CNN reported on Pelosi's "bad trip" to Syria
On the April 2 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN ran an on-screen graphic reading "Pelosi's Bad Trip?" throughout a report about a congressional delegation visit to Syria led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). As Media Matters for America noted twice on April 2 (here and here), CNN aired reports about White House criticism of the Pelosi-led trip without mentioning the White House's inconsistency in not also criticizing a Republican-led delegation that met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus on April 1. While Dobbs, unlike some of his colleagues, did report at the end of the segment that Pelosi had responded to criticism from the White House by noting its silence regarding the Republican-led trip, in subsequent reports, CNN persisted in leaving out any mention of the GOP-led delegation or the White House's inconsistency.
On April 3, CNN Newsroom host Betty Nguyen characterized Pelosi's trip as a "defiance of the White House" while senior international correspondent Brent Sadler noted that the White House described Pelosi's decision to go to Syria as a "bad" one. He added: "[S]he's flying in the face of that criticism." During those reports, neither Nguyen nor Sadler mentioned the Republican-led trip to Syria.
Similarly, on the April 3 edition of Your World Today, Jill Dougherty, U.S. affairs editor for CNN International, while reporting on Pelosi's trip to Syria, noted that "it is true that there have been other visits to Syria by other U.S. politicians" but did not mention that those "other U.S. politicians" include Republicans.
From the April 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Beirut tonight. Pelosi plans to meet with Syrian President Assad in Syria later this week. That meeting is drawing strong criticism from the White House. The speaker says she has no illusions but does have great hope for those talks, which have been recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
Brent Sadler reports from Beirut.
[begin video clip]
SADLER: Two high-profile visits to Lebanon. United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paying her respects at the tomb of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. And German Chancellor Angela Merkel treading a similar path. Half the Mideast's quartet represented here, Europe and the United States, focused on renewed international efforts to kick-start regional peace, including Pelosi's controversial plans to visit Syria.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): We think it's a good idea to establish the facts, to hopefully build some confidence between us. We have no illusions, but we have great hope.
SADLER: But the White House calls her Syrian stopover a bad decision because the U.S. administration considers Syria a supporter of terrorism, citing Syrian behavior over its border with Iraq that helps insurgents and Syria's support for what the U.S. and Israel call terror groups like Hezbollah.
REP TOM LANTOS (D-CA): It is in their interest to return to a position where they can be part of the positive forces in this region and not be in a tight alliance with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's Iran.
SADLER: Syria's top leadership plans to welcome Pelosi's delegation, which includes the first Muslim U.S. congressman, with open arms. But they recognize that hopes for a Syrian change of behavior on Pelosi's road to Damascus is no easy ride.
Brent Sadler, CNN, Beirut.
[end video clip]
DOBBS: The speaker, for her part, says the White House is singling her out for criticism over this trip to Syria. Last week, three Republican congressmen also visited Syria, and they also met with President Assad.
Speaker Pelosi said, quote, "I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that." Pelosi's office said she's following the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the United States launch a diplomatic initiative with Syria.
From the April 3 edition of CNN's Your World Today:
HALA GORANI (anchor): So, what kind of power does Nancy Pelosi have? Not in setting U.S. foreign policy, of course, but setting a certain tone as speaker of the House? Why is her trip getting such strong reaction from the White House?
Our U.S. affairs editor, Jill Dougherty, joins us live now from the U.S. Capitol to put it in perspective for us.
So, that is the question, Jill. Why such a strong reaction from the White House?
DOUGHERTY: Well, you know, it is true that there have been other visits to Syria by other U.S. politicians. But this one really has struck a nerve with the Bush administration, and it's raising fears in the Bush administration that the opposition Democrats may be trying to structure their own foreign policy.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the April 3 edition of CNN Newsroom:
NGUYEN: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Syria today -- in defiance of the White House. Pelosi's visit is part of a Middle East fact-finding tour which is also taking her to Lebanon and Israel. Joining us now on the phone is senior international correspondent Brent Sadler. And Brent, she landed there in Damascus just last hour. We're looking at some new video of that. Set the scene for us; who was there to greet her?
