On Fox, Hannity, North, and Coulter baselessly attacked Pelosi over Syria trip
On the April 4 and 5 editions of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeatedly claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had "allow[ed] herself to be used for propaganda purposes" by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. During the April 4 segment on Pelosi's trip, Hannity hosted Fox News military analyst Oliver North, who asserted that Pelosi "didn't just allow herself to be used, she was a willful participant in this." North went on to claim that that he "didn't hear a thing from her statement today saying, 'I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with George Bush and opposing what this regime is doing.' " In fact, following her April 3 meeting with Assad, Pelosi claimed to have criticized Syria's ties to terrorist regimes such as Hezbollah and Hamas. She further stated, "[T]here is absolutely no division between this delegation and the president of the United States on the issues of concern." On the April 5 edition of the show, Hannity hosted right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, who agreed with his claim that Pelosi allowed herself to be used for propaganda purposes. Coulter went on to state: "I think it would have been good if Nancy Pelosi had mentioned something about women's rights." But contrary to Coulter's suggestion that she remained silent about women's rights, Pelosi brought up the issue during her visit to Saudi Arabia.
In the April 4 segment -- which was accompanied by on-screen text that read "Damascus Diva" -- Hannity said to North: "You know, I never thought in my lifetime, Colonel, that I'd see the speaker of the House of Representatives, against the wishes of her own president, commander in chief, her own State Department, and country, go and allow herself to be used for propaganda purposes, as evidenced by Al Jazeera, the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah. All of them have representatives praising her, attacking George Bush." North responded by claiming that Pelosi "didn't just allow herself to be used, she was a willful participant in this." He continued: "She just met with a regime that has now been accused of murdering opponents of Hezbollah inside Lebanon, a regime that has been supporting the killing of American troops inside Iraq, and a regime that is trying to manipulate a political outcome in Lebanon. So this is an outlaw regime in Damascus."
The April 4 segment concluded without a single mention of Pelosi's claim that she criticized Syria's terrorist ties to regimes during her meeting with Assad, as an April 4 Associated Press article reported:
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," said Pelosi, who met for three hours with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
She said she expressed to Assad "our concern about Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas" and militant fighters slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq.
She said that despite differences over whether to talk with Syria, "there is absolutely no division between this delegation and the president of the United States on the issues of concern."
An April 4 Washington Post article also reported that, during her meeting with Assad, Pelosi "reiterated U.S. demands that Syria stop the passage of insurgents across Syria into Iraq and stop supporting militant groups."
On the April 5 edition of the program, Hannity again repeated his claim that Pelosi's trip to Syria was for "propaganda purposes." Referring to a series of audio interviews by Aaron Klein posted on WorldNetDaily.com, Hannity said: "When you listen to Aaron Klein, who got the interview that we played part of, Islamic Jihad, Al Jazeera, the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Hamas, and Hezbollah have all sent out messages of how great she is, using her to attack the president for propaganda purposes." Hannity later stated: "[Y]ou know something? I bet all of these leaders are laughing at her because they know that she was allowed herself, was a willing person, for their propaganda."
During the interview, Coulter agreed with Hannity's assertion that Pelosi allowed herself to be used for propaganda and further claimed: "The one person who's happy [about Pelosi's trip] is [anti-war activist] Cindy Sheehan, since there's now one person even less sophisticated in foreign policy." Coulter also implied that Pelosi never mentioned the topic of women's rights during her trip to the Middle East. She said, "I think it would have been good if Nancy Pelosi had mentioned something about women's rights," adding, "but I do think she looked cute in that burqa." (Co-host Alan Colmes subsequently pointed out that Pelosi had worn a head scarf, not a burqa.) Further, in reference to Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), who was also traveling in the Middle East and who met with Assad the day after Pelosi, Coulter said, "I bet he raised women's rights."
In fact, the AP reported that Pelosi did discuss the issue of women's rights during her visit to Saudi Arabia on April 5:
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Saudi Arabia's unelected advisory council Thursday, the closest thing in the kingdom to a legislature, where she tried out her counterpart's chair -- a privilege no Saudi woman can have because women cannot become legislators.
Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the House, said she raised the issue of Saudi Arabia's lack of female politicians with Saudi government officials on the last stop of her Mideast tour, but she refrained from criticizing the kingdom over it.
