[Peace-discuss] [Peace] NPR Rakes Esper on “Imminent Threat?!” and “Constitutional War Powers”

[Robert Naiman]

I never claimed that there was a permanent change in NPR or the U.S. media
generally. I was just referring to what happened on NPR this morning and in
the U.S. media in last few days, where the Trump Administration is getting
hammered on its claim that its assassination of a top Iranian official was
constitutional and legal because there was an "imminent threat" of attack.
There's no intrinsic reason to expect this change to be permanent; on the
contrary, I argued in what I wrote that a key cause of the change was the
difference between the position of the Democratic leadership in Congress on
Iran now from the behavior of the Democratic leadership in Congress on Iraq
in October 2002. This is obviously a contingent thing; for example, if the
House were debating U.S. policy in Syria now, the dynamics might be quite
different, because until now the House Democratic leadership has supported
U.S. policy in Syria.

It is quite true that most House Democrats and especially most of the House
Democratic leadership were quite terrible on NDAA, a fact of which I assure
you I am fully aware, in great detail. However, the world has changed
significantly in the last few weeks, due to 1] the outcry over what
happened on NDAA 2] the subsequent unconstitutional Trump military
escalation against Iran 3] people mobilizing against Trump's escalation 4]
people slagging on House Democrats for enabling Trump's military escalation
by standing down on the Khanna-Gaetz NDAA amendment that would likely have
stopped it 5] CPC leaders, especially Rep. Ilhan Omar, pushing on House
Democrats to respond to Trump's military escalation. All that was the
context in which last Thursday House Democrats overwhelming voted for a War
Powers Resolution to stop Trump's unconstitutional military escalation
against Iran, with some key Republicans like Rand Paul and Mike Lee and Tom
Massie and Matt Gaetz also speaking up, and that vote on Thursday, together
with other slagging on the Administration's claims by both Democrats and
Republicans, have formed the key context for the media being aggressive in
challenging the Trump Administration's claims, exactly as I wrote.


