Once again, Wash. Times quoted GOP talking points to smear Pelosi
SUMMARY: A Washington Times article reported that Nancy Pelosi "did not attend the briefing" that Gen. David Petraeus delivered on Capitol Hill but did not note that Pelosi's staff reportedly said that the speaker had "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.
An April 26 Washington Times article reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "did not attend the briefing" that Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, held during his April 25 visit to Capitol Hill. The article noted that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) "said the speaker normally receives individual briefings," but then uncritically quoted House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) saying Pelosi met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, but "somehow can't find the time to meet with the American general in charge of our troops fighting the global war on terror." The article did not note, however, that Pelosi's staff reportedly said that the speaker had "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.
The April 26 article was at least the third instance in which the Times forwarded a Republican talking point attacking Pelosi since she became speaker of the House.
As Media Matters for America noted, in the days following House passage of a Democratic minimum wage increase in January, the Times repeatedly reported Republican accusations that the bill, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, showed favoritism to a company in Pelosi's district. The Times reported the Republican talking point that the bill exempted American Samoa from the minimum-wage increase because Del Monte Corp. is headquarted in Pelosi's district and owns one of American Samoa's largest employers, StarKist. In doing so, the Times allowed to stand the suggestion that Pelosi's support of this bill stems from Del Monte's interest. In fact, Pelosi -- and the Republican leadership when it controlled Congress -- supported several versions of the Fair Minimum Wage Act since it was introduced in 1999, three years before Del Monte bought StarKist. Each version included a wage increase for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands but not for American Samoa. On January 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 23, the Times reported the Republican accusations but did not report that each version of the Fair Minimum Wage Act exempted American Samoa.
Similarly, in reports on the use of military aircraft to fly Pelosi to and from her district, the Times reported assertions made by anonymous "sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration" to support the article's claim that Pelosi was "seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation." In fact, as Media Matters noted, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms inquired about the size of the plane for Pelosi for security reasons, and the advantage for security purposes of her having access to planes that could fly cross-country without refueling. A February 7 Times article cited "congressional and administration sources" claiming that Pelosi was trying to "get the big aircraft she wants." The Times claimed that one of the planes Pelosi was requesting was a C-32, a military version of the Boeing 757. In fact, as Media Matters noted, on the February 8 edition of MSNBC's The Most, NBC News congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that "no one here can confirm that she's actually asking for a 757." In a report later in the day, Viqueira stated: "[T]here's really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for ... this 757."
Further, in a February 20 article, The Tampa Tribune reported that House Republican Conference chairman Adam Putnam (FL), the third-ranking House Republican, "acknowledges he had no personal knowledge" of a purported request by Pelosi to use a military jet. Yet in the February 7 Washington Times article, Putnam was quoted saying, "Pelosi's request represents 'an arrogance of office that just defies common sense' and called it 'a major deviation from the previous speaker.' " As the Tribune noted in response to Putnam's assertion on Fox News that Pelosi's supposed request was "about an arrogance of extravagance that demands a jumbo jet that costs $22,000 an hour to operate to taxi her and her buddies back and forth to California," "[T]here's no evidence Pelosi requested any such thing."
From the April 26 Washington Times article:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, did not attend the briefing. Mr. Hoyer said the speaker normally receives individual briefings.
Mr. Boehner, however, criticized Mrs. Pelosi's absence.
"It is shameful that while our troops wake up every morning and courageously face death in defense of our freedom, the politicians in charge of Congress can't even find the time to meet face to face with their commander," the Republican leader said.
Mr. Boehner noted that Mrs. Pelosi met with President Bashir Assad of Syria, "a state sponsor of terrorism," but "somehow can't find the time to meet with the American general in charge of our troops fighting the global war on terror."
Another example of the "liberal media bias" I've heard so much about?
The Wash Times article is a P.O.S.
The last line bringing the final, insulting and off-topic blow to an article about about a briefing with Gen. Petraeus.
"Mr. Hunter also called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to resign because of his comments that the war in Iraq is lost."
As I've said before, the righwing collective mind continues to blatantly ignore and omit the first half of Harry Reid's sentence.
"As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost."
