ABC's Tapper, Politico's Allen -- citing "juicy" issue for GOP -- didn't mention Pelosi's attempted meeting with Petraeus
In an April 24 ABCNews.com article, in what ABC characterized as "Breaking News," ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "will not attend" an April 25 briefing on Capitol Hill with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, but noted that a "Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out," and that Pelosi and Petraeus had spoken on the phone for 30 minutes. However, when Tapper reported on this matter on the April 25 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, he stated only that Pelosi "spoke to Petraeus on the phone for about half an hour yesterday and was briefed that way." Tapper made no mention of Pelosi's request for "a one-on-one meeting," as he had the previous day on the ABC News website.
Additionally, in the April 25 edition of his "Politico Playbook," Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen cited Tapper's April 24 article in writing: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given the beleaguered Republicans an issue so juicy that GOP aides tell the Playbook they can't believe their good fortune." Allen wrote that Tapper quoted a "Democratic aide" saying that Pelosi "spoke with the general via phone today at some length." He did not mention Pelosi's reported request for a one-on-one meeting, nor did he note how long Pelosi's conversation with Petraeus lasted, as reported by Tapper. Allen went on to quote from several emails sent by congressional Republicans attacking Pelosi for not attending the Petraeus briefing.
From Tapper's April 24 ABCNews.com article:
As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill -- which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest -- Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.
ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.
"She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length."
A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation lasted 30 minutes.
From the April 25 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
TAPPER: Also on the Hill today, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is here to brief lawmakers on the status of the troop escalation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not be attending the briefing. She spoke to Petraeus on the phone for about half an hour yesterday and was briefed that way. Petraeus will be making the case to lawmakers that they need to give the surge time to work.
From Allen's April 25 "Politico Playbook":
A 10 ON THE TALK-RADIO RICHTER SCALE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given the beleaguered Republicans an issue so juicy that GOP aides tell the Playbook they can't believe their good fortune. ABC's Jake Tapper broke the news last night, setting off a memorable after-hour scramble among House aides. "Pelosi Won't Attend Petraeus Briefing": "As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill -- which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest -- Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation. ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not attend the briefing. 'She can't make the briefing tomorrow,' a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. 'But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length.'" The Republican statements cascaded into reporters' "in" boxes: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the decision "shameful." Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, called it an "insult" to "American servicemen and their mission." A top GOP aide said: "This will rally our base tremendously -- and we need rallying." A Democratic strategist close to Pelosi expressed exasperation with the Republicans: "Members who are briefed regularly tend to skip those because you're so up on things you learn more from leaks in the paper."
Shameless. Keep your eyes open. The troglodytes are maneuvering so that they can blame the Democrats for Bush/Cheney's disaster in Iraq.
Also, be sure to watch Bill Moyers' upcoming special. From what I've read, it pretty much demonstrates how the White House manipulated the pre-war propaganda that led us into this rathole. Look for fabricated attacks on Moyers from the usual suspects...
The right-wing noise machine is already at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOAIogyK0eI
There ya go. I guess it's okay for tax dollars to fund pro-war propaganda, but not the truth.
I wonder if the Moyers special will include the lies the Clinton administration told about Saddam having WMD and ties to al Qaeda.
Did I miss something? When did the Clinton Administration invade Iraq? And since when did Bush&Co. ever act in response to anything the Clinton Administration said or did, other than to contradict, contravene or countermand?!?
The Clinton administration said Saddam had WMD and ties to al Qaeda. The UN said more than 500,000 Iraqi children under five died due to sanctions, sanctions that were in place because Bill Clinton lied about Iraq having WMD. Bill Clinton also launched a preemptive strike against Iraq in 1998 to take out Saddam's WMD programs. We now know that Clinton lied because Saddam had no such programs in 1998.
Surely, Moyers will cover all of that. He's not a partisan, right?
You have to show that Clinton knew Saddam had no weapons at the time, if that is the case.
He has already been spanked on this a couple of times. At this point its that vain conservative fantasy that if he says it OFTEN enough it will magically become true.
I saw that, I got a good laugh when Kevin was talking about how he "wiped the mat" or some such with you in that debate. You and Loonz smacked the hell out of him, in all reality.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, called it an "insult" to "American servicemen and their mission." A top GOP aide said:
I can just picture the troops now, pouty bottom lips pushed out, tears welling up in their eyes, as they hear the slap-in-the-face news that Pelosi took a phone briefing in lieu of attending this meeting.
I don't think it's Pelosi who's insulting the military.
Bush's toadies certainly have a low opinion of our military.
"pouty bottom lips pushed out, tears welling up in their eyes,..."
