Today's Fake Nancy Pelosi Scandal Is Brought to You By The Ground Zero Mosque

Today's Fake Nancy Pelosi Scandal Is Brought to You By The Ground Zero Mosque

Weigel
Reporting on Politics and Policy.
Aug. 18 2010 12:32 PM

Today's Fake Nancy Pelosi Scandal Is Brought to You By The Ground Zero Mosque

Kerry Picket, the sharp reporter for the Washington Times, grabbed audio of Nancy Pelosi telling a San Francisco radio audience this:

There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this apolitical issue by some. And I join those who have called for lookinginto how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.

Advertisement

Clumsy! Matt Drudge, who can no more pass on a chance to accuse Pelosi (or Hillary Clinton, or Janet Napolitano) of power-mad conspiracies than Samuel L. Jackson can pass on a bad screenplay, headlines it "INVESTIGATE MOSQUE CRITICS!" Greg Sargent checks with Pelosi .

I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that "We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center."

Seems pretty clear to me. There's a huge difference between the leader of the House calling for a real investigation -- putting members of her party on the case, investigating where Pam Geller shops -- and the leader of the House saying the media "should ask" who's attacking the Park51 center. One is tyrannical; the other is simply a misunderstanding of how this became an issue. It's not exactly a secret who's been beating the drum on this, or why it's caught on as an August story.

David Weigel is a reporter for Bloomberg Politics

  Slate Plus
Slate Plus
Aug. 28 2015 12:31 PM What Happened at Slate This Week? International affairs writer Joshua Keating on what to read to understand the apparently permanent slowdown of the Chinese economy.
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 1 2015 12:20 PM Does Contraception Reduce Abortions? The relationship is surprisingly ambiguous—until you look at the best evidence.