SADLER: Well, she was met by Walid Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, one of a number of top officials she'll be meeting here for talks including Syria's president, Bashar Al-Assad.
As you say, Betty, this is a visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that's been highly criticized by the White House. Officials at the White House describing this as a bad decision to come to Syria and to meet the Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad, given the White House says, that Syria is a state sponsor of terror, that Syria supports terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and that also that Syria has situations across its border that basically destabilize Iraq.
So those are the reasons why the White House says that Pelosi will be better to have cancelled this trip. But that's certainly not what she's done, she's flying in the face of that criticism. I've just been watching her walk around the old city of Damascus where she was mingling with ordinary Syrians through English and sometimes in Arabic -- through a translator -- were telling her that America needs to recalibrate its opinion of Syria and that if the American administration showed better attitudes toward Syria then Syria could reciprocate. This is what she was being told by ordinary Syrians in this old souk area, before and after she visited the ancient, 1,300-year-old Umayyad mosque in the center of old Damascus here, Betty.
NGUYEN: That's just a few moments of her landing -- is what we're watching. But you've detailed a little bit of what she's done already on the ground, what's on the agenda for the rest of the day?
SADLER: Well, this evening she'll be attending a reception at the U.S. ambassador's residence, although there's been no ambassador here at that level for two years, since the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri -- the diplomatic status was downgraded after that over the past two years. The United States also tightened sanctions against Syria during that time.
But tomorrow, Wednesday will be the big day. That's when she'll see the Syrian president, Bashar Al-Assad. They'll be some tough talking there, certainly, Pelosi has made it clear she's not going to avoid the hot-button issue of Syria's behavior towards Iraq, Syria's behavior towards neighboring Lebanon, and other issues, not least trying to kick-start the Middle East peace process.
She says she's here on a fact-finding mission, she says she has no illusions but goes on with this mission with some hope, she says.
NGUYEN: All right, CNN's Brent Sadler joining us live from Damascus. Brent, we thank you.
"Pelosi receives warm welcome in Syria" posted: 2:20 p.m. EDT, April 3, 2007.
Nice piece posted on CNN.com.
Even you can't believe that the cable channel and the website are equivalent.
But of course 'The Democrats don't have any ideas' and 'all they do is run down the Republicans.' So when Democrats actually start making actual policy moves, they start to squeal.
That's the problem PBG; it's not up to the Democrat party to make policy regarding this war. Like it or not, George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief. Pelosi, Reid and their ilk are attempting to cut the legs off of our military men and women to guarantee a US defeat in Iraq and a win for the Democrat party in 2008. A more disgusting bunch is hard to imagine.
Bush guaranteed defeat by invading without a plan for the aftermath or even the most basic understanding of the people of that region. He's already said he's leaving his mess for a future president to clean up.
Democrats are just getting started tidying up his disastrous foreign policies. Thanks to all the ill will The Worst President Ever has generated world wide, it's going to be a long haul fixing things.
What US interest are you so determined to kill more American soldiers for? What US interest did the 3000+ dead die for?
You're ignoring the point that George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief. It is not up to the Democrat party to run the war. If and when the Democrat party takes the White House, there will be a Democrat Commander in Chief. At that point, the Democrat party can cut and run but not until then.
We arent ignoring ANYTHING. If the ReNAMBLAcans understood that diplomacy meant anything other than telling other countries to do what they are told we wouldnt be in our current disasterous situation
DVDBOOKER, do you really believe the stuff you write?
I guess I see things differently-
It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
Do you think that's reasonably accurate?
No, HBL, I don't think that's accurate. And neither do most of those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.
Sweet! I pulled one out of Sean Hannity's playbook.That quote was from Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. (Gen. Douglas MacArthur)
The ReNAMBLAcans have to understand they LOST the election, Congress has ALL authority concerning how money is spent PERIOD. If the DemocratIC Party now controlling congress says the ReNAMBLACANS dont get to spend money on the war anymore thats the way it goes. Congress is NOT a ReNAMBLAcan rubberstamp and Bush is NOT Pharoah
If the democrats were honest, they'd just come out and cut off funding for our troops. But they aren't honest.
