Pelosi discards a little more credibility
 

Changing Her Tune?
After President Bush (search) announced that he would nominate Republican Congressman and former CIA officer Porter Goss to be the new director of Central Intelligence, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said, "a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people."

But on June 5th, Pelosi told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that she would support Goss if he were nominated for the post, adding that as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he had shown the ability to stay above political pressure.

(taken from a fox news article)

She didn't have much credibility to begin with, did she?

And Fox News has credibility?

She sounds like a standard politician to me.

about as much as cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc, bbc, etc... they all have their slant. the modern media has completely lost their bias, and unfortunately it is up to the reader/viewer to figure out what the bias is and take it into account.

that being said - do you dispute the facts of this story?

I haven't read anything about it other than what's in this thread, so I don't know if it's accurate. You're right, all networks put a "slant" on things, but Fox is blatant and unapoligetic about it. I would have to read more about it from other sources first, because I simply don't trust anything Fox News says.

Dick Cheney was in my town yesterday and the local paper headlines read: Cheney's Visit to Tangle Traffic.

Unreal!

Now, remember to vote.

personally i trust them a little more (after reading between the lines) because i know exactly where they are coming from and they freely admit it. the others pretend that they are unbiased sources of info when they clearly are not.

Considering this comes from someone who views everything only in 'black and white', then the post has no credibility until we can actually read the original facts and her original statement, in entirety. Outlook123's credibility and the credibility of his source is that suspect - that extremist. Especially when he actually thinks Fox is a news service.

Remember, Outlook123 - you could not challenge what was posted in a previous discussion. You disagreed only because the facts contradicted your 'black and white' interpretation. (You even deny the mental midget president was warned on 6 Aug of the bin Landen attack bacause it contradicts your political agenda!) Your interpretation of what Pelosi said would be a classic example of propaganda - as defined by Hitler in his book Mein Kampf.

Conclusions are too often in error when only reported from a 'black and white' / 'good and evil' perspective. People who describe Fox News as anything but propaganda also cannot be trusted to describe Pelosi's opinion without first providing the exact and full text of her statement.

Normally we can trust another poster to provide news from real news services. But when you could not challenge facts in a previous discussion; therefore you replied by disparaging this poster. Your political agenda and how it perverts the facts is now held to the fire. I don't believe you have properly represented Pelosi's statements especially when you actually like the intentionally perverted news from Fox. Yes I too can attack the character of someone and need not post a single fact. Do you like being subject to your own reasoning and agenda? We can better assume you have misrepresented Pelosi only because it serves your political agenda. You did not even hyperlink the Fox News report.

Now recover your credibility. Provide the full text or intent of what Pelosi said. Or find what she said from a responsible new service. And maybe for once do it without, instead, attacking another poster.

I believe Pelosi is a Democrat. Therefore everything from Fox News about Pelosi would be to disparage her. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Do it by posting facts and examples ; and not by attacking this poster.

...

I feel like I should be saluting or something...

TW, you're my hero.

In this case Fox News is "reporting" what Pelosi said to another news outlet a few months ago, so you're really questionning the accuracy of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, not Fox News.

So, I took a look online to see if I could find the specific remarks made by Pelosi. I didn't find them, but I did find several right-leaning news sites that have the same information that lookout posted.

Next, I did a search on the Times Free Press's website, to see if there was an archive of Pelosi's remarks. Now, notice the date that Pelosi apparently made these remarks--June 5th. The paper has nothing regarding Pelosi on or around that date.

Lastly, I look at the source of Lookout's post...I know Lookout is a bit slow, so I'm not going to blast him for not putting a link up. :) The comments about Pelosi are part of the Political Grapevine segment of "Special Report" with Brit Hume on FOX News. I've never watched a full episode, but it looks like "Hardball," only not as good.

In conclusion, it's just more political BS.

Interestingly, FOX isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be. As a whole, I don't care for their personalities, and I do think they're slanted to the right. But where does FOX get a lot of their news from? The AP. So does MSNBC, CNN, the networks and a bunch of newspapers.

ok - i've gone back and looked at this one in detail. the reports were taken from the Chatanooga Times Free Press. i saw the story on Fox and pulled it from there as i also saw it in a couple of other locations.
Pelosi's people say that she was misquoted by the Chatanooga paper and they asked for a retraction, but the Chatanooga Times stands by their story.
Try as i may, i cannot find the original quotes. (outside of someone's blog) i also cannot find corroboration from other, more centrist sources - so i would conclude that it was spinning (and possibly misquoting) different remarks that Pelosi made to make her look like a fool.
so now i will step forward and accept my duncecap for not double checking a story before i posted it. i simply thought it was interesting and got in a hurry. Syc - the reason i didn't link is because i have seen a couple of comments saying people didn't like following links if it was only a few lines that were easy enough to put right into the post. i will do better in the future. seriously.



i have thrown in some links that i was able to find related to the issue.

Democratic leader

CNS - i'm not familiar with it, but obviously right leaning

The Hill


However, a spokesperson from Pelosi's office said the Chattanooga article is incorrect and her office contacted the paper after the article was printed to dispute their reporting of Pelosi's remarks. The paper stood behind its article, she said.

According to Pelosi press secretary Jennifer Crider, the congresswoman, in a June 3rd weekly press conference, "reiterated her concern with Mr. Goss as a potential CIA director replacement."

According to a transcript of the June 3rd press conference, Pelosi was asked about the idea of Goss replacing Tenet as CIA director.

"I have a great deal of respect for Porter Goss," Pelosi said. "He has - you know, has served in the Central Intelligence Agency. I think that whoever replaces Mr. Tenet should be an independent Director of the Central Intelligence Agency."

"Meaning that Mr. Goss would not be able to?" the reporter asked.

"You interpret it," Pelosi replied.

"She [Pelosi] never said she supported Mr. Goss. … And from that, that incorrect Chattanooga Times article ran, in which we called and explained to them that it was inaccurate, and they felt that they could stand by it," said Crider.

the quote is from the CNS site - although it seems to be leaning to the right they are the only source reporting Pelosi's rep distancing her from the earlier quote.

I was just busting your stones about the link...it's all good. :)

This is how I look at posting links, articles, stories, etc.:

--Almost nothing is above reproach
--No two perspectives are alike
--Some sources are better than others...but who's to really say which ones are better?