CNN trumpeted baseless accusation against Pelosi from "bombshell" Wash. Post editorial
On the April 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN International's U.S. affairs editor Jill Dougherty repeated the baseless accusation from an April 5 Washington Post editorial that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had, in Dougherty's words, "allegedly botch[ed] a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert" about Israel's willingness to begin peace talks with Syria. Dougherty called the editorial a "bombshell," and on-screen text during the report referred to a "'Pratfall in Damascus,' " the headline of the Post editorial. Although Dougherty noted that Pelosi's staff disputed the accusations in the Post editorial, she left out other statements Pelosi made at her April 4 press conference with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, which were reported in the Post's news pages. As Media Matters for America documented, those statements undermine the Post editorial's assertion that Pelosi "misrepresented Israel's position" by failing to communicate to Assad that Israel continues to demand that Syria cease its support of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah prior to negotiations.
In her report, Dougherty summed up the editorial and then noted the response from Pelosi's staff:
DOUGHERTY: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had barely left Syria when this bombshell lead editorial appeared in The Washington Post. Titled "Pratfall in Damascus: Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy," it laid into the speaker for allegedly botching a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which she delivered to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Pelosi told Assad Israel was ready to engage in peace talks with Syria. "Only one problem," the Post claimed. "That wasn't the message the Israeli prime minister gave her." On its website, the prime minister's office issued a rare clarification: "What was communicated to the U.S. House speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," it said. "Although Israel is interested in peace with Syria," it went on, "Syria is still a member of the axis of evil, and it must change its ways, including stop supporting terror in Iraq, before there can be peace."
Pelosi's staff fired back at the Post, calling the editorial poisonous. They said the speaker delivered a tough and serious message to the Syrian president that contained all of Israel's demands.
Throughout Dougherty's report, the editorial's headline, "Pratfall in Damascus," was displayed in quotes as an on-screen caption, with the subtitle "Israel Takes Issue with [Message] to Syria":
However, like the Post editorial, Dougherty's report left out key facts from other news reports on what Pelosi said about her meeting with Assad -- statements that support the response by Pelosi's staff to the editorial. According to the statement her staff issued, Pelosi told Assad that "in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah." And according to the other news reports, the speaker had, in fact, said she relayed those demands to Assad -- though they did not report that the demands were specifically tied to resuming negotiations with Israel. As Media Matters documented, the Post reported in April 4 article that Pelosi said "she conveyed a message" from the Israeli government to Assad that Israel "was ready to resume peace talks" and also reported that she had "reiterated U.S. demands that Syria stop the passage of insurgents across Syria into Iraq and stop supporting militant groups." Also, according to the Post article, Pelosi said she "brought up ... the seizure of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah." Several news outlets besides the Post -- for example, April 5 articles in The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- also reported that Pelosi and others in the delegation said they had demanded that Assad stop supporting groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the April 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX (guest host): And Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad today, one day after Democratic House Speaker Pelosi did the same. But Pelosi's mission is now coming under fresh fire. CNN's Jill Dougherty reports that Pelosi is being slammed over what critics call a bungled effort at diplomacy.
DOUGHERTY: Suzanne, Middle East diplomacy really is a minefield.
[begin video clip]
DOUGHERTY: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had barely left Syria when this bombshell lead editorial appeared in The Washington Post. Titled "Pratfall in Damascus: Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy," it laid into the speaker for allegedly botching a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which she delivered to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Pelosi told Assad Israel was ready to engage in peace talks with Syria. "Only one problem," the Post claimed. "That wasn't the message the Israeli prime minister gave her." On its website, the prime minister's office issued a rare clarification: "What was communicated to the U.S. House speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," it said. "Although Israel is interested in peace with Syria," it went on, "Syria is still a member of the axis of evil, and it must change its ways, including stop supporting terror in Iraq, before there can be peace."
Pelosi's staff fired back at the Post, calling the editorial poisonous. They said the speaker delivered a tough and serious message to the Syrian president that contained all of Israel's demands.
Even before this flare-up, President Bush had strongly criticized Pelosi's trip. Now, the State Department has weighed in.
SEAN McCORMACK (State Department spokesman): It sends the wrong message to Syria. They exploit these high-level visits for all the PR value that they're worth, and then they don't change their behavior.