And no mention of the fact that John McCain also skipped the Petraeus briefing.
Irrelevant. Off topic.
John McCain is a senator from Arizona, Pelosi is third in line to be President as the Speaker of the House.
Not quite. John McCain wants to be President, and he's a huge supporter of the Iraq Clusterf*ck. This is pure hypocrisy on the part of the Troglodytes. But, that's nothing new.
Bush's most prominent Iraq war proponent in Congress is irrelevant? The member of Congress who now lays claim to the worst voting attendance record? The Senator who strolled through a Baghdad market under the escort of an entire company of troops with helicopters and then told us how safe it is? The Senator who musically jokes about bombing Iran? He is irrelevant?
(Interestingly, who's the only presidential candidate with perfect voting attendance? Barak Obama.)
He is irrelevant to this particular topic, yes. It is about Pelosi, not McCain.
And since the Speaker was briefed for half an hour by the general, the Times and Boehner engaged in something that can only be called "misinformation." N'est-ce pas?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the subject was Pelosi's absence from a meeting with Petraeus. Silly me how it seemed relevant that Bush's #1 Congressional warmonger wasn't there either.
Unless you can show that Pelosi was out on a date with McCain, then introducing him into this topic to apparently divert attention away from Pelosi's absence, may be a nice slight of hand.........but it is still off topic and irrelevant.
There's absolutely no need to divert attention away from Pelosi's absence, because she was privately briefed before the meeting took place and, therefore, there's nothing scandalous about her absence. Maybe you should explain to us why you object to Pelosi's absence at the meeting, and then you can explain how McCain's absence is off-topic and irrelevant.
Mind reader? Where did I say I objected to Pelosi's absence? I didn't.
Why don't you tell us why you attempted to divert attention away from Pelosi and onto McCain by introducing him to this topic unnecessarily? It's obvious that you are apparently uncomfortable with her absence, or why else would you bring up McCain? Nice, but feeble, attempt at projection there.........that's two failed attempts already today, want to try for a third?
"Where did I say I objected to Pelosi's absence? I didn't."
Exactly. Demonstrating once again your ability to post endlessly without ever putting forth an opinion. Let me rephrase the question: What is your opinion on Pelosi's absence from the briefing? And if you have no opinion, then why the flurry of posts on a topic that doesn't concern you?
Nice, but feeble, again, attempted deflection.
The reason for my post was in response to your off topic and irrelevant reference to McCain, and now you can't even defend it......next time, stick to the topic and stop derailing threads and you won't get called on it.
For the record, I have no issue with Pelosi's absence. But you must, as already explained.
Tommy, I agree that McCain's absence is not the subject of this post, but I think you're self-designation as "topic cop" has been as much a cause of the "derailment" of this thread as anything.
It seems like you have less and less to say of substance lately... so many of your comments are of this meta "why is this here" or "off-topic" style.
It makes you a less interesting interlocutor, IMO. But, again, whatever lights your lamp.
Val, Feel free to ignore any and all of what I post.......and your selective defense of off topic posts, particularly this set of posts referencing McCain, is noted.........from the "topic cop".
I am a proud proponent of topic drift.
I like to call it "conversation."
Take it up with the moderators then, many posts get flagged and deleted because of "drifting conversation".
So if McCain is truly off-topic then those posts will be deleted, right?
In my opinion, every last one of them.
And so when my McCain comment isn't deleted, your little authoritarian mind will be forced to admit that he was on-topic after all. Got it.
If the moderators do not agree it was off topic, so be it. I'd accept their opinion, I would just disagree with it.
And if you feel validated if it stays, also, so be it. You need it more than I do.
My opinion is that we should let moderators moderate, and that we should have a separate "meta" thread for discussions of this nature.
Digressions from a particular topic of media criticism into a different but related topic of media criticism I often find interesting. Discussions of whether given topics fit the mission statement or whether given comments are aligned with the terms of use are almost never interesting to me.
I would agree. A "free for all" forum.
An "off-topic" topic! Someplace I can talk about all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff I have been trying to shoehorn into other topics...
