Something appears to have gone horribly, tragically wrong with the fifth update to this story. Did Glenn farm out the job of posting it to Halliburton?

From my history minor, I concur; but it is important to keep pushing the unremarked history to more people so that it can be understood, not just ingested and regurgitated.

However, for every Unclaimed Territory, there seem to be a score of Little Green Footballs; for every James Loewen, there are a myriad of Thomas E. Woods, Jr.; for every Jon Stewart, there a horde of Rush Limbaughs.

I'm here for intellectual ammo to break the cycle where I live and work. It would be nice for more people to join in to a fact based community.

If all these pundits are doing is offering their opinion, never actually reporting a fact, never taking a stand they can't deny later, why do they think they are qualified for their positions?

What are they supposed to be good at, having opinions?

With Tony Snows outright lie, the lie is not important. It is almost impossible in the political arena to "prove" someone lied, even in a court of law it is very difficult. (Which makes Libbys conviction even more damning) What is necessary is to COMMUNICATE the IDEA that Tony like many current day republicans, behind their noble and serious facade, act dishonestly with regularity.

That framing is all wrong. It's quite easy to show that someone lied. In court, it is difficult as it should be - to use the state to criminally convict someone, you need to go beyond a reasonable doubt.

But in the political arena, that is not the standard. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence. If an employee calls in sick and then I run into them that day on the beach, they lied to me. It may not standup in court - they may have all kinds of "explanations" that can put in reasonable doubt, but that's irrelevant for my purposes. In the same way, when Tony Snow "lies", he may be able to defend himself in court. But in the public arena, he is a liar, and we needn't hire him or his manager.

In the same way, when Clinton tried to parse "is", he may have had a legal argument. But the public should be able to identify a lie.

A lawyer friend of mine once said, "You can't make a cage for snakes. Don't even try." He also said, "A foot high stack of legal documents can't make a person behave honestly if they've made up their mind not to."

He's right.

You can say "the grass is green beneath my feet," and a person may decide to argue with you about it and try to qualify it in as many ways as can be imagined. They can call in expert witnesses, discuss the various meanings of the terms "grass," "green," "beneath," "our" and "feet" and even publish dozens of op-ed pieces in every major media outlet in the country. But what you can always do is look down at your feet and the grass and then look them in the eye and say, "the grass is green beneath my feet." You don't have to meet them halfway, or admit their argument, or question your sanity. You don't even need to call them a liar unless it makes you feel better. All you have to do is insist on the truth repeatedly.

Valerie Plame said she was covert. The CIA said she was covert. At trial, Fitzgerald said she was covert. The jury decided she was covert. An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert", therefore a rational mind concludes that she was covert. She was covert.

Update V - It has been salvaged in all its glory, and it comes from RudePundit, who - on occasion - I have thought is you. If not, you could fill in for him if he ever goes on vacation.

As you know the act is the IIPA of 1982 and Toensing says that she was one of the authors. And BTW a couple of years ago she was on TV with Bruce Sanford and they bothed claimed to have authored this act. Sanfords resume doesn't list any government work.

Fact: Toensing didn't arrive in DC until 1981 and went to work for Sen. Goldwater. Her resume contends she was Chief Counsel for Goldwater, but her resume states she graduated from law school in '75. Pretty fast rise for a young lawyer isn't it?

Fact: The bill for the Act was introduced in the House in Jan '81 and Senate Feb. '81. Wouldn't that mean the bill was written before those dates?

Fact: Goldwater was not the sponsor or even a co-sponsor of the Act. Toensing worked for Goldwater at the Senate Select Committe for Intelligence. That committee was not directly involved with the bill. It was Senate Judiciary & Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism.

Fact: It was the House bill that went to the President, not the Senate bill.

I have seen her represented as "one of the main authors" and she has used this to feed the public BS but I can't see how, unless she was in more then one place at a time, she was not one of the authors. And BTW her resume doesn't say she was an author of the bill, but helped win passage of it.

As you can tell I haven't liked the woman for a long, long time. Maybe my reasoning is all wrong, if so just let me know.

Well, I'm definitely rude, but I'm no pundit. Thanks for fixing the update.

Minor typo in Update IV: You misspelled Glenn Reynolds' name.

"The list simply would not have been complete without a contribution from the Virtuous One."

Wasn't it the Virtuous One who said something to the effect of (and I'm quoting from memory in all it's steel-sieve glory), "Being a hypocrite is better than having no morals at all," or somesuch?

Anyway, hey, Bill, what was the over/under in Vegas on Plame being covert?

No kings,

Robert