While many in the media are actually crediting Barack Obama for Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposed Syrian chemical weapons "solution," TIME magazine's Joe Klein isn't one of them.
Far from it, Klein penned a scathing rebuke of Obama's handling of Syria Wednesday calling it "one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed...The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world."
How do you know when an MSM member is pushing pro-Obama spin to the absurd? When even the most partisan of Dems, in the person of James Carville, can't stomach it.
On today's Morning Joe, Andrea Mitchell, claiming that the world was "coalescing" around Obama's position on Syria, said that there was "a lot of optimism" surrounding the Obama team's negotiations with the Russians. Mitchell said she had seen this kind of thing before back in the 80s, when the US negotiated arms control with the Soviet Union. "It starts slowly but things happen," comforted Mitchell. All this was too much for Carville, who forsaw a future in which the negotiations went on and on and led nowhere. Said Serpent Head: "I love Andrea and she's optimistic. God love her, I hope she's right. Count me a little more pessimistic." View the video after the jump.
Appearing as a guest on MSNBC's PoliticsNation on Monday, Joan Walsh of Salon.com tagged Rush Limbaugh as a "racist troll" after a clip of the conservative talk radio host criticizing President Obama for being indecisive on Syria, quipping that American military action ordered by Obama should be called "Operation Shuck and Jive."
Host Al Sharpton called Limbaugh's words "ugly" as he introduced the clip:
President Obama has been facing an unusual amount of criticism lately for his handling of the Syrian crisis, so it was only a matter of time before someone in the mainstream liberal media tried to cut him some slack for his weak leadership. On Wednesday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, the host-turned-apologist asked if Obama could really be blamed for not calling on Congress to authorize a military strike in Syria.
Mitchell was talking to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee and a supporter of military action against Syria, about the president’s Tuesday night speech. Rogers expressed disappointment that Obama was not more forceful in making the case for intervention in Syria. Mitchell then defended Obama’s indecisiveness: [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
There you have it, solid evidence that radio libtalker and MSNBC foghorn Ed Schultz is a degenerate racist -- he disagrees with President Obama's plan to hit the Assad regime with military strikes if necessary.
After all, a disagreement like that is all it has taken for Schultz and like-minded lefties to vilify conservatives for years as dog-whistle-blowing racists. Suddenly I understand why they so frequently resort to this line of criticism. It frees them from that tiresome task ... of thinking. (Audio after the jump)
One does not simply destroy a nation's cache of chemical weapons. It's actually a rather complicated and expensive endeavor, despite how neat and simple the president's acolytes seem to be making it out to be. In fact, the United States government is decades into the process of eliminating American chemical weapons. What's more, the U.S. government is six years past its previous 2007 deadline -- not to mention 19 years past the initial 1994 deadline -- for 100 percent compliance.
Mark Thompson of Time magazine has a great piece today on "How To Destroy Syria’s Chemical Weapons" in which he looks at the painstakingly detailed logistical and cost considerations of eliminating a nation's stockpile of chemical weapons. Here's an excerpt (emphases mine):
NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley can be counted on to provide upbeat, Pollyanna-like reporting on Obama. His credulous reports could be mistaken for products of the Obama White House’s pretend news operation. On September 4, however, Horsley sensed that the leader he so admires stepped in it with his “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line...Congress set a red line” remark, calling for him to go even beyond his normal sense of duty.
Rather than quoting Obama directly or playing an audio clip of him, Horsley restated Obama’s remarks in a more helpful formulation: “it's not just his red line that Syria's now crossed, but the world's [Horsley’s emphasis] red line. He challenged the international community to back that up.”
Apparently we can't grasp the full brilliance and nuance of Barack Obama's speeches without having someone from the establishment press telling us what he really meant to say when he said what he really said.
