CNN's Malveaux said Pelosi has no "standing," asked if Syria trip is a "political stunt"
On the April 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host Suzanne Malveaux repeatedly asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had no "standing" and was not acting in an "official capacity" when she traveled to Syria to meet with President Bashar Assad and others, even though Democratic strategist Paul Begala told Malveaux that "Pelosi has standing. She's the speaker of the House," and Malveaux herself noted that Pelosi "will be the highest level U.S. official ever to meet with Assad." Additionally, Malveaux asked her guests if Pelosi's trip was anything more than "political theater" or a "political stunt," and characterized the trip as a response to President Bush's "wishes," which follows CNN's pattern of portraying Democratic action as a reaction to the president.
On the 4 p.m. hour of The Situation Room, Malveaux told Begala that Pelosi "has no standing officially to do any negotiations here. She is on her own." Begala responded "she has standing. She's the speaker of the House of Representatives. She runs an equal branch of government. ... this notion that somehow it's Mr. Bush who runs our government, and Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid are somehow thumbing their nose at him [is] not correct." Later, during the 5 p.m. hour of The Situation Room, Malveaux noted Pelosi's status: "Pelosi will be the highest level U.S. official ever to meet with Assad, who is accused by the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism." But Malveaux later told 2008 presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), "Speaker Pelosi is in Syria. She is not traveling in any official capacity. She has no negotiating power."
Malveaux asked Begala why Pelosi's trip is "any more than political theater?" and later told Edwards, "Some people look at this as simply political theater, a stunt." According to a Media Matters Nexis search,* no one on CNN's Situation Room has ever called a trip by a congressional Republican "political theater" or a "political stunt." On the April 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Malveaux asked how a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) to begin phased redeployment from Iraq is "any more than a political stunt."
Malveaux also said that Pelosi was "defying [Bush's] wishes" and "flying in the face of the White House" by taking her trip. Malveaux's assertion that Pelosi's actions were a response to Bush echoes other recent claims on The Situation Room that Democratic members of Congress are "defying" Bush -- despite Congress and the president representing co-equal branches of government. As Media Matters has previously noted:
- On the March 29 edition of The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer claimed, "The Senate defied the president, passing a war spending bill with a timeline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq." The accompanying on-screen text read: "Senate Defies Pres. Bush, War Bill OK'd Despite Veto Threat." On the same program, congressional correspondent Ed Henry also described the Senate as "defying" Bush, saying, "Wolf, this president obviously under siege on two fronts -- the full Senate defying him on Iraq policy, as well as this Senate panel hearing testimony -- explosive testimony in that U.S. attorney flap."
- On the March 21 edition of CNN Newsroom, congressional correspondent Dana Bash asserted that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law was going to "pretty much defy the president point blank" by voting to authorize subpoenas for White House senior adviser Karl Rove and other current and former administration officials.
- On the March 21 edition of The Situation Room, Bash reported that Democrats had "defied" President Bush by authorizing subpoenas.
* Search terms "Situation Room and (political stunt or political theater or political theatre)"
From the 4 p.m. hour of the April 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: Let's take a quick listen. I want to move on here to, obviously, Speaker -- Pelosi, rather, is in Syria. Let's take a quick listen to the president, his ideas about the fact that she's there, defying their wishes.
BUSH [video clip]: The best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.
MALVEAUX: Now, Paul, she -- she has no standing officially to do any negotiations here. She is on her own. I mean, if -- if Syria was serious about peace, they would be reaching out to Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice or the president. Why isn't this any more than political theater? What can she accomplish?
BEGALA: First off, she has standing. She's the speaker of the House of Representatives. She runs an equal branch of government. And, throughout this conversation --
MALVEAUX: But --
BEGALA: -- there's been this notion that somehow it's Mr. Bush who runs our government, and Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader [Harry] Reid are somehow thumbing their nose at him. That's not correct. There's a partisan element to Mr. Bush's criticism, which shows me that he's not on the level about this. Frank Wolf, a leading Republican on foreign policy, a Republican congressman from Virginia, met with President Assad in Syria a few days ago. The White House did not attack him.
[...]
MALVEAUX: [Republican strategist] Ed [Rogers], in all fairness, Republicans have been over there. The Iraq Study Group has called for discussions with Syria. Obviously, if this is some way that she can break through, back channel, perhaps she can do some good.