[end video clip]
DOUGHTERTY: But Pelosi's office says the administration's cold-shoulder approach is yielding nothing but more Syrian intransigence. Pelosi thinks it's a good idea to talk with Syria, and she's not the only member of Congress who's traveling to Damascus. Republicans are going there, too. Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Jill Dougherty. Thank you so much.
Who is running CNN these days?
Bozo the Clown?
No, the "Corporate Media Oligopoly". That is why you need to back MORA to your Senators and Representative. Oh, maybe ask Rep. Hinchley if reducing the coverage maximums might even obviate the Fairness Doctrine.
You Lib's must really be squirming now. How are you going to defend Pelosi since she committed a felony by visiting Assad? I guess you'll explain it away like all the other crimes committed by democrats. Sandy Berger is roaming free. And whatever happened to William "Cold Cash" Jefferson? But back to Pelosi. Check out the Logan Act and let's see you defend Pelosi's trip to Syria. I can't wait.
"How are you going to defend Pelosi since she committed a felony by visiting Assad?" --dvdbooker
Could you please provide a legitimate link to a deeper explanation than you gave in order to give me a better clue as to what you are talking about?
Just search "Logan Act". Here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html
Now, before you, solon, neo, prag, HB, etc. come unglued and go off half-cocked, please take out your U.S. Consitution, read it and tell me where the Speaker of the House has the authority to conduct foreign policy. Then reply.
First, you need to establish where Pelosi is indeed "making foreign policy". She hasn't said anything contrary to the Bush administration line that anyone has noticed nor has she even criticized the President while she is over there.
If you have any evidence of that, please share, because I am missing it.
PS. I went to the site you mentioned and typed in "logan act". No results. I could have looked up the Logan Act myself, but I thought you were echoing someone else's more cogent argument and I wanted to see that link.
Also, even if Pelosi had said something contrary to the Bush Administration, it would be moot. As you noted, only the President (and/or his agents in the executive branch) has such Constitutional authority.
I think you have framed the situation stupidly to begin with. Even if Pelosi thought she had the authority to "make foreign policy" (which I seriously doubt) , she clearly doesn't have that authority. What exactly is your point again?
Geez, at least if you're going to give a link in an attempt to prove a point, make it a valid link.
like this one:
link
I read it. Nothing in Pelosi's actions would meet with the criteria required to prosecute her with the Logan Act. So once again, you're on the wrong side of reality.
I agree. There is no evidence that Pelosi or any other members of the delegation tried to interfere with Bush's diplomacy with Syria. Pelosi's message has been entirely consistent with the administration by all accounts.
Hastert could have indeed been tried IMO, but thank God Clinton had too much good political sense to do such a stupid thing.
I just google it myself and found a small article at wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act . It starts out by saying that the Logan Act is a US federal law " that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments." "making foreign policy" (as openmind thinks), isn't the criteria in question. It's the "authorized" part of it. The last I heard, Bush did NOT authorize her to go and negotiate with Syria. So, that does in FACT make it a felony crime.
Everyone knows it won't be prosecuted, and probably never mentioned again. But, like Berger, she broke the law and democrats are ignoring it.
And your EVIDENCE she was NEGOTIATING with Syria, not simply having a frank and open discussion with Assad is WHAT? I am betting you dont HAVE ANY. If you do then cough it up, if you dont show yourself out in disgrace for this weak attempt at a non point.
Read the Logan Act again and come back when you comprehend it.
I HAVE read it. I knew what it was long before this came up. Again you have failed to cough up any evidence that Pelosi was negotiating with Assad but have decided to continue to embarrass yourself rather than admit what we all know, YOU are a moronic propaganda parrot who only regurgitated what you heard from some other rightwinger and are now stuck with the fact you cannot back up your BS. Here is what the State Dept said about this issue in 1975
"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution
As I said earlier apparantly you dont know the first rule of holes when you find yourself in one STOP DIGGING. You also dont know anything about rhetoric and debate (hardly suprising since it requires higher brain function) Restating your premise doesnt make it any truer than the first time you baselessly asserted it.
Neo, You "open" mind and solon are in denial. There's nothing I can do to help you as you are all beyond hope. Good day.