Where's the bobble headed rage at describing our troops that way? Oh, yeah, IOKIYAR...
That "pouting lips" quote is so ridiculous it almost has to be sarcasm or parody. If that's genuine sentiment, that's someone who needs to be slapped upside the head pronto.
Or did you not mean to paste the "A top GOP aide said:" part?
I see it now, my error.
OOps, my mistake- I pasted an extra few words, those were my words about the hurt feelings.
Sorry!
I should have figured that, I read the quote but forgot that "A top GOP aide" immediately followed it. I should have checked.
That makes much more sense now!
Ah, Lefty, don't you know our troops are all doe-eyed girly-men? They'll all have to loosen their corsets and take to their cots when they hear about this.
Yes, they face death every day, but are reduced to mounds of quivering jello when they find out that the Democrats are being mean to Puddinhead George.
"This will rally our base tremendously -- and we need rallying."
I think that base he's talking about is as rallied as they're ever going to be.
Just a bunch (is 30 % considered a bunch?) of dead-enders who've yet to realize they're in their last throes.
They may not seem too fired up, but that was before "A 10 ON THE TALK-RADIO RICHTER SCALE!"
Sensitive little scale, that one.
Too right! I farted and it registered a 12. Of course, I did have Taco Bell for lunch.
Great. That's all we need is another Klan rally at the capital.
This is a juicy issue? It's so damaging that Repubs can't believe their luck? Ohhh-Kay then.
Desperation is the world's worst cologne, and these guys are bathing in it.
I like that cologne quote. Any attribution, or can you claim credit for that gem?
It's not mine, but I put in the bathing part.
It's a shame I'm off work this week. I'll miss my head-in-the-sand co-worker strutting up to me with another swing and a miss right-wing talking point on this issue.
WINGNUT: "Hey, did ya hear how pelosi didn't want to take time to talk to that general guy?"
ME: "Did you hear how she asked him for a one-on-one meeting in place of that group briefing and that they talked on the phone for a half hour?"
WINGNUT: (looking at floor) "Oh. Well,anyway they're ALL just a bunch of crooks anyway." (laughs)...(pauses in obvious concern as he realizes he's just had another thought before blurting) "Why should I have to pay so much in taxes to pay for a bunch of illegal immigrants anyway?"
He still hasn't gotten back to me on that Logan Act.
I've got one of those co-worker, too. I can count on him to pretty much repeat Rush Limbaugh's crap on a daily basis.
Hey Jscott,
I think we work in the same place. I have the same guy with the same Fox talking points.
This is a perfect example of how the Republican Fibbing Machine works. They know it's a lie, but it benefits them politically, so they keep repeating it. Even after it's been thoroughly debunked, they will still repeat it. They are shameless, sociopathic liars.
If the symbolism of attending the briefing in person is so important (in spite of the fact that she got the information she needs ON THE PHONE), why doesn't Puddinhead George attend the funerals of our fallen soldiers?
Uhhh... sorry Jeb,
You may think that "we need rallying", but what you and all Americans really need is honesty.
Honesty Jeb - something you haven't seen from Duhhbya, Dick and the Dogmatics for more than six years.
Dick and the Dogmatics
Their first album rocked.
Hey HBL
When I made my comment below, I responded to the last comment on the page. I should have gone to the next page. I'd have seen yours and would not have stepped on your joke with my pathetic attempt at humor.
Stepping on my jokes is often the merciful thing to do.
I saw Dick and the Dogmatics open for Hendrix in 1968. They sucked back then too.
They did a hell of a cover of "shotgun" though.
I can't wait to hear the NeoClowns go ballistic when they see the U.N. report that the surge IS NOT WORKING!
It's quite simple...this is why they've spent so much time and money to discredit the press and the U.N. That way, when either of these entities point out the stupidity of their policies, they just throw up their hands and say, "See, I told you so!"
Quite clever, really.
Where there is cleverness and charm there is rarely depth of character.
And we all know that honesy didn't make the official list of "family values".
That should be "honesty".
This strange glee in gaining political (or power) points because of some meeting protocol is why ALL Americans, of ALL party affiliations are dying in a war. Get to the big picture, you small minded propagandists.
Last week, House Democratic leaders were criticized by their Republican counterparts when they initially declined an invitation from Petraeus to brief House members on the status of the war due to "scheduling conflicts," as first reported by Roll Call.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the decision "irresponsible" and said it constituted a "dereliction of duty." But by the end of the day, Pelosi's office changed course and scheduled a briefing for members of the House for Wednesday, April 25.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=3075560
Just curious why Pelosi will not be able to attend the meeting her office scheduled for April 25? I've re-read MMFA's article & the links and no reason was given. Why didn't her office simply schedule the meeting on a day she could attend?
