Fred wants to know about lies

In a post of folkbum-worthy length, RealDebate's Fred is complaining about lies:

I’ve had as much as I can take with the rhetoric coming from the left and the MSM in regards to the President, his Administration and anyone who has an R after their name. What we are hearing is a coordinated effort to distort the truth to the betterment of the Democratic party. They are being allowed to say pretty much anything they want because they are sick, tired and angry about being the minority.

Sometimes what you do not say is just as indicative of your lies as what you do say, we will look at this from a variety of issues and site examples of the lies coming from the left and the MSM.

First, I should tell Fred to check out Peter Daou, both from today and last week, as Daou seems pretty well convinced that the "MSM" is, in fact, rapidly spiraling the other way.

But Fred names a few specific cases. Rather than respond there, where the comments thread is already on tangents and growing relatively hostile, I thought I'd throw out some responses here.

• Fred: If you have read it once you have read it a thousand times. Undercover operative Valerie Plame. [. . .] This much we know. At the time of this “leak” Valerie Plame had not been undercover for at least six years. [. . .] What we find again and again is the Democratic Leadership and the Main Stream Media continue to perpetuate the lie that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative, they also ignore the rest of the story about Plame’s lies and the lies of her husband Joseph Wilson.
  
  They lie to minimize the perception that the leak was an honest attempt to question the since proven side of the story that Joe Wilson’s story, and the way in which he got this assignment were less than on the up-and-up. The leak may [have been] non-intentional, it may [have] been in bad taste, but it was not of an undercover operative.
  
  Truth: (Hey, if Fred can do it, so can I.) Newsweek reports,

  Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

  As for the Wilson's story not being on the "up and up" thing, I don't know specifically what to respond to, so I'll just send Fred here and here for some debunking of the notion that Wilson was not truthful.
  
  
• Fred: It has been argued time and again that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. That in itself is a lie.
  
  First, every major intelligence operative in the world thought Iraq had WMD’s, practically every major Democrat has been heard bloviating from the floor of the House or Senate at some point in their career about Iraq’s WMD’s and how Iraq could not be allowed to keep them. Of course they do not say that anymore that they deem in politically a dangerous position to take. Now they are running from the debate screaming Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied, all the while expecting us to turn a blind eye to their positions.
  
  Truth: I've said it before and I'll say it again: The argument about Bush and the WMD intelligence is not that no one but him believed there were WMDs; it's that by the time Bush was making his case to the 'Merkin people, the was new and credible intelligence to suggest that the WMD threat was not what we once believed it to be. The administration chose not to include the new information when it reported to Congress and the UN and other places about what Saddam supposedly had. For example, "It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House." The intelligence presented was flawed--Bush admitted it--but the greater problem is that they knew about the flaws at the time.
  
  
• Fred: I have said from the start of this that [Abramoff] will be a largely Republican scandal, however many Democrats will also be pulled into this. That is a fair statement, you will read no such thing in the MSM or hear it from any Democrat. They think this is a purely Republican scandal. Why? Because it fits their template. Just go ahead and ignore the Senate Minority leader he is nobody..... Right? Not if you are trying to perpetuate a lie of your own.
  
  Truth: What's the grand total of Democrats indicted so far? Zero. Republicans? Two. Even after the AP did its best to smear Harry Reid, for example, there is no there there.
  
  
• Fred: I stopped talking about [domestic spying] at RDW because the lefties were driving me nuts. They have the President tried convicted and impeached on this. The fact of the matter is we do not even know everything on this. You can not believe them though, vetting the facts and determining where powers lie they do not have time for. You see they have an election to win in November, no time for legality, just time to slime. This case is going to take years through the courts because the issue is not really about domestic spying it is about Presidential authority. As usual the left want all of that when they have the office and none of it when they do not. Does this necessarily show a lie, no. This does show an outrageous spin, and the MSM is going with it 100%.
  
  Truth: The president has admitted to breaking a law. Last time that happened, we had an impeachment trial. I'm not advocating for one here, but you can see how there would be a bit of an issue. Fred seems to be saying that the FISA law is unconstitutional, a claim that the administration just isn't making in court the way Fred seems to want them to. Republicans--like our own F. Jim--don't seem interested in holding hearings to really learn "everything." Their spin, in fact, seems to be kind of like sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending they don't see even the other Republicans expressing doubts about whether the program--spying on citizens without a warrant--is appropriate.

I didn't touch all of Fred's points--time and space limitations, and so on--but he also needs to recognize that even if reasonable people can disagree here about what the facts in evidence may mean, no one can argue that they are facts. There will be spin a-plenty from both sides, but to suggest that facts are the same is spin is ridiculous.