No booker, YOU are ignorant and brainwashed beyond belief. You believe your delusional fantasies with no other criteria than you WISH it were true. Cough up the evidence that Pelosi was negotiating with Assad or admit that as per usual you are talking out of the dark, dank place in your anatomy that you use in lieu of a brain.
solon, you've taken projection to new heights.
No just average level perception I notice you DIDN'T cough up any EVIDENCE of Pelosi carrying out any negotiatons with Assad . Soooo, does that mean you are giving up your ludicrous, brainwashed, baseless accusations about felonies, or are you still baying at the moon?
Read the Logan Act again, solon. In fact, read it at least 5 times. No, for you probably 10 times. I just know it will start to sink in.
I have read it. I have pointed OUT the whole in your ability to show Pelosi violted it at least three times. So either cough up your evidence that Pelosi was carrying out negotiations with Assad or continue to do this demented Myna bird impressionation where you just keep repeating already rebutted and refuted nonsense making a complete fool out of yourself. Its all the same to me I already KNOW you are a moron. Perhaps you need to hire a five year old to read the Logan Act to YOU, explain the big words then read the posts to you and explain THOSE big words.
How are you going to explain away your baseless assertion without a SHRED of backup or even logic? What felony? As has been shown several times MANY congressmen have visited foriegn leaders, Hastert even tried to thwart Clintons policies in Columbia? You really need to back away from the kool-aid
Are you even vaguely interested in politics?Or do you just come here to wallow in petty,nasty vindictive stupidity?Ms Pelosi is doing a great job and has received praise from both parties for her efforts.Stop being such a small vicious jerk and give your fellow American some credit.
Loislip,
I know it's considered by liberals to be "petty" to point out someone in the democrat party committing a felony. There's Sandy Berger, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson and now Pelosi. It's pathetic how liberals make excuses for the democrat party and feel perfectly comfortable to sweep crimes under the rug. As long as democrats don't have to face the consequences, life if bliss.
What is petty, in fact lets call it what it is ignorant, is rightwingnuts CLAIMING without a shred of evidence that Pelosi committed ANY crime much less a felony for doing what Congress has been doing for the last two centuries.
What's really sad is liberals making excuses for corrupt, democrat lawbreakers like Pelosi. At least when republicans commit crimes, their colleagues go after them and they typically end up in jail or at least they're made to resign and I say "good riddance." Liberals and democrats don't have the integrity to do the same.
You have produced ZERO evidence of a crime. In your abject stupidity you are repeating the wishes of your propaganda parrot masters who TOLD you that Pelosi violated the Logan act. Since they knew they were talking to a brain dead, brainwashed moron, the base of their audience they didnt bother to back it up and you come in here pretending you have a trump card instead of having NOTHING except wishful thinking. When she is indicted for violating the Logan Act get back to us. Til then spare us your ignorance parading as IF it knew what it was talking about. You are simpy embarrassing yourself.
solon, It's said that brevity is the soul of wit. Why do you use so many words to say absolutely nothing?
You have plenty of words up here. Just in multiple posts making the same mistake over and over again. I guess to YOU it makes sense to spread showing how ignorant you are over a large portion of this thread. When are you going to cough up your evidence Pelosi was negotiating with Assad?
It would amount to nothing to a GOP-o-tron like yourself as expected, since you are in possession of a rented brain.
A felony? Sorry pal, in your dreams. Have you heard of the Google?
The Presnitt hisself 'reads' it when he's not clearing brush or out for a bike.
The FACT is that, as House Majority she is not a private person but the third highest ranking official in the United States of America. Therefore, it could not be a felony, even by definition of some completey arcane 17th century statute such as the one to which you refer.
Kind of embarrassing a Canadian had to point that out to you, I guess. But then, Cons seldom let facts get in the way.
Shouldn't you be off listening to HATE AM about now?
Pelosi's staff fired back at the Post, calling the editorial poisonous. They said the speaker delivered a tough and serious message to the Syrian president that contained all of Israel's demands.
I think the real question here is---Why is the United States Speaker of the House delivering Israel's demands?