McCain's relevancy to the topic has already been explained to you clearly by others. You can keep insisting that I'm embarrassed by Pelosi's absence, but as I've already explained, I'm not and I have no reason to be. Pointing out the lack of coverage of McCain's absence was completely on-topic and completely relevant to revealing the double standard at work here. To use one of your favorite phrases, "If you can't see that, then I can't help you."
You are way off your game today, CC........."a topic that doesn't concern [me]"? So, are we now to be addressed by the moderators to prompt us into responding? Is that the new policy, because I haven't heard that.
Also, one minute you accuse me of objecting to Pelosi's absence, and the next post you accuse me of not having an opinion? Did you just lie on your first post?
This is not your day.
No accusation, just a simple attempt to get you to either sh*t or get off the pot. As I already pointed out, and as Val echoed above, you've posted 9 times in this thread and you have yet to write anything of substance. And now that you've admitted that you have no problem with Pelosi's absence at the briefing, it would appear that you're simply arguing for argument's sake.
If you would have retracted your original off topic post initially, after you were called on it, none of the subsequent posts would have occurred, now would they? So who is really responsible for the thread derailment here?
As for one liberal defending another liberal's post here, well, that is expected to prop up weak posts. You do it all the time, apparently needing the backup. Too bad.
No retraction necessary. It was entirely on topic, as has been explained to you repeatedly.
I don't see this as deflection, I see this as pointing out rank hypocracy. Pelosi didn't attend the meeting because she had a 1x1 prior, no need for her to get the same info twice. (In my job, that's called making the most efficient use of your time).
McCain was scheduled to be there, he was a no-show and we aren't hearing squat from the so called MSM.
If it was so darn important for Pelosi to be there in person, why isn't it important for the senior republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee to be there?
Not really Tommy, it is very relevant. McCain is running for President and the Times continues to spout out its hate toward anywone with a D next to their name for party affiliation.
Doris,
There are more than a dozen people running for President, their attendance or non-attendance is not relevant to this topic - despite some poster's insistence on it.
"It is shameful that while our troops wake up every morning and courageously face death in defense of our freedom, the politicians in charge of Congress can't even find the time to meet face to face with their commander," the Republican leader said.
The fact that Pelosi is criticized for not attending and McCain is given a pass makes this a perfect example of GOP and press hypocrisy. McCain is inherently relevant to this topic, since the GOPers are demonstrating selective outrage by ignoring his absence.
If you can't defend Pelosi's absence, fine. Introducing an irrelevant third party to this discussion is absurd. Or if you have no problem with Pelosi's absence, then just say so and leave it at that.
It's the whining, "they do it too........", that gets old.
No, it's the hypocrisy that gets old. If they criticized McCain for missing the meeting as well, then they might have a point. If being there face-to-face were that friggin important, then they should be criticizing him as well. But, we both know this is just another example of the lazy press parroting GOP talking points.
It's dishonest, disingenuous, and hypocritical.
Nerzog,
The point is the Speaker is a far more important attendee at these meetings than a rank and file member of Congress. I haven't, and won't criticize Pelosi's absence - I accept her reasons fully.
But to introduce McCain, I don't care if he is running for President, who isn't these days?, as some relevance to Pelosi is nothing but a cheap diversion tactic......and calling the poster on it was perfectly acceptable.
He is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While he is not as "important" as Pelosi, the fact that they rail against her for missing and don't even mention him is the WHOLE point.
Pelosi's absence has already been defended, you're simply ignoring it in order to hear yourself talk (or see yourself write). She was briefed privately beforehand. McCain was not. What part of that don't you understand?
Tommy
Nancy Pelosi was briefed previously. She is not leading the charge to continue this immoral war. McCain has been. Other than the Bushies he has been the leading warmonger in the Senate. It is relevant.
McCain must have been briefed during his afternoon stroll through the safe strees of Baghdad.
Uhhh..."streets".
tommy,
why did you post about the "off topic" post when there is a link right.... around... here someplace to report it? you can even put in the reason!
Glenn Beck and that lying sack of crap Huckabee repeated this bullsh*t on Beck's TV show. They have no shame. I guess they have to repeat Karl's talking points a certain number of times to get their bonus.