Althouse: Obama submits to 6 interrogations on Syria — by Diane Sawyer (ABC), Scott Pelley (CBS), Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Chris Wallace (Fox), Brian Williams (NBC), and Gwen Ifill (PBS).

September 8, 2013

Obama submits to 6 interrogations on Syria — by Diane Sawyer (ABC), Scott Pelley (CBS), Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Chris Wallace (Fox), Brian Williams (NBC), and Gwen Ifill (PBS).

Why is he doing this?

1. It gives each network something unique of its own to show on the night before Obama does his live address, so maybe this was part of a deal to insure that they'd all preempt regular programming for the live address.

2. It acknowledges our skepticism not only about Syria but about the journalists who have coddled and promoted him to us for so many years. Putting them in competition with each other creates an incentive for somebody not to be a lackey.

3. It makes him look strong, alert, and vital in the midst of many observations that Obama looks tired and weak.

4. If he's so vigorous and ready to go to war, maybe Americans who say we're tired of war will rouse ourselves.

5. We're not just tired of war, we're tired of those damned journalists, but isn't there one person on that list of 6 that you're not tired of?

6. At least you can't accuse him of dodging the tough questioner on some other network. He's submitting to Fox too. (But Chris Wallace is kind of a sweetheart. Look at him here.)

ADDED: It's also possible that Obama, knowing the vote on Syria is already lost, is using the occasion to set up the congressional vote so that it will work to the best advantage of Democrats in the 2014 elections.

30 comments:

George M. Spencer said...: This immediately popped to mind:

"We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

LBJ just before the 1964 election.

Obama will say or do anything right now to get his way.

It is simply unbelievable...A month ago no one was talking about going to war.; 9/8/13, 7:51 AM
Opus One Media said...: You would rather he go on Rush or Sean...how about Savage...perhaps Glenn Beck?

Or we could have an intelligent, civil dialogue..No?; 9/8/13, 7:58 AM
Barry Dauphin said...: Why is he doing this?

Because he is disparate. He doesn't look strong, he looks weak. He has not been actively engaged with Congress on a regular basis, so he has to pull an all-nighter and hope to pass the exam.; 9/8/13, 8:02 AM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: Obama's proposal to wage war against Syria is in huge trouble. So Obama is desperate and willing to actually reply to a few questions. Keyword "reply".; 9/8/13, 8:02 AM
Gahrie said...: It's his attempt to avoid a press conference, where someone might bring up unpleasant questions on other subjects.....; 9/8/13, 8:50 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Or we could have an intelligent, civil dialogue..No?"

Per the article, "Obama will tape interviews Monday afternoon with anchors from ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News, the White House said." This may or may not be a dialogue, or it may be an attempt at delivering propaganda. It currently sounds as though these interviews will not be done live, so, given the amount of quote fixing that has been allowed, and the amount of strong-arming of the media [remember, Fox is only still in the press pool because the press revolted for fear they would lose their access to a Republican president], we'll need to wait and see before we can assume this will be a dialogue, let alone intelligent.

If they are taped, not live, at least we'll know that he won't accidentally draw another red line.; 9/8/13, 9:14 AM
Clyde said...: All of this will be on Monday night, right? What else will be on television on Monday night that will have higher ratings than all six interviews combined?

"I'll take 'Monday Night Football' for $100, Alex."; 9/8/13, 9:15 AM
Big Mike said...: Not interrogations, Althouse. Not with that set of interviewers.; 9/8/13, 9:21 AM
Sam L. said...: And not a one of them is not a supporter. He only talks to those with an iron-clad non-aggression pact with him and his administration.; 9/8/13, 9:25 AM
RecChief said...: what a weak president we have. and I don't mean Putin's photo op strength either. I've been saying for 5 years that this guy isn't a leader. He's not a uniter either.

I think the fantasy he and his sycophantic followers held, that governing is easy, has met reality. After all, the most vocal leftists made themselves believe that Bush was simply a high functioning idiot who stole the election. Guess they found out governing and leading are harder than they thought.

I said on Obama's first inauguration day that history would rehabilitate George W. Bush, I just thought it would take longer than 5 years.; 9/8/13, 9:30 AM
Danno said...: Barry Dauphin- I think your spell checker turned desperate into disparate, and that would change the whole meaning of the first sentence, and it is a favorite word for libtards who use the courts to damage America, using disparate impact when there is no other argument.

