Asked by a reporter about how “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how “the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 Commission conclusion was about links before September 11th, on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant. Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's soundbite with a bewildering set up of his own about how “incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House."
On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as “confused” and Morton Kondracke suggested she was just “mixed up,” Fred Barnes maintained that “she clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.'” Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: “If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable."
Neither ABC's World News or the CBS Evening News played the Pelosi soundbite.
The relevant portion of the story from David Gregory, who filed from Riga, Latvia, on the November 28 NBC Nightly News:
David Gregory: “Iraq's worsening civil war will dominate the President's meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Concluding his visit to Estonia earlier today, Mr. Bush blamed the violence not on civil war but on Sunni terrorists.”President Bush at a press conference in Estonia: “There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements.”
Gregory: “Back in Washington, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House.”
Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again.”
FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, but anchored by Jim Angle, led its panel segment with Pelosi's exchange with the reporter, identified on-screen as Thomas Ferraro: “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al-Qaeda and denied the country is in the midst of a civil war.”
After Liasson and Kondracke tried to explain Pelosi as “confused” and “mixed up,” Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, retorted:
“She clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.' This is not -- the question is what about al Qaeda back before 9/11 or before we invaded or was there a link. The question was clear. She gave an answer that was about something else. She doesn't seem to think that al Qaeda is active there in Iraq, which it is. According to her answer. Now, if some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable.”
Morton Kondracke: “Oh, please, oh that's nonsense.”
Barnes: “Look, Nancy Pelosi is now going to be the Speaker of the House. Her party won. She did a tough job leading them in the last two years and we shouldn't go around just excusing the things she says, when you don't know what really happened.”
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





“She clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.' This is not -- the question is what about al Qaeda back before 9/11 or before we invaded or was there a link. The question was clear. She gave an answer that was about something else. She doesn't seem to think that al Qaeda is active there in Iraq, which it is. According to her answer. Now, if some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable.”










Editor at Large

Comments Policy
The Bugeyed Bag Bugged out.
November 28, 2006 - 22:52 ET by Dan The Man 2The Bugeyed Bag Bugged out. Typical MSM, I dont know how the dims get away with it. First she almost places a felon and a person known to sell out for money in the head of a committee and not just the committe for basket weaving a very important one. One that needs peeps that cant sell out, because if they do the nation will suffer.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
The nation needs to wake up t
November 28, 2006 - 22:55 ET by ChemicalOperatorThe nation needs to wake up to the fact Pelosi has no idea what shes doing. Liberals call Bush dumb, but its taken him 6 years to make his mistakes. Pelosi has a basket of them before she is even officially speaker.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
I think it was one dim bulb t
November 29, 2006 - 06:27 ET by Andrew H.I think it was one dim bulb talking to another--that's why Gregory didn't catch it.
Never relent.
How is this any different fro
November 28, 2006 - 23:02 ET by balboaHow is this any different from the many verbal miscues from Dubya?
The MSM beats him silly with
November 28, 2006 - 23:07 ET by ChemicalOperatorThe MSM beats him silly with any misspoken words. They still bring up things he said wrong in his first term. Yet they excuse Pelosi for putting her foot in her mouth.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
You're kidding right?
November 28, 2006 - 23:10 ET by terrigPlease tell me you're joking. I don't get it with you libs. Madame Botox clearly screwed up and made a fool of herself. You just can't admit it can you?
Yeah she screwed up. Same que
November 28, 2006 - 23:12 ET by balboaYeah she screwed up. Same question about Monsieur Mangled Modifier remains.
No it doesn't Bal... the fa
November 28, 2006 - 23:33 ET by liberal_bug_zapperNo it doesn't Bal... the fact is, there is a big difference between saying 'Misunderestimate' and 'The president is lying about who is causing violence in Iraq' only to then cite a report which doesn't even back her up. A huge difference! Only, to you libs, anything a Republican does is beyond bad, it's evil to the 'N-th' degree, and anything a Democrat does is an excusable offence. One affects nothing, the other affects how the war against a very evil foe will be waged.... she proves with her 'SPOKEN' word that she does not recognize that foe.
