CNN's Malveaux asked if Pelosi's trip to Syria is "big wet kiss to President Al-Assad"
On the April 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host Suzanne Malveaux again asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had "no official capacity to negotiate" during her visit to Syria. Malveaux then asked Imad Moustapha, Syrian ambassador to the United States, why anyone should "see" Pelosi's trip as "any more [than] a political stunt here, a publicity stunt, a big wet kiss to [Syrian] President [Bashar] Al-Assad?" As Media Matters for America noted, Malveaux made similar comments on the April 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, saying that Pelosi had no "standing" and was not acting in an "official capacity" despite Democratic strategist Paul Begala's assertion that "Pelosi has standing. She's the speaker of the House," and Malveaux herself noting that Pelosi "will be the highest level U.S. official ever to meet with Assad."
On April 3, Malveaux also asked Begala why Pelosi's trip is "any more than political theater" and later told former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), "Some people look at this as simply political theater, a stunt."
As blogger and media critic Greg Sargent noted, earlier on the April 4 Situation Room, Malveaux teased a segment on Pelosi's trip by asking, "Is [Pelosi] on her way to becoming the most controversial House speaker yet?"
From the April 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX [video clip]: We understand that Pelosi met with the prime minister of Israel and that she was, in fact, delivering a message. But with all due respect, she has no official capacity to negotiate with your government here.
Why should the Americans, or even the international community, see this any more as a political stunt here, a publicity stunt, a big wet kiss to President Al-Assad?
MOUSTAPHA [video clip]: First, she was not negotiating. Second, somebody should tell the American public opinion that what they are being told about Syria is a myth. Stop trying to portray Syria as an enemy to the United States.
We are not an enemy to the United States.
MALVEAUX: Meanwhile, regarding those 15 freed British service members, Syria's foreign minister says it was among the nations that helped work towards their release.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Isn't this interesting? Aside from the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring the Republicans who made the same trip, the hysteria with which the MSM is latching on to this story only reaffirms my suspicion that there really is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. We have a President who is clearly delusional, a Vice President who is a war profiteer, and the press is spending time on this nonsense?
It's becoming a joke at this point.
I remember reading that this would be the Republicans' strategy (smearing Pelosi), but did not think the mainstream media would play along like they have.
On Middle East issues, the righties are spinning at a record RPM, and it is a joke. True to the form of conservative humor, the joke isn't funny.
While Americans die every day in Iraq, they ridicule and mock Pelosi for wearing a scarf. While bombs kill tens of people every day in Iraq, they laughably attempt to place Pelosi at the heart of the problems we face with the Middle East. All the while our vacationer-in-chief proudly proclaims, "my way or the highway," before heading off for a weekend of mountain biking at the ranch and blowhards like O'Reilly wipe their behinds with the pride and dignity of the Iraqi people.
Collectively, it's an enormous joke, but I'm not laughing.
I personally have no issue with Pelosi's visit, as long as the Syrian government knows we speak with one voice - and Pelosi has made that clear, then her visit is constructive, in my opinion.
What is silly is why she's wearing that scarf in the first place?....ok, I know, out of respect - but come on? Do we somehow demand or expect foreign heads of state to wear a cross of Catholicism when visiting here? No.
Tommy just like to point out that Laura Bush and Condi Rice have worn scarfs as well when in the region. It is bizarre what the right decides to attack, should this take up any media time? Also pulled this off a left blog it is legitimate- In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
Needless to say he undermined the president's position and ability to leverage.
Agree with you on Hastert's inappropriateness........and I think it's just as silly when Laura Bush or Condi Rice wear the scarves.
I think if Pelosi didnt wear the scarves she would have been called an ugly american by the right. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
Let me guess...you're not exactly well-travelled, are you? I suppose if you went to Japan you would refuse to take your shoes off in someone's house because it would be too silly?
"Agree with you on Hastert's inappropriateness........and I think it's just as silly when Laura Bush or Condi Rice wear the scarves."
They wear the head coverings out of respect for the culture and traditions of the Middle Eastern countries.They wear the head coverings out of respect for the culture and traditions of these Middle Eastern countries.
"What is silly is why she's wearing that scarf in the first place?"--tommy
Are you familiar with the phrase "When in Rome, do what the Romans do"? Do you see where there just might be an application of that in regards to diplomacy?
Laura Bush and Condi have each worn a headscarf on occasion and never raised an eyebrow. Why is that?
Heck, President Bush has even worn a yarmulke. It is following the general customs of the land they are in. I think it shows great respect as you alluded to. We don't require other leaders to wear crosses, because that is not a general custom here. We don't have much of a dress custom per se like many other countries do.
You make a valid point about our customs here, but one can certainly show respect for another's culture without adopting their dress. Many of our citizens are very much steeped in their own culture and we respect that, as we should - when and if foreign leaders visit here they wear their own culture's dress, as they should.
