Postman reports that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will be in Seattle Friday.
The highlight of her visit will be a $1,000 a plate luncheon to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
This shows how different the Democrats are from the Republicans. Compare and contrast with President Bush, who is governing for the wealthy few, not for all Americans, and who charged $1,000 to be in his presence in Medina last year. The mere $1,000 entrance fee to get a glimpse of Speaker Pelosi is a bargain, and demonstrates that the Speaker makes it a priority to be accessible to all. It is clear that Speaker Pelosi is governing for all Americans, not just the wealthy few.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 11, 2007 07:38 PM | Email ThisSanFranTreasoNan will get off the plane and wonder where that famous bridge went. She's one of the beloved in the sister city and so her grand a plate is just her 'due'.... move along now, there's nothing to see here.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 11, 2007 08:54 PM(crickets chirping)
Posted by: Facts on April 11, 2007 09:08 PMI take it then that no legislation is of any value unless it hurts someone? And of course, the rich are worthy of being harmed, and corporations (which really are just entities owned by individuals), which provide the jobs and commerce that drives the economy too must be harmed before the legislation is deemed worthy? And you wonder why no one is sympathetic to your view points...
Posted by: Eyago on April 11, 2007 09:23 PMps--I don't support hurting anyone with the tax code or any other law, like Facts does.
Posted by: Michele on April 11, 2007 09:30 PM§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever she may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
If Republicans had any Ba*ls they would prosecute this bitch!
If anyone committed this felony would they get away with it?
I don't thinks so, where is the justice?
Any labor unions on board?
Posted by: Elaine on April 11, 2007 10:41 PMGotta love that 5 day work week!
Posted by: AHR on April 11, 2007 11:13 PMNaw I won't go! I have a better plan for my money! Heh!
Witch eh?! She can't hold a wand to me! I am stronger!
Hmmmm an idea... let me get the book... :D
Posted by: dcat on April 12, 2007 06:31 AMThe hypocrisy is deafening.
I am still waiting for a bush lover to name one piece of major legislation he signed into law that helped regular Americans, but hurt the top 1% and large corporations.
Eyago, you don't get the point. Think hard... Michele = dead pathetically wrong.
HW = see above.
PC = all you can do is namecall? Figures.
Elaine = Influencing legislation affecting workers in your district is bad right?
AHR = 5 day workweek. Unheard of looking back.
pbj = If someone wants to protest, why don't they throw pies at the person that just extended the tour of every single army soldier in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months. Now that would be a statement. 3 extra months being sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war. Just waiting for Bush to make another dozen mistakes, and miscalculations. Don't worry troops. Things are getting better there right? Just ask McCon as he strolls through a market surrounded by 100 soldiers 2 Apache helicopters, and a gunship..... Oh by the way, the Iraqis that sold rugs to the cons have probably just been killed.....
(crickets still chirping)
Posted by: Facts on April 12, 2007 06:48 AMBesides this, there is the rich able to buy energy credits in exchange for more heat and air conditioning, etc. etc.. The Ds are for this type of class warfare.
$1,000 is not that much anymore when two working adults may make $150k or more per year. Bush has created quite a middle class with his tax cuts (oops, middle class is rich class in Democrat 130).
Posted by: swatter on April 12, 2007 07:07 AMdo some homework, go to the IRS website and tell us what percentage of the total US tax receipts is paid by the top 5% of earners. Then come back and post your emotional drivel.
Posted by: dan on April 12, 2007 07:31 AMHer recent traitorous junket is proof that she is no patriot.
Posted by: jeffro on April 12, 2007 07:33 AMHer recent traitorous junket is proof that she is no patriot.
Posted by: jeffro on April 12, 2007 07:34 AMShe had no more right to go over to Syria and act like a diplomat than I do. If she broke any laws, she should be prosecuted as I would be.
Posted by: Easycure on April 12, 2007 07:44 AMThe problem is the fact that by helping people like me, the power of government is not helping create an economy that benefits the people that just broke into my car, just broke into my house, and just robbed my store.
