The public doesn’t seem to support going to war in Syria–but some high-profile Sunday morning TV journalists are either declaring their support for the war, or professing faith in the case for going to war.
On NBC‘s Meet the Press (9/8/13), anchor David Gregory stated that the White House is releasing new video of the aftermath of the August 21 suspected chemical weapons attack:
This is video the administration showed members of Congress this week in order to make the case for military strike. It appears to show victims of the August 21 attack by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that killed more than 1,400 people.
The videos show horrible suffering and death–but they do not actually show that the victims were attacked by Assad’s forces, or the number of Syrians killed.
This is the leap that the White House has made, and one they assure us is well-founded on intelligence that they will not share with the American public (AP, 9/8/13). Journalists should be pressing the White House to make their case; instead, too many journalists are just believing what they’re told.
That theme was repeated later on in the broadcast during this exchange between Gregory and NBC correspondent Chuck Todd:
GREGORY: I remember how Democrats went after the Bush administration for raising the specter of weapons of mass destruction being used against our own troops to make a case for war. That never happened because there were no WMDs there. Denis McDonough, Chief of Staff, just said that here. He said, “We don’t want our own troops being targeted by these awful weapons.”
TODD: But David, but these weapons are there. I mean, this is a completely different case. The weapons were used, we have the film, we have all kinds of intelligence that suggest who used them. It’s a much different thing.
If Todd has seen solid intelligence that the Syrian government was behind the attack, he should share it with the world. Associated Press reporters Zeina Aram and Kimberly Dozier (9/8/13) have a different take, writing:
Yet one week after Secretary of State John Kerry outlined the case against Assad, Americans–at least those without access to classified reports–haven’t seen a shred of his proof.
They add:
The Obama administration, searching for support from a divided Congress and skeptical world leaders, says its own assessment is based mainly on satellite and signals intelligence, including intercepted communications and satellite images indicating that in the three days prior to the attack that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas.
But multiple requests to view that satellite imagery have been denied, though the administration produced copious amounts of satellite imagery earlier in the war to show the results of the Syrian regime’s military onslaught. When asked Friday whether such imagery would be made available showing the August 21 incident, a spokesman referred the Associated Press to a map produced by the White House last week that shows what officials say are the unconfirmed areas that were attacked.
The Obama administration maintains it intercepted communications from a senior Syrian official on the use of chemical weapons, but requests to see that transcript have been denied. So has a request by the AP to see a transcript of communications allegedly ordering Syrian military personnel to prepare for a chemical weapons attack by readying gas masks.
That’s what journalism that is skeptical of government claims looks like. But then there’s CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer, who gave this endorsement for war on the Sunday show (9/8/13):
The president of the United States drew a line in the sand, a red line. At this point, that may be the only good reason left for Congress to give him the authority he now asked for to respond to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. When the president of the United States says something, the rest of the world, our friends and our enemies, pay attention. If we do not follow through, what impact will that have on North Korea or Iran the next time we warn them of dire consequences if they press on with their nuclear weapons programs? More important, how will it be viewed by our strong allies like Japan? We have treaties that promise we will retaliate if they are attacked by nuclear powers. Will they now question our resolve? I don’t like anything about where we are, but in a dangerous world when the United States takes a stand, and then goes back on its word, we’re left in an even more dangerous place.
So the best case for war is that Obama made a comment about a red line, and that the US must carry out acts of violence whenever it suggests that it might? And while he’s at it, Schieffer throws in a bogus reference to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program.”
It’s a remarkable call for war, based on no particular issue other than maintaining US dominance. It might explain the Sunday shows’ cavalier attitude about evidence, though; if you’re chief concern is that Washington carry out its threats, why should you demand proof that those threats had any justification to begin with?
O ye of boundless faith …
But it really isn’t about faith, is it?
The corpress doesn’t believe this shit, or doesn’t give a shit whether it’s true or not.
Their job is to justify the unjustifiable
And that doesn’t require faith.
It only requires fealty to power.
The press of this sad world we live in, are in the back pocket of each and every bent, evil, greedy politician in the world, and manipulate the truth so they can all revel in the riches of the country being rinsed of its worth. At the moment it is Syria!
Who’s next?
I don’t care if we have proof or not. What I want to know is: Will a surgical strike undie the 1400 now-dead victims? If it would, then I support a strike.
@RepPress: Try therealnews.com. It’s entirely independent of corporations, unions, and political parties. It may be just what you have been looking for?
The CorpsePress are magicians. They make the truth disappear with a flick of the lips.
the term “TV Journalist” is an oxymoron. Scheiffer has never been proven to commit “journalism”. he is a part of the Washington noise machine,a propagandist. Same for what happens on sunday mornings on network tv
I stopped using mainstream media a long time ago (except to check in from time to time just to get the party line) and I find I am better informed than people who get their news from television and newspapers.
Schieffer’s been a slater of U.S. wars since at least the Nam!
The best thing about lackeys like Schieffer hyping war is that the population is starting to see through it all. That means the people are less likely to accept the pronouncements of corporate pundits. Soon, maybe CBS and the rest will be regarded the way Pravda was in communist Russia: only a mouthpiece for an authoritarian government.