I just believe it is unnecessary for our travels, but not theirs, in my opinion.
You can say that it is unnecessary all you want but the fact is that many in the media are not saying that. They are inappropriately smearing Pelosi for absolutely no reason. The average Joe Blow is watching this massive coverage and thinking that Republicans would never send a congressional delegation to Syria and also only a Democrat would wear a scarf.
Phony attacks are all the GOP have and the "LIBERAL" media is happy to oblige.
If we were talking about clothes being nothing more than instruments of modesty or protection, it would make sense that nobody would care what foreign diplomats wear. But dress also has symbology, moreso in other parts of the world than in the US, and that's the topic here.
We're not immune to the symbology, though. Ever consider that even in our enlightened society judges wear robes?
Why do you think Bush holds hands with Saudi royal family members, even when they visit our country? It's an Arab custom, not a US one. Bush is showing courtesy by adopting the custom of his guest. People do it all over the world everyday, even many of the people who visit the United States.
I think there is a conservative reflex that is best summed up from one of the lines from the Sunday school song "I've got the Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy down in my heart!".
If you view the world as a Manichaean dichotomy of good and evil like many conservatives (and sadly some liberals) do, then all of your enemies are "the devil" and they can just "sit on a tack!"..."Ouch!"
It is an ancient argument, but some people believe that justice is doing good for our friends and harm to our enemies. I don't buy that. Justice in its many forms should be applied equally to friend and foe alike.
Fortunately our leaders are wise enought to know that it is better to flatter the population by adopting some superficial custom than it is to needlessly alienate them by rejecting their customs. It is called tact and diplomacy. It is usually derided by conservatives as just being PC.
On our next trip to Scotland, we should wear a kilt and eat hagus?
I actually think kilts are pretty cool. Not so much the hagus. I feel the same about hagus as the first President Bush felt about sushi.
nitpicking a little tommy ?
What the hell was GW thinking?
[link to www.pitbullsaloon.com]
[link to www.thevaase.com]
[link to www.enterstageright.com]
[link to www.ansa.it]
Loved that first one.
The Royal is saying "I'm playing this for all it's worth...this is just too much fun...'ol Dubya's just cringin'...
Speaker Pelosi wore the headscarf for her visit to a mosque. All females must cover their heads if they plan to enter a mosque. Why don't you mention the time Laura Bush did the same thing?
More to the point of "adopting cultural practices" when meeting with people of other lands, why is is TERRIBLE for Pelosi to wear a scarf, but we see pictures of Bush HOLDING HANDS with the Saudi leaders?
It's their culture, we are told, so we should make nothing of the fact that men hand-holding in OUR American culture is seen as either effeminate, gay, or a blatant show of sexual intimacy?
Pelosi could wear a scarf to Macy's or Wal-Mart, and it would be appropriate. Bush, showing up at a VFW hall for a speech, holding hands with a retired colonel? Let's get real, people.
(BTW, hasn't our CIA determined that the Saudis are the source for a great deal of terrorist funding? What's up with the Prez cozying up to terrorst supporters? Shouldn't he demand they renounce funding terrorism before he'll hold their hands tenderly while strolling?)
"I personally have no issue with Pelosi's visit, as long as the Syrian government knows we speak with one voice - and Pelosi has made that clear, then her visit is constructive, in my opinion."
And I think Pelosi realizes it would be incredibly foolish to go to Syria with the sole intention of bashing our President in the presence of Bashar Assad.
Think Progress quoted Republican Rep. David Hobson, who was with Pelosi during her trip, saying she “did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria.”
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Why should the Americans, or even the international community, see this any more as a political stunt here, a publicity stunt, a big wet kiss to President Al-Assad? // Malveaux
I wonder what rational mind would miss that the comment came from a "presumptive nuetral interviewer" for the public's ingestion while speaking to an Syrian ambassador as though the interview was with a hostile! We have diplomatic relations and an embassy with a nation that we don't engage with diplomacy??? Why???
Syria armed forces left Lebannon because of diplomatic efforts, sanctions, and international support of a policy from a benevolent super power that was seen as honorable, and just! That was America before George Bush, Dick Cheney, and comany! Why?, indeed!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Why should the Americans, or even the international community, see this any more as a political stunt here, a publicity stunt, a big wet kiss to President Al-Assad? // Malveaux
I wonder what rational mind would miss that the comment came from a "presumptive nuetral interviewer" for the public's ingestion while speaking to an Syrian ambassador as though the interview was with a hostile! We have diplomatic relations and an embassy with a nation that we don't engage with diplomacy??? Why???
Syria armed forces left Lebannon because of diplomatic efforts, sanctions, and international support of a policy from a benevolent super power that was seen as honorable, and just! That was America before George Bush, Dick Cheney, and company! Why?, indeed!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
SORRY, MY BAD!