ROGERS: I'm a little off message here. It's fine for us to be against it, but we should do so quietly. Who knows? Maybe her going there, we'll learn something new.
From the 5 p.m. hour of the April 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: President Bush is accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of sending mixed messages with her mission to Syria. But she is flying in the face of the White House, arriving in Damascus and now just hours way from her very controversial meeting with President Bashar al-Assad. Pelosi will be the highest level U.S. official ever to meet with Assad, who is accused by the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism.
[...]
MALVEAUX: I want to go to Syria here. As you know, Speaker Pelosi is in Syria. She is not traveling in any official capacity. She has no negotiating power. Some people look at this as simply political theater, a stunt. Do you think that's right?
EDWARDS: I think that what America should be doing on the issue of Iraq is dealing directly with both the Syrians and the Iranians, and I don't know precisely what Speaker Pelosi is going to do in Syria, but we as a nation should -- should be engaged with both the Iranians and the Syrians directly in helping stabilize Iraq.
Both countries have an interest in a stable Iraq. They don't want refugees coming across their border, they don't want economic instability, and they don't want to see a broader Middle East conflict. And I think it makes sense to not -- on some ideological basis -- not deal with them, but to engage with both of them directly.
Can't wait 'til Suzie goes back to her job as a White House stenographer.
That is the problem Pelosi does have standing.
Pelosi’s Syrian political stunt is the equivalent of the tight end in football (no pun intended) claiming to be the quarterback in the huddle, calling a play that goes against the coach’s game plan, and puts the entire outcome of the game in jeopardy. This reminds me of the time a player got confused, ran the wrong direction on the field and scored a touchdown for the opposition.
The role of congress in foreign policy is driven through internal legislation not overt trips to enemy territory to put forth ideas that have no foundation in reality, i.e. - Israel ready to talk peace without condition with Syria.
If the coach’s authority was circumvented and the team lost the football game because of it, the offending player would be booed off the field…not heralded as a hero. But in the liberal world as long as it hurts the coach (Bush) it’s great. In fact, liberals have a vested political interest in the defeat of OUR own country. Very sad.
There is no place for “wrong way” Pelosi in direct foreign policy negotiation.
CB, You just explained it perfectly! Which means it'll go right over the heads of most everyone here.
So an unrepentent MORON, projects his inadeqacies on his intellectual superiors AGAIN. What a shock.
MALVEAUX: Now, Paul, she -- she has no standing officially to do any negotiations here.
Does Pelosi have standing officially to do any negotiations with Syria? Didn't think so.
Somebody explain to Malveaux that a House Speaker carries a lot of power back here in the states.
Someone should also explain to Malveaux that until 1893, the U.S. was represented abroad only by ministries or consulates. Ambassadors were still considered a device of the monarchies.
Somebody explain to Malveaux that there is a big difference between being paid a visit by the janitor of the largest Bank and the CEO of the largest bank. Pelosi in this case is the third most powerful person in government.
Somebody explain to Malveaux that the one who holds the prize for political stunts is Bush. He is king of photo opts bar none. He even rolls up his sleeve to give that busy look. Let's not even forget how he played the guitar during the Katrina crisis. Perhaps he thought his bad playing would scare the Hurricane away.
Harlequin, I understood that Benjamin Franklin was Ambassador to France from 1776 to 1785. Am I mistaken?
No.
A political stunt is when you put on a jumpsuit and have somebody land you on an aircraft carrier.
A political stunt is when you do a long-distance diagnosis of a brain-dead woman using only videotape footage.
A political stunt is when you sneak a two-ton 10 Commandments "memorial" into the courthouse in the middle of the night.
What Pelosi is doing is not remotely a political stunt. It's diplomacy. Alas, the Bush administration has absolutely no idea what the word means.
Dead-on, Deeznuts. I'm hopeful enough to think that more of our fellow Americans are able to see this every day.
My Republican co-worker just forwarded me an email from his outraged and appalled Repub. friends. It includes photos of high school protestors flying a Mexican flag above an upside down American flag. It seems to predict the end of modern civilization.
Those kids got it wrong. The Israeli flag goes on top.
I guess this person, Malveaux, is capable of expressing herself very well. I allways give the hot looking bubble heads the benefit of the doubt, so, I think she was trying to engage the"expert" by asking questions that would clarify what official role the Speaker might play in Syria. But she muffed the question so bad that the "expert" thought she was a dumb ass who needed a basic lesson about how our goverment is organized.