Thanks Althouse, for bringing this to light and spreading the word. It sure is funny to see all these DC types saying this is important to America's interests.; 9/8/13, 9:40 AM
Snackeater said...: Notice how PMSNBC was left out of the mix? I guess they figured the image of Chrissie Matthews humping 0bama's leg as Larry O'Donnell serenaded him while Rachel Madcow interviewed him would've been too graphic.; 9/8/13, 9:46 AM
Almost Ali said...: Given the nature of his incredible narcissism, Obama will filibuster everyone, which taken from his arsenal of tired political tricks, is and shall be his only viable act of “war.”; 9/8/13, 10:14 AM
Tom said...: If Obama drops one little bomb on Syria, he loses the 2014 elections. I don't think his favorable demographics will help him keep the Senate in that situation.; 9/8/13, 11:06 AM
Unknown said...: This Syria debacle is not goung to help Democrat Congessional candiates in '14. Just shows how delusional Barry is.; 9/8/13, 11:10 AM
Strelnikov said...: The real question is why not? All six have demonstrated their undying loyalty to him, from Ifill's book to the photo of Williams bowing to him. Gee, that's really forthright and brave of him. We'll get the truth now.; 9/8/13, 11:12 AM
Strelnikov said...: I should have exempted Wallace from my comment on that list.; 9/8/13, 11:13 AM
FleetUSA said...: My original thought was Valerie Jarrett suggested this strategy to pin any future problems on the Republicans for 2014 and 2016.

Why VJ? I don't think he has an original thoughts on strategy. He was a packaged candidate and continues to be one with teleprompter speeches, etc.; 9/8/13, 11:39 AM
10ksnooker said...: Willing to do anything to get his way ...

Psychopathic.; 9/8/13, 11:43 AM
10ksnooker said...: Obama will say or do anything to get his way ...

Psychopatic; 9/8/13, 11:45 AM
jr565 said...: Obama doesn't want to be the president who took a dive when a rogue nation, one that we've said was our enemy and who is a proxy state to Iran we are trying to stop from getting nukes, gasses it's people with chemical weapons after calling our bluff.
He knows that if he doesn't do something chemical warfare will become the norm. If Syria can do it, why not any other nation?
If he doesn't back up his words with actions, how is he going to back up his words with actions when Iran defies him and continues producing nukes.
If he doesn't back up his words, then he knows that all of our enemies know that we are weak as a country. We might threaten or bluster, but if they call our bluff, we wont do anything.

That is a terrible position to put the country in. And it will rebound in ways we haven't even thought of yet, always to our further detriment.

If this were a game of poker this would be the point where we figure out the game is rigged and those who are playing against us are cheating. After we said, if you cheat there will be consequences and the game will be shut down.; 9/8/13, 12:47 PM
jr565 said...: 10snooker wrote:
"Willing to do anything to get his way ...

Psychopathic."

actually that sounds like Syria and Russia. Surely holding a nation to account for using chemical weapons is not a greater example of willing to do anything to get his way than the use of the chemical wepaons itself?; 9/8/13, 12:49 PM
jr565 said...: Tom wrote:
If Obama drops one little bomb on Syria, he loses the 2014 elections. I don't think his favorable demographics will help him keep the Senate in that situation.

But if he lets Syria get away with using chemical weapaons which creates more wars with chemical weapons in the future he loses future elections when his opponents argue that dems can't even hold Syria to account when it gases its own people so how can the dems be trusted to protect this country? They let Russia and Syria and Iran walk all over us.; 9/8/13, 12:53 PM
jr565 said...: Recchief wrote:
what a weak president we have. and I don't mean Putin's photo op strength either. I've been saying for 5 years that this guy isn't a leader. He's not a uniter either.

I think the fantasy he and his sycophantic followers held, that governing is easy, has met reality. After all, the most vocal leftists made themselves believe that Bush was simply a high functioning idiot who stole the election. Guess they found out governing and leading are harder than they thought.

Yes, he's weak. And capitulating to Russia and Syria, and backing down whe we put down an ultimatum will only make us weaker still.
Obama was weak to begin with because he and his followers thougt that having the US in this weak position was an example of "smart diplomacy". IF we could just get them to like us we could have our way. IF you elect peacenicks and lefties you get America over a barrel every time with Russia dictating to us what our actions will be. We're so tired of war. it's so costly. Meanwhile Russia and Syria have no problem waging war against us.
So, Obama is the weakest president of my lifetime. Even weaker than the former weakest president, Carter.
But how does he not be weak? by not being weak, quite simply. By putting down an ultimatum and then sticking to it. If it was important enough to make the ultimatum in the first place then it's important enough to honor it, even if our allies are a bunch of pussies. Even if your supporters are a bunch of weak kneed idiots.

Because Obama surrounded himself with them he's now all by himself when he's facing his moment where he has to show strength or further weakness. His supporters are perfectly willing to strengthen Russia's hand because they've always wanted to take the US down a peg. Us being strong is us acting like an empire. And that's evil.
But of course, to put us in that position the left will excuse almost any amount of evil and imperial action. They pretend that if we aren't going to war, that somehow there is peace. When strengthening rogue regimes almost always leads to bigger mass graves.