An April 5 Reuters article noted Pelosi's discussions concerning women's rights:
"After 200 years in the United States we finally have a (woman) speaker, it took us a long time," Pelosi, a Democrat [sic] leader, told reporters after talks with her Saudi counterpart.
She said talks in Saudi Arabia, which included a visit to King Abdullah's ranch on Wednesday night, covered women's rights and Saudi Arabia's diplomatic efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and other regional tensions.
From the April 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dismissing criticisms of her trip to Syria. And while meeting with the Syrian leader, Assad, she insisted, quote, "The road to Damascus is, in fact, the road to peace." We continue now with Colonel Oliver North, [former Iranian embassy hostage] Donald Cooke, [former Iranian embassy hostage] Rick Kupke is with us, and [Stanford University professor] Abbas Milani.
Colonel North. You know, I never thought in my lifetime, Colonel, that I'd see the speaker of the House of Representatives, against the wishes of her own president, commander in chief, her own State Department, and country, go and allow herself to be used for propaganda purposes, as evidenced by Al Jazeera, the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah. All of them have representatives praising her, attacking George Bush. And she allowed herself to be used this way for propaganda. How damaging is this?
NORTH: Well, she didn't just allow herself to be used, she was a willful participant in this. And you've got to understand: She just met with a regime that has now been accused of murdering opponents of Hezbollah inside Lebanon, a regime that has been supporting the killing of American troops inside Iraq, and a regime that is trying to manipulate a political outcome in Lebanon. So this is an outlaw regime in Damascus. And she chose to go meet with them, and I didn't hear a thing from her statement today saying, "I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with George Bush and opposing what this regime is doing." In fact, what she's talking to them about is some kind of deal that would have the Israelis sacrifice the Golan Heights, which, for Israel, would be basically a death knell.
HANNITY: Hey, Donald, as a person that was held hostage for such a long period of time, you know, here we have -- you talk about state-sponsored terror -- a group that foments terror, that supports terror, that supports these terror organizations, and even the funding of the insurgency that is out there killing American troops. And you see the person third in line to be president of the United States, willfully, as Colonel North puts out, allowing herself to be used for propaganda purposes. What message does this send to the world? What are your thoughts?
COOKE: Well, I think it's clear that you have two possibilities when you have someone from the legislative branch going overseas. And one possibility is that they show that the legislature supports the president, supports U.S. policy. The other possibility is that you're allowing our adversaries overseas to see that they can drive a wedge between the legislature and the executive branch.
And so, if the purpose of this is to show that our approach to Syria is going to be the same from both branches of government, then it's a positive thing. But if the Syrians are going to use this as an opportunity to try to divide the government, then, obviously, it's a negative.
From the April 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Ann Coulter, you know, it's amazing that she didn't answer one question. But I've got to tell you, I'm almost embarrassed for Nancy Pelosi. She looked ridiculous. She's acting ridiculous. She clearly is being used.
When you listen to Aaron Klein, who got the interview that we played part of, Islamic Jihad, Al Jazeera, the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Hamas, and Hezbollah have all sent out messages of how great she is, using her to attack the president for propaganda purposes.
COULTER: Oh, yeah. No, that was an amazing article in WorldNetDaily.
HANNITY: Yeah. In WorldNetDaily, yeah.
COULTER: The one person who's happy is Cindy Sheehan, since there's now one person even less sophisticated in foreign policy than Cindy Sheehan.
COLMES: [inaudible] -- I didn't hear Cindy Sheehan speak, Ms. Coulter.
HANNITY: Hey, hang on. She's finishing a point. Go ahead.
COULTER: And to answer your question, no, I think it would have been good if Nancy Pelosi had mentioned something about women's rights, but I do think she looked cute in that burqa.
COLMES: Hey, by the way, you --
COULTER: Hello.
COLMES: Nice to see you. You accused Nancy Pelosi of being in a burqa. She was not in a burqa.
COULTER: OK.
COLMES: She was wearing a head scarf, just like Laura Bush.
COULTER: Yes, that's much better.
LAURA SCHWARTZ (Democratic strategist): A very fashionable head scarf.
COLMES: Let me put up on the screen a picture --
COULTER: She was Gladys Kravitz.