I understand that, but it's a
November 28, 2006 - 23:40 ET by balboaI understand that, but it's a little bit of a stretch to take this statement and proclaim that she doesn't know what she's doing. She misspoke.
Only, to you libs, anything a Republican does is beyond bad, it's evil to the 'N-th' degree, and anything a Democrat does is an excusable offence
That's not me. Never has been.
I have to give it to balboa,
November 28, 2006 - 23:47 ET by ChemicalOperatorI have to give it to balboa, he is one of the few liberal people who come on here who are willing to have an actual conversation without blindly spurting talking points. I would say not to throw him into the same group as Rhayes, CRD, Blamethemedia etc.
I'd agree with you on the fact that she just misspoke, but I believe whats caught our attention is the treatment of it in the media. When Bush misspeaks its a huge deal and not dropped for some time. When Pelosi misspeaks its understandable. I think its the double standard that gets to us, not just the words. The words just make her look foolish, and show a lack of understanding of whats really happening.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Misspoke? Balderdash! Missp
November 29, 2006 - 00:24 ET by liberal_bug_zapperMisspoke? Balderdash! Misspeaking is when you say a word wrong, it's usually grammatical. She is clueless about national security issues. That's not misspeaking, that's ignorance. She will be the Speaker of the House and she is a clueless tit!
Bush's gaffs were inconsequential and were made out to be bigger than they were. Pelosi is a leader who is clueless about what is going on.... and that is dangerous. So I think it is a vast difference that cannot be glossed over as in "Oh, she just misspoke!" because that's just dishonest.
That's more of an opinion tha
November 29, 2006 - 00:32 ET by balboaThat's more of an opinion than fact. I'll wait and see.
Pelosi
November 29, 2006 - 17:02 ET by pbanks7She has made similar dismissive comments regarding the "so-called war on terror" before. So I lean toward ignorant Pelosi, rather than oops! Pelosi.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Just like Kerry's joke that n
November 28, 2006 - 23:48 ET by Dan The Man 2Just like Kerry's joke that no one can tell me what the joke was. Of course the joke was gotten by almost all the military service people. Just waht was Kerry's joke Bal?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Mel Brooks couldn't tell you
November 28, 2006 - 23:54 ET by balboaMel Brooks couldn't tell you where the joke was. I sure can't tell you.
balboa the difference
November 29, 2006 - 10:37 ET by SportPoliticsbalboa, the difference is she was trying to talk about Bush lying by using a lie the MSM manufactured along with the democrats by claiming Bush "inferred" and "implied" a certain thing not said directly. So it's ok 100% of the time for Pelosi to bring that up, and the press who helped her party make up that lie will never object.
It makes me almost laugh at how the democrats have been politicking on lies for so many years now, that they can't stop spouting them, and have trouble figuring out how their lie is supposed to fit into current situations.
Oh...my..GAWD...he used the word Saddam....and 911...in the same sentence...between he and FoxNews...67% of the American people think Saddam had something to do with 911.( Our msm constant and strange denials and insistence that they were NOT connected hasn't influenced anyone or nearly enough...blind as we are we can't imagine people might think the opposite since we keep demanding they believe us)
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ............
November 29, 2006 - 17:08 ET by kathleenirishZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....................
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Democrats mantra, media mantr
November 29, 2006 - 17:11 ET by kathleenirishDemocrats mantra, media mantra....
"There is no al-Queda, there is no al-Queda..."
Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists of all stripes, sponsored terrorists, and was the leader of a terrorist state. Get off it, you dopes.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Bal, this wasn't a "verb
November 29, 2006 - 08:44 ET by The Real TonyBal, this wasn't a "verbal miscue" she gave an answer that had nothing to do with question. Either she's very confused or she screwed up in memorizing her script.
Then again, maybe David "hic" Gregory jumped ahead in his script and she was just reciting her lines without waiting for the cue line.