So, Obama has shown himself to be a weak leader. He could correct that if he goes against his base and does what he thinks is right. I doubt he will. But his base is wrong.
ANd any republicans getting in bed with the Alan Grayson/Robin Cooke's of the world better look at who you're getting in bed with.; 9/8/13, 1:05 PM
MDIJim said...: 0bama is playing to history.

After all, his only claims to fame, first African-American president, first president from Hawaii, and the Nobel peace prize based on hope without accomplishment, have been incidental. His first legislative achievement, the stimulus, increased the public debt and barely moved the economy's needle.

After 0bama's pullout, Iraq looks like it is descending into savage anarchy. The same might be said about Afghanistan. He promised and failed to close Guantanmo. His spying on Americans seems to surpass even that of G. W. Bush.

0bama's all out push for gun control went nowhere, and the same can be said for his push of immigration reform. The jury is still out on the legislation that bears his name in derision, but it looks unsound. A divided Congress could turn into a hostile Congress after 2014 so there is little hope of legislative success that will win the praise of future historians.

In 0bama's view he is pulling out all the stops to deter Assad and future tyrants who would use poison gas, a weapon that horrifies world opinion, whatever that is. In the view of the president and his sycophants, even if he loses public opinion he wins history because he made such a valiant attempt to rally the world against this monster.

Imagine if Churchill was constitutionally excluded from government after 1938. What would history make of him. His WWI and post-WWI decisions were disastrous. He was opposed to both Indian and Irish independence. He also warned against German re-armament and opposed Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. When the dust settled after 1945 Churchill recognized the threat emanating from the USSR's control of eastern Europe.

0bama must be aware of this, even though he returned a bust of Churchill that had been given to the White House, perhaps because Churchill sent troops to put down a rebellion in Kenya. Even without his WWII government, Churchill was assured an honored place in history for resolutely opposing Hitler. Churchill's opposition to Hitler against his own government and elite opinion erased his mistakes. 0bama wants to be remembered for his lonely fight against the use of poison gas against Syrian children, and not for 0bamacare or Guantanamo or the IRS or the NSA.

If he does attack Assad with a shot across the bow and Assad goes on killing Syrian children with whatever weapons he has in his arsenal, 0bama's place in history will be alongside Jimmy Carter.; 9/8/13, 3:35 PM
FullMoon said...: Questions will all be the same,as will the answers, although they may be phrased differently

Viewership data may be interesting.; 9/8/13, 5:39 PM
grackle said...: If he doesn't back up his words with actions, how is he going to back up his words with actions when Iran defies him and continues producing nukes.

"When Iran defies him?" Holy Smokes! Iran has been defying Obama, if you can define an utter lack of anxiety as defiance, since Obama first took office. Obama is either incapable of stopping Iran or is actually wanting Iran to nuke up, it doesn't really matter which. That will not change until someone smarter, tougher and competent is in the Whitehouse. Of course by that time Iran will probably be nuclear. That's when the real fun will begin.

But how does he not be weak? by not being weak, quite simply. By putting down an ultimatum and then sticking to it.

Myself, I don't believe a quick strike with no regime change and no momentum change will be seen by anyone, especially any leader in the Muslim world, as strength.

No, they will see it for what it is: a weak, feckless politician who is ineffectively trying repair a huge off-prompter gaff by using our military. This old vet doesn't like it one bit. Our troops are there for our security, not for saving face for a failing politician.

I knew when I joined at age 17 that I might be called upon to face a hail of bullets. I had seen enough war movies to realize that. I knew that I might even be crippled or killed. The natural optimism of youth kept me from thinking about it too much but the thought was always there. But I also knew that I would be fighting for a good cause – America's safety. Freedom.

0bama wants to be remembered for his lonely fight against the use of poison gas against Syrian children, and not for 0bamacare or Guantanamo or the IRS or the NSA.

I wonder how many children would be killed by an Obama-ordered face-saving bombing of Syria. For sure it will be on Al Jazeera the next day, the bloody little bodies missing some of their limbs, the wailing of the families. The American MSM might even pick it up. Yes, Obama would be remembered, all right.; 9/8/13, 7:08 PM
MD Greene said...: I gather The View had already booked all its guests for the week.; 9/8/13, 8:06 PM
james conrad said...: Why is he doing this?

Because he choked and he's now trying to dump it on congress.; 9/9/13, 3:57 AM
Peter said...: Might one expect that at least one of these would call Pres. Obama on the concept of a "Shot across the bow" that is to be followed up by ... nothing?

Isn't the whole point of a "Shot across the bow" to say, "If you don't comply the next shot will sink your ship"?

Yet Pres. Obama has made it clear that he's not going to be (metaphorically) sinking anyone's ship- he's going to fire his shot and go home.

"If you don't stop doing that I'll ... I'll ... Well, I'll warn you that you better stop doing that!" And then I'll go home!

Isn't the whole point of a "shot across the bow" the "or else" part?; 9/9/13, 9:45 AM