That's the impression one gets from reading "What President Obama said, what he meant" early Wedesday at the Politico. In it, along with an accompanying video dedicated to the same idea, we see Carrie Budoff Brown's exercise in explaining Obama's 15-minute speech on Syria to the ignormamuses of the world. Her weakest translation concerns the extent to which Obama apparently assumed he'd automatically have support from the vast majority of Republicans, apparently because, as the web site's equally surprised Alex Isenstadt and Reid Epstein also believed two days ago ("'Party of Hawks,' Has Gone 'Dovish'"), they just love to go to war for any reason, no matter how incoherent or unplanned. That passage follows the jump:
The NBC Tonight Show host spent much of his opening monologue lampooning President Obama beginning with, “It's still a little warm, but you can tell fall is coming...The leaves are changing faster than the White House position on Syria” (video and transcript follow):
Liberal media members are clearly overjoyed that there’s – at least for the time being – not going to be a vote in Congress concerning a military strike on Syria.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe Wednesday, NPR’s Cokie Roberts outlined the left's doomsday scenario saying, “If he had lost this vote, which he was clearly about to do, it would have been everything: immigration would have been down the tubes, you know, ObamaCare defunded, debt ceiling a mess, all of it” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
For well over two weeks, the Obama administration has been urging military action against the Assad regime in Syria for its use of chemical weapons.
At the Associated Press, in a "Fact Check" item at its "Big Story" site, Calvin Woodward told readers that "President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof." Again? The AP reporter also questioned the number of civilian deaths involved. Excerpts follow the jump:
Maybe my processing of the English language isn't what it used to be, but I'm having a hard time making sense of the headline at David Espo's and Julie Pace's report (saved here at host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, on President Obama's Syria speech tonight.
The headline? "OBAMA DELAYS SYRIA VOTE, SAYS DIPLOMACY MAKE WORK." Huh? If the last three words are "Make Diplomacy Work," that's better, but not by all that much, because it looks like he's giving orders to others, when he and his administration are the ones who have to make it work. Several paragraphs from the AP pair's report follow the jump (boids are mine):
The liberal website Talking Points Memo [see screen capture below] is accepting and running advertisements for a company called Freak Flags, a California outfit which creates flags designed like the U.S. flag but with the stars in the canton pushed off the side of the blue field, while symbols like the Star of David, Christian cross, or the U.S. dollar sign are emblazoned in the center. The idea of each is a left-wing critique of those who "put Israel first" or "put Jesus first" or "put Wall St. first," respectively.
But a review of the company's website's blog reveals some anti-Semitic rantings regarding the president's call for airstrikes in Syria.
The folks at Second City on Monday released an absolutely hysterical video depicting the absurdity of mindless Obama automatons supporting war just because the man they voted for says it’s a good idea.
In it, four classic Obamabots of varied backgrounds representing the organization “Americans for Whatever Barack Obama Wants, Did You Know He’s Friends With Jay-Z?” try to raise $1.6 trillion to fund World War III (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
May you live through interesting times goes the wording of an ancient Chinese curse, or so I've heard many times through the years.
The possibility of US military intervention in Syria is producing something comparable -- we are living through unusually candid times, at least for some people who previously didn't seem capable of it. (Audio clips after the jump)
Barack Obama appeared on all three networks (as well as CNN and PBS) Monday night to try and salvage support for his planned strike against Syria. But it was World News anchor Diane Sawyer who appeared ready to preemptively credit the President with possibly solving the unraveling issue.
The host began the program by touting, "And moments ago, I sat down with President Obama who seemed to be signaling the tough stand by the U.S. may have caused a dictator to back down." [See video below. MP3 audio here.] Sawyer added, "If Bashar al-Assad yields control of his chemical weapons to international authority, are we back from the brink?" Both CBS and NBC offered tougher questions to the President, pressing Obama on lack of support from the American people.
PBS's Tavis Smiley had some harsh words Sunday for President Obama's planned attack on Syria.
During his Smiley and West radio program, Tavis said, "It’s one thing to honor Martin with our words in Washington one day, and then 48 hours later start making plans to dishonor him with our deeds in Syria...He ought to just take that bust out of the Oval Office if he’s going to dishonor Martin in this way" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer had some harsh words for the apparent peace proposal offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin involving Syria turning over its chemical weapons.
Appearing on Fox News's Special Report Monday, Krauthammer said, “The chances of these weapons being eliminated from Syria are less than of the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year, and they are now mathematically eliminated.”
