Last Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry made a dramatic presentation of U.S. intelligence findings regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. That intelligence provides the basis for the U.S. assertion that the Syrian government carried out an attack that killed over 1,400 people, and it is the rationale for an expected U.S. military strike on Syria.
Kerry appeared on all of the Sunday talkshows. But he was mostly not asked about the case for war with Syria.
Instead, the questioning was overwhelmingly concerned with Barack Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for an attack on Syria–a notion that many of the Sunday show journalists seemed to find remarkably troubling.
On Fox News Sunday (9/1/13), host Chris Wallace asked Kerry seven questions–all of them about the decision to go to Congress, which clearly seemed to bother Wallace: “Haven’t you handed Syria and Iran at least a temporary victory, sir?”
On CBS‘s Face the Nation (9/1/13), guest host Major Garrett asked Kerry five questions, all of them about Congress. He wondered if the debate would lead to a different type of war:
Are you suggesting that if Congress goes ahead and authorizes this, this will be a more forceful, memorable military strike than it would have been had the president acted alone?
On NBC‘s Meet the Press (9/1/13), David Gregory asked Kerry eight questions, five of which concerned the Congressional approval. “Do you think the United States has undermined its leverage in the world, its credibility?” was how he posed one of the questions. The only time Gregory brought up the intelligence that forms the case for war, it was not really a question at all, but an opportunity for Kerry to repeat a talking point:
Mr. Secretary, I just want to underline the news you made this morning. This is a sarin gas attack perpetrated by the Assad regime. This is a slam dunk case that he did it.
And on ABC‘s This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked Kerry 10 questions, seven of which dealt with congressional approval. Unlike the others, he posed a question about the strength of the U.S. case for war:
You say that the evidence is clear, but President Putin of Russia calling it utter nonsense that President Assad would authorize this kind of a chemical strike…. Your response to President Putin?
Of course, putting the skepticism in the mouth of a world leader generally antagonistic to U.S. policy is a way of saying that questioning the evidence is something that “official enemies” do.
But there are plenty of people who think the White House could, at the very least, reveal more of the intelligence they claim is so convincing–that’s what Washington Post columnist Walter Pincus, who spent most of his career reporting on intelligence, argued in his September 2 column. And investigative journalist Gareth Porter (Truthout, 9/3/13 ) offered a thorough challenge to the intelligence, and veteran reporter Robert Parry (ConsortiumNews.com, 8/30/13) raised the kinds of questions that TV reporters should have posed directly to Kerry.
It’s understandable that some interviewers would ask questions about the White House’s seemingly sudden decision to take their case for war to Congress. But obsessing over it so thoroughly–it was the focus of 80 percent of the questions Kerry was asked–serves two functions: It crowds out space that should be reserved for skeptical coverage of the U.S. intelligence presentation, and it treats the normal, constitutionally mandated business of seeking congressional approval for war as if it were an exotic and nearly unprecedented maneuver. Both are, in different ways, helpful to the White House–and dodge the essential question of whether they have really made a credible case for war.
Déjà vu all over again
And again
And again
And again …
And the meaningless political pantomime of “congressional approval”
(Does anyone believe this won’t occur, with history as their guide?)
Becomes the sideshow at center stage.
Doug Latimer: You have it right. I have been reading more and my skepticism about who used the chemical weapons has deepened. Why would Assad do this? Why would he risk intervention? We need to know more.
But we should not go to war–even a pinprick or pinpoint or whatever war. They can’t promise that. How many people would WE kill in the service of stopping violence. That is just not a logical or useful response: waging war to stop war? Well, we’ve done it before–and we can see the results.
V.L., re “waging war to stop war”
While it’s unarguably true that the US and the West have stated that ad naseum as their rationale for assaults, invasions and occupations
We need to be mindful of their true intent, which has nothing to do with “stop[ping] war”
Until they have achieved their aims.
If that was implied in your remarks, we’re on the same page.
Look, the goal of the US is total domination of the richest oil region in the world, period! Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Why else are they only concerned about atrocities in countries they haven’t either broken into sectarian pieces (e.g. Iraq), totally dominated (e.g. Afghanistan), or propped up as a satellite regime (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel)?
The fact that we keep having déjà vu all over again is testament to three things: (1) when it comes to US foreign policy especially in the oil region, public opinion doesn’t matter. (2) It is the job of journalists to not act as journalists so the public is eventually pacified. (3) That the people of the US are the most brain-washed, most gullible, and most passive people in the so-called free world. They will buy anything having been exposed to enough repetition.
Instead of offering the usual armchair foreign policy opinions, we should focus here on the media. For example, a front-page news article in today’s NYT reports:
“(House) Democrats say they are being confronted with a difficult choice: Go against the wishes of a president who is popular and well respected in their caucus, or defy voters back home who are overwhelmingly opposed to another United States military intervention overseas.”
If its constituents are “overwhelmingly opposed” to yet another Obama military adventure, it seems to me that the Times should be reporting on just why it is that the president is popular and well-respected in the House democratic caucus.
“it treats the normal, constitutionally mandated business of seeking congressional approval for war as if it were an exotic and nearly unprecedented maneuver. ”
This very attitude annoys me as well–it is destructive.
And interviewers ask these questions as if they’re unaware of the fact that the week before, representatives and senators of both parties filled their airwaves making impassioned statements about the need for the president to seek Congress’ approval.
What I’d have asked Kerry was whether he thinks that if Syria gets away with using chemical weapons, will some other country get the idea that it could get away with, let’s say, dropping napalm and agent orange on some Southeast Asian country, or perhaps, an atomic bomb on some Japanese city?
Wasn’t that “Shock and Awe ” thing supposed to be just a few days?
Oh..yes..they had phony pictures with that war, and people who would testify that the charges were all true. Colin Powell, yes he was twisting in the wind then…and now.
Perhaps, Mr. Kerry, people want pictures, like the last time? We get “chatter” but whose chatter, and what, when, where, why and how; that would be nice to know, you know, answering the basic journalism questions.
Oh… I wonder why the journalists didn’t remember to ask those. : )
I dont know if I see at this point that this is directly in our national interest.I do see that if Assad(yes he is a murderous animal) goes down ,that anyone that comes in will in all likelihood be worse.THEN with them in charge of these weapons it may give credence to boots on the ground massive escalation.Russian ships seemingly itching for a fight are out there.This could spin out of control.Iran view Syria as strategically important to their future plans.They could enter this fray.That would bring Israel in(all bets off)Syria has 60 missiles loaded with gas aimed at Israel.If one flys you better hold on to your ass.We have almost no allies with us on this.No UN.No nothin!All the Arab countries would explode like a hornets nest.And more Syrians would die than ever died in the Syrian gas attacks.We cant afford it in any way shape or form.Our military is so over extended as to risk OUR national security.And all that is the good news.Because that is guessing this will stay regional.We need Congress to vote this down.We need the president to listen to his congress and like a good general turn and attack in a different direction.Use this attack to force Assad to get rid of his WMDs as Libya did.The Arab league and the Russians may help in that.There are no easy answers.But like in everything else with this president and his minions, they are finding every way on every day a new and inventive way to screw the pooch.I commend Obamas outrage.I just wish he had one decent idea what to do with that passion.