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the US is a republic, not a democracy.
Wrong on both counts. It's a plutocratic kleptocracy.
Actually, you are just being more specific. A "republic" is a representative form of democracy, which literally comes from the Greek -- the people rule. It is incorrect to say we are not a Democracy at all.
I have heard this pretty silly semantic debate from Republicans before. As if it matters what we call our form of government anyway. Should I vote for Republicans because they are a more appropriate name for our form of government and just ignore their largely short-sighted, ignorant and self-serving policies? Please.
By that definition there are no democracies anywhere in the world and yet didnt Bush say he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq? Did he mean by that the Iraqis were going to vote on every single issue enacted? That is a weak semantic argument, while technically correct it contains no useful information nor cogent argument.
The POINT of this Pelosi bashing is that it shows our current Rightwing Media Bias. How are similar stories handled, when Republicans do them?
Bush wet-kisses Lieberman, and holds hands with terrorist-supplier Saudies. The media finds nothing to criticize. Republicans make the same trip to the same nation; nothing to report there. Rice and Laura Bush wear scarves ... no need to note THAT as being appeasers to a culture.
ONLY if a Democrat does something should it be dissected and analyzed to death, finding how many ways the Dem can be bashed, smeared, belittled, and made to seem an enemy of the state.
If Republicans do it, pish posh. Media Bias Writ Large, and it's a RIGHTWING MEDIA. America is curently being propagandized no less than the old Soviet Union and TASS. In both case, the BIAS was provided by control of all means of media by the government/military/industrial complex. (Our Rightwing claimed to think this was BAD then the Soviets did it.)
I thought Malveux was supposed to be a hard news person. When did she become a pundit? If I want these types of opinions, I'll watch O'Reilly, Beck, Scarborough, Imus, Tucker Carlson, Hannity, John Gibson, etc.
I know her brother is a GOP official, but this is getting ridiculous.
She's been Hannitized. Just like Hannity, she's showing that trait where no matter what anybody tells her and no matter how many times it's explained to her that she's way off-base, she just keeps repeating her established narrative. It's propaganda.
Don't misunderestimate these people. I think they actually believe what they're saying, which means for them it's not rhetoric.
We need to bear in mind that the depths of their cognitive and analytical skills are a scratch on the surface of reality. I know this, because I spent way too long this morning reading the comment section on LGF. What happens is that they begin with a blank slate, and wait for the official position of their party which they then accept as the authoritative truth. Then, they gather all the information on the subject they can comprehend, analyze it to the limits of their comprehension, and throw out the facts that don't bolster what they've already accepted as truth. Finally, they repeat this accepted truth - often and loudly - with an air of authority and arrogance. When confronted with contradictory evidence, they either attempt to discredit the source, find a historical equivalent on the opposing side, or ignore it and continue to repeat the accepted truth with more volume. This method has made Hannity very rich in a world where he would otherwise be floundering to remember if the lady at table 17 got the hot wings or the quesadilla.
Never underestimate the addictive qualities of righteous anger. It is just another rush that is never as good as it was the first time. They need people to vent at, and will apparently sacrifice anything of yours for that next rush. Intervention would probably be a good thing for many folks mmfa watches. The swirling cloud of fans and enablers would make this difficult. They get rushes when their heroes vent. Pleasure in any form has its source in brain chemicals in whose effect heroin is a pale shadow. If you take this argument a little way, what we face is a army of drug addicts.
All I want for Easter is...
I can't wait 'till Suzie goes back to her regular job - CNN's stenographer at the White House.
Plus, it's probably easier for her to read notes from Karl than the text on a teleprompter.
Somebody will be along shortly to poo-poo your assertion that Karl is pulling the strings. One has to wonder, though. When so many "reporters" are repeating the same GOP talking points without flinching, it seems highly probable that there is a single source for all this propaganda. If not Rove, then who?
Right Wing Echo Chamber
How the RWEC (pronounced "wreck") gets Karl's talking points on the air is a mystery to me too.
I usually chalk it up to laziness on the part of most in the MSM, but I fear that there's something much more sinister at work as well.
Scaryschit.
I think the press haven't learned from plame-gate and are still way too cozy with the administration. They are listening to the Administration line and not bothering to check it out to see if it is actually right.
Isn't this pretty sexist as well? I'm sure if it was Biden over there the phraseology "big wet kiss" wouldn't be used.
Scary where the mainstream media is today.
It's not too surprising to meet people who get their news from emails or am radio talking this way. I'give a pass to somebody who maybe didn't go to school past 6th grade, doesn't read much and is easily hypnotized by little flags waving in front of their face, but when our S.C.U.M.* is talking the same way, it's just embarrassing.
(Thx ETRW)
Maybe. If it was John Edwards, they might still use the phrasing though.