"Why is the United States Speaker of the House delivering Israel's demands?" -Jeter2
1. The US Government is officially incommunicado with Syria. "Washington, which accuses Syria of helping destabilize neighboring Iraq, supporting groups labeled terrorist by the US State Department and interfering in neighboring Lebanon, has cut contact with Damascus since the February 2005 murder of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafiq Hariri." -- Source
The GOP delegation that went to Syria was critical of that "disengagement" policy as well. '"I don’t care what the administration says on this. You’ve got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican.' -- Source2
2. Olmert asked Pelosi to deliver the message personally. "The trip is Pelosi's second to the Middle East since Democrats took control of the House in January. Pelosi visited Israel before Syria, and Olmert has told reporters he asked Pelosi to carry a message to Assad that his nation will engage in talks with Syria if Syria backs away from its support of terrorist groups." --Source3
3. Of course, I am answering your question quite literally. I think you are really wondering why we appear to be carrying Israel's water here. The best answer I can give is that it is politically poisonous not to do so. AIPAC is tremendously powerful in regards to both parties. I don't think that will change any time soon.
Hey Open_Mind,
Actually it was #3: I think you are really wondering why we appear to be carrying Israel's water here
I understand how very powerful AIPAC is. I don't understand WHY they are so powerful. I don't understand how this lobbying group has managed to, along with Israel, basically dictate our Middle Eastern foreign policy.
Though Bush & Co. probably didn't need much prodding to invade Iraq, I believe Israel had a hand in that decision. Just like they are subtly & sometimes not so subtly trying to push us into taking on Iran.
I'm tired of the US fighting their battles, and carrying their water.
Of course I'm bound to be called an anti-Semitic by some for daring to express that opinion.
Perhaps that's how the AIPAC remains so powerful? Fear of being called an anti-Semitic if you don't do their bidding and Israel's?
Jeter,
Great response. I think you hit the nail on the head. Sorry, but I am a bit dense and I tend to read things way too literally. I think most decent people want to avoid being incorrectly labeled an anti-semite (which is a pretty terrible thing to be called IMO) and that censors a lot of the debate.
I am largely pro-Israel, but I think we should all look at their effect on the way we make policy and evaluate it honestly without fear of being falsely labeled anti-semitic. I also think we (the media and the government) try to hard to avoid criticizing Israel for the same reasons.
Because like the rest of Washington DC, she works for Israel, not the USA. Notice how fast her staff had to point out that she did as she was commanded. AIPAC is the LARGEST lobby in Washington and Pelosi's people just kissed up to that lobby hard.
We've lost our country. The Dems and Repubs sold it to Israel for a few campaign contributions. They're traitors.
The swift boating on this story involves Nance in the scarf, does Joe Sixpack need anything else but that? The complexity of she said, Wash Post said is enough to make me turn to Dancing With Myself for solace.
CNN fails to give a better picture of the situation. It appears that Israel Prime Minster's Office doesn't communicate very well and it appears they are backpeddling. Take note of this interesting statement from Haaretz's article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845904.html
The Prime Minister's Office said: "We have not intervened in the internal debate in the United States and we did not harm anyone. We simply announced what had taken place in the meeting [Olmert-Pelosi] on the basis of notes that are identical to those Pelosi has."
Haaretz has reported that Omert is admitting that his notes are identical to Pelosi's. But in the same Haaretz article there is a nice come back from Syria which is this:
Meanwhile, Syrian sources on Wednesday expressed their uncertainty that Olmert's statements were credible.
Syrian Information Minister, Muhsen Bilal, told reporters in Damascus on Wednesday that Israel needs to prove its seriousness in peace.
"If Israel is really interested in renewing negotiations for peace, it must declare this in a clear manner," Bilal said.
Take a close look at the following from the Haaretz's article because it is after this that Olmert drummed up the Clarification:
Syrian officials promised visiting U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to assist in the mediation efforts between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah over the fate of captured Israel Defense Forces troops, the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Thursday.
After the above statment how convenient of Olmert to write up a clarification on his website which can be found here
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2007/04/spokebur040407.htm
The very title of the article reads: Clarification from the Prime Minister's Bureau.
Note the dancing around where it says: Although Israel is interested in peace with Syria..."
But yet with slight of hand it is also saying the opposite. The Clarification is a knee jerk reaction to:
Syrian officials promised visiting U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to assist in the mediation efforts between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah over the fate of captured Israel Defense Forces troops
CNN is talking up a lot of nonsense because they failed see Olmert's double speak.
You know why this is a good thing?
