    I have had one experience with Factcheck.org & I will not forgive them. I spoke to FC editor Brooks Jackson about GWB’s time AWOL from the TANG. I pointed Jackson to the smoking gun, GWB’s annual officer evaluation for 1973. It states, “Lt Bush has not been seen at this location” for the year. FC published a report saying there is nothing to the AWOL rumors even after having been pointed to this smoking gun.

    FACTCHECK.org is worse than worthless.

  2. randiego says:

    Zing!

    IIRC, factczech.org gets some things wrong, not that I ever go there. I had a winger co-worker sending me stuff from there before the election, which I had to patiently explain to said winger that the “fact” hadn’t been “checked” properly. (It didn’t do me any good… that’s an hour I’ll never get back).

  3. phred says:

    Maybe we are misinterpreting the name FactCheck. It is not an org devoted to checking on the verity of a fact, but one devoted to stop it in its tracks, preventing its forward progress toward truth. In other words, think hockey, not dictionary ; )

    • MadDog says:

      …Maybe we are misinterpreting the name FactCheck…

      I think they are ones under the misinterpretation. Truth in packaging would require they be call NoFactCheck.org.

    • jzap says:

      In other words, think hockey, not dictionary

      Unless the facts have the puck at the time, that’s gotta be a two-minute penalty for interference!

  4. maryo2 says:

    reporter: Did the CIA tell her?
    Porter Goss: My understanding is that she should have understood.
    reporter: So, did the CIA “tell” her?
    Porter Goss: Again, my understanding is …
    reporter: So, that a “No” then?
    Port Goss: lalalalala I can’t hear you.

    Joe Miller: As you see from the exchange above, the CIA claims that bananas frequently collapse when being shoved up one’s ass.

    (makes as much sense as the actual article)

  5. MadDog says:

    Bob Graham has an opinion piece out in the St. Petersburg Times:

    Keeping intelligence focused on the future

    …The controversy over “enhanced interrogation techniques” demonstrates that this relationship of mutual respect and sharing of consequences has shattered. Indeed, the CIA’s calendar of legislative briefings indicates that even the appearance of congressional notification occurred after waterboarding and other extraordinary methods of interrogation had been in use for weeks…

    …The CIA needs to improve its records management system. The imbroglio over dates of interrogation briefings is not the first instance in which CIA assertions of certitude were contravened by my own records. I learned from my father to keep a detailed daily log of my activities. From my collection of spiral notebooks and my schedule for the dates in question, I confirmed, and the CIA concurred, that three of the four briefings I supposedly attended never occurred.

    An individual member of Congress should not have better records than the nation’s premier intelligence agency. Congress and the CIA might start by establishing a practice similar to that required of publicly traded companies: keeping a transcript or at least detailed minutes of every classified briefing, with the documentation materials contemporaneously circulated among all participants and signed as having been agreed to or specifically dissented from. This would help prevent incidents of conflicting memories of an unrecorded briefing years earlier…

    • dosido says:

      speaking of record keeping, it just struck me how ironic it was for Obama to deliver his speech from the National Archives!

  6. esseff44 says:

    AFAIK, none of the members who were briefed have said that he/she was informed that AZ or anyone else had already been subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi says that the only mention of it was to say they were not doing it.

    There is no real conflict between the different versions as the press claims. The use of tenses is important.

    Does anyone think that the CIA clearly laid out in a briefing that they had already watered boarded AZ 83 times before the techniques had been cleared by the OLC and signed off by Bush?

  7. Ian Welsh says:

    factcheck.org gets their fact checks wrong all the time. People take them seriously because of their name, but that’s a mistake, they’re hacks.

  8. Phoenix Woman says:

    Factcheck.org, like most TradMed outfits, is addicted to “balance” — i.e., the craven fear of conservatives screaming “you’re LIBERALS!”, even once. So, in the vain hope that they might get the Cons to leave them alone, they make sure to pretend a good portion of the time that Both Sides Are Equally At Fault No Matter What The Facts Say.

  9. googlecashkit says:

    The controversy over “enhanced interrogation techniques” demonstrates that this relationship of mutual respect and sharing of consequences has shattered. Indeed, the CIA’s calendar of legislative briefings indicates that even the appearance of congressional notification occurred after waterboarding and other extraordinary methods of interrogation had been in use for weeks

    Google cash kit

  10. tejanarusa says:

    Huh. I really didn’t know much about FactCheck.org.
    I would say they have lost all credibility and expect them to ignored from now on, but if complete destruction of one’s credibility led to that result, then Dick(less)I’m-so-terried-Cheney wouldn’t be all over my screen these days.

    I knew grammar wasn’t being taught very well these days, but you would think people could tell the diff between present, past and future.

  11. eCAHNomics says:

    I see that Annenberg is behind factcheck. Don’t know much about Annerberg. Does anyone here know anything?

    • tejanarusa says:

      The foundation? Or an individual?
      Walter Annenberg was conservative, but I think he died. I only know they support some “liberal” organizations, and Kathleen Hall Jamison, who I THINK works for Annenberg Foundation, has always seemed reasoned, not biased when I’ve seen her on Moyers.
      That’s all I know.

  12. eCAHNomics says:

    So here’s an idea. Since factcheck is an Annenberg project, why not email all the trustees with a link to this post? That link does not provide their emails, only their names, so pehaps the “contact us” could be used.

    • tejanarusa says:

      Nice pic on that link. Apparently, although Walter has died, the foundation is still a family project. I’m betting Lauren Bon is a cousin or something. And Wallis Annenberg must Walter’s widow.

      Hamm. I wonder if they would respond to pointing out their grantee is giving the lie to its name….. Useful info, ecahn.

    • Funnydiva2002 says:

      Yup.
      Please be kind to us West Coasters, though, OK?
      We wanna be surprised and delighted in PDT…
      Funny Wheelie Diva

Comments are closed.