Nancy Pelosi Defends Doctored ‘Diversity’ Photo of House Democrats

Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader of the House of Representatives and former Speaker of the House, is defending a faked photograph released on Thursday showing the “diversity” of the Female members of the Democrat delegation to Congress.

The photo featuring “all” the Democrat women of the House standing on the steps outside the Capital building was released by the California Democrat on her Flikr account on January 3.

But oddly, the four Democrats shown at the top steps in the back of the group are not really in the photo. The images of the four were photoshopped into the picture and weren’t present when the group photo was taken. The missing four were added later by Pelosi’s computer-wielding staffers. You can see both the original photo and the photoshopped results at Poynter. Or see below.

When the former Speaker was confronted about the faked photograph, Pelosi defended the release of the doctored image saying it was an “accurate” portrayal of “who the members of Congress are.”

Apparently, the photo is another example of the left-wing’s “fake but accurate” reporting. Next, perhaps, will be the airbrushing out of any apostates until we are left only with Comrade Pelosi proudly standing upon the steps à la what the Soviets did to their historical photos.


Original photo without the four Reps. added


Photoshopped image released by Pelosi


Close up of photoshopped area

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 5, 2013.
Filed under Asshats, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Elections, House of Representatives, Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, Photos, Picture Of The Day, Politicians, Politics.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://nomayo.mu.nu Stephen_Macklin

    This would carry more weight if the two photos were otherwise the same. They are no the same images.

  • jim_m

    Not nearly as scarey as the figure in the back left of the picture, which looks like either Keith Richards or Iggy Pop in drag.

    Truly frightening. I think this must violate the Geneva Convention in some manner. It certainly qualifies as a felony fashion offense.

    • 914

      Ish

    • Brucehenry

      Meeeoowww, Jim, lol.

    • UOG

      That’s Rep. Rosa DeLauro, former lobbiest and another of CT’s contributions to the United States Congress. And you all thought MA sent scary people to Congress.

      (Edit) BTW, they screwed up on that PhotoShop… unless all four of those ladies are former basketball players.

      • 914

        Amazonians.

  • Hugh_G

    Wow Huston, you’re really desperate.

  • 914

    These dimwits are as legitimate as Oboner’s trillion dollar debtor coin.

  • Brucehenry

    The Huston Report: News That Doesn’t Matter.

    • 914

      It matter’s if you care about hypocrisy among your representatives.

      • Brucehenry

        It matters to me that you don’t know how to use an apostrophe, 914, but this as an example of “hypocrisy”? Not so much.

        • 914

          Glad to see you have your priorities in order nimrod.

        • jim_m

          Were declaring Saturday’s as “apostrophe abuse day” to honor you’re concern.

          • Brucehenry

            Good one. And fair enough. I’ll shut up now.

          • jim_m

            I did not mean to silence you.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Shh. You have a good thing going…

          • 914

            Yes you should. Or I may dig up some of your grammatical and punctuation gaffes.

          • Brucehenry

            I apologize. Gee, everybody was being so nice today and now I’ve gone and spoiled it.

          • jim_m

            I was joking. I hate ill used apostrophes too. I just know that I make enough errors that I shouldn’t complain. I also hate it when people confuse there, their and they’re. But I bite my tongue because no one complains about how many times I drop the ‘t’ off of the, them, there, etc.

            But it’s been a good day on Wizbang this doesn’t spoil it. Not even the hag in the picture spoils it.

    • jim_m

      When you write to the WAPO to complain of their coverage of the same issue I will take your snark more seriously.

      Then again, perhaps the fact that it appears in the WaPo is proof of your estimate that it is insignificant. They sure as hell won’t cover important news because that would make obama look bad.

  • Sky__Captain

    Of course, this is the sort of thing the Soviet Union did on a regular basis. However the Soviets “airbrushed” out instead of adding people.
    It is still called “lying”, though.

    It is also not surprising to see Hugh and Bruce living up to form, supporting lying by the Democrat leadership.