Pelosi is putting her butt on the line to furnish the essential, yet heretofore missing, ingredient, in reaching some stability in the Middle east: knowing where the chips lie, knowing what the thoughts and feelings of the players bound up in Bungle's mess, might be.
Too bad Bungle didn't think of this first, before impoverishing this nation and fracturing it's military in his vain quest for power and glory.
I just saw Malveaux's interview with the Syrian ambassador to the US (7:20pm et). What an embarrassment. She kept cutting him off with talking points that are straight from the White House. I've never really seen Malveaux as a partisan reporter until now. It was very disturbing. I hope MediaMatters does a write up on this interview.
I didn't get to see that interview, but I did see the tease:
"Up next, Im going to confront the Syrian ambassador ..."
Why hasn't she ever "confronted" our politicians? Like you, I never really thought of her as partisan, but her recent antics filling in for Blitzer have led me to re-examine my impressions. I usually see her in the morning, standing on the White House lawn, reciting the administration's talking points.
CNN is becoming more and more like Fox Noise. I guess I'll have to stop watching it, too.
Yeah, it was a really telling interview. Maybe I need to see it again, but it seemed to play like a Bill O'Reilly interview. The questions were loaded with unproven presuppositions, and she never even let the Syrian ambassador finish an answer, preferring instead to just speak over him. The interview then ended abruptly with the Syrian ambassador in mid-sentence. It was a side of Malveaux I had never seen before.
I watched that interview as well, and saw her total rudeness and combativeness. I don't know whether she was given a certain time limit and I am not sure whether she reads from the teleprompter rather than coming up with the line of questionning herself, but I immediately emailed CNN. I told them her conduct was unbecoming of what my husband and I expect from CNN, and she treated a Syrian representative that CNN often has on, with contempt and disdain. I also mentionned that I was tired of hearing the republican rhetoric of Speaker Pelosi's visit while CNN and others keep failing to mention that there are republicans over there as well.
I missed it - part of the price of not shooting my TV, which I accomplish solely by avoiding TV "news" and "talk" and "reality" programs, whether broadcast or cable. Closest I can allow myself to come, is Daily Show, Colbert Report, Real Time, Olbermann when I see a "Special Comment" in the listing.
Follows directly from the conviction that Corporate Media imbeds Corporate misinformation in every element of every Corporate outlet, 24/7. Except, that is, for deliberate and outright lies from time to time. I root ceaselessly for Media Ownership Reform Act MORA, and wish for millions (or at least a couple) to email Representatives and Senators (and Rep. Hinchley) to bring that bill ASAP, with or without the Fairness Doctrine title. My take, is that simply by strictly limiting the reach of any single owner, in national and local maximums, and forcing the Corporations to divest outlets in excess of those limits, the media marketplace will be so enlarged, and so diversified, that the Doctrine becomes somewhat redundant.
Bonus points for just the possibility that other than the cheapest fare imaginable, will appear on some of those more entrepeneurial outlets that would result - something other than Idol or Dancing or Survivor would be great!
Nah, Pelosi is just going to deliver some ultimatum from Olmert about Syrian support for Lebanese independence from Israeli bombing sprees. Why else would Lantos tag along? Why else would El Cluster-bomber Olmert give his blessing?
Suzie must be a brain dead teleprompter reader. Re. Nov 7, 2006
No, Ms. Malveaux.
Talking to the President of an influential country in the middle east isn't a political stunt.
Strolling through the streets of Baghdad, surrounded by 100 American soldiers with Blackhawk helicopters over your head and news media camera crews in tow for the sole intent of saving himself from embarassing comments he made about the situation just a few days before, is a political stunt.
Unless, of course, you're willing to concede Republicans talking to the President of Syria is a political stunt, too.
Then again, CNN displayed a picture of Pelosi with the caption "Talks to Terrorists". So why would I expect any concessions from CNN?
Look at the headline on MyFoxPhilly.com... it says, and I quote... "House Speaker Pelosi in Saudi Arabia after meeting Syria's Ass..."
I don't know if the page just isn't loading up right or not... here's the link...
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/News;jsessionid=632B875B67BFBF82D2EA2CB500400D76?pageId=3.1
The question of standing is semantics. Pelosi certainly has the political standing and prestige in the US to make such a trip without people questioning it (the questioning is coming from the people who don't like her message, not the fact that she took the trip in general.)