Because George W. Bush is a lame duck president with approval ratings in the 30's, that's why. He's the head of a party that just lost both houses of Congress, as well as governorships and state legislatures.
All of which Assad knows, not living in a bubble.
Why should Assad worry about any position W has to take? He can just wait him out. He'll be gone soon.
Which is why the only diplomacy that does any good at all is from the party that will soon be in power. if THEY say "Listen, when we get in, things aren't going to change that much: the Democrats will still object to your ties to terrorist organizations etc." it has a chance of getting through.
That's why.
Boom.
And there it is.
Nicely put.
Let's see: MMFA has about 10 pieces today on the Pelosi trip to Syria, but not one mention in the last 4 days of Sen. Diane Feinstein's resignation from her chairmanship of the MILCON subcommitte where she had the opportunity to funnel tens of millions in contracts to two companies her husband was a significant player in. This is corruption that makes Randy Cunningham's pale by comparison. Could it be that MMFA is full of poney pucky?
That's because it is mmfa's job to note right wing criminal activity, NOT left wing! As many of the left wing posters will soon remind you, 'go to right wing bloggers to get that info'.
Either way, though, they will simply deny it happened and make up some kind of excuse for her behavior. After all, democrats can do no wrong in the eyes of a liberal. None will admit to any wrongdoing by fienstien. And, you will NEVER hear of any on this site.
Democrats can do no wrong in the eyes of a Liberal? Are you SERIOUS? My biggest problem with my party is that so many Democrats tend to demand ideological purity from it's candidates, to the point of forcing them too far to the Left to win elections.
It's REPUBLICANS who seem able to swallow multiple marriages, flip-flopping on Abortion and Gay Rights, etc. as long as the candidates are "repentent." Case in Point: Guliani seems very popular with the rank and file, despite the fact that he's basically a liberal Democrat on Social Issues, because he talks tough on terrorism and projects the right "image" on TV. No Anti-Choice, Anti-Gay Democrat is running for President- they exist, but they wont bother to run, because Democrats DONT overlook flip-flopping and phoniness for the sake of winning elections.
"ideological purity"? How about criminal purity? I don't care if they choose to support different issues as they want, but how bout they keep the criminal aspect of their power holding abilities to a minimum. The Cunningham example was a good one. Where is he right now? I tend to think similar circumstances need similar punishment. Unless, of course, democrats are giving her a 'bye' on this activity.
I keep saying it...Democrats are not liberals. They're as right-wing as the Republicans. They prove me right all the time. But their puppies have bought all the lies and worship their name brand orcs with the same fervor as the Republicans. Democrats vote to kill, vote to torture, vote to kick the American worker in the head every day. Only 10 Democrats voted against funding this damned war crime for another 2 years, the rest were eager to keep the murder going. And as you point out, this site will never say anything bad agaisnt a Democrat, even when they steal from their families. Blind party loyalty is definitely not a virtue, it's a defect.
And MY big problem with the Democrats is they try to hard to move to the right and pretend to be republican lites. I LEFT the Democratic party because they werent representing my liberal views. I guess that shows its a big tent with ideological diversity, they are the party of Dennis Kucinich and Harold Ford, Barney Frank and Zell Miller till he left the Senate
Actually I will just note it is COMPLETELY off topic and an attempted thread derailment. I get that you guys dont want to talk about how Olmert has admitted Pelosi did NOT misrepresent Israel as the rightwing press keeps LYING about it but that IS the topic of this thread.
How about we talk about the logan act again? You didn't seem to knowledgable on the subject, earlier, perhaps you went and studied a little. Have you figured out what felony she committed? Have you figured out that she did not have authority to do what she did? Doesn't matter what she did, or who she did it to, the act says the person needs to be authorized to do it. She was not. Openmind tried to defend her actions, but failed, now how about you try.
And, on your reply about democrats not being your party. Who do you vote for? Democrats or Republicans?
Did I really just read one of the most ignorant posters I have ever seen question me on how knowlegable I am? You NEVER know what you are talking about. Your substandard brain is capable of only two functions record and regurgitate. That crucial intermediate step, consideration, is far beyond any capability you have ever shown since it requires higher brain function. You come in here and repeat ad nauseam rightwing propaganda parrot talking points like a demented Parrot. I have read the Logan Act. Have YOU figured out yet ( what a laugh) why your dumb LA talking point is unsupportable? Besides the fact Pelosi has only done what Congress has been doing for two hundred years? What evidence do you have she was carrying on negotiations? If you have such evidence cough it up. IF you dont admit that as usual you dont know what you are talking about.