A society is measured by how the poorest among us are doing, not the richest. Millions without health insurance, and more people suffering from extreme poverty every year in America. Millions of kids don't get enough to eat, and we are giving tax cuts to stock dividends. College costs more every year, and financial aid, like pell grants are shrinking. Corporate profits have not been higher since the 20's, and the gap between the rich and the poor has not grown at this pace since the 20's either.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002007291_income17.html
Reagan's trickle up voodoo economics is working to make America more a haves, and have nots society every single day. Let the super rich pay less in taxes, and tax the crap out of the working class to make up for it, while borrowing trillions from the Saudis and Chinese at the same time.
Don't even read this. Corporate taxes, good luck. Make the working class pay so corporations don't have to right?
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/Taxhavens.htm
Posted by: Facts on April 12, 2007 07:47 AM1)As a soldier the tax cuts helped me. The tax cuts reduced my taxable income by half. So either the tax cuts did help someone other than the rich or you believe that soldiers are rich.
2)She did not just influence legislation that helped her district it helped her own pocket. She and her husband own a sizable amount of voting stock in the tuna company therefore it is a conflict of interest. You guys on the left complain that KBR got contracts when Vice President Chenney used to have part ownership, well this is a case where Pelosi still owns part of the tuna company she helped out. By the way how did that legislation help the little guy. What it did was exempt a certain area to the minimum wage increase and I thought the minimum wage increase was supposed to force the rich to pay a more "livable wage" to the poor.
3) So what has Pelosi and company done so far in the first 100 hours in Congress? They sure have not gotten any bills to the Presidents desk.
Maybe you should change your name from Facts to Opinion seeing that you sure are lacking facts but you are full of opinions.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 12, 2007 07:56 AMIs this the *only* public event Pelosi is attending in Seattle during her visit?
Was the Bush Medina fundraiser the *only* event he attended that was for public attendance?
Just checking the completeness of your story..
Posted by: Jim Peterson on April 12, 2007 08:30 AM"How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188"
So, to show us what you're made of, to lead by example, by all means donate your money that you think is unfairly kept in your pocket by the government, all of whatever the Bush tax cuts have benefitted you personally, give it back. Nobody is forcing you to keep it. Just send it in. Make a difference. In fact, donate so much that you no longer have enough to own a computer and post messages here. That'll show them.
Ready to do it? (I didn't think so...)
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 12, 2007 08:34 AMFacts is just another looter.
Posted by: John Galt on April 12, 2007 08:43 AMTry this one on...
Let's say you pay $5,000 a year in taxes, and I pay $20,000 a year. Tax legislation is passed so that everyone gets their tax rate cut in half, on top of a flat $5,000 tax credit.
Now your tax bill goes to zero - the tax credit takes care of it. So you don't see your tax rate cut in half, you see it eliminated.
On the other hand, by tax rate gets the credit - so I'm at $15,000 - then gets cut in half - $7,500.
The end of the year, you pay NOTHING in taxes - down from $5,000 - and I pay $7,500 - down from $20,000.
Only in some twisted Liberal world would that be spun as I benefit more than you... Yes, my tax load was reduced by $12,500, and yours was reduced by $5,000. Of course, you now don't pay ANY taxes, and originally you paid 25% of the taxes I pay...
In actuality, you should still pay $1,875 - 25% of what I pay. So clearly you benefitted much more than I did.
I'd say the tax laws enacted by the President clearly benefitted the little guy a LOT more than the top 1%... More people than ever pay ZERO taxes and the top 1% pay more of the total taxes of the US.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 12, 2007 09:18 AMBar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
The problems at Waler Reed are from privatizing plundering, and not enough Pentagon money to help our wounded soldiers transition. Not government controlled healthcare.
Our soldiers care is the very last thing the Bush Crime Family worries about. If it wasn't for Patti Murray screaming bloody murder at the last budget, the VA would have even less money. Remember how she guilted the cons into a 1 billion dollar emergency appropriations bill the next day after going public? I remember her calling them out on screwing the V.A.
Pelosi does not have any stock in starkist, and stripped the provision from the bill. Read the article. Why does the right have to lie continually? Starkist is in her district, and ownership of starkist stock is not on her admission forms. Lie, lie, lie lie. All you can do.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm
There are millions of uninsured Americans, and millions more at risk of losing everything if they get sick who would love socialized medicine. Compared to the 100% for profit fiasco we have now anything would be better. Jerkwad getting a 1.7 billion dollar salary. Insane.
