It's not that the CBO analysis doesn't exist. It's that it was distorted by the media and GOP

[Christine Babineau]

When attacking the media and Republicans, we shouldn't say that the report they are distorting does not exist.

We should say that the report in question only analyzes infracstructure spending rather than the whole package. The media is saying that it refers to the whole package. Media Matters does not use the "does not exist" approach:

Summary: In numerous instances, the media have falsely stated or suggested that a CBO analysis of less than half of the economic recovery bill examined the entire bill, resulting in the false suggestion that the analysis, in the words of the Politico, "shows very little money will be spent in the first six or so months after enactment" of the recovery plan. But as the AP noted, the CBO analysis did not "cover tax cuts or efforts by Democrats to provide relief to cash-strapped state governments to help with their Medicaid bills." Six days later, some outlets were still making the false suggestion.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200901280018?f=h_top

As you can see, Media Matters speaks about the specific analysis, without claiming it does not exist.

Bob Somerby today notes:

Sorry, that was just silly. Those “non-existent findings” did exist; the findings just didn’t say “that most of the money in the stimulus bill wouldn’t be spent quickly enough.” Did the Journal misstate those findings? Next time, let’s act like grown-ups: Let’s hit them hard for their misstatements without engaging in scripted, Bozellian claims about what “doesn’t exist.”
http://dailyhowler.com/dh012909.shtml

Somerby criticized the media for lying about the contents as well as the "does not exist" claims.

Let me create an analogy:

Let's suppose Sean Hannity said today: "The Constitution of the United States calls for the execution of all men over the age of 60".

The Constutution referred to by Hannity would still exist. What would not exist is the made-up clause about men over the age of 60.

[Teaser]

1. Distinction without a difference.

Somerby is engaging in his usual whinefest over his long lost relevance.

If I say there is a report that says X, but there is actually a only report that says Y, then the report that says X does not exist.

[CreekDog]

2. brand new here and telling us how to criticize Republicans

you waste no time do ya.

[snowbear]

3. And she never replies to existing threads.. only the ones she herself creates..

.
.

What's up with that?

[Hekate]

4. She's very concerned, though.

.

.

:eyes: