Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – As I pointed out earlier, if you get accused of jaywalking in the United States and your story makes it to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, doesn’t matter the news network, you will be the alleged jaywalker until your day in court. Why is it that the same responsible journalists and the same responsible media outlets have left out the alleged when it comes to the chemical weapons attack and have now moved onto [mocking] “the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons attack against its own citizen as they’ve slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them”? Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Brandi is in Virginia. Hello, Brandi, you’re next on the Mike Church Show.
Caller Brandi: How you doing, Mike?
Mike: Well, thank you.
Caller Brandi: My question is this: Does Syria really have the capability to send a chemical weapon our way? It seems like all he’s doing is, if we go over there he’s going to rain hellfire on Israel. Really? Iran doesn’t seem to have any capabilities. Libya doesn’t have any capabilities. I don’t think Iran really does right now either. So why are we really worried about Syria having the potential to rain hell on us?
Caller Brandi: Exactly. So why are we even going over there? Let Syria do whatever it is they’re going to do to their people. That ain’t our business. We can’t even afford to go over there.
Mike: There are a couple things that I would like to note, Brandi. Thank you for your call. I talked about this earlier in bringing up that the Russians have a very friendly and robust relationship with the Syrians, we know this. There is the equivalent of a Russian naval base off the coast of Syria. The Russians are allies with the Syrians. We could say in practical terms that our once-former nemesis, the Soviet Union, has strategically placed themselves in cahoots with the Syrians. If you’re worried about the United States being attacked, it would seem to me that one of the things you would not want to do is provoke either the Russians or an ally, especially a close one, of the Russians. If you want to talk about intercontinental ballistic missile capability, we know the former Soviet Union, we know that Vladimir Putin has stockpiles of nuclear weapons that are sitting atop ICBMs — for the uninitiated, that’s an intercontinental ballistic missile — and yes, they could reach the United States. If your concern is really about not being attacked and the national interest, then you’re taking a stick and you’re poking a hornet’s nest if you’re going to provoke the Syrians.
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
If the Syrians have, and they haven’t, if they have attacked and blatantly instigated an act of war against the United States, I don’t think there would be any question — there wouldn’t be a question in my mind — as to what should happen. The Congress ought to act and empower the president to take care of it. That has not occurred here. I’ll tell you what else has happened here that I would like for you to observe today and tomorrow. I told you earlier in the program that our allies in this business, the British, the UK, have backed off. The parliament told David Cameron: No, no, no, we will vote on this and we’re not voting on anything until we hear some conclusive proof that that chemical weapon was actually from the Assad regime and that he ordered the detonation of it, and you’re not doing anything. You’ve lost the support of the UK directly. The UK is not going to get involved. The United Nations is not going to allow this. There won’t be any UN resolution to cower under. It is becoming obvious that the Congress is not going to allow this to happen.
What has occurred in the last week here? The major media campaign is about to be dealt yet another blow. Number one, their credibility ought to be out the window. As I pointed out earlier, if you get accused of jaywalking in the United States and your story makes it to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, doesn’t matter the news network, you will be the alleged jaywalker until your day in court. Why is it that the same responsible journalists and the same responsible media outlets have left out the alleged when it comes to the chemical weapons attack and have now moved onto [mocking] “the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons attack against its own citizen as they’ve slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them”? Really? This has been conclusively proven? So we have some international tribunal or some objective concern has actually said this? No, that hasn’t happened yet, but our editors say we have to say this.
Folks, don’t you see? It doesn’t matter what network you turn to, the media, most of them, especially the broadcast media, was agitating for this, to the point of advocating for it. Question: Why would you trust in any way, shape or form an entity that was trying to get your country involved in what could devolve into World War III? Haven’t we had enough war? I talked about this earlier and I challenge you, show me where I’m wrong. You turn on any of those networks, the most disappointing one to you should have been the Fox News Network.
Who in the hell was making the decisions, telling anchors to go on and begin broadcasting in the affirmative that the Assad regime did this, and broadcasting in the affirmative and lining the guests up to support that an attack is imminent. Where were the noninterventionists yesterday? Where were the people counseling: Excuse me, haven’t we heard some of this before? To be fair, Bret Baier did ask the question of General Jack Keane. Also someone had interviewed Colonel Ralph Peters who had said: I think this is all trumped up, I don’t think there is any national interest here, and we should not be doing this. For the rest of the day, the statement was made in the affirmative. The imminent attack, which they were all on pins and needles, couldn’t wait for it to happen so they could report on it, all the wonders of firing cruise missiles into foreign countries.
All these things were stated in a manner that was not objective. They weren’t on the sidelines. They were on the field, for crying out loud. Ditto that for the Clinton News Network. I didn’t watch MSNBC, so I don’t know about MSNBC. I didn’t watch any broadcast news, although I do know that CBS News, according to Conor Friedersdorf, he was writing today at The Atlantic about how CBS was talking about [mocking] “Pressure is being brought to bear on the Obama administration.” Friedersdorf said, “Pressure from whom?” Obama answers to the freaking Congress. There’s a separation of powers here. Who outside of the American people and the Congress could possibly put pressure on Obama to do this? What entity are you referring to, CBS? Then Friedersdorf says:
Why is their pro-war pressure legitimized as the prevailing story line, despite the fact that they hold a minority position, even as pressure against intervention — that is to say, the majority position — is all but ignored? [Mike: I’m not the only one making this observation.] Consider a variation on the “pressure” story that isn’t written, though it would be accurate. [Mike: This is the story that Friedersdorf says should have been written.
Mike Church Show Transcript – What If Bombing Helps Rebel Terrorists? What If Hypocrite Obama Starts World War III?
President Obama Faces Mounting Pressure to Stay Out of Syria
With his credibility seen increasingly on the line, President Barack Obama today faced growing calls at home and abroad to stay out of the conflict in Syria, despite the presence of chemical weapons and his former declarations that their use would be a red line.
Various Syria experts warned that intervention could touch off a regional conflict, do more to harm than help Syrian civilians, and draw the United States into a more costly, protracted war than anyone wants. Anti-war group Code Pink used their Facebook page to organize a rally against missile strikes. A subset of conservatives warned that intervening on the side of rebels could empower Islamist extremists. Deficit hawks argued that America can’t afford costly military strikes at this time in a conflict with little relation to our national interests, and Obama’s 2007 statements about the illegality of a president going to war without Congress absent an immediate threat to American security risks making him look like a hypocrite if he unilaterally intervenes. An inability to get UN approval would also arguably make the conflict illegal under international law. And Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize would seem to hem him in further.
A story like that would never be written. The political press unconsciously treats hawkish positions as if they’re more serious and legitimate, in part because they’ve thoughtlessly bought into the frame that experts can control geopolitics.
Mike: They can’t, that’s the folly of intervention, yet where is the peace point of view being presented on all those networks that I pointed out?
End Mike Church Show Transcript