Fight Terrorism at home - defeat a liberal!
But then again, did she screw
November 29, 2006 - 12:36 ET by dscottBut then again, did she screw up or was this consistent with her denials regarding the threat al Qaeda poses to this country? Step back for a minute and consider the lib Dem and MSM message to date: al Qaeda kills and instigates reprisals in Iraq (Golden Mosque bombing) but this is all the US fault (like blaming the police for causing crime) In the anti-war lib view, al Qaeda (poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised) has nothing to do with anything, it's all the US fault since they are ones with the means (power and wealth). So in the lib MSM worldview, Pelosi did not flub. In the socialist worldview, those with the means are solely responsible to determine the outcome.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
B - it is different with resp
November 29, 2006 - 17:21 ET by florida_chadB - it is different with respect to how the media deals with it. Bush would be skewered as a dum ass. Is that happening to Pelosi?
I know it's different in re
November 29, 2006 - 17:25 ET by balboaI know it's different in respect to the media, but some posters here were declaring Pelosi legally brain dead. I thought this incident was a little much to jump to any general conclusions about her intelligence.
I love how Pelosi's brain wor
November 29, 2006 - 17:29 ET by bigtimerI love how Pelosi's brain works boa...mental midget and all.
She is just great for our side...wonders never cease.
My bad - I missed that. It wa
November 29, 2006 - 17:30 ET by florida_chadMy bad - I missed that. It was a pretty poor responce on her part. This is illustrative of the different was R's and D's are treated by the media.
Memo to Ms Pelosi: You won
November 29, 2006 - 00:59 ET by idahoguyMemo to Ms Pelosi:
You won the election already. I know it's been fun to bash Bush at every possible opportunity for the past several years, but YOU are going to be an actual responsible party in the next Congress. I'm concerned about my nation's survival and even more concerned that uninformed people like yourself will be making decisions that directly impact the survival of my nation. PLEASE, seriously, PLEASE move on (.org) from trying to bash Bush and find ways to friggin' contribute to the solution. PLEASE.
There is a terrorist organi
November 29, 2006 - 01:41 ET by Tom1969caThere is a terrorist organization operating in Iraq whose Arabic name translates to "al-Qaeda in Iraq". To date, no one on the left has been able to explain this group's existence to me, since we all know there is no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. </sarcasm>
Okay, we get it. Saddam Hussein was not directly involved in 9/11. But just because al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before 9/11 doesn't mean they aren't there now. (And as W has said, better we face them there than on our planes and in the streets of our cities.)
~~~
"Government should only do what only government can do."
-- Prime Minister Kim Campbell, 1993
Tom.. NO one on the LEFT
November 29, 2006 - 01:45 ET by ww thumperTom.. NO one on the LEFT cares!! about that terrorist organization!!.....Political correctness when dealing with Islam will kill america....ww .....
Iraq
November 29, 2006 - 18:11 ET by pbanks7Wasn't it the al aqsa martyrs brigade or something like that? They've been there since before 9/11.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Democrats and the Media Par
November 29, 2006 - 07:45 ET by benrandDemocrats and the Media Party are all around the same low level of rigorous intelligence.
It's obvious Dave and Nance never needed to study calculus or logic or possibly even college algebra. I mean, look at that guy.
Fred Barnes IS THE MAN!
November 29, 2006 - 09:21 ET by rimskyFred Barnes IS THE MAN!
Remember 9/11 report only wen
November 29, 2006 - 12:53 ET by ucRemember 9/11 report only went back 10 years supposedly to find link between Al Qaeda and Irag > remember reports of radicals objecting to our forces being in Saudi Arabia even though because Saddam had invaded his neighbor >> American women in Saudi Arabia without Burkas >> Remember Clinton years of Clinton people and Clinton women going around this region saying women deserve equal rights and education and freedom >> Remember Saddam Hussein was Saddam Hussein and probably thought he could keep Kuwait > and maybe just because he thought we would be afraid to anger the radicals in the region. Now, what was it you all were saying?