How I vote is none of your business but hey gump have you EVER voted? Did you notice that there are OTHER PARTIES on the ballot than R or D? I know in your Manichean world of incredible simplemindedness it is confusing to your understocked braincells that there is something other than black and white or Dem or Repub, but the real world actually often HAS more than two choices. If you EVER grow a brain you MAY realize that.
solon, Autopsychic just asked you a simple question and you went off on one of your typical "fly-off-the-handle", juvenile rants. Don't take it personally because you don't know anything about the Logan Act. You can't know everything. It would just be nice if you knew SOMETHING.
Just a simple question? Didnt seem that way to me seemed very condescending lets review
How about we talk about the logan act again? You didn't seem to knowledgable on the subject.
I am not taking insults from you guys and turning the other cheek. I know how much you miss the days when conservatives had the exclusive franchise on personal attacks. Those days are over, get over it. As for the Logan Act I have pointed out your lack of evidence of any negotiating with Assad half a dozen times you keep evading the point and repeating the mantra like the comitted propaganda parrots you are.
I not only OBVIOUSLY know more about the Logan Act than you on a bad day even if I had been on a week long drug binge I would still know more about, well virtually everything having to do with reality, than YOU ever will. Its not my fault you are a moron comitted to embarassing yourself
AUTOP:
Perhaps you have a memory retention issue or a learning disability and, if so, I apologise for what could be percieved as my mocking tone but:
1) Pelosi did not 'negotiate' with Syria
2) Pelosi is authorized as the Majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, the 3rd highest ranking official in the country, to engage in foreign policy discussion with any foreign leader in which she did not speak in contradiction to the administration's stated foreign policy.
Take your time, read it a couple of times and feel free to take notes.
I don't think anybody really likes Dianne Feinstein.
But what in the world does a potential scandal have to do with MMFA? In case you didn't notice, MMFA writes about the media. It's right there in the name. If there's been poor or inaccurate reporting about it, please say so.
Doesn't mmfa start many headlines with 'so-and-so covered this about repubs, but this group ignored it' or 'so-and-so's illegal activity ignored by mainstream media'. So, is it really the media coverage they are concerned with or the lack of anti-republican media coverage? Which would further the impression that honest media coverage is not their intent or demand.
Lack of balance. If you state something as fact, that is nothing of the sort, you need to be called out.
Don't help the trolls derail the topic.
Flagged for being way off-topic. I am sure MMFA will have a thread on this at some point. Hold your horses, guys.
Get your thoughts oraganized. MMFA did not do mulitple pieces on Pelosis trip to Syria, they did multiple pieces on media misinformation on Pelosis trip to Syria.
And you are complaining about ...what, exactly? Lack of media coverage on Feinsteins resignation? Lack of substance in the allegations by wing-nut media? Lack of note that Fedinstein is on a committe and the committe approves contracts not Feinstein unilaterally? Lack of coverage of how Cheneys "blind trust" has been exploding in value due to the Iraq war? The way wing-nut media when they don't have anything, just make stuff up?
I know Feinstein's deal was discussed on a thread a few days ago here. To your credit. NL207, I heard Rush say that her problems dwarf Cunningham and Wm. Jefferson's, and you actually only repeated Cunningham's name.Most cons would have mentioned Jefferson.
I still want to know why Jefferson can't keep his money where he damn pleases.
He wrote the Declaration. We should cut him some slack.
Stop looking at the man behind the curtain. NL doing the propaganda parrot duty of attempted thread derailment.
The investigation was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute, a non-profit organization affiliated with the liberal magazine The Nation. "This was a critique from the left," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, told Cybercast News Service. "These were left-leaning papers. The fact that she stepped down from the committee lends credibility to the charges."
Looks to me like REAL liberals are very much concerned about this.As a REAL Liberal I consider the Democratic Party to be right leaning.The Republicans are so far right these daze they're off the chart.
BTW,Since 1997, the House Government Reform committee has issued over 1000 subpoenas related to allegations of misconduct involving the Clinton administration or the Democratic party--compared to just 15 related to Bush administration or Republican abuses.You'll just have to excuse the Democrats enthusiasm in investigating Bush,given that he has been given a free ride up until the last election.