The whole interview was wrong on so many levels, including sexism. It is too bad MediaMatters didn't play the entire interview. Malveaux refused to let the ambassador finish a response, preferring instead to simply speak over him with Dan Bartlett-esque talking points.
Btw, the AP is reporting that Rep. Issa (R - California) is visiting with the Syrian President today:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/05/africa/ME-GEN-Syria-US.php
It will be interesting to see how this visit gets covered.
The rightwing KNOW WHAT THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT when they reference "big wet kisses".
[link to politicalhumor.about.com]
There's cultural things here too. It might be appropiate for Biden to have a big sloppy kiss with Sirian's prez. The French would settle for a busk on the cheek.
I don't remenber who said it, I think its appropiate. True evil, like genious is both rare and limited. Stupidity is however availible in nearly infinite quanities.
Good point on the cultural thing, but I'd wager a guess that's not what the Malveux was talking about when she made the comment.
She sucks, regardless.
Except it's not. I don't recall Bush ever being characterized as delivering a "big wet kiss" to foreign leaders, even after he gave Angela Merkel an actual shoulder rub. In fact I don't recall the MSM ever characterizing a politician that way. It's just so insulting.
Ah, but dontcha see - Dems aren't really people. thing of the whole "mud people" school of Americana. Demonisation is the penultimate step toward the destruction of the enemy.
"THINK" of . . .
Everytime I propose to be funny, I am in some outrageous and unplanned way.
Damn! CNN isn't even trying anymore not to sound like a compelte shill for the White House! Did they even mention that Repubclians have also visited there? that pretty much every American Administration has had dialogue with hostile powers? Why is Cnn against dialogue anyway?
I''m disgusted with the Atlanta-based PRAVDA.
Memo to CNN: Bush is unpopular! You don't have to carry his water anymore!
Why did Pelosi put words in Olmert's mouth regarding peace with Syria? Words that Olmert had to come out and refute? Can't Pelosi do anything right?
there's another topic here on site that covers that. I believe she was misrepresented, but I'll check myself.
Yea the Washinton post thread. The article from the post was responeded to. Nancy's position seems clear. You seem to be repeating a talking point.
I believe I read about Pelosi's gaff in either the Orange County Register or the Long Beach Press Telegram. I'll look it up again.
Hey, DVD, are you in my neighborhood? Which Blockbuster do you work at?
Eweston, Did you read the Washington post thread? Pelosi absolutely screwed up. There's no way around it.
Pelosi didn't "screw up": per the Repugnant in her party, she presented nothing of the sort, to anyone. That is a "talking point" misrepresentation by partisans who are camoflauged as reporters.
Oh, and seized upon for perceived partisan advantage by creatures camoflauging themselves as reasonable, presented in the Corporate Media as fact, then echoed endlessly by all the right-wing nutzoids.
Hope you are not among those!
Pelosi didn't screw up at all. The Post got it wrong. Please post any replies you may have in the appropriate thread.
Thanks
She didnt, you are wrong. Wow, what WERE the chances?
The interesting thing is that the Arab nations know that Democrats are just as responsible for the war crimes as the Republicans. The "Arab street" will treat this visit with cynicism and a knowledge of Israeli domination of both US parties. All the arguments over it in the US are just more shallowness, the real facts are that ANY US overtures by ANY US politician to Syria is going to be treated with suspicion.
I blame Malveaux on the "American Idol effect". We are all "experts" if we can just get a stage. When it comes to commenting on the news it seems that anyone can spout off and pretend to be an expert because there are no real qualifications against which we can evaluate these opinions.
Would we take her opinion on topics such as medical procedures, economics, archeology? But with News, there are no established criteria for being an "expert". The only thing we can use is past statements and analysis. Someone who has a documented history of making accurate predictions and presenting insightful analysis could use this as their qualifications.
Has Malveaux previously made accurate statements? good predictions? insightful analysis?
Not...
Malveaux fails to note the irony
that she is giving the White house something wetter than just a kiss by shamelessly regurgitating Bush and Cheney's disingenuous outrage.
I remarked earlier about certain media outlets being only too willing to spend egregious amounts of time "chuffing the Executive Staff" and to pass off such sticky, drool-slathered editorials as journalism, and here we see my proof
The "big wet" oral service being rendered here is from CNN to the Bush Administration. Lewinsky's got nothing on Malveaux.
Did Pelosi say she was negotiating in any official capacity?
Somebody has got to do something about the airheads on CNN, both male and female, who do the bidding of the Bush administration. I used to work for a market research company that had a philosophy of bullying people who were graceful enough not to refuse being interviewed or participating in focus groups. The assumption was that the bullying would cause them to blurt out something that they wouldn't have otherwise volunteered..something that could be stolen and used for advertising purposes.
I quit that job...perhaps the company would like to hire Malveaux...she is certainly rude enough.
M