Egberto Willies at the Daily Kos is one of those reliable radicals that’s really upset with war in Syria, lamenting this is “something the John Kerry of 1971 would never advocate for” and “The only winners are the military industrial complex and a corporatocracy dependent on cheap oil.”
Then it took a weird turn. “America must go to war alright,” Egberto declared, but with the war profiteers, and gun sellers, and the financial sector on Wall Street:
On Monday's CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose cited how Hillary Clinton once referred to Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer", but didn't use the former secretary of state's name in his question to the Syrian despot. When al-Assad asked to specify who had called him a "reformer, " Rose vaguely replied, "People who write about you; people who talk about you; people who analyze Syria and your regime." [MP3 audio available here; video below the jump]
The veteran PBS host continued, "Now, they say – their words – a 'butcher' – comparisons to the worst dictators ever to walk on the face of the earth...Everything they could say bad about a dictator, they're now saying about you." The Middle Eastern dictator answered by bizarrely likening himself to a doctor:
Never one to let down his macho guard, Geraldo Rivera has made an entertaining suggestion on President Obama should deal with Syrian leader Bashar Assad -- "Let's kill him."
Gee, what could possibly go wrong if we did that? Aside from possibly converting Syria into yet another lawless failed state in the Middle East turned jihadist launch pad. Aside from that. (Audio clips after the jump)
On Monday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer and chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd engaged in a strategy session over how President Obama could minimize any political damage from Congress voting down a strike on Syria. Lauer fretted: "Is there an escape hatch for the President? Is there a way for him to save face politically if this vote goes against him?" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Lauer's concern was prompted by Todd observing: "[The White House is] very concerned, Matt, because it's not just that they believe they need Congress on this and they want to punish Assad and all of the Syria policy, but they realize a loss like this could be politically crippling to him [Obama] all over Washington on all the different battles that he's got coming in the next six months."
No website outdoes the Politico when it comes to looking at the world through Beltway-stereotyping glasses. A post this morning on Republican congressmen and senators' views towards attacking Syria exemplifies that outlook.
Apparently, in the fevered minds of Alex Isenstadt and James Hohmann, a GOP lawmaker learning about any idea to intervene militarily automatically salivates at the prospect and shuts down all critical thinking processes. The Politico pair are puzzled at how so many of them can possibly be opposed to President Obama's proposed Syria intervention. It's really not that hard, guys, if you abandon your stereotypes and do some thinking yourselves for a change. Excerpts follow the jump (bolds are mine):
Poor Barack Obama can't catch a break. If the world would just stop and pay attention to him for a while, things would be so much better for and so much easier on Dear Leader.
That's the takeaway from a pathetic piece ("President Obama’s toughest Syria hurdle: The calendar") by Reid Epstein at Politico. It's as if no other president has had to compete with Monday night football, primetime TV lineups and the like. Please. "The calendar" isn't nearly as big a hurdle as, say, proving that it was the Syrian government and not Syrian rebels who actually used chemical weapons, the fact that Great Britain has pointedly refused any military involvement, and the administration's fabricated accounts and subsequent bungling related to last year's Benghazi terrorist attack. Excerpts from Epstein's execrable effort follow the jump.
Friday in Russia, President Obama let slip that putting Congress on the hook, or in a political bind, was part of his calculus in asking for their approval for an attack on Syria, but twice on Sunday morning ABC’s George Stephanopoulos misquoted Obama’s admission. Obama maintained: “I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism.”
Yet on Sunday’s Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos quoted Obama: “Listen to what he said Friday night in Russia: ‘I did not put this’ – this resolution – ‘before Congress as a political ploy or symbolism.’” Later, on This Week, he again left off the very relevant “just” as he mis-characterized Obama back to White House Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough: “He said his call to Congress was not a political ploy or symbolism.”
NBC chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd on Sunday said there are more Democrats coming to a "rational and principled" decision in opposing an attack on Syria compared to Republicans who in his view are just as likely to be basing their opinion strictly on politics.
Such was said on NBC's Meet the Press (video follows with transcript and commentary):