CONFLICT: Media spin on opposition to US military action in #Syria predictable, pathetic

Posted by: ST on September 7, 2013 at 9:07 am

Enough already.

Have y’all noticed the emerging liberal media spin on the opposition to US military intervention in Syria where the mediots insinuate or outright say that the reason most Americans aren’t behind us taking direct action there is due to the “deception over Iraq” – translation: Blame Bush? Of course, liberal politicos like Nancy Pelosi have repeated this talking point over and over again, and even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, our staunchest ally during the Iraq war, has said more or less the same. But the media picking up with it and running with it as if its an unassailable assertion is a prime example of much of what is wrong with the US media today.

Is America war-weary? Absolutely. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people are tired of seeing their sons and daughters come home with life-altering injuries, or in body bags, are tired of hearing about how the murders of innocents by jihadis are continuing in both Iraq and Afghanistan, NOT exactly what we signed on for when we went to war in both countries. Are some Americans understandably skeptical about the rationale given by the administration and their allies to date on why we “must” intervene in Syria, considering the massive stockpiles of WMD we thought were in Iraq that were never found there? Yes. Are these the only considerations the American people are taking when it comes to determining whether or not to support action in Syria? No.

The real issue here is not weariness and skepticism due to Iraq. It’s the fact that our celebrity President, the supposed “greatest speech-giver evahh!!!!” hasn’t made a convincing case to date on Syria action, nor have the doves-turned-hawks in his party, nor have his adoring press. Why do you think he’s going before the American people next week? Because the communications/PR effort on this issue has been a disaster from the get-go, and this administration knows it. And they also know the more information that comes out about the Christian-hating jihadi “rebel forces” who oppose Assad, the likelihood that the opposition to using force in Syria will continue to grow.

I stand in opposition to this effort not because I want to see innocents get gassed. It’s understandable to see horror like that on a global level and think: “We have the power to do something, so let’s do it!” I’m against it because, based on the available information, the “alternative” to Assad is no better. As we have seen time and time again, “uprisings” in the Middle East to kick out evil rulers typically only replace them with equally repulsive regimes, contra to the “moderates” spin we often see asserted by the MSM. Also, unlike with Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a civil war against a ruthless dictator and one I think our involvement – even if only by air – will only make worse. See Libya for more.

As I noted earlier, Obama will take his case to the American people Tuesday. If multiple polls in the aftermath indicate that he fails to persuade a majority with his speech, will the US media continue to bogusly spin this as being about Iraq? That is, of course, a rhetorical question.

Cross-posted to Gateway Pundit.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 Responses to “CONFLICT: Media spin on opposition to US military action in #Syria predictable, pathetic”


  1. Carlos says:

    What business is it of ours? I could understand Afghanistan in a limited role because it was the training ground for those who perpetrated 9-11, but Iraq?

    Or, going back further, Bosnia? Grenada? Even (gasp!!!) Viet Nam? What business was it of ours to interfere in any of these cases except, as noted, Afghanistan?

    God never appointed this country to be the world’s cop. If he did, show me the paperwork. Until then, we should keep and train the world’s best military (something sorely lacking today) for self-protection, let the world know if they jack us around they’ll pay (and mean it), and become that shining city on a hill RR talked about.

  2. OldmanRick says:

    Superb article.

  3. Another angle being pursued by the lapdog media and Follywood is that people are opposed to intervening in Syria as a way to make Obhammud look bad, as in racist intent. Give me a f*cking break! He does not need help looking bad; he does a pretty good job of that himself.

    There is no clearly defined objective for becoming engaged in Syria; no regime change, no strategically valid targets, and no clearly defined enemy. When mealy-mouthed paper clip general and CJCS Martin Dempsey testifies before Congress that he cannot state an objective for an invasion, you know the wheels have really fallen off the war wagon. WTF?

    “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”–Joseph Joubert (French essayist and moralist, 1754-1824)