Anyone know?
Her "San Francisco Values" don't include rescheduling.
Oh, no, wait, I know...
She's having daily face lifts until further notice.
Oh, no, wait, I know...
She's attending a NAMBLA retreat.
Oh, no, wait, I know...
She's too busy flying non-stop
Oh, no, wait, I know...
</sarcasm>
I noticed that too, I'm curious. At the same time, I don't understand the motivation for her to avoid a briefing personally or for the House in general. The only thing that changes that is if Petraeus says that there was no effort to schedule a one-on-one meeting or that the phone briefing didn't actually occur. Otherwise, she clearly is making the effort to get this information.
Perhaps too many other people would have to miss it if it was on a day she could attend and/or she thought she probably was going to be free today and it turned out she wasn't. That would explain the hesitation last week, so she could verify her schedule, but when the dogs started barking about it she scheduled it hoping for the best.
Perhaps too many other people would have to miss it if it was on a day she could attend and/or she thought she probably was going to be free today and it turned out she wasn't
Sounds plausible. I'm just curious why her office didn't state the exact reason. It just would have sounded better than the unspecified " she can't make it", and might have given her detractors less to rant about.
It could be personal. If they could have just as easily explained it as saying "she can't make it", then they certainly should have done so, certainly.
Breaking news: McCain skipped the same briefing because he thought campaigning in new hampshire was more important!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/25/mccain-petraeus/
chirp, chirp, chirp...
If the briefing was for members of the House, there would be no reason for McCain to be there. He's not a member of the House, he's a member of the Senate.
He's also the senior republican of the armed services committee. As the article points out,
"McCain is the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Traditionally, the Armed Services chairman and ranking member have held separate meetings with senior military officials like Petraeus."
Sounds like a skip out to me.
According to the article, Patraeus is also scheduled to brief the Senate.
Is McCain second in line to the presidency?
Did you forget Darth Cheney? Is Pelosi perhaps your target? Is she normally called "third in line" behind the Pretender, Bungle, and his consort, Darth?
Why are the GOP constantly using the 'support the troops' phrase?
The answer is because they don't have the stomach to say 'support the war' which should be the correct phrase to use in justifying their policies of stay the course.
This twisting of 'support the war' to mean the same as 'support the troops' ought to tell the People of the United States that the GOP don't even believe in their stay the course policy because if they did they wouldn't have to hide behind the 'support the troops' phrase.
Truth be told the GOP messed up by hoisting Bush into a position of power that he shouldn't even be in and the GOP knows it. We are sunk.
The real story should be why the hell David Petraeus couldn't accomodate the Speaker of the House when funding of the troops under his control in Iraq hangs in the balance, Petraeus should have been camped out at Nancy Pelosi's office instead of just talking to her on the phone.
I SEE THE MEDIA ARE TELLING THERE LIES AGAIN!!! I HOPE EVERYONE WILL WATCH BILL MOYERS"BUYING THE WAR" TONIGHT ON PBS.WHICH WILL TELL HOW THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA SAT BY AND DID NOTHING TO STOP THIS WAR BY NOT DOING THERE JOB.
You mean the PBS show that Sean Hanitty has preemptively denounced as "hate speach"?
How about I premptively label everything Hannity says as moronspeech
The reason Americans are dying in conflict is because we are at war. A very rich middle east madman has exploited the weaknesses of the Islam religion in an effort to destroy Western Civilization, exterminate the Jews and subjagate the rest of us.
The fact that Reid/Pelosi & company don't seem to understand that basic idea is chilling. From their public statements, they seem to think that the war on terror is a political game that they can play to some sort of advantage to their political aspirations.
Presently, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism is Iran. By taking the battle to their doorstep, the Iraq invasion has effectively changed the focus of the terror conflict from the defensive (for us) and put Iran on the defensive. The long term result of Bush's strategy, if the present regime is even able to hold on in Iran, is that they (Iran) will not be able to export terrorism.
Except that madman WASNT in Iraq and he and Saddam were enemies. What you seem to be saying is you buy into the incredibly dumb talking points that A) it makes sense to fight a war against Muslim extremist terrorists by invading the most secular country in the region and B) that we decided to fight a war against Iran by invading Iraq. OK. Just dont expect those of us with an actual understanding of the issue to take this tripe seriously.