COLMES: -- of Laura Bush visiting the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem wearing the same thing Nancy Pelosi wore.
COULTER: She's in --
HANNITY: She was in a mosque.
COLMES: So that's an unfair accusation. Secondly, U.S. Representative David Hobson, the Republican on the trip in the delegation with Nancy Pelosi, says that she reinforced Bush's administration policies to Assad. So is Hobson lying?
COULTER: Is Hobson a protege of [Sen.] Chuck Hagel's [R-NE]?
COLMES: He's a Republican congressman --
COULTER: I know that.
COLMES: -- a conservative congressperson --
COULTER: I know that. I've never heard of him, which doesn't surprise me though.
COLMES: -- who said she was reinforcing Bush policies.
COULTER: I gather we'll be hearing more from these three Republicans. I thought it was going to be Specter --
COLMES: Let me ask you this. Darrell --
COULTER: -- Chuck Hagel, [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ]. Those are the usual Republicans you pull out. But, no, these Republicans should not have gone, either. And, no, for them to characterize, "Oh, she was carrying Bush's message," as Laura just said, no, she wasn't. Bush's message was, "Don't go."
COLMES: All right, then why not criticize the Republicans?
COULTER: That was Bush's message.
COLMES: Now, let me ask you this.
COULTER: I just did criticize the Republicans.
COLMES: Is Darrell Issa conservative enough for you?
COULTER: Yes. He's an Arab.
COLMES: He met with Assad the day after Nancy Pelosi did.
COULTER: I bet he raised women's rights.
COLMES: So, he wasn't --
COULTER: And not only that --
COLMES: You know, we don't have any --
[...]
HANNITY: That's a good point. This is important. See, I think what happened here is very obvious. I think Nancy Pelosi -- they're so obsessed, there's, like, Bush derangement syndrome. They want to embarrass the president. More importantly, you know something? I bet all of these leaders are laughing at her because they know that she was allowed herself, was a willing person, for their propaganda.
Ann Coulter needs publicity, likr a tapeworm needs a lower gut.
She's a parasite, feeding off the knuckledrag coalition, and they just fawn all overf her.
As to her constantly sayingf "f*g" or "f*ggot," it's practically a done deal Coulter is a "f*ggot herself.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
A idealogue with a felony record, and pension for lying to Congress, and promoting despots in the Southern Hemisphere at enormous human suffering has no business being put up as an expert on anything but his own crimes against humanity, and America!!
Olie North is a criminal, and chose to behave as a criminal when he was at the height of his public service to our nation! He has no standing, and should hardly be considered a rational opinion. The man conflated nation sercurity directives with drug dealers, death squads!
He negotiated with the Iranians in secret with weapons paid for by drug money at the expense of untold numbers of deaths, and embarassment in the world!
That Hannity would be the forum of a Olie North speaks to how little the man considers American Honor!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
ON THE F*CKING MONEY!
Nice post.
"I do think she looked cute in that burqa." Reveals what a snide, weak, souless coward Coulter is. She, Coulter, suffers from that common human malady, feeling superior to those who are different from ones self.
Its amazing how much Shrieking is going down about this. And the same folks think the Brits should have faught the Iranians to the death. They would be infavor of a war with Iran and are possibly pissed at this lost opportunity. There are good reasons to talk with folks you have differances with. It's worked to advantage here and there. Its sometimes called diplomacy. I wish shrub and co could give it a try. I'll probably remain frustrated here.
Republicans aren't capable of diplomacy, it's two too many syllables for them.
Bush Derangement Syndrome. I like the sound of that. Only I think it better describes the 30% of the population that are kool-aide dead-enders and seem to love this president no matter what.
Thanks, Sean. I'm gonna use that myself if you don't mind.
I like it too, Openmind. They've been using this for a while, you know they put some thought into it to make it sound like an officially diagnosed disease.
All it does is put "Bush" and "Deranged" conveniently next to each other. I have a feeling the historians will have a much different definition for th syndrome than the one they're using.
And finally- Hannity, North, and Coulter. Isn't having the three of them in the same studio at the same time violating some fire code for maximum buffoonery ?
AAAAAAAAAAGH!!!! HOW CAN ANYONE WATCH THIS DRIVEL?