One of my employees needs some tests done at the V.A. He said his appointment is months away. He has to wait months, and is told the reason why is the number of Iraq vets overloading their system. In other words he can just get worse waiting for his appointment.
Posted by: Facts on April 12, 2007 09:24 AMPelosi only stripped the provision after she got caught.
As for your friend at the VA it is true about the long waits I know from experience and it is not just the Iraq war vets, because I too have long waits and I am one of the injured from over there.
What it is an example of is typical government run healthcare. I saw it in Europe when I was stationed over there and a neighbor of mine (he was a German National) had to wait 3 to 6 months for an EKG to determine what needed to be done about his heart condition. So as you see government run healthcare does not work. This is the second time I have heard about this supposed outsourcing at Walter Reed. Do you have an article that supports it. Last time I was at Walter Reed I saw far more military doctors, who are paid by the government, than civilian doctors, so where does the outsourcing come into play?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 12, 2007 09:32 AMUmmm, who cut funding for the VA and screwed up Medicaid by not allowing bulk purchasing power? Give you a clue, it wasn't the Democrats.
will the per-plate funds be segregated from the bank deposits she racks up for all her family-related government contracts (that no one talks about)?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 12, 2007 10:31 AMIt must have been that rascally Clinton... After all, under President Bush funding for the VA has gone up twice as fast as under Clinton.
Come to think of it, I don't see EITHER cutting VA funding, and one - the Republican - increasing funding faster than the other.
I guess your point is that you're wrong? Or that you swallow the lies of the Democrat Party without question?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 12, 2007 10:40 AMI am so glad that you pointed out all of the starving children in this country. How can these right wingers stand to see all of them dying on the street corners of this country. Dave Mathews has it wrong about fat america. It is their distended bellies from malnutrion that is the problem. They are not starving to death, they are malnurished. You are also correct about healthcare. What the government needs to do is take all of our income, then dole it back to us in the form of necessities. You know like a place to live, healthcare, food, you name it. Only give us what we need to survive, nothing more. Oh, what a wonderful quality of life we will have then. Everyone will be at the same level of living standards, well, except those very important people who will be making all of our decisions for us, after all they are more needful than the rest of us. Heck, it wont matter if you wasted your time in school and didn't get an education, no need to turn to crime to make the kind of money you wish you had. You'll have as much as everybody else.
Ok, enough. Do you see the problem? Or does that look like Utopia to you.
Posted by: REBEL on April 12, 2007 10:45 AMso is gingrich a traitor too?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704100003
key graf:
One politician who's been getting some airtime as a critic of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. A few days ago he hammered Pelosi for going abroad in defiance of the White House's wishes, saying that such defiance of the White House by Congressional leaders was "very dangerous."
But as Speaker himself in May of 1998, Gingrich aggressively inserted himself into American foreign policymaking abroad when he took a high-powered Congressional delegation to Israel. He openly denounced the White House's Middle East policies and made public comments in direct defiance of the White House. Right before his trip he even described then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as an "agent for the Palestinians."
In other words, despite the fact that the White House opposed her trip to Syria, Pelosi -- who claims she delivered the White House's message, unlike Gingrich -- has in many ways been more respectful of the White House than Gingrich was on his trip abroad. Yet CNN somehow can still ask without any irony whether Pelosi is on her way to becoming the "most controversial House Speaker yet."
and with respect to a 1997 trip to china, it seems that gingrich departed from u.s policy....
Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"
He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''
Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.
Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .
Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.
I may be wrong on the VA spending, but I'm not wrong on Medicaid.
House of Representatives Pelosi of the USA is trying to NOT fund our troops which only will make this WAR longer and more causality to our heroic men and women that are defending our Liberty and Peace and the way of life for all free Americans. Get on the side of All Good Americans!! United we stand divided we fall.
What is really funny is someone that supports Bush saying I hate America, and the laws of this country. I wonder if there is any law the Bush Crime Family has not broken..... I bet you still think the forged Niger documents were authentic right?
It is a good thing for Bush he has so many blind lemmings that still trust, and believe in him. The reality based community freely accept he has lied repeatedly on practically every issue.
I guess it may be easier to still support Bush than admit you are wrong about your party's leadership.