Your "flowery' prose wants to set the stage for a war with Iran. As you say, we are on their "doorstep". What do you propose we do, sitting there with a military that has been depleted by years of being in the middle of a civil war? Do you have any sense of history other than US History?
Do you remember the bloodiest war of the 20th Century? And no it wasn't World War II. It was the Iran Iraq War in the 1980's. Do you have any idea what war with Iran would entail?
And one final question, when will you be shipping out?
Solon;
I don't care if you take anything I say seriously. You already have your mind made up, its closed.
We're not fighting a war against Iran. We're fighting a war against religious terrorists that Iran happens to support. That Saddam was also a terror exporter is fact. That his pile of sand is next to Iran means that with us there they will not be long able to continue to export terror. So, we get two (three counting Gaddafi) for the price of one.
Actually its just that I know what I am talking about. Take the paying the families of suicide bombers like Saudi Arabia, an ally also does. WHAT international terrorism was Iraq sponsering AFTER the 80's when he was our ally? Because I read Tenet say that they had NO evidence of any Iraqi involvement in INTERNATIONAL terrorism not regional against Israel, in a decade, actually since the attempt on Bush sr in 93. If YOU know more than the CIA then you are wasting your time here. Contact them and explain your vast intelligence resources in this area and help them mend the errors of their ways. Again if we are fighting Religious Extremist terrorists how in the world did it make sense to invade the most secular Islamic country in the middle east?
Solon;
Besides, the most secular country in the region is probably Israel.
No secularism was a base value for the Baathists. An Israeli professor sued to have his identity papers change his identification from Jew to Israeli and their Supreme Court denied him. Religious political parties are very influential in Israel. Their government says Israel is the country for ALL JEWS, both in Israel and the diaspora. That is defined religiously. So no. Israel is certainly freer. It is certainly NOT more secular than Iraq WAS.
Solon;
I count terrorism against Israel as terrorism. Saddam was reportedly paying $50K to families of slain Palestinian terrorists. The fall of Saddam has changed the mideast for the better irrevocably. While the government of Iraq was 'secular,' its people are mostly observant Muslims. Polls I've read say the people of Israel, while they may have an avowedly religious government, are largely agnostic and are not observant Jews. Iraqi society was not secular, Israeli society is.
Saddam was secular, though he claimed to be a devout. Like bin Laden, he exploited the weaknesses of Islam to his advantage, and to the detriment of the people of his country. Like bin Laden, he was just a thug.
A question: Do you think that these radical Islamists (since you object to the term 'Islamofacists') pose a serious threat to The United States?
I deny we have changed the middle east for the better we have radicalized a large portion of the area and destabalized it while pushing Iran, a country that was moderating toward the radical end. If it is SO objectionable that a country would pay the family, that is after the fact, of a suicide bomber, why didnt we invade Saudi Arabia, our ally, which does the same thing? Bottom line you cant establish that Iraq was STILL suporting INTERNATIONAL terrorism. WE supported the Contas. A proxy terrorist group for regional reasons, but if Iraq does it then it merits an invasion? There is no moral consistancy there. Your point about which is more secular is well taken but I stand by my interpretation that its the countries policies that best define this.
Oh yes. I think they are a huge danger. Our only disagreement there is HOW to fight it, and whether Iraq was in any way related to it. One of the many bad things about invading Iraq is we stopped going after the worlds worst terrorist organization BEFORE we rooted them out and destroyed them in Afghanistan to fight a more profit friendly war in Iraq.
"Saddam was reportedly paying $50K to families of slain Palestinian terrorists."
Actually, I think the figure was $25,000. It was Israel's policy that whenever a Palestinian suicide bomber struck inside Israel his family's home was bulldozed by Israel. Saddam would then send the family $25,000, as a purported "humanitarian" contribution, to reconstruct their home. It didn't matter whether the Palestinian family actually knew that the family member planned the suicide attack; their house was razed regardless. I am not commenting on the propriety of either the practices but merely stating what Israel's and Saddam's practices were in that regard.
Aside from Saddam's well-reported practice of compensating the families of Palstinian suicide bombers for the destruction of their family's homes, I have yet to read any credible evidence that Saddam conspired with, or otherwise provided support to, Islamic terrorism groups. Since Saddam was deposed US intelligence has revaled even more of Saddam's internal paranoid machinations to hold power and how weakened Iraq's military and economic situation had become. That Saddam would have cooperated or sponsored terrorist groups, like AlQaeda, committed to the overthrow of secular regimes in the region, like Saddam's, strikes me as extremely improbable. And, if Saddam had sponsored Islamic terrorist groups you would imagine that by now some credible evidence, other than flimsy conjecture, to support that notion would have emerged.