All of them, Hannity, North, Coulter ...these people make their livings spewing sensationalistic rantings about isses THEY KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT!!! Colmes is nothing more than a pathetic stooge added in for a laughable attempt to bring about the theatrical appearance of "balance".
FOX NOTHING CHANNEL IS A FREAKING JOKE!!!! And America just can't get enough of it! I'm thinking that the movie 'Idiocracy' is becoming less and less fantastical all the time.
I'm ashamed to admit that I did make an attempt to sit through it last night. Not because I expected to learn anything, but more out of curiosity. I actually was pretty proud of myself. Made it through about 4 1/2 minutes of ann and sean acting cute, dodging questions and making up fables before I got nauseous enough that I had to turn it off.
Why do I do things like that to myself? It's gonna take at least 3 days of CSPAN to get my system back to normal.
I too caught much of this by chance as I almost never watch any of the FNC propaganda. Setting aside the innanity of the topic, I found three things interesting:
1) There were no statements of how the delegation betrayed the US' position on any issues - even the 30%'ers couldn't have missed that - to have to reference WorldNetDaily for f*ckssake, 2) Lara Schwartz was very good for the Dems side, stayed cool and stayed on factual point (rather than getting pulled into the mud wrestling like so many do), and 3) Annie was very close to meltdown - shrill, shrieky, and on continuous personal attack. Even the placid Colmes was able to spin her into hysterics. I know AC is always strident, but if she can't even hold her own on Fox anymore, her 15 mins may finally be up.
Quite the triumverate of shameless hacks cited here: hannity, north, and kunt coulter...
Guess what? Nobody really cares what these hacks say, nobody takes them seriously, nobody's really listening.
You know how I know this?
Because in the history-making election of November 7, 2006, not one single Republican nationwide captured a single open seat... that includes 468 seperate elections! It was the first time in U.S. Histroy that has happened.
Also, not one single incumbent Democrat, in all 468 of those elections, lost their seat... every single incumbent Democratic nationwide was re-elected... another first in U.S. History!
And so I'd ask: In which of those 435 Congressional districts where those history-making elections were held, and in which of the states where 33 U.S. Senate seats were in play...
Where across the United States did anyone care that day, for anything hannity and north and kunt coulter say?
Nowhere, that's where... November 7, 2006 proved several things, one of which is that the American People don't give a damn about Fox Noise Channel, or the hacks they employ...
...least of all anything this sickening triumverate says.
that trio reminds me of another movie:
"When the tripods start moving all news stops coming out of that area."
...anybody that might be offended by anything I wrote above, I'd hope didn't miss my explanation, below (since it appears on a separate page, and could easily be missed).
I seem to remember a disgraced colonel visiting a terrorist nation awhile back.
He wasn't just bearing gifts, he was selling arms to terrorists to fund an illegal war. I'm not mentioning names but he's now a Fox Whore with a fondness for free snow tires.
Some do watch apparently for the entertainment factor. Not to my taste. I gave up on the MSM 20 years ago. We both survived this.
I can't believe that anyone listens today to Oliver North opinion about negociating with "axis of evil states" ! Wasn't he the Reagan's clandestine tool who secretely and against congress will with the iranians, illegaly selling them weapons to finance not less illegaly the contra guerrillas, the terrorists who fought to oust the nicaraguaian (or salvadorian) dictator of the time ? Wasn't by any definition a traitor to his country, as the iranians were US enemies ?
You left out his knowledge and complicity in Contra funding via crack cocaine imports to the USA.
Also left out was Oliver North's participation in a Shadow Government which was prepared to suspend the US Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad.
[link to bellaciao.org]
[link to sonic.net]
[link to www.greens.org] (see excerpt below)
"Already in 1981 under a Reagan executive order, government agents were implementing a plan orchestrated by Lt. Col. Oliver North and the National Security Council to disrupt activities by opponents of the US war in Central America. Hoping to involve American ground troops in a war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and with the lessons of Vietnam fresh in his mind, North made plans to deal with the antiwar movement. He and officials at the Federal Emergency Management Administration developed contingency plans to implement martial law, suspend the Constitution, and prepare detention camps. This was too much even for Attorney General William French Smith, who scotched the plan after he became aware of it. But years later the congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra scandal refused to take testimony on the matter in public."
Ah, Regan's great legacy.