When you rag on Nancy, remember who she replaced. Dennis (Sargent Schultz) Hastert. The leader of the zero investigation, zero questions asked, rubber stamp house of corporate representatives.
Looks like we are going to start to have a government again.....
Posted by: Facts on April 12, 2007 11:42 AMhttp://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/local.aspx?articleid=13362&zoneid=77
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 12, 2007 11:47 AMI heard him say one day that he had been doing his show for 1 1/2 years, and had not once been accused of lying.
When all facts are on your side, you don't have to lie, or fake outrage.
You should have heard the right wing troglodytes screaming outrage at her visit to Syria, in between all the visits of all the Republicon congressmen visiting Syria.
Whey all you have is hypocrisy you have to scream reeeeel loud.
So easycure, you think that the Republicons that went with her to talk to Syria should be arrested too? Hmmmmmm?
Posted by: Facts on April 12, 2007 11:54 AMSo you want the Post Office to provide your healthcare services? Really?
That will be what you get.
The only thing universal about will be the universal bad healthcare it'll provide.
Don't take my word on it, look at Canada and Great Britain and tell me that's what you really want.
Posted by: Jack Burton on April 12, 2007 12:28 PMOh boy DO I EVER STRENUOUSLY DISAGREE WITH THAT!...
My love note to good ol Nan just yesterday...
"I recently sent you a note through your webform regarding your regretful trip abroad. Your reply implied that since I don't reside in your district that my thoughts are wholly unimportant to you."
"I might remind you, Madam, that when on foreign soil you absolutely DO represent me."
"I might remind you, Madam, that as the regretful Speaker of the ENTIRE House of Representatives, you DO represent me."
"I might remind you, Madam, that your salary as a Congressman and as Speaker is paid with MY tax dollars, not just those of your foolish district voters."
"I strongly suggest that you and every other member of Congress remember that while you may have been elected by the fools in your district, you represent MY country, MY interests and that it is assumed you speak on MY behalf when speaking (even and especially in defiance of the President) for MY country."
"Your hubris and arrogance in not accepting email outside the district who foolishly elected you is stunning but not surprising."
I have the same issues with Baghdad Jim Mcdermott whose webform won't even accept emails from anyone not in his district.
The arrogant elitists must not realize anyone can easily get the 'right' zipcodes: 2 in Jimmyboy's district are 98199 and 98091... complain away!
You are good for this site; you are a walking spin machine out of balance.
Posted by: swatter on April 12, 2007 12:46 PMYes, I think that everyone, regardless of party, that broke the law regarding private communication with foreign governments should be arrested, tried, and if guilty, convicted and sent to prison. Including Gingrich.
Now then, I supported the arrest, trial, and conviction of GOP representative Randy Cunningham, and I assume that you did, too, given your multitudinous comments throughout SP about Republicon (sic) corruption.
So, I can count on your support for the arrest and trial of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) for taking bribes, right?
Posted by: ewaggin on April 12, 2007 12:46 PMYou asked for an example, and Michele provided one. Now, even if she were wrong (which she wasn't), you owed her (and the rest of us, for that matter) a better answer than, "Michele = dead pathetically wrong".
Facts, I realize that it is much more convenient for you to spew some invective instead of offering actual data and reason in support of your position, but that kind of answer is guaranteed to not only discourage civil discourse, but also to convince the reader that you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 12, 2007 01:04 PMNah, he took the money because Whitey's keepin him down, with Whitey's multiple mouthpieces callin sistas nappy headed hos and the like...
Not his fault, you're just hatin because he's black!
/sarc
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 12, 2007 01:14 PMI really don't blame you non thinkers that spend your time listening to the George Seros left wing of the democratic moveon.org party because you don't know any better and can't see the lawyer running the country for the pay back of their donations along with the union propaganda.
Regarding the 16 words by George Bush said, purchased uranium from Africa, which is absolutely true!
Considering how hysterical liberals were about Bush's "16 words," you'd think they'd have a vague recollection of what those words were and that they did not include the word "deal." What Bush said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Even if the British had been wrong, what Bush said was factually correct: In 2003, the British government believed that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger. (Not "MSNBC factual," mind you. I mean "real factual.")
But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it.