However, if "standing" means could she negotiate and enact a diplomatic deal, the answer is no.
Pretty black-and-white. Next.
Where is the evidence she was "negotiating a diplomatic deal"? I think the purpose of this trip is to just say, "Hi, we're just dropping in to visit, maybe sit a spell and see if there is an opening somewhere that could lead to an easing of hostilities". It sounds better than bush's (lowercase intentional) plan, which is stir the pot till the s**t stinks enough, then hold your nose and flush it away.
Wouldn't it be nice is she'd had the guts and professionalism to confront the people who sent this country to war, however THAT wasn't part of the right wing echo chamber at the time and even if Syria is on the outs with U.S. foreign policy, what happen to a little bit of neutrality , instead she felt she had a free pass to be insulting,belligerent, interrupting to the Ambassador. I think this is basically opportunism to score points with the white house & right wing viewers, something they frequently do, whether it's trying to smear Hugo Chavez, going after Syrian Ambassador or anybody else that the white house considers, persona non grada .
Pelosi not only has standing she has more credibility than the Bushy administration. Anyone hear from Condi lately? She seems to be busy trying to find a way to get Laura to leave Bush and then marry him.
Cuz Condi doesn't seem to be able to do squat in the Mid East.
By the way, WHERE do we keep getting these trollz from like the two at the stop?
About time somebody tried to get something done in the Middle East expect blowing people away. And for you poor, lost Cons who think it is soooo terrible that someone in a powerful position talk to the "enemy", it is tooo bad. You had your chance but your days are over. The stupidity of the Cons has caused many unnecessary deaths. (And if you Cons pull out the 9/11 card, shame on you)
Ms. Pelosi is getting involved becuase it may not be too far in the distance that her status of Number 3 moves up two (2) spaces when Number 1 and Number 2 are escorted to their cells.
It speaks volumns about this Administration when "Worthless Rice" is passed around the ME like a pinner joint at a Love-In . . . with the same results . . . giggling smiles.
The Pelosi trip did more for America's image than any shopping trip Rice made. And let's not even start on the Republicans wandering about or the "Straight Shooter" Bus tour . . . when will CNN's Malvaux ask why Republican troop support consist of photo op line-ups?
With America voting a NEW CONGRESS and NEW SENATE in November I would think that Ms. Malveaux would be asking questions about what the real LEADERS OF AMERICA want- the leaders VOTED IN by American citizens rather than 'selected' by cronies and political tricks. Ms. Malveaux has evidently decided to stand with the corrupt and criminal administration of BUSHCO rather than with the American voting public!
Indeed if one has a problem with another person, the solution or negotiated compromise manifests itself in communicating with one another. Perhaps President Bush and his administration could benefit from some serious cognitive therapy....oops perhaps not. Cognitive therapy presupposes cognitive thinking skills. I am simply so pleased that one out of our three top leaders has some working brain cells.
Clearly Ms. Pelosi is comitted to addressing the plethora of concerns expressed by the American people and by the current US Congress. Obviously Mr. Bush and his administration are having a hard time accepting any kind of dissenting opinion reading their agenda. Mr. Bush and his administration have frequently bypassed both the legislative and judical branches of our governemnt to accomplish their goals and objectives both here and abroad. Such behavior is unacceptable and intolerable in a true democracy. Ms Pelosi undertands this, and she is comitted to honoring and upholding the fundamental tenets of our democracy as expressed in our federal Consitution and Bill of Rights.
I am very proud of Ms. Pelosi, and I believe that she will continue to take the steps necessary to reclaim our hijacked nation.
I dare say Nancy did not negotiate a thing with Syria. Only GWB and his followers would think she could. I just hope Suzie wiped her chin after this little accident.
Additionally, I am appalled and frustrated at the news coverage, especially from CNN, regarding Ms. Pelosi. Professional journalists and news reporters research stories prior to presenting them. Professional journalists and news reporters do not fictionalize or sensationalize news topics to paint a completely different picture. There is no one at CNN who I find to be a committed professional journalist or news reporter. I recommend the BBC and the CBC for Americans who are truly interested in knowing what is going on in our country and our the world.
What do you expect from a network that airs the like of Glenn Beck and NAncy Grace?