“What would a Democratic lawmaker have to gain from spreading a rumor that would make Bush look bad? ”

No one needs to spread rumours… the unraveling of his daily machinations are evident and evidence enough.

Put down the kool-aid, and climb out of the bunker… there’s still time ROFL

Nobody would have doubted that for a second.

I prefer to base my opinions on facts, not second hand and possibly politically-motivated rumors. And I would give Pelosi the same benefit of the doubt. My sarcastic “But we know that Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat would ever say anything untrue just to cast Bush in a bad light, so her version simply MUST be true” statement was trying to point out that it’s not as cut and dried as O-Dub would like to portray it.

But to directly answer your question, Is Bush a weasel? As an elected official, isn’t that part of the job description? A liar? Sorry, I’m not going to agree to a blanket statement like that. Any more than I would agree to a statement that “Kerry is a liar” or “Gore is a liar”. Give specifics. Do I think he’s told lies in the past? Most likely. He’s a politician AND a human being. However, I don’t subscribe to the definition of a lie as being “saying something that you believe at the time to be true, but turns out later to be untrue”. Not in control of his own government? First, can you explain exactly what that means? If you’re going to define it as “an official in one department of the government not directly hired or appointed by Bush said or did something wrong, so that means the Bush administation is totally at fault”, I have to say I don’t agree.

If this story is invented for the purpose of partisan propaganda, it’s weak stuff.

Well, now! There’s progress.

Tell it to O-Dub. He considered Bush’s comment to be a proven fact, despite the fact that this was a private conversation no one else heard. Bush’s motivation for making the comment? According to O-Dub he’s either a weasel, a liar, or not in control of his own government.

I’m perfectly willing to include “Bush said exactly that” or even “Pelosi was misquoted” as some of the possibilities. I’m just trying to point out that since it was a private conversation between two people, neither of whom has personally stated on the record what was said, there are other possibilities than O-Dub’s simplistic “Bush is… a weasel, a liar, or not in control of his own government” in this particular instance.

Partisan? Not you!

No more than anyone else on this blog and far less than some. And I stand by my “partisan Dems like O-Dub” statement regarding the self-confessed “liberal bombthrower”.

Here’s a hint: it was a “private meeting among Democratic lawmakers”.

What would a Democratic lawmaker have to gain from spreading a rumor that would make Bush look bad? Hmmm…. that’s a puzzler.

Seriously doubt it. She has shown too much class so far to stoop to that Rovian level of a whisper campaign.

Who the hell knows?

Obviously, not you.

It’s not foolish to think that’s a possibility. On the evidence, it is clearly within the realm of the possible. However, you seem eager to discount any other possibilities, based on the same evidence.

Partisan? Not you!

A day without Bush – bashing is like a day without sunshine.

Well, since it was a private meeting with other Dems, maybe she was telling them what they want to hear? Or maybe trying to make it appear to fellow Dems that Bush worries about not upsetting Pelosi’s or staying on her good side? Who the hell knows?

From that same WP article:

But in a private meeting with Democratic lawmakers yesterday, Pelosi said Bush told her in an unsolicited comment that it was actually the State Department that criticized her.

According to two people who were at the meeting, the speaker said…

And we’re also hearing all of this second hand. “…two people who were at the meeting”. I believe the legal term is “hearsay”. Has Nancy herself publically made this claim? If the people passing Pelosi’s comments on to the WP are partisan Dems like O-Dub, then I think we have one possible answer right there.