    • Brucehenry

      Some lies don’t matter. Like this one, which has no larger implications beyond “Woops we left these four out, let’s photoshop ‘em back in.”

      Some lies do matter, like “We know where the WMDs are, they’re north, south, east, and west of Tikrit.”

      Which one is Huston more upset about, and why?

      • jim_m

        The last one. But then why aren’t you upset with the Clinton intel apparatus that produced it?

        • Brucehenry

          Yes let’s ask Warner to link to the OUTRAGED article he wrote back in 2003 when Rumsfeld told that one.

          BTW, “Clinton intel apparatus”? Lol.

          Your Party of Personal Responsibility spokesman, Jim M, ladies and gentlemen.

          • jim_m

            But then you aren’t going to be one of these idiots who ignore history and claim that WMD were the only reason we went into Iraq are you?

            Because that would make you every bit the dissembling hypocrite you imply Warner is. Actually, it would make it worse since the falsity of that belief (re WMD)has been repeatedly demonstrated.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I’m just gonna be one of those people who remember what actually happened and what the MAIN selling point of the Iraq War sales job was.

            Most of the other “reasons” were cover for when the weapons weren’t found, which the salesmen figured they wouldn’t be.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so by that you would be refering to Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations and their noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Since everyone but lefty ideologues who wanted to see America lose a war and see soldiers lives wasted understands that.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, those. The “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” thingie was the main reason, and it was a lie.

            But this photoshop kerfuffle is OUTRAGEOUS.

          • jim_m

            No it was not the main thing and if you bother going back to look at the resolution you will see that it was not. You are as bad as a troother, clinging bitterly to misinformation, ignoring the evidence of its falsity and pretending that the dems, who had seen all the same intel and came to the same conclusions were somehow duped and had nothing to do with the whole issue despite a significant portion of that intel being provided by the Clinton admin.

            The photoshop thing might be silly. Your assertion in despicable.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, unlike some, who apparently were glued to cable news, I talked to people and heard what they were worried about. When I expressed doubt about the run-up to war, I heard little from, you know, VOTERS, about UN resolutions or failure to live up to the letter of the cease-fire of 1991.

            No, what I heard from your average Joe war supporter was mushroom clouds and smokin’ guns. Your mileage may vary, but THAT’S what was sold to the public.

            I certainly never have excused Democrats for their role in the Iraq fuckup. There ain’t no excuse.

          • Hawk_TX

            You should hang out with people who are better informed. You might learn something.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            An outraged self confessed liar. What next?

          • jim_m

            But then you aren’t going to be one of these idiots who ignore history and claim that WMD were the only reason we went into Iraq are you?

            Because that would make you every bit the dissembling hypocrite you imply Warner is. Actually, it would make it worse since the falsity of that belief (re WMD)has been repeatedly demonstrated.

          • herddog505

            Are you claiming that Bush knowingly, willfully lied about WMD? That he KNEW that Saddam didn’t have them but deliberately said otherwise?

            This is the central question about the left’s obsession with Iraq: did Bush knowingly, willfully communicate or allow to be communicated something that he KNEW AT THAT TIME to be untrue?

            And let’s be clear: this is what a lie IS. If I tell somebody something in good faith – *I* believe it to be true – that later turns out to be false, I have NOT lied.

            So, using this definition of “lie”, do you claim that Bush lied?

            Oh, and as for “Party of Personal Responsibility”, who is responsible* for the economy these days, and has been since 1-20-2009? Barry, or Bush?

            ====

            (*) To the extent that any one person or even discrete group of people are “responsible” for the US economy.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m saying he knew, or should have known, that there was enough reason to doubt their existence as to make a war of choice unwise. But he chose to listen only to those who claimed both their existence and their imminent danger and ignore those who discounted both or either. He and his surrogates always spoke with absolute certainty of their danger. Those who doubted were vilified and called traitors.

            The whole Colin Powell UN thing was, or might as well have been, made up, by people desperate to justify their plans to invade another country that had had nothing to do with 9/11.