DEAR PETER
HAD USA NOT INTERFERED IN Bosnia, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS WOULD HAVE BEEN MASSACRED, IF LIBYAN QHADAFI WAS ABLE TO TAKE OVER BENGHAZI HE WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THE CITY WITH ITS MILLION INHABITANTS FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, AND KOSOVO IS ANOTHER REGION THAT WAS SAVED FROM WAR , THROUGH US/NATO INTERVENTION . THESE ARE THE BRIGHT SIDE OF THE LIMITED US INTERVENTION, AND YES NO ONE WANTS A WAR LIKE WHAT TOOK PLACE IN IRAQ , AFGHANISTAN, OR THE OTHER US PREVIOUS WARS , THEY WERE ALL BAD , IF YOU ARE REALLY TRYING TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPRESSED AND IGNORED , HOW MANY MORE INNOCENT LIVES DO YOU WANT WASTED TO FEEL THE URGERT NEED TO STOP THIS ONGOING GENOCIDE ?
DO YOU NEED MORE THAN THE 100.000 CIVILIANS KILLED IN Syria TO REALIZE HOW BRUTAL THE ASSAD REGIME IS , AND THE NEED TO STOP IT ?
NO MATTER WHETHER THESE CIVILIANS WERE KILLED BY CHEMICAL WEAPONS OR TRADITIONAL ARMS , THE NEED TO STOP THE SLOUGHTER IS IMMEDIATE AND IT IS SHAMEFUL TO SEE THE WHOLE WORLD WATCHING THE ATROCITIES HAPPENING IN SYRIA, EVERY DAY AND STAY SILENT OR NOT ACT TO STOP IT IMMEDIATELY . THIS IS THE ONE TIME THAT USA WAS GOING TO ACT FOR A HUMANITARIAN REASON WIT H THE MINIMUM OF HIDDEN AGENDAS(OIL IN Libya, AND IRAQ ) AND WE INTERFERE TO COUNTER TH KILLING ,
ARE YOU PLAYING SYMANTICS ?
TO STOP THE WAR BY FORCE IS NOT WAR, AND TO STOP THE VIOLENCE WITH POWER IS NOT VIOLENCE .
The media venues in the USA have become a sham, bought and paid for workers of the night. No wonder I find that I have to depend on news that is coming from RT TV or Al Jezzera so that I know what it really going on.
From Britain, I can report that much of our media is also – though in our quieter British way – in favour of war. Perhaps this has more to do with trying to make the Labour Party look bad for not voting for it, I don’t know; but it is quite remarkable nonetheless. The BBC is no exception.
And, Ahmed Sakkal, you don’t do your argument any favours by posting it all in caps – you just make it look like a rant.
The way to stop wars is certainly not to join in them.
I dont know that they are in favor of this war.I think they simply have no ability to” set their cap” and say what they believe.They report crumbs from up above.That sets them to go which ever way the wind blows.It is a very passive approach.Part and parcel with them giving this president the benefit of the doubt to a ridiculous level.If this were BUSH(and I say this all the time)there would truly be hell to pay.As far as this war…..personally I believe that if Assad went on SNL to announce that yeah he did it, and planned to do it again(before singing a song or two)that it still gives us not one reason to get involved.This is not in our national interest.Obama is not the president of the world using Americas Armed forces as a proxy force to be deployed to whatever conflict ruffles his feathers.
No good leader bombs people to save face.
Only the State run Media continues to post the causalities at 1400 when main stream journalists claim the count is below 400. Even Sec of Defense Panetta stated last year that the terrorists have used chemical weapons against Assads troops
England ten years , or with Bristol decade , the greatest feeling is to find his own life銆係ince the beginning of September 1782 , the United Kingdom on behalf of Wade Orr formal negotiations with the United States on behalf of the United States, Britain developed a draft agreement銆?
I am new to developing websites and I was wanting to know if having your site title related to your content really that important? I see your title, “%BLOGTITLE% ” does seem to be spot on with what your website is about but yet, I prefer to keep my title less content descriptive and based more around site branding. Would you think this is a good idea or bad idea? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
pas cher air jordan 4 http://www.cardinalwingsaviation.com/air_jordan_chaussures.asp?id=4
I’ve loaded your blog in Several completely different internet browsers and I must say your blog loads a lot faster then most. Would you mind e-mailing me the company name of your hosting company? My personal email is: %EMAIL%. I will even sign up through your affiliate link if you’d like. Thanks
air jordan flight 45 http://www.cardinalwingsaviation.com/air_jordan_chaussures.asp?id=45
I am starting a online website directory and was wanting to know if I can submit your blog? I’m trying to grow my directory little by little by hand so that it maintains good quality. I will make sure and put your blog in the correct category and I’ll also use, “%BLOGTITLE%” as your anchor text. Please make sure to let me know if this is alright with you by emailing me at: %EMAIL%. Thankyou
air jordan 6 femme http://surreytwinclub.com/air_jordan_femme.html