DVD, we are , we want to be, debating issues in the real world. The real world is NOT black and white. Framing everything in black and white terms does not create solutions, does not move opposing sides towards a compromise. This is the United States of America, the only way to get things done is to compromise. Ok?
Compromise won't work if one side is bent on the destruction of the other.
Yes. We know.
That's what the last several years of Republican majority have been all about.
Where have you been?
Deeznuts, is Islamic terrorism a problem in your view or does America deserve to be attacked?
Cute.
What you've just done is create a False Dilemma. It is a common logical fallacy "in which two alternative statements are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered."
I've seen such tactics altogether too often when discussing terrorism with wingnuts.
As such, I am not required to answer such a ridiculous question. Rephrase and I might consider it.
Republicans didn't lose the Executive branch, Solon. The democrat party is overstepping its authority regarding the war in Iraq and they're underming our troops for political gain. It's plain to see if you're not blinded by partisan politics.
I love how people throw around the "Commander in Chief" label without actually knowing what it means.
George W. Bush is the "Commander in Chief" of the US military, not the Congress. CiC is strictly a military term.
Unless you currently wear the uniform of a US serviceman or woman, the President is NOT your "Commander in Chief."
Not mine. Not yours. Not Pelosi's.
I'd like to add that I find it absolutely terrifying that people are unable to make the distinction between a President as Chief Executive (a civilian title) and a President as Commander in Chief (military title).
The lack of distinction gives a President almost dictatorial powers in the minds of the populace. To say a person is "Commander in Chief" of all citizens (not just the military) makes him/her out to be a "my way or the highway", "cake or death" despot, and to simply accept this, uncritically, is frighteningly unAmerican.
I wonder if the same people would have accepted such a level of unchecked Executive Power under, say...Bill Clinton.George W. Bush said he would veto ANY spending bill that included an artificial cut-and-run date in it. The democrat party knows this and STILL insists on including it. The democrat party is playing games with the lives of our men and women in uniform for political purposes, plain and simple.
Which means George W. Bush cares more about continuing this war indefinitely than he cares about the troops getting adequate rest, training and equipment. Sounds like BUSH is the one playing politics with the troops' lives.
Sorry, you simply cannot spin a Bush veto of a perfectly good bill as a good thing.
A perfectly good bill does NOT include a date certain for a cut-and-run surrender. Even a child would know this.
Find the words "cut and run" and/or "surrender" in the bill and you might have a point. Otherwise, you're just spinning the same tired old wingnut-o-sphere talking points.
You're not very good at this.
Who mentioned anything about Bush being the Commander in Chief "of all citizens"? Not me.
Yes. You.
Like it or not, George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief.
From Deeznuts: "To say a person is "Commander in Chief" of all citizens (not just the military) makes him/her out to be a "my way or the highway", "cake or death" despot, and to simply accept this, uncritically, is frighteningly unAmerican."
Sorry, Deeznuts, you brought up the idea of the president being the "Commander in Chief of all citizens." You're the only one who even entertained such folly, nobody else.
And YOU stated that "George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief" without clarifying that you were speaking militarily. The clarification was necessary because we're talking about a civilian bill in Congress, which has nothing to do with Bush's duties as CiC.
Your clear implication was that "Commander In Chief" applies to the Congress as well. You may deny it if you wish, but it's quite obvious.
Great post, DVD!
You criticise the Democrats because you feel that they're "attempting to cut the legs off of our military men and women", yet you slobber over your "Commander in Chief" who IS responsible for our men and women having their legs cut off.
And to top it all off, your "Commander in Chief" is also responsible for allowing these men and women who've been maimed to suffer needlessly because of conditions at our veterans hospitals.
Now I understand why the phrase, "Proud To Be An American" has such resonance with your ilk.
And "ashamed to be an American" resonates with people like you.
I'm lost. Was that supposed to be an insult?
Have you no shame?
Is everything your country does A-okay with you?
No, Deeznuts, everything my country does is not A-Okay with me. I just see the good as well as the bad. All I ever hear from people like WORRIERKING and his "ilk" is negativity and how terrible America is.
Then you're not paying attention.
I suggest watching a channel other than Fox News.