But at MSNBC, it's not even an open question: That network alone has determined that Saddam Hussein was not trying to acquire enriched uranium from Niger. Actually one other person may still agree with MSNBC: a discredited, washed-up State Department hack who used his CIA flunky wife's petty influence to scrape up pity assignments. But even he won't say it on TV anymore.
Shuster excitedly reported: "We've already gotten testimony that, in fact, that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was based on forgeries that were so obvious that they were forgeries that officials said it would have only taken a few days for anybody to realize they were forgeries."
During Wilson's massive media tour, he began telling reporters that he knew Saddam was not seeking yellowcake from Niger because the documents allegedly proving a deal were obvious forgeries.
Again, thanks to endless investigations, we now know that Wilson was lying: He never saw the forged documents. (Not only that, but Bush's statement was not based on the forged documents because no one ever believed them.)
The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report notes that Wilson was asked how he "could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Indeed, the United States didn't even receive the "obviously forged" documents until eight months after Wilson's trip to Niger!
Wilson admitted to the committee that he had "misspoken" to reporters about having seen the forged documents. Similarly, Cain "misspoke" when God inquired as to the whereabouts of his dead brother, Abel.
But on "Hardball," the forged documents that no one in the U.S. government saw until eight months after Wilson's trip now form the very impetus for the trip. A perfectly plausible theory, provided you have a working time machine at your disposal.
If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine.
Fact your are so ignorant that you can't enven use the internet to find the correct answers, but you keep listening to the MSM.
God Bless you!
You need all the help you can get.
I really don't blame you non thinkers that spend your time listening to the George Seros left wing of the democratic moveon.org party because you don't know any better and can't see the lawyer running the country for the pay back of their donations along with the union propaganda.
Regarding the 16 words by George Bush said, purchased uranium from Africa, which is absolutely true!
Considering how hysterical liberals were about Bush's "16 words," you'd think they'd have a vague recollection of what those words were and that they did not include the word "deal." What Bush said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Even if the British had been wrong, what Bush said was factually correct: In 2003, the British government believed that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger. (Not "MSNBC factual," mind you. I mean "real factual.")
But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it.
But at MSNBC, it's not even an open question: That network alone has determined that Saddam Hussein was not trying to acquire enriched uranium from Niger. Actually one other person may still agree with MSNBC: a discredited, washed-up State Department hack who used his CIA flunky wife's petty influence to scrape up pity assignments. But even he won't say it on TV anymore.
Shuster excitedly reported: "We've already gotten testimony that, in fact, that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was based on forgeries that were so obvious that they were forgeries that officials said it would have only taken a few days for anybody to realize they were forgeries."
During Wilson's massive media tour, he began telling reporters that he knew Saddam was not seeking yellowcake from Niger because the documents allegedly proving a deal were obvious forgeries.
Again, thanks to endless investigations, we now know that Wilson was lying: He never saw the forged documents. (Not only that, but Bush's statement was not based on the forged documents because no one ever believed them.)
The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report notes that Wilson was asked how he "could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Indeed, the United States didn't even receive the "obviously forged" documents until eight months after Wilson's trip to Niger!
Wilson admitted to the committee that he had "misspoken" to reporters about having seen the forged documents. Similarly, Cain "misspoke" when God inquired as to the whereabouts of his dead brother, Abel.
But on "Hardball," the forged documents that no one in the U.S. government saw until eight months after Wilson's trip now form the very impetus for the trip. A perfectly plausible theory, provided you have a working time machine at your disposal.
If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine.
right wing hot heads call pelosi a traitor--they don't have the intellectual honesty to apply the same standard to their own ilk.
as for resignation---let's remember who got impeached for lying about a b.j. versus a current president and vp who rushed this nation into a war of choice with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Posted by: dinesh on April 12, 2007 03:08 PMWhat proof do you have that Pelosi reiterated the administation's perspective? Let me guess, because she said so. Well she also said that Israel was ready to start peace talks with Syria and the Israeli PM had to come out and correct her wrongful interpretation. Who knows she may have "misinterpreted" the administration's position to Assad also.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 12, 2007 04:35 PMDon't think we'll have much luck with that one. Hell, those scumbags in the Clinton WH couldn't even tell us who hired Craig Livingstone, and had to quibble about the definition of "is".