On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:48 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> I am glad to hear that about that particular NPR interview of Esper, but I
> think you are being WAY too over optimistic about the corporate owned ( and
> in the case of NPR / PBS - corporate funded ) media.
>
> You should watch / read what the rest of the corporate media does ( and
> even other NPR programs ) within the next few days before you make those
> conclusions.
>
> I really wish that somehow it would be the case, but I am not going to
> hold my breath, not even for a second.
>
>
>
> And as far as what you describe as the “ oppositional Democratic
> leadership “ is absolute fantasy !
>
> There are only 41 Democrats in the U.S. House ( and about 6 in the Senate
> ) who opposed the recent NDAA Bill, out of 188 who supported it.
>
>
>
> Your analysis has been excellent lately, but I am sorry to say, this
> position you are describing is way off the mark of accuracy.
>
>
>
> David J.
>
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:51 AM
> *To:* peace
> *Subject:* [Peace] NPR Rakes Esper on “Imminent Threat?!” and
> “Constitutional War Powers”
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159042202582656
>
>
>
> NPR Rakes Esper on “Imminent Threat?!” and “Constitutional War Powers”
>
>
>
> Pentagon boss Esper was on NPR this morning. NPR pressed Esper on
> “imminent threat?” and Constitutional War Powers. It was absolutely
> glorious. NPR totally humiliated Esper. NPR made Esper sound like a lying
> fool. Which, of course, is exactly what he is. I’ve been listening to NPR
> for decades. I never heard this version of NPR before. It was like
> listening to the BBC. On the BBC, if a government official won’t answer a
> question, they just keep repeating the question over and over until the
> government official answers it, or until they feel they’ve adequately
> demonstrated exactly what important question it is that government
> officials are unable or unwilling to answer. Then, if the government
> official still won’t answer the question, they cut the broadcast clip right
> there. Like, if this government official is unable or unwilling to answer
> our questions, then there’s no point in talking to them anymore. Then,
> everybody who hears the interview knows exactly what important question it
> was that government officials were unable or unwilling to answer. The only
> difference between NPR this morning and the BBC was the tone. NPR has this
> deferential, reverential tone when they’re talking with or about Pentagon
> officials. “Please, suh, can I have some more?” That was the same as usual.
> On the BBC, the reporters have this swashbuckling tone, like if government
> officials don’t hate you, then you’re not a real journalist. But that was
> the only difference between NPR and the BBC this morning, the tone. The
> effective content was the same. Government lying was exposed. Everybody who
> heard that NPR interview now knows that “Imminent Threat? vs.
> Constitutional War Powers” is the question that Administration officials
> are unable or unwilling to answer.
>
>
>
> We’re getting the oppositional U.S. media right now that we were entitled
> to in October 2002. If we could have had this oppositional U.S. media in
> October 2002, before Congress approved the Iraq AUMF, we could have stopped
> the Iraq war.
>
>
>
> The most important reason why we’re getting the oppositional media we
> deserve right now and not the lapdog media we had in October 2002 is that
> we’re getting the oppositional Democratic leadership we deserve right now,
> not the lapdog Democratic leadership we had in October 2002.
>
>
>
> The U.S. media takes key cues from Congress about what the boundaries of
> permissible debate are and where to strategically press government
> officials. This is where the “extra-parliamentary” antiwar Left got it
> badly wrong in the past by not engaging with Congress more, not just in the
> immediate run-up to war, but all the way along, when the seeds for war were
> being planted.
>
>
>
> U.S. media need two Batsignals from Congress in this juncture to go to
> town:
>
>
>
> 1. The “opposition party” is mostly united in opposition.
>
> 2. There are some members of the President’s party speaking out.
>
>
>
> This is what’s happening right now. U.S. media are getting the two
> Batsignals they need from Congress, and they’re going to town.
>
>
>
> Members of Congress go on TV and they say, “Imminent Threat??!!
> Constitutional War Powers!!” And U.S. media says, “Woof, woof! Imminent
> threat??!! Woof, woof! Constitutional War Powers!!”
>
>
>
> Recall the scene in “All the President’s Men” with Bob Woodward and “Deep
> Throat”/Mark Felt in the parking garage. Associate FBI Director Mark Felt
> doesn’t tell Woodward what the truth is. He tells the Washington Post cub
> reporter from Wheaton, Illinois what the right questions to ask are. He
> tells Woodward what leads the Justice Department and the FBI would be
> pursuing if they didn’t have the misfortune to be headed by appointees of
> Richard Nixon. “Follow the money!!!”
>
>
>
> This is what the Members of Congress are doing when they go to the
> microphone and say, “Imminent Threat??!! Constitutional War Powers!!”
> They’re telling the U.S. media: “Look over there! Follow this lead! Press
> government officials on this question! This question is their Achilles’
> Heel! This is the question they can’t answer!”
>
>
>
> The main reason that we didn’t have the dynamics in October 2002 that
> we’re having now is that key Democratic leaders in Congress folded
> immediately to the Bush Administration on the Iraq AUMF. Dick Gephardt, Joe
> Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton folded immediately on the Bush
> Administration’s fraudulent case for war, and this undercut opposition in
> Congress, including Republican opposition. Republican House Majority Leader
> Dick Armey asked, why would we attack Iraq? Iraq hasn’t attacked us. But
> Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt undercut Republican House
> Majority Leader Dick Armey’s opposition to the war by announcing that he
> would work with the Bush Administration to pass an AUMF.
>
>
>
> It was widely perceived at the time that a key reason, if not the main
> reason, why Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton
> folded immediately to the Bush Administration on the Iraq war was that they
> were all planning to run for President, and they believed that opposing the
> war would be a liability for their presidential ambitions.
>
>
>
> Let’s suppose that this causation story is substantially true. Here are
> the questions for the final exam:
>
>
>
> 1. When Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton folded
> immediately to the Bush Administration’s fraudulent case for war because of
> their presidential ambitions, were they primarily concerned about the
> opinions of voters, or were they primarily concerned about the opinions of
> some other group of people?
>
>
>
> 2. If they were primarily concerned with the opinions of some other group
> of people, what group of people were they primarily concerned about?
>
>
>
> 3. What implications does this have for the present juncture?
>
>
>
> 4. What did Deep Throat say to Bob Woodward in the parking garage?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20200114/83e88b19/attachment-0001.htm>