Like it or not, your President is accountable to Congress for his actions. He doesn't just get to make this up as he goes along and require everyone to shovel in the manure and claim it's better than ice cream.
Pelosi and her Republican counterparts that met with Syrian officials have every right to do what the Bush Regime refuses to - look at the possibility of diplomacy where strong-arming has repeatedly failed.
Yes, BLR, "dialogue" is going to go a long way with people who are bent on destroying you. Please wake up.
And who are "they" in your teeny weeny mind? _______ists?
You know the answer to that, PJ.
Oh sorry. I guess you meant Bush apologists.
Or maybe you mean ignorant right wing extremists?
Tommy,
Sure is a nice piece because if you actually read the piece instead of gloating on the cnn hook you would have read this:
The Syrian media are hailing her visit as a potential breakthrough in icy U.S.-Syrian relations, with the Syria Times calling her a "brave lady on an invaluable mission."
As you can see Tommy the Syrian media doesn't see things quite the same as the media here idoes it?
You might also want to take a look at this title: Israeli acting president defends Pelosi Syria trip
You can find it at this link: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0112078420070401?feedType=RSS
Amazing how the media on the other side of the pond defends Peolosi's visit and the media back here in the States condemns it. Why is the Tommy?
Obviously, Syria is overrun with liberals. There can be no other explanation!
The above should read: Why is that Tommy?
Are you on drugs?
Why don't you address his extremely relevant point, rather than trying to hide?
I would also like to comment on your Machiavellian tactic of offering praise to people who agree with you, or who place nice with you, while attempting to shut down the comments of people like ClamsCasino, despite their validity, because you're not all 'buddy buddy' with them. Just a thought. It's all very transparent and boring.
Did you even read his post? Or the one I made above about the very flattering piece about Pelosi's trip on CNN.com? Apparently neither of you did, or you wouldn't post something so ridiculous.
As for the your petty little admonition..........tsk, tsk.
Is Clams using another screenname, whew.........hard to keep track?
Another 6 hours of Tommy The Troll's Message Board in the can!
The White House knows what a bad thing knowledge is, especially about your enemies. That's why this is such a bad trip. Pelosi might learn something about Syria that would give the U.S. an advantage in negotiations, then we might have to resort to diplomacy, and that would screw up our chance to bomb them. And if we're polite to them, they might think we like them. How can we expect them to change their ways when they think we like them and might not bomb them? That's no way to spread democracy. Ignorance is the way you spread democracy, just like George has used to convert all those other middle east countries, for example.
Are you on drugs? - tommy / Tuesday April 3, 2007 06:23:12 PM EST
Are you asking yourself that question?
Pelosi's "Bad Trip"? What, did she drop acid and freak out?
LOL!!! Just caught that too Sasami!
I was in San Francisco last September. SF's acid days are long gone. Lou Dobbs' show "isn't with it, man."
Did you even read his post? Or the one I made above about the very flattering piece about Pelosi's trip on CNN.com? Apparently neither of you did, or you wouldn't post something so ridiculous.
- tommy / Tuesday April 3, 2007 06:33:21 PM EST
tommy,
What you did was copy and pasted the cnn hook but you never bothered to provide a link to the story you never even bothered to copy and paste any part of the story. On the other hand I did copy and paste a part of the story. Does that bother you?
I then asked you why is it that Syria's media sees Pelosi's visit as important and the media here doesn't. Does that question bother you?
I then provided a link to a story and the title of that story as well. Does that bother you?
I then asked you if you have an answer to the descripancy between Israel's acting president defending Pelosi's visit and Bush condemning the visit does that question bother you?
In the same question is the descripancy between Syria's media on Pelosi's visit as opposed how our media is framing the visit did that question bother you?
It must because you come back with a lame am I on drugs post without even answering any of the questions I asked you. Do you have a problem answering my questions?
This continuing refusal by the media to tell the whole truth illustrates how winning an election is simply not enough anymore.A successful political party must also control the media.
Why on earth does anyone respond to the wingnuts trolling here? Amazing. A serious, thoughtful and informed discussion can (only) be held without responding to the ill-informed, uneducated and infantile points of view offered by the extremists on the MMFA strands. Look, they have, with no argument (just look around you) failed at everything they have attempted-save, of course, robbing the American people blind and engaging in war crimes. What else is there?
CNN is doing exactly what Fox does with the on-screen type, that is, putting a question mark behind negative remarks, like "Pelosi"s bad trip?" so CNN doesn't have to take responsiblity for saying Pelosi is taking a bad trip.
Nobody has noted that the Israeli president himself applauded Pelosi's visit to Syria. Not CNN, not Fox, not even Media Matters, who could have used it as additional defense of Pelosi's visit. Here is the link, from Reuters:
Israeli acting president defends Pelosi Syria tripi tend to agree w/a post i just read. though i wasn't fond of the author's lack of tact his point is well taken. it is one thing to be on a fact finding mission and quite another to be a negotiator.
check out
[link to joeleonardi.wordpress.com]
Well, I will say that Lou Dobbs treated this issue pretty fairly (although he chose to wait till the end for Pelosi's response, which is a type of right-wing bias in itself).
That said, I'm thankful that this great website is monitoring this exchange closely.
It's in the subtle areas like this that we frequently see a real damaging right-wing bias in the corporate media.
God Bless Media Matters!!
(Reposted courtesy of Loyal Democrat)
Loyal Democrat writes:
Tradition must be set aside.During a crisis, polite adherence to traditions must be set aside. Iran has began to openly challenge the West, and if we do not let them know that we are willing to make major concessions, we may end up motivating the Islamists to punish us some more. President Bush is a entity that represents forceful resistance to jihaad, and that only seems to cause the Muslims to resent us even more. As such, we need to push the Executive aside and bring a Congressional voice to the ears of Iran in hopes that they will understand that we are willing to do whatever they wish so long as war can be avoided.To let the Executive Branch remain potent means the possibility that Iran's nuclear ambtions might be thwarted, their hostage taking will be punished, their intervention in Iraq stopped, and the general wave of Islamic dominance of the West dammed up. Such defiance may lead to armed conflict, and it is far better to make concessions than to risk having even one soldier killed on either side. It is ridiculous for us to risk the lives of soldiers in possible military actions just to minimize the potential for thousands of civilian deaths in terrorist hits on our own soil. Soldiers are not employed for the defense of our citizenry, rather they are trained solely to administer foreign aid to other nations. Members of Congress are the defenders of the citizenry, and they know lives will be saved if we yield to Iran and her cohorts. Since the President can't seem to join this sentiment, then it is only right that he be brushed aside and replaced with our Speaker. To do otherwise risks a fight with the enemy, and we as Americans would much rather surrender than fight any day.That's funny, Icedog. "Loyal Democrat" sounds like a feeble freeper attempt at satire, using a pile of GOP strawmen to reframe conservative cowardice as courage.
Does the fact that you had to copy and paste someone elses propaganda mean you can't even re-assemble dittohead talking points on your own?
Nice that you've done the math and decided our troops lives are worth less than you having to face a little reality. Sissy.
GIRLIEMAN!
Just kidding. Anyway, CNN couldn't sell advert. space on a spot titled "Pelosi visits Syria because she can. Nothing much interesting happened." Thus, the title. News needs a controversy, whether there is one or not.
Roman senators and other political elites did this sort of thing all the time, particularly when the balance of power was shifting. We really shouldn't expect any different or take it personally.
If people like DVDBooker got any dumber, they'd need special permits; or, maybe they already have them...
I'll make this as simple as their pea-brains can handle: If the CONSTITUTION gives congress the SOLE authority to declare war, then congress, NOT the Fearless Leader, has the authority to UNdeclare war...
What part of that is hard to understand?
Try reading the constitution, instead of using it to wipe your rear-end!
Jeffersonadams,
Why do you resort to name-calling and insults because you disagree with me? I thought that was against the rules on this site. Maybe not. please tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to "UNdeclare war." Article and Section, please.
Can't be that bad. I just read Syria helped mediate the Iran/British dispute. Coincidence?
Here you go, DVD:
This is excerpt from a document called the US Constitution. More specifically from ARTICLE 1, Section 8, which concerns powers granted to the LEGISLATIVE branch:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
etc...
Maybe you can be so kind as to cite where in the constitution it gives the president the power to continue a war that congress and the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose. Please humor us by sitint that section.
Trust me, JA, I understand the Constitution and Article 1 section 8 mentions NOTHING about Congress having the power to "UNdeclare war." Weak try, though. Congress can withold funding for the war but they haven't got the guts. The American citizens would string them up alive and they know it. They're much more content to play political games with our troops. The democrat party is terrified of a victory in Iraq because they know that would dash their hopes for 2008.
Gee, DVD,
First, DVD, I'll never 'trust' you on anything. Like most crazy liberals, I trust facts, not flapping gums.
Secondly, I notice you're not trying to cite the non-existent part of the constitution that says that the president gets to keep on fighting a war that both the congress and the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose.
Thirdly, I guess we'll have to add 'illiteracy' to 'ignorance' in your resume.
I guess in your world a war isn't over until the "Great Decider" says so?
How rich. That's pretty much what our "Dan Quayle in cowboy boots all hat and no cattle Fearless Leader" thinks; and it's that attitude that got the HAMMERED in the last election and will get the HAMMERED again in the next one.
Lastly, DVD, our founding fathers, god bless'em, had a distinct MISTRUST of autocratic rulers and were in favor of government of, by, and for the people. That is, they felt that the best deciders were the people and their elected congressional officials. Look it up. They teach it in basic civics.
Lastly, perhaps you'll humor us all by detailing your incredibly erudite theories by which wars do get "undeclared?"
So many words and so little to say, JA. For the last time, please tell me how Article 1, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "UNdeclare" a war. PLEASE!
First, they do it by taking away the money.
Second, they do it when the very Republicans you claim to support can no longer support the war for fear of their own political lives, which, by inside Republican accounts will be around Labor Day, which is, coincidentally, the unofficial start for the next election.
To be honest, I hope Bush keeps doing what he's doing, as his own peculiar brand of failure just gets more damaging for Republicans and more empowering for Democrats every day!
Lastly, I notice you can't show me where the Constitution gives the president the power to continue a war that most of the congress and nearly 70% of Americans oppose.
Clearly, you'd rather live in a comfy little fascist dictatorship, but I wonder how much you'll squeal when the next president, a Democrat, excercises many of these new expansive political powers that King George has brought to the office.
You're getting hysterical, JA. Since when did I claim to support these republicans? Did I ever? No, I didn't. I don't know what it is about liberals, but there seems to be an tendency with many of them to hear what they want to hear (in this case read what they want to read). I encourage you to study the Constitution with the same ferver you display while posting your rhetoric.
Tell us you didn't vote for George Bush. Both times. Loser.
DVD,
By the way, we attacked a country that had no airforce and no navy, yet was allegedly a threat to America. Moreover, our fearless leader has institutionalized tortur, in direct violation of both the Geneva conventions an, yes, even our beloved constitution, something you apparently either condone, or prefer to explain away.
Also, you call the Democrats dishonest. Would you go so far as to claim that the current administration is honest? If so, I suggest you stay tuned for the myriad investigations that will sink this ship of rats.
Your fearless leader is, and will be remembered as, one of the worst presidents, if not the worst in history.
Save the rest of your talking points for the evangelical tourists, loser.
JA, you're getting hysterical again. I suggest you take something for your hot flashes. You still haven't pointed out where Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "UNdeclare" war. But I don't expect a "crazy liberal" like you to understand or even respect the Constitution. How can you respect something you know nothing about? All politicians are dishonest. The democrat party has just turned it into an art. Instead of "investigations" and the constant whining and griping from the democrat party, why don't you guys do something constructive? Oh, wait, that would take a plan. Never mind. As far as the worst presidents in history, Jimma Carter and Slick Willy have that wrapped up already. Finally, I think you need to change your screen name to something like "ignorantoftheconstitution" As soon as you've read and understand the Constitution, you can go back to your old screen name. Dismissed.
Pelosi, like the Republicans, went to Syria to assure the Sunnis there that they will be safe when we, Democratic or Republican-led, attack the Shiite regime in Iran. This continues the long term American policy of favoring the Sunnis as they are the majority faction in the oil producing states.