Perhaps you clicked on the wrong section, because your understanding that this is a "news source" is unfounded. That is a few sections over. This is the "Opinion Section." Thus, these are opinion articles. They have to be supported by fact and well-reasoned argument. You disagree with my presentation of the facts and my reasoning, perhaps. But this doesn't mean I don't have a right to express them, or that I am in any way, shape, or form required to place on the table facts which I deem to be irrelevant and superfluous to my argument.

I am not a journalist and have never pretended to be one. At best I am a political pundit, and at worst, if you're a liberal who can't entertain certain views, I'm a right-wing propagandist. But I don't pretend to be a journalist, someone who does investigative work, is unbiased, or fair. If I were, then I wouldn't write articles calling for Nancy Pelosi to be impeached or arrested for violation of federal law.

It was irrelevant to my article (which is centered around Pelosi) whether some unknown Congressman may have once gone to Syria. But if you really want to know why I excluded it, here is an excerpt from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

"Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared."

It would have been a waste of my time to discuss the goings on of people who were in line with the Bush foreign policy and agenda, obviously, since my article was about people, specifically one person, who are not in line with the Bush foreign policy and agenda.

Essentially, there is only so much I can say in an article and so much room I have. Some things have to be left out. That was one of them, because it's an irrelevant fact and odd argument to make, so there was no need for me to address it. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor was written regarding it, so now I have to address it. And I've done so here.

Then what exactly, if I may ask, do you consider yourself? My understanding is that anyone writing regularly for a news source is a journalist. I'd really love more explanation of your understanding of the term, because I think whether you're writing as an opinion writer or as a reporter, the inclusion of all relevant information in a matter is a minimum standard of journalistic ethics. If your opinion is not based on all relevant information, but only on selections from it, then perhaps the opinion should be rethought and not defended. And by all relevant information, no, I don't mean you need to provide a list of every American citizen ever to set foot on Syrian soil. I do, however, mean details of the Speaker's trip that Mike Maio has provided here which directly contradict your initial attack against her as willfully undermining Bush's foreign relations policies.

I'm not a journalist. I also have no obligation to provide a fair and balanced context for the readers. But even at that, as I stated before, Pelosi is a whole different level than backbenching congressmen. And again, it is clear by the words of those who support her that she and they intend to represent an "alternative" foreign policy than the Bush administration's. This is fact. And that is a violation of federal law. Just read the Logan Act - you don't have to be an expert to see the plain English that she has very likely violated.

So my article is perfectly fine, you just disagree with it. You think I am under an obligation to mention everyone who has ever gone to Syria. Obviously, this is irrelevant. Pelosi is the only person under discussion, and she is the only person whose voice carries the specific weight and gravity which is considered worthy of discussion.

Mike,

It's clear that you wish to engage in what is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy of reasoning. Because someone else from your side did it, therefore it must be okay (or the claim that it was wrong is false). Well, no. But even beyond such an argument, Nancy Pelosi attempted to represent an "alternative Democratic foreign policy," something which the Republican representatives you have mentioned did not.

Pelosi's position as Speaker gives her a voice and a platform that other people do not have. Going abroad and attempting to speak on behalf of the U.S. government without the permission of the government in a dispute between our government and a foreign country is a violation of federal law. It's that simple.

And if Pelosi only relayed the Bush administration's position (which contradicts Tom Lantos' assertion of an "alternative Democratic foreign policy"), let us see transcripts of the conversation between Assad and Pelosi. Are you willing to bet that she was 100% in line with the Bush foreign policy?

If not, then she violated the law, and she grossly offended the principle of the separation of powers. "Prime Minister Pelosi" has no business usurping the president's authority.

And as far as the "smear campaign" being "widely discredited," left-wing blogs don't count.