One wonders why Regan was crying on that magazine cover when the current president isn't that much different than he is.
"In another shining example of modern day corporate fascism, it was announced recently that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/010206detentioncamps.htm
Looks like the neo-cons are dusting off North's plan. Honestly, the future of the US is hanging by a thread. Full-out fascism is just one step away.
Hey Dem02020, I need to interject here a serious plea to refrain from using nearly obscene perjorative nicknames for Ann Coulter as you did above. You cheapen yourself and weaken the debate here by stepping down to her level. Coulter is a ridiculous sideshow and insulting names don't do anything to further that fact; they just make you look foolish.
Getting back on topic, Colmes in his not-quite-assertive enough way managed to stuff Coulter's disingenuous and factually incorrect rhetoric back down her throat. I think that Colmes seems to be getting a bit better about getting in some people's face.
Suppose we could get him some assertiveness and voice training?
It's not a nickname, it's a descriptive term (and it has nothing to do with the human anatomy... that's not what the word means, as I used it)... it's a single word that truly describes a disgusting kind of woman, a type of woman that says things (almost always about a man) that no self-respecting man would say himself... the things that this type of woman says are almost always aimed below the belt (as I said, almost always about a man)... this type specializes in saying things that, were a man to say them he'd get his lights punched out... but this type thinks they can say such stuff anyway, and get away with it, because what man would punch a woman's lights out?
It's the perfect word you know, it both calls the thing what it is, and sometimes even checks the thing and puts it in it's place.
True.
And again, it sure beats raising your hand... were any man to call someone like Mr. Murtha (just to use an example) a coward, and question his war wounds even, why he could and should punch such a worm right in the face... but do you know there's a type of woman that thinks she can get away with the same type insults, and not get punched?
There is, they're called kuntz... it's the dead-on accurate word you know (again, it's got nothing to do with the human anatomy), it's perfect and it also works.
You do know that's what ann coulter is don't you... that she's a kunt for the RNC? ...that she says things that guys like hannity could never say, but they react with a giggling delight when a kunt like ann says them, and of course she doesn't get punched...
But she would get immediately called that word by me, because again, it's perfect and it works too.
Everyone should agree that language is for communication purposes, yes? So using an extremely pejorative term, in a thinly masked way, to describe Ann Coulter is merely communication in its finest form.
No one ever stops to think why those "seven dirty words" are so biting and, mostly, monosyllabic: for effect and for INSTANT understanding. Why haggle with nuance when you can just call Coulter a c**t, which she is regardless of what your opinion of her(?) sexual identity may be.
Randy
At the risk of going even further O/T:
I agree, and disagree. Because there are two parties involved in the communication, success depends on not only the sender but the receiver. If the receiver, for whatever reason, does not interpret the communication either correctly, or in it's entirety, then the communication is unsuccessful. We'll ignore all the possible reasons for this occurring except for two: when the recipient doesn't understand and when the recipient stops listening. The recipient may not understand because the sender used language with which the recipient is not familiar. Your descriptive word, for example. The other possibility is that the receiver stops being receptive because of several reasons, such as they are offended or perceive that - based on the part of the communication received up to that point - the sender is unlikely to be communicating anything of value. Again, your word could offend them or they may interpret it as a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, even a weak vocabulary (which people also interpret as a sign of limited intellectual capacity).
Regardless of the blame, the final result is that the communication is not transferred, leaving both parties in the same state they were before the attempted communication, minus the time and effort wasted in the attempt. A failure such as this is inevitably the fault of the sender for not using all due diligence to avoid the possible barriers of the communication, based on what they know about their intended recipient. The use of the word "kunt" is not an attempt to use common and unoffensive language, but is a word which is known to be offensive to many, and whose definition (as described by it's user) is known by few.
To sum up: if the purpose of your message is to get your point across to the largest audience, it's probably better to not use it. Find another word that works.
I apologize for the preceding, and class dismissed.
I agree entirely with the observation that words are ineffective (and therefore incommunicative), when they're meanings are unknown or misunderstood, by any listener.
And you know, I thought of that when I saw the comment that objected to mine... I thought of how offended someone could be at that particular word... which is why I wished to define it as I meant it (and why I immediately pointed out that, the word as used in the context I used it, has absolutely nothing to do with the human anatomy, nothing at all).
