FactCheck.org Adds to Their Greatest Hits

    tmmcarthy recently did a nice blog on FactCheck and facts.

    Here, I present the FactCheck.org Greatest Hits, then and now:

    (1) FactCheck September 23, 2004: "Kerry Exaggerates Cost of Iraq War" in pre-election ad. FactCheck says the war cost 'is still under $120 billion' whereas Kerry said it was $200 billion. Important information for the public from FactCheck....? By 2008 the cost of the war was extimated to exceed $3,000 billion ($3 trillion) and beyond by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist. Thanks for that fact check, FactCheck, it helped us a lot.

    (2) FactCheck September 26, 2005: Anti-war Ad Says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice "Lied" About Iraq.  FactCheck's covers all GOP posteriors here. Neither Bush, Cheney, Rice or Rummy ever told one lie. FactCheck covers Bush saying 'We found the WMD', Cheney saying 'We will be greeted as liberators', Bush again "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.." And who could forget Rummy "We know where they (WMD) are". Like a high priced DC lawyer, FactCheck defends the Republicans involved, NOT ONE OF THESE ARE LIES friends! My favorite non-lie FactCheck defense is the one for Cheney, who, before the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, said the 'we will be greeted as liberators' remark on the CBS show, Face The Nation.

    FactCheck says it's not a lie, as Cheney said he believed it was true. If he said he believed the tooth fairy would bring back, alive, all the Americans he and Bush sent to early graves that wouldn't be a lie either. It would just be his belief. Of course there were 'falsehoods', CNN listed 935 of them Bush and Co. made prior to starting the Iraq War. FactCheck didn't excuse all 935, just 6 big ones.

    (3) FactCheck July, 2012: FactCheck is defending Mitt Romney from ads by the Obama campaign over Bain Capital shipping jobs overseas. The facts are:

    1. Bain shipped jobs overseas.

    2. Mitt Romney owned Bain Capital.

    3. Romney never really left Bain, the millions are still coming in from the deals.

    Romney signed scores of SEC documents for Bain and relating to Bain, after he supposedly 'retired' in 1999, and myriads of other entities/funds invested in, owned by Bain, both before, during and after (1)

    How do we know Mitt's hands are clean on the job losses? Mitt said so. On a routine disclosure document to run for President! FactCheck:

    Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

    And FactCheck says "Making false statements to the federal government is a serious crime (under 18 USC 1001) carrying possible fines and up to five years in federal prison."

    Wow. So Mitt must be telling the truth, right? Republicans never lie, right?

    When they do lie FactCheck can tell us why they aren't lying, (see above).

    Anyway Mitt has the best lawyers so even if he WAS lying...define 'active role' or 'been involved in operations'...? Inactive role? In strategy, planning, administration or execution perhaps? 'Operations' is usually pretty low level stuff. A good lawyer could say this statement means almost anything, or nothing. When was the last time the DOJ investigated, indicted or sent a Presidential candidate to jail for violation of 18 USC 1001 anyway?

    Is FactCheck kidding or do they think we are naive morons?

    Did the statement say anything about 'profiting from'-no that is NOT relevant, pay no attention to where the money went!

    FactCheck also says Bain Capital was not a 'corporate raider', as some Democrats say, which FactCheck says brings up the image of a "ruthless Gordon Gekko character from the movie “Wall Street.” No, even though Bain bought companies and made millions running them into bankruptcy with loans they took out, and though that is exactly what corporate raiders do, it wasn't like the movies.

    Bain and Romney are off the hook on this one, FactCheck says the definition of 'corporate raider' is: "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a corporate raider is “one who mounts an unwelcome takeover bid by buying up shares (usu. discreetly) on the stock market.”

    You see Romney and Bain were not, 'not welcome'!

    Bain was 'welcome' according to FactCheck?  Except by the middle class workers who lost their jobs in the deals Romney made, while he walked away with millions in fees and dividends, taxed at 15%, if at all.



    They really need to change their name at this point, maybe it could be called loosegraspoffacts.com or whoneedsactualfacts.com. Thanks for the reminders!

    ..or trulyworthlessblather or HubristicHooey.org?

    HubristicHooey.org, I like that one, or maybe WeReportRepublicanTalkingPointsAsTruth.xxx

    There was a segment on NPR's "Talk Of The Town" in January 2012 discussing the accuracy of fact-checking sites. A writer for the Weekly Standard accused political fact -checking sites of being biased. The basis of his charge was that 74 of 98 statements deemed to be lies by politicians were from Republicans. That skew was deemed sufficient to document bias. The suggestion was that only bias and not actual lies were the cause of the lying disparity.

    The fact-checkers from The Washington Post's Fact Checker and Politifact were guests on the segment.  The WP Fact checker was proud of the fact that the number of misstatements were equally divided between Republicans and Democrats at the end of  his first year. Whether that equal distribution is statistically sound is open to question.

    Both fact checkers noted the difficulty in calling something a lie. 

    I think that both you and tmccarthy have done a service that like with all reporting, we need to double check the conclusion. We have to fact-check the fact-checkers.

    Thanks for your comment. What America needs more than anything, is more money checking, who is spending or 'donating' it, why, and what's in it for them, and a public who care to have a government that serves the nation, not the rich.

    What I found particularly shocking about FactCheck was the total absence of any mention that Romney was and likely is still receiving millions from all these Bain deals. It would take a law firm weeks of work and investigation, and a long signed statement to begin to pin down that Mitt was not 'in the loop' long after February of 1999, and likely still is today.  It might include language like below:

    (Did you, Mitt Romney, at any time after February 11, 1999, talk to, communicate with, email, approve, disapprove, indicate a preference-directly or indirectly, actively or passively, consult on, refer to, inquire on, discuss, converse about, or influence, any  Bain acquisition, strategic decision, executive action, investment, disinvestment, sale, purchase, loan, collateral vetting, with a Mr. (x,y,z,...) or anyone associated with them or Bain, or anyone who might have contact with them, or any officer, specifically Mr (x,y,z...) or any other employee or contractor who might do the same, or any executive, investor or owner of Bain or any of the 62? Bain funds, entities, offshore cut-out corporations etc).....

    Mitt has openly stated that he will back any play that his billionaire donors desire. Outsourcing will be the job creation plan. Unfortunately, the jobs created will be overseas.

    The Supreme Court has equaled the travesty of the Dred Scott case, and making with Japanese internment legal with the Citizens United case. I realize that there has direct effect on human flesh in the first two cases, but Citizens United has opened the door to buying elections and will cause suffering for many.

    Latest Comments