            Because, let’s face it, despite what I wrote above, the REAL reason it was so easy to sell the Iraq War was a desire on the part of Americans to “get revenge” for 9/11. The (largely unspoken) subtext was “Arabs hit us once, next time it might be nuclear.” From there the premise that Saddam had WMD was an easy sell. Nobody gives a shit about UN resolutions, if they did why is Israel still a member? It’s ignored about 20 UN resolutions with no consequences.

            And, since 1/20/2009, “Barry” has been responsible to steward the economy as best he could. That doesn’t relieve Bush and Co. of their responsibility for wrecking it. And by “Bush and Co.” I mean not only Republicans but go-along Dems like Rubin, Dodd, and etc as well as Greenspan et al.

          • jim_m

            he knew, or should have known…was, or might as well have been…

            A tour de force in weasel wording. I also appreciate how you manage to cast obama’s refusal to take any responsibility for his own job performance as not relieving Bush of his responsibility.

            There’s never any culpability for the left. No matter how badly they fail it is always someone else’s fault and no matter what the outcome for the right the left will find a way to manufacture blame while they ignore the involvement of lefty politicians.

            The idea of obama as a responsible steward of the economy would be laughable if it were not such a vulgar lie. How many budgets has he passed? How many DEM votes have his last 3 budget proposals received? There is no seriousness about the economy. It is only about looting the American public.

            The mere fact that they are seriously considering monetizing the debt is irrefutable evidence that they are not only irresponsible and unserious about the economy but they are not concerned with the total destruction of the nation and the hyperinflation that they will cause by their actions.

          • Brucehenry

            Says the dude who blames the “Clinton intel apparatus” for the Iraq War.

          • jim_m

            I blame them for having the same intel as the Brits and everyone else. Oooo! That’s a real slam isn’t it? Please.

          • Brucehenry

            Tony Blair and Bush were interchangeable in their culpability. French and Germans knew better.

          • jim_m

            I’m having difficulty with the link you included to support your statement. Oh wait. Never mind.

          • Brucehenry

            WHO is seriously considering monetizing the debt? Has an Obama spokesman endorsed the idea?

          • jim_m

            obama never comes out with ideas himself. He always has a surrogate say it for him. Dem congressmen and members of the lefty commentariate have both said that the deficit is meaningless because we can always just print the money we need. It shows an utter ignorance of how money and the economy work.

            You blame Bush for believing intel that was believed by Blair and Clinton. You claim that he should have known or did know better. I am saying hat monetizing the debt is seriously being considered on the left and by obama. I have as much proof, if not more of my claims than you do. There is no evidence that Bush knew any different. There are numerous public statements supporting monetizing the debt in just the last week.

          • Brucehenry

            There was plenty of evidence that there was doubt about the validity both of the existence, and the imminence of the danger, of Iraq’s alleged WMDs. That doubt was out there for all to see. Yet the administration always spoke with absolute certainty that the only recourse was to force. As a result, 4400 Americans and countless Iraqis are dead.

            My question is, where was Warner’s outrage, so evident when 4 people are photoshopped into a group photo that will only end up hanging on someone’s office wall? Did Warner write an article exposing the dishonesty of the Mission Accomplished banner or the line that said “major combat operations have ended?

            You know, if Warner wants to write articles being outraged about the debt, or any other issues that, you know, fucking MATTER, I’ll leave him alone. But as long as he posts articles about incredibly trivial pissant issues like this, he should expect some flak. The Iraq War lies are just one example of Warner and other conservatives failing to care about reality while making tempests in teapots about bullshit, like Kimberlin, Bradbury, and Savage, of recent memory.

          • jim_m

            The doubt was there for all to see and yet somehow even the dems only saw it AFTERWARD. Own it Bruce.

            I still don’t see you complaining about he WaPo coverage of this photo. It is only a problem when a conservative points t out.

          • Brucehenry

            Fuck “the dems.” Plenty of people saw the doubt about the necessity for war. That’s why hundreds of thousands marched in the streets around the world. I’m not responsible for what “the dems” did or did not do, and don’t have to justify their actions or inactions. Craven careerists.

          • jim_m

            I see. So you and your friends saw everything with total clarity, yet the people who actually received all the security briefings which you did not. were unable to comprehend the situation.

            The arrogance is only surpassed by the ignorance.

          • Brucehenry

            The people who got the briefings were wrong, and I was right. There was no significant threat from WMDs in Iraq. I’m not the only one who doubted. As I said, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people marched in the streets to express their doubts about the case for war.

          • jim_m

            I note that you studiously avoid addressing the fact that obama cannot offer a budget that even the idiot dems in the Senate can vote for. Some show of responsibility that.

            Come on Bruce. I am sure that you have something to say that will explain why having no budget is a demonstration of how oibama is using his godlike genius to improve the economy. After all there must be a reason why the recovery from this recession is the slowest in history.

            I am sure that you have something that will shift the blame on Bush or the GOP for why the dems are unable to support a single obama proposed budget during on e of the most serious fiscal crises in our nation’s history.

          • herddog505

            BrucehenryI’m saying he knew, or should have known, that there was enough reason to doubt their existence as to make a war of choice unwise. But he chose to listen only to those who claimed both their existence and their imminent danger and ignore those who discounted both or either.

            So… he did NOT lie. Does that about sum it up? And how SHOULD he have known? Is there some magic crystal ball in the White House that he decided not to use?

            How do we judge what somebody SHOULD have known? Or who they SHOULD have listened to? Where in this case is the intent to deceive that makes the difference between somebody being wrong and somebody being dishonest (i.e. lying)? And does this “should have known” also apply to the Congress, the British, and everybody else who went along with the idea that Saddam had the things?

          • jim_m

            Somehow I don’t see Bruce applying the same standard to Fast & Furious.

          • Brucehenry

            You don’t see me weighing in on that at all.

          • jim_m

            Why? Prophylaxis against hypocrisy?

          • Brucehenry

            No, when you know that there is doubt, yet speak with certainty about danger so as to scare the country into a war of choice, that is a lie.

            When I say he “knew, or should have known,” what I am saying is that if he DIDN’T know, he was an incompetent idiot puppet, and I don’t think that was the case.

            So how do we judge what Obama SHOULD have known the results of his stimulus policy would be? How do we judge whether or not he SHOULD have listened to Krugman, Van Jones, or Valerie Jarratt? Where is the intent to deceive in the Benghazi statements? Jesus, do you even listen to yourself?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            At what point does certainty exist, in war or anything else?

            The best estimates of many intelligence agencies were that Saddam had chem warfare crap ready to be deployed. There were reports of arsenals found which had stockpiles of barrels of ‘insecticide’ along with empty munitions designed to deploy them and filling equipment. (Had one hell of a camel spider problem – but that seems a tad extreme for pest control…)

            His own people even believed it.

            Wikileaks released results of searches where stuff was found.

            http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

            And so did the government.

            http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918

            Basically, it’s a binary state. Either there’s chem or bio munitions, or there’s not. There were munitions found – a considerable amount. Therefore – no lie. That the WMD issue was seized upon as the primary and paramount reason for the war was a media choice, not a governmental one. If it bleeds, it leads, and the need for News at 11 to have something spicy for a lead trumps everything else.

            And as for Obama and the results of his ‘well meaning’ stimuli – he really doesn’t understand the concept of the law of unintended consequences, does he?

          • Brucehenry

            From your Wired link:

            “The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly Wiki-leaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.”

            From your DOD link:

            “The munitions adressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.”

            Therefore, big fat lie.

            At least as big and fat a lie as the “best estimates” of many intelligence agencies in the Benghazi matter. Difference being this lie hasn’t yet been used to justify the deaths of 4400 Americans.

            Do you acknowledge any unintended consequences as a result of the Iraq invasion, or did that whole thing turn out just peachy? Starting with 4400 American deaths — were those consequences foreseen and intended?

          • Vagabond661

            Sorry to pop in here but do you think that violating 16 UN resolutions had something to do with the whole going to war with Iraq?

            http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

            And does it matter that those in Congress who saw the same data Bush saw voted to go to war with Iraq?

            http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

            And the fact that he killed his own people would seem to make you think he was a threat to the region?

          • jim_m

            Bruce has confessed to knowing more about Iraq than the officials who received security briefings.

            No only does he know that, but he knows that everything else was just window dressing so Bush could pull off the one BIG LIE. This of course means that Bruce also knows that none of the other reasons for going into Iraq would have been sufficient to convince the dems to vote for the resolution. He just knows. It’s amazing.

          • Brucehenry

            Your appeal to authority is noted.

          • jim_m

            As Vagabond points out, your fantasy that Bush hoodwinked everyone is dependent upon your willingness to overlook an enormous amount of evidence that the intel used was believed by both parties, believed by the US and its allies and produced by both the Bush and Clinton admins.

            Your position is a fantasy fueled by ideological hate.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Note the claim of special knowledge…

          • Brucehenry

            Hey jim, ask your buddy Rodney if I have his permission to reply to him if he’s gonna reply to me. I don’t wanna get one of his mosquito-like emails as I have in the past.

          • jim_m

            I think you already have.

            But wasn’t his thing only for comments to his articles? I can’t remember.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I wasn’t supposed to speak directly to him, either, because he’s the coolest kid in 8th grade. You can tell by the fedora.

            Of course I’m not sure what his role is here anymore beyond lurking in the comment section and occasionally tossing off a pompous or pretentious one-liner. Sometimes it will contain a French or Latin phrase, though, so it’s good.

          • Brucehenry

            Do you think that we would have invaded Iraq because of the violated UN resolutions had it not been for the fact 9/11 happened, and that Bush was able to sell his Next-Time-It-Might-Be-Nuclear pitch? Why haven’t we invaded Israel to punish them for violating UN resolutions? Why didn’t we invade South Africa back in the day? Why don’t we invade every country that has violated UN resolutions? Because no one gives a shit about UN resolutions, that’s why, until it suits them to give a shit.

            No, those in Congress who saw the same data and voted to go to war were craven careerists, as I have said. Fuck them. There was plenty of data to support an anti-war position. Some politicians are afraid of how they’ll be portrayed on cable news. Again, fuck them.

            One of the things dictators do is kill their own people. The Shah did. the Saudis do. Somoza did. Pinochet did. We didn’t seem to have much of a problem with Saddam doing it until he wasn’t our guy anymore, so, no, that wasn’t cause for a war, IMO.

          • Vagabond661

            You act like Bush did this all by his little lonesome. Are you trying to rewrite history or do you not remember? And it’s funny how your side doesn’t give a shit about the UN unless it’s about gun control or global warming. (edit)

            Either way…

            There was a coalition of many nations who also saw Saddam as a threat. Take a look:

            http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000677

            I guess all those countries were wrong and bruce is right. Oops better not say right! bruce was correct. after all there has been much hand wringing from those on the left about going to war with anyone except conservatives. Don’t want to put you in harm’s way. brucie.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            And the vote for the AUMF by Congress.

          • herddog505

            Honestly, Bruce, you really need to get a better grip on what constitutes a lie.

            If you want to say that Bush was stupid or foolish, that’s one thing. But to keep ranting that he lied because he SHOULD have known or because we found some weapons but (somehow) not enough to count is silly.

          • Brucehenry

            My main point all along is selective outrage. Sorry I got into the whole Iraq thing, but honestly WHAT DOES IT MATTER if this picture was photoshopped?! It’s a group photo that shows all the Democratic congresswomen. Pelosi is telling the truth when she says it accurately depicts the Democratic women’s House caucus.

            By contrast, where was Warner’s outrage about the lies, or stupidity, or foolishness, or WHATEVER, that led to 4400 American deaths in order to make Iraq safe for Iran to dominate?

            If you don’t think Powell’s UN performance was a lie I don’t know what to tell you. If you don’t think the aluminum-tubes-from-Africa thing was a lie I’ll never convince you. But whatever these and other statements were, they were orders of magnitude more outrageous, and consequential, than a photoshopped group photo, WERE THEY NOT?

          • herddog505

            Jebus, the lefty talking points just won’t die, will they? TIp: you didn’t mention Halliiburton and “War for Oil”.
            I also suggest that what outrages people differs from person to person. In the case of the photoshopped pic, I’m not outraged myself; it’s a minor foul-up that’s worthy of an eye-roll (“Congress did something stupid? Surprise, surprise…)
            In the case of Iraq, I’m NOT outraged because I’ve seen no evidence that Bush and members of his administration lied (again: knowingly and deliberately communicated something that they knew to be false). Further, we had a history with Saddam going back to ’91, which included warnings from Slick and democrat members of Congress that he was up to no good and even the occasional air- or missile strike. Contrast this with Libya, by the way, where it was more like, “Surprise! We’re bombing somebody!”

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Think of beer, Bruce.

            There’s either beer in the fridge, or there isn’t. If you tell someone there’s beer in the fridge, and there’s beer – then you’re not lying. It might be cheap, nasty beer, it might be undrinkable – but if there’s beer, then there’s beer.

            Colin Powell said there were WMDs. WMDs were found. Therefore there were WMDs. They may have been crappy ones – but to pretend there weren’t when there were is just foolish.

            If there’s beer in the fridge, and you tell someone you DON’T have beer, then you can’t let them check the fridge – as Saddam was really reluctant to do. He would maintain he didn’t have WMDs, but he sure as hell didn’t cooperate to prove it.

      • jim_m

        The last one. But then why aren’t you upset with the Clinton intel apparatus that produced it?

      • 914

        If it has no “implications” why is pelosi defending it and you rationalizing it?

        A lie is a lie is a lie. Nice jobs report by the way. Or maybe its just another lie with no implications beyond “Man Obama sucks!!”

  • retired.military

    We are $16T in debt. Running a $1T deficit, Just had the largest govt takeover of economic concerns in history, and a thousand other things going wrong and this is a big deal. Only in America.

    • Brucehenry

      Only in Huston’s Wizbang articles.

  • Commander_Chico

    Some of them look bangable.

    • jim_m

      I’m sure you are referring to this one.

      • Brucehenry
        • jim_m

          Yes the mentally ill can be endearing.

          • Brucehenry

            We all love YOU, Jim.

          • jim_m

            My 85 year old father would look better than her in that outfit. She’s an embarrassment. Apart from having the typical ignorant, totalitarian, lefty politics she wears an outfit that would look ugly on a super model (Elsewhere the comment was that she should be told that the Harry Potter movies are no longer seeking extras to play witches). I especially like the red dyed hair.

            Nothing like a geriatric punk rocker dressed like a bag lady for Congress; especially one that is a stooge for unionism, the academia racket and who serves as a useful idiot to deny Catholics their religious liberties. What about her wouldn’t the left love?

            I guess on the bright side she hasn’t done anything as dumb as Hank Johnson. Maybe he should be replacing Pelosi as Minority Leader.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t know you were such a fashionista, Jim. From now on I’ll never be able to read one of your comments without picturing that stern greyhaired guy from Project Runway.

    • 914

      Man you are hard up.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Low standards?

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    Stephen Macklin is correct. Warner has not posted two versions of the same photo. Instead, he has posted two different photos. You can tell by looking at the last three women in the lower-right-hand corner of each photo.

    • Brucehenry

      L. O. Freaking. L.

    • jim_m

      Warner has posted the very same pictures as the Washington Post that were used for the same sort of story. You can tell be actually clicking the link and reading the story.

      • Brucehenry

        It’s a hack story on the Post as it is on Wizbang. It’s on HuffPo, too. So?

        • jim_m

          As I said before, when I see you complaining to the WaPo then I will take your complaint here seriously.

          • Brucehenry

            Check the comment thread on WaPo.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually, this is where I admit to trying to trick Jim into wasting some time, but you have foiled me, Rodney! I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you, you meddling kid!

          • jim_m

            I guess I took your claim so unseriously that I never considered looking. That and unlike the lefties I don’t feel the need to control the behavior of others.

          • Brucehenry

            Some of these are jokes.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Just proves that he is, by his own standards, a liar.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Just proves that he is, by his own standards, a liar.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            A search of the string “Brucehenry” in the comments of the article returns a null. How fitting.

            Is this he admits being a liar per his own standard above?

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        Regardless of their source, they are still two different photos. Thus, Warner has not provided evidence of photo-shopping even if it was done. Besides, any alleged photo-shopping did not result in harm. So, what is the problem?

        • jim_m

          Sigh. First, I really don’t care about the photoshopping. However, the picture was photoshopped and Pelosi’s office admits as much. So this is not “alleged” photoshopping, it is actual photoshopping.

          The reason for the several dofferent pictures is that there is one picture taken by the WaPo (with the fewest participants) another taken by Pelosi’s office and a third, which was photoshopped.

          But you can get off your high horse with the inferences that there was no photoshopping of the pic. That is not even an issue. But again, the photoshopping is really not a big deal in this sort of a pic.

  • TomInCali

    This is an issue for you?

    a) It’s not like they added random photos from a binder full of women to make the crowd look bigger. Those are actual Reps.

    b) Those four actually showed up for the photo, but late, after the rest of the crowd started to disperse. So the photographer took additional photos of them standing on the steps just like the others. They didn’t use other photos from another source.

    c) Even Fox News acknowledges that the release of the photo was accompanied by the statement: “Please note this version has the four Members who were late photo-shopped in.”

    d) As noted earlier, those aren’t even the same photos!

    Get a real issue.

    • 914

      I bet they did not have to be photo-shopped into their multiple vacations.

  • herddog505

    Two “problems”:

    1. Members of Congress are so damned inefficient, lazy and outright stupid that they can’t even arrange to take a group photo, and so the ones who showed up late have to be photoshopped? Really?

    2. Pelosi making this about “diversity” (which in leftyspeak means people who look different but otherwise speak, act and even think alike). $16T debt and climbing, war in A-stan, another budget / debt fight right around the corner, and this harridan is concerned about showing us how “diverse” her caucus is?

    Yes, this is a trivial issue, but politics tends to be about the trivial: the unflattering photo, the quote that sounds (or can be made to sound) bad, etc. Further, what is trivial to one person carries weight with another. For those of us on the right, the whole “binders full of women” was silly and trivial, but it sure as hell wasn’t for you lefties, was it?

    By the way, perhaps our resident lefties can answer a question: do you people REALLY care about whether X% of your members of Congress are black or Y% are female or Z% are homosexual, biracial, atheist Pisces between the ages of 29 and 34.3 (inclusive)? Or is “diversity” just a convenient political bludgeon?

    • TomInCali

      Members of Congress are so damned inefficient, lazy and outright stupid that they can’t even arrange to take a group photo

      I can’t find the particular article I read to reference here, but the reason those few were late was because they were, you know, busy doing the job they were elected to.

      You’ll find anything to complain about, huh?

      • herddog505

        If I recall correctly what I read, they were pressing the flesh and otherwise doing a bit of celebrating about (re)election and coming back to DC. I’m pretty sure they weren’t in committee or on the floor of the House.

        And, when it comes to Congress, you’re quite right: I can usually find something to complain about. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel…

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    What about the one on the left in blue that magically appears. A fifth?

  • mesell

    99.9% of the American people will never set eyes on this photo. 100% will not even give a crap. This is primary school mentality, Pelosi

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    U know what – who cares what Pillosi defends, she is an ‘old ding bat’ the turkey buzzards are about to devour. She already looks like she’s had a few bites out of her botox face & empty brain. hahahahaha

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    U know what – who cares what Pillosi defends, she is an ‘old ding bat’ the turkey buzzards are about to devour. She already looks like she’s had a few bites out of her botox face & empty brain. hahahahaha

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    All those women look like old buzzards and Pilliosi being the stupid ding bat that thinks any of us are interested one way or the other.

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    Yea I saId Pill-osi she is that as well, poison pill.