Should read..."A prominent Republican, Al Capone, once wondered the same thing".
I think Pelosi's trip may have been a good thing. Is it coincidence that the British troops were released at the same time she was talking to Assad? I may not like her politics, but she may have saved a few British lives on this trip.
The US released a high level Iranian diplomat that they had grabbed in Iraq a few weeks back. I think that's what triggered the soldiers release, not Pelosi delivering more veiled threats from the Israel Lobby.
not Pelosi delivering more veiled threats from the Israel Lobby.
You can't mean that in a 'negotiating' way, could you? After all, solon just spent a full day on a rant about how there is no proof she negotiated with Assad. It's funny watching him melt-down whenever (usually) he is proven wrong.
Just how dumb are you guys? I haven't been proven wrong. Far from it. Redking is speculating. I just demolished your weak accusation at Pelosi. Both of you came in here smiling like a five year old that just learned how to spell cat with the propaganda parrot talking point of the day. Loooogan Act. I asked for evidence she violated it. You guys furrowed your brows. Loooogan Act you repeated, you dont know what it is. Of course I do, I am a longtime political junkie. I remember when Speaker Jim Wright heard the same nonsense from cons when he went to Nicaragua, like I said earlier, because Raygun didnt like it. What is your evidence Pelosi was negotiating with Assad? Now you are like five year olds about to cry. Logan Act. We call Logan Act. You dont know what it is. WWWAAAHHHHH stop being mean we call Logan Act. The grownups have made clear what is necessary for your accusation about Pelosi violating the Logan Act will need to have SUBSTANCE. Now that is an important wordl. Look it up. Either cough up your evidence Pelosi was negotiating with Assad or continue to repeat the words Logan Act pathetically, without even ATTEMPTING to show such negotiations and show once again that you guys are WAAAYYY over your head discussing politics at this level. Here is a hint. Endless repititions dont make something true that wasnt true the FIRST TIME YOU SAID THEM. You do know you are piteous, dont you?
I'm not sure why that post got removed... maybe the guy who made it didn't like the responses he got. Among the responses that got removed was mine, which I want to re-post, because it's my opinion on the Speaker's trip to the Middle East, and that of other Congresspersons who are attempting to shore up U.S. Foreign Policy (much to the annoyance of the Bush administration and their many "media" hacks).
It sounds partisan to say it, but it's only the truth: George W. Bush's administration has it's many failings and failures, but Foreign Policy is maybe the worst thing they do, when they do it at all.
Now if you disagree, that's understandable I guess... but we should keep in mind that it's not our opinion, as Americans, that makes that statement true, but the opinions of the peoples of other nations, and throughout the world, that makes it true.
If this poll question was put to the people of the world:
"Do you think that the Bush administration's Foreign Policy is the worst U.S. Foreign Policy of any U.S. president in memory?"
...what percentage of the world's people (not Americans mind you, but all others) would agree with that statement?
Our present State Department is virtually worthless to the American People in making for the best possible Foreign Relations worldwide, and in this particular region, the Middle East, the State Department and Secretary Rice are nearly invisible.
And what makes that all the more tragic, is the fact that the Bush administration has engineered this occupation of Iraq (and recall Ms. Rice's role in that, as National Security Advisor), and continually pays lip service to the objective of creating a stable and democratic ally of the U.S., in Iraq...
...and at the same time does everything possible to alienate Iraq's ancient neighbors away from any constructive relationship to the U.S. (which is worse than simply irrational and absurd, by way of working to scuttle that potential ally, but is dangerous and deadly, to any and all U.S. interests in Iraq... in this administration's supposed ally, to any and all U.S. interests, including our Troops in Iraq).
Isn't this true?
So we have Congresspersons trying to fill the void in diplomacy, in U.S. Foreign Policy, a void made by George W. Bush and his administration, most notably Secretary of State and former NSA, Ms. Rice.
The transition of the administration of our Federal Government can't come soon enough for most of the American People, and these members of Congress presently making these diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, seem to me to be doing nothing more, than picking up the American flag and the American People, where George W. Bush has so negligently let it and them fall.
