http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm

U. S. and Britain: Axis of Disinformation

Dear Ms. Howell:

Today, April 5 2007, the Post published a scathing editorial attacking Nancy Pelosi for her visit to Syria. I believe it was written by Fred Hiatt, which is surprising because he is a bastion of journamalistic ethics.

In the editorial, “Pratfall in Damascus,” the Post wrote, “HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad.” Also, the Post opined, “As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt
thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.”

I am hoping that the Post will issue a similarly stinging rebuke to republican Darrell Issa, who said “the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.” (AP) After all, Issa is also “substituting [his] own foreign policy for that of a sitting republican president.” I am also hoping the Post will
chastise Minority Leader John Boehner for not
criticizing Pelosi’s colleague on the trip, Republican David Hobson for his role in “substituting [his] own foreign policy for that of a sitting republican president.”

I am sure that Fred Hiatt, who is the model of
integrity and honest reporting, will be correcting the record in tomorrow’s edition of the Post, just as I am sure that I will be sprouting wings like a beautiful Monarch butterfly and flying away to the Land of
Lollipops and Daydreams where I will sup on jellybeans and lemon drops.

Personally, I think Representative David Obey had it right a week or so ago, when he opined on the floor of the House, “The problem we have today isn’t that we didn’t listen to people like the Washington Post, it’s that we listened TOO MUCH. They endorsed going to war in the first place!…And if The Washington Post is
offended about the way we do it, that’s just too bad.”

The Post’s reputation continues to shrink.
Brendan Skwire

PatVa @ 114

oddmommy at 55

One thing that happened to the WaPo was that Katharine Graham died. That may have been when things started to turn to the right.

She died July 17, 2001
“of head injuries suffered when she fell on a sidewalk Saturday in Sun Valley, Idaho, where she was attending an annual conference of media business leaders.”

I know. She was in a coma for several days before she died. I cried. I watched her funeral on the web. I have a tremendous amount of respect for her. If you haven’t read her book, you should. She was waaay ahead of her time and didn’t let that get her way in the least.

I know we’re in EPU land, but oddmommy, yes, Donald is her son. Hard to believe, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiOZRzfOUl0

And while the reporting by others in the WaPo was less factually challenged, it’s the Hiatt storyline that’s going to be parroted throughout the papers & tee vee news programs.

Here are some of my favorite sentences from the article:

Past presidents have never claimed that the Constitution gave them power to set aside statutes permanently. (Richard M. Nixon was no longer in office when he declared: “When the president does it, it means that it is not illegal.”) The Bush administration, however, appears committed to eliminating judicial and congressional oversight of executive action at all costs. This pernicious idea, at odds with the Founders’ vision of checks and balances, lies at the heart of many of today’s abuses. . . .

Never before in U.S. history, we believe, has a president so readily exploited a crisis to amass unchecked and unreviewed power unto himself, completely at odds with the Constitution. This departure from historical practice should deeply concern those in both parties who care for the Constitution. Even in military matters, Congress has considerable authority. For instance, the Constitution specifies that Congress can “make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Military intelligence, military surveillance and military detention are all matters on which Congress can dictate the terms of how the commander-in-chief’s power is exercised.

Debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and in the state ratifying conventions that ensued, conclusively undercut the current administration’s claim to unaccountable power. Alexander Hamilton, the founding era’s foremost advocate of executive vigor, disdained efforts to equate the new president’s authority with the broad powers of the English monarchs. And even assuming that Hamilton was wrong in asserting that presidents have less power than English kings, the British monarchy had in fact been stripped of power to “suspend” parliamentary laws after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, about 100 years before the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution simply contains no unfettered executive authority to annul laws on a president’s security-related say-so.

The solution has to be impeachment of BOTH Bush & Cheney.

Bob in HI

Yes, that would be a start. With A*PAC a foreign agent and stopped from bribing perhaps a US Administration would stop handing out money without demanding compliance with 242, 338 etc.

In candidate terms, I believe Hillary is unelectable because the middle ground of sing voters will never vote for her, and her NY ‘The Lobby’ connections finish her off: I have read about Obama’s unpopularity, but he is new and inesperienced so I am concerned he will be got at: Kucinich has prob no chance but he has held true on the subject of Zionism being Bad for America.

Still looking for an answer to mine of 136.

OT- Rachel Maddow calls “bullshit” on Orrin Hatch MTP description of Carol Lam’s career:

Rachel Maddow’s Open Letter to Orrin Hatch

I loved this, thanks!

The orchestration of this anti-Pelosi campaign in all the major media is really eerie confirmation of how neoconservative the decision makers in the press are. As if the average American gave a shit about Syria.