You got to be shitting me!
While Gil is entitled to his opinion, he should not be entitled to mislead readers or misinform the general public. The article he was referring to can be found here.
First, Pitts was not there on behalf of the President.
Pitts said the White House was not involved in his visit to Syria, contradicting his chief of staff, Gabe Neville, who said Monday the Bush administration "cooperated" in the visit.
"He probably misspoke," Pitts said.
We can let that slide, since the spokesman "misspoke" even though this article appeared three days ago. (The hypocrisy would be absent, since Bush did not send Republicans to Syria).
A key difference was here:
He also said the GOP congressmen received a debriefing by the U.S. Department of State, and members of the State Department were present during all their meetings in Syria.
Well, we can see from previous articles referenced on this blog how that went without the Department of State present.
And finally, this tidbit:
Pitts said the Republicans' conference with Assad was not an attempt to undermine Pelosi and was arranged before he was aware of Pelosi's visit.
What does this imply? I think that's clear.
And what did the President say about all this? According to the same article:
"The White House discourages all U.S. officials from visiting Syria," Bush spokesman Alex Conant said Wednesday, adding that doing so undermines Bush's policy of isolating Syria, which the White House considers a state sponsor of terrorism.
Another publication states:
"We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals," Bush said.
I am finding it humorous and ironic that Gil would criticize Republican blogs for a misleading headline, which really wasn't even inaccurate! Bush did criticize the Pelosi trip to Syria, as well as everyone else. If Gil would have read the articles, he would have known that he criticized all the trips to Syria - making it a CONSISTENT STATEMENT (and not a hypocritical one).
It certainly would help if Gil Smart did some research before he jumped to the misinformed conclusions this stooge continues to make. Why would LNP keep a person like this on the payroll?
Update: To read the full transcript, click here.
Where is he getting this "Pitts visit is OK, but Pelosi isn't" crap? Neither visit was advised by the administration. But since they went, which one did better? The one's that asked to stop terror? Or the one that went just to spite "Our President" and handed out phony promises?
Freakin' Nutcase Idiots Elected Tells Terror State Fibs
Pelosi should resign