As I had said, the word is perfect and it tends to check or put in it's place, the one at whom the word is directed... which is worth mentioning again, is a woman who is saying things no self-respecting man would say (which any self-respecting man would expect to be asked to step outside, if he did)... the type of woman I'm trying to describe is ancient... she aims below the belt in the most foul way, to insult a man, and assumes some kind of immunity in so doing (an immunity not assumed by another man, who would fully expect getting punched were he to say the same thing)... sometimes they're called 'ball-cutters', but that's a much more narrow group of men that use that word (but it certainly is more graphic, in describing what the woman is trying to accomplish with her foul insults).
As for any misunderstanding about my use of the word, I tried then (maybe too late) to better define it, but I stand behind that definition: It's a perfect word when used against that type of woman, it even sobers her and makes her aware of what she's doing (as if she even cares), and it signifies what one thinks of her in the briefest possible way, and is understood (and often appreciated greatly) by any men standing by (who are likewise disgusted and angered even, by the foul woman), and by many women too, who think it's OK to call the thing what it truly is.
I'd never use that word in public, unless pushed greatly, and even then I'd mispronounce it or find some other way of implying it, without saying it.
Even here I mispelled it, not to get around any censor, but because I'd rather the word was made harder to recognize, were I felt it was necessary to write it or say it.
And make no mistake, ann coulter is this thing I'm describing, she is the thing that I use that word to describe... I would even say that, were you to look the word up in the dictionary, you'd see a picture of ann's face right next to it...
...but be advised, the word isn't found under the letter 'k'.
Comunication is tricky. I fell accross some words on it a while ago. Face to face communication consists of , the words, their inflection, and the assosiated body language. The words account for slightly less than one third of the information recieved.
...but they account for 100% of the communication, when they are written (as are my words here).
I think you can pick up infecltion from the written words,but am unprepared to offer anything intelligent to back it up. I do read alot and pick up things from style, methods of presentation. things said and things unsaid.
Ann Coulter
Is FOX now the only "Organization" (Even though they speak for the GOP) who has Coulter on? I do not see this hater anywhere else anymore. Am I right?
No other news organization has Coulter on anymore. Not since she called John Edwards a F*G as well as saying Dem Congressmen John Murtha was a coward and didn't really win any medals in Vietnam. However, what really kicked Coulter off all the other stations is when she said the 9/11 widows were planning on divorcing their husbands anyway before they were killed in the Twin Towers crash.
I was watching FOX NOISE Saturday morning and the latest thing is Greg Jarrett and others are saying Nancy Pelosi could be charged as a felon for going to Syria without approval of President Bush. The cited th Logan Act as a reason why Pelosi could be tried as a felon and then sent to jail if convicted. These right wingers have gone completely mad.
Apparently they think the Speaker of the House is PRIVATE citizen, because the Logan Act prohibits PRIVATE citizens from negotiating with foreign governments to the detriment of the US. Speaker Pelosi was leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to a foreign nation, which has been done literally HUNDREDS of times in our nation's history. RIGHT-WING MOTTO: Never let the facts get in the way of a good lie.
That is only the tip of Coulter's recent transgressions.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/right-wing-pundits/ann-coulter/
I wonder if Fox realizes how much of a liability she is. As for North, that bastard was caught selling missiles to Iran. It really says something about Fox when they give convicted felons airtime. The Republicans are LAME. Bush is a failure. We ought to make the Australian who owns this network break it into a zillion pieces and put it up for auction.
I think Alan Colmes is what they call in the pro wrestling business a "jobber". He's the fall guy, the one that always gets beat.
Btw, speaking of Hannity, my mom told me that he said on his radio show that, "Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example of why women should not be elected into positions of power." This was on Friday. I sent something to MM about that. Maybe it'll get on the site.
Here's a news story that you won't hear or see on Sean Hannity's radio and television shows.
It seems the Hannitizer left this important story out about Republican Congressman Darrell Issa meeting with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. Yes, I said meeting with the leader of a "terrorist" nation.
Read for yourselves. Here's the link
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/06/news/politics/13_14_521_5_07.txt
I recall seeing Coulter being asked about this Issa trip, and she claimed she didn't know who he is. Selective memory, I guess.
Anyway, this is the true "Axis of Evil": Hannity, Coulter, and North.