But they went to deliver a message for ISRAEL. Where's the US diplomacy you speak of? They were acting as messengers for another country!
I don't know what your problem is, and I don't care either... you want to post your comments here, go ahead, but stop attaching them to my comments please... I notice that to be some kind of 'modus operandi' of your's... you don't seem to post anyting that stands alone, but instead keep making these unconstructive negative expressions of anger and hatred (all of them reading exactly alike), and attaching them repetitiously to other poster's comments...
Stop 'stalking' me, ok?
Thanks.
if anybody caught malveaux' interview with the Syrian Ambassador, you would have witnessed one of the most deplorable examples of how Cnn consistently reinforces the Administration stance towards Syria. Malveaux interrupted the Ambassador throughout never allowing him to complete a sentence. It was disgraceful.Why CNN continues to receive a pass from many liberals is beyond me.
Just one more example of CNN's highly touted "trustfulness in reporting...Many may recall CNN extensively reporting on Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference on Zionism.( which Cnn described as an Holocaust Denial conference) The presence there of David Duke was given a lot of coverage. What was not mentioned was the presence of representatives from two ultra orthodox Jewish groups strongly opposed to the State of Israel. In Canada the CBC in contrast did point this out. Now months later one of the Jewish attendees had his home firebombed in presumed retaliation for his participation at the conference.CNN strangely did report on this(albeit very briefly) I am anything but anti-Jewish but am a strong opponent of Zionism and Palestinian oppression.It is galling to see the American Public so manipulated by the Media.It is also worth mentioning that Robert Fisk in his recent book on the Mid-East reports how Simon Peres and the Israeli Govt. refuse to acknowledge the Genocide of the Armenians by the Turks in order to maintain good relations with the secular turkish govt.Evidently holocaust denial is acceptable for some and not for others.
You must understand that Democrats are not liberals, they are conservatives, right-wingers. Almost Democrat politician will mouth the same catchphrases of "rogue states" and "war on terror" that the Repubs do. They support the military/industrial complex, the illegal occupation of Iraq and Palestine, the US chemical warfare against South American civilians. Real liberals are hanging out on Free Speech TV, Democracy Now or Counterpunch. All CNN does is sell war crimes to the masses.
CNN being given a pass by the liberals? And, CNN --along with Suzanne Malveaux-- "distorting" the [facts]?
At least, Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty are openly Republicans; even though they have been very disgruntled and critical of the Bush administration for quite a while, now.
But one of the best [line] that I've heard about CNN is that "...CNN has so many [people] pretending not to be Republicans." Please note the point of view did not state that CNN has a lot of Republicans. Nor did it state that there are few Democratics working at CNN. Those points of view are very obvious. You will know up front who is who.
But CNN has reporters and anchors who really, really pretend at all times not to be Republicans. WOW! They don't even pretend to be Democratics. Or, why not "fake" being a Republican? [I'm being sarcastic.] Instead, it's a lot of energy being wasted as they pretend not to be Republicans, conservatives/neo-cons.
Where do I place these anchors/reporters? Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, Dana Bash, Jamie McIntyre, John King, Barbara Starr, and John Roberts, to name a few. And almost all have this Washington [connection]. WOW.
Of course one of the problems with Pelosi's trip is that when the Dems get back in the GOP may well just sandbag the new presidents policies using this as an excuse to do the same...
In recent days I have seen the fruits of the media's labor after hearing several people say, "what is that stupid Pelosi woman doing over there?" None of the people who said this to me could speak intelligently on why she was there or who she spoke to only that she was stupid for being there. Another person I spoke with questioned why she wore the head covering, it was a tough sell trying to explain that she was being respectful to another countries customs. Then they fired back, "they aren't respectful of ours!" and I reminded them that we don't have to decend to their level. It is shameful how the Joe sixpacks and all the Sheeple have formed an empty opinion based on one liners from Rush and Fox.
When I hear the media say something or somebody is wrong I automatically assume the oposite until I have found the the facts for myself.
Now maybe I get it. The Bushites are angery that someone is trying the option of diplomacy in the region. This goes against the tactic of keeping Americans angry and thirsty for war. It's sick enough that these people think this way and even worse to broadcast it and spread more lies. In Google News they had a few different versions of media reports on this Pelosi story, the top on echoed the Bushite version and then there is this one:
http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=8122