Political Asylum — October 19, 2012, 4:26 pm

Is the Media Walking Us Into Another War?

On September 20, just days after the American ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans had been murdered in a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a crowd of some 30,000 Libyans jammed the main square of that city to protest his death. They carried signs that read, “We want justice for Chris” and “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.”

When members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia—an Islamist terrorist organization linked to al Qaeda—tried to hold a counter-demonstration, the crowd erupted into fury, chanting, “You terrorists, you cowards, go back to Afghanistan.” The newly free citizens of Libya then marched spontaneously on Ansar al-Sharia’s encampment, setting it on fire, and confiscating much of the group’s weaponry, even braving gunfire from the well-armed terrorists that left four dead. The crowd then went on to systematically destroy the camps of several other such militias, and hand their weapons over to the official Libyan military.

Surely, this was the biggest news story to come out of the Middle East over the last month. It should have been a huge story, potentially a watershed moment, a signal of some profound shifts taking place in the region. One might have expected extensive follow-up stories and intense speculation about just what it all means.

Instead, after the initial report of the demonstration, this remarkable story was dropped down the memory hole. Why? Because once again, a pliant mainstream media has been cowed into line by the right wing’s conspiracy machine, which backfired loudly the other night, when Mitt Romney took up the right’s party line without even a rudimentary fact check, and tried to insist during the second presidential debate that President Obama had not dared to call Stevens’s murder a terrorist attack for two weeks.

In fact, the president had condemned this “act of terror” at a Rose Garden press conference the day after it happened—something that debate moderator Candy Crowley quietly affirmed in the course of the debate. Ever since, outraged right-wing commentators have poured into the Fox News studios, condemning Ms. Crowley for having dared to “crush Mitt’s big moment” by, well, telling the truth.

President Obama began his Rose Garden statement by talking about the murder of the ambassador and the other Americans, and he closed with this paragraph:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But this was not good enough for longtime, right-wing columnist Mickey Kaus. Mr. Obama had also referred earlier to the original 9/11 attack, and so Kaus claimed he was befuddled, and maybe deceived: “The antecedent is confused, presumably intentionally so.”

Erik Wemple, a right-wing blogger for the Washington Post, insisted that President Obama’s “statement lacks any definitive, concrete reference points, providing grist for critics of Crowley and her extemporaneous fact-checking,” and that thus, “Crowley has no case when she slaps Romney back”—“slapping back” in this case being defined as quietly demurring when somebody tells a brazen lie.

American Crossroads, a Super PAC formed by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, charged in an instant memo that “The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office . . .”

So if the president makes a statement, in public, before news cameras and reporters, it’s still not an official presidential statement if various underlings don’t repeat it verbatim afterward?

Gillespie, quoted as “a senior adviser to Mr. Romney” in the New York Times, insisted that “It’s just not the case that he [Mr. Obama] condemned these attacks for what they are . . .”

How is that? Because “He did not say that the ambassador was assassinated by terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda.” So now denouncing terrorists is not denouncing terrorists unless, apparently, you read out their entire dossier.

And of course, because today all right-wingers quote all fellow right-wingers—yet another right-wing, Washington Post pundit, Jennifer Rubin, railed at Ms. Crowley for having “egregiously sided with President Obama on his false remarks on Libya,” and denounced the president’s “attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya . . .”

The above statements actually do lend credence to one of the right-wing’s most persistent claims: that the education system in this country is failing abominably. It must be, if even people who make their living with a laptop can no longer accurately comprehend and describe a simple statement.

Actually, President Obama was attempting to wriggle into his own words on Libya. And as for his actions, well, they have included leaving one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism, the tyrant Muammar Qaddafi, dead in the sand with a bullet in the back of his head.

Though even this has been condemned by many on the right. Because, you see, an anonymous administration staffer referred to the White House policy in Libya as “leading from behind”—an inglorious phrase to be sure, even if it meant that Libya was free, Qaddafi was dead, and tens of thousands of the country’s innocent citizens were saved from the massacre Qaddafi promised them, and all without the loss of a single American life in combat.

The strange idea that bloodless regime change in Libya was bad, while bloody, useless regime change in Iraq and everywhere else is good, has become a running trope on the right. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat went so far as to condemn “our Libyan intervention” altogether, suggesting that it “helped create a power vacuum in which terrorist groups can operate with impunity,” as evidenced “in nearby Mali, where the ripple effects from Muammar el-Qaddafi’s overthrow have helped empower a Qaeda affiliate.”

So now we’ve truly gone all the way through the looking glass. Round and round the right-wing wheel of the surreal goes, and where it will stop, nobody knows. The stench of mendacity on the right became so powerful that it provoked Rachel Maddow to an impassioned and brilliant commentary on MSNBC last night, in which she linked the formal withdrawal of Republicans from the reality-based community to Romney’s inclusion of Jerome Corsi, probably the most repugnant of all the “birther” conspirators, on the campaign plane—and then attributed it to Mr. Romney’s own debate stumble.

Yet I doubt if Romney really has any illusions about Mr. Corsi’s claims, or Benghazi. The goal here, as Ms. Rubin helpfully spells out, is “to dominate the headlines, soak up the political oxygen and make it increasingly difficult for Obama to recapture the momentum.”

And it’s working, thanks to mainstream journalists who, only a few years after the object lesson afforded by Judith Miller, are once again rolling over.

Glenn Kessler, a fact-checker on the Washington Post, agreed that Mr. Obama said that, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” but added: “But he did not say ‘terrorism’—and it took the administration days to concede that it was an ‘act of terrorism’ that appears unrelated to reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Mohammed.” Can anyone tell me how “acts of terror” are different from “terrorism”? Mike Allen, a fact-checker at Politico, and the anonymous buffoons at PolitiFact gave us similar, silly exercises in pedantry.

These might be attributed to the routine follies of a dying, once-great newspaper and a couple of second-rate blogs. But over at the New York Times, reporter Mark Landler—who has for weeks trotted eagerly after the prevailing right-wing narrative that Benghazi represents some kind of damning, Watergate-style, “what did he know and when did he know it” scandal—opined: “It says something about the murky nature of the Libyan attack, and its messy aftermath, that Mr. Romney appeared not to know that Mr. Obama had labeled it an ‘act of terror’ the day after it occurred.’ ”

Yes, it says that Mr. Romney was caught perpetuating an ugly lie. But Mr. Landler and most of his colleagues are either too naive or too intimidated to write it. The fact that the initial reports coming into Washington after the Benghazi attack were muddled and contradictory is not a scandal. (Had the administration refused to release them until everything was clear, no doubt that would be the scandal today.)

What’s more, no one on the right truly thinks it is. What Republicans are trying to do is exactly what they’ve done in so many elections of the past: create a construct that will undermine one of the Democratic candidate’s main selling points. Thus, John Kerry, a decorated war hero, was “Swift-boated” as a lying fake. Michael Dukakis, a dedicated environmentalist, was turned into the polluter of Boston Harbor. And now the right is trying to make President Barack Obama, the man who brought down Qaddafi, ordered the execution of Osama bin Laden, and has the U.S. military launching daily raids and drone strikes against al Qaeda and its allies, into some kind of terrorist-coddling appeaser.  It’s a classic Big Lie, and one that’s coupled to Mr. Romney and the right’s other Big Lies that Mr. Obama has betrayed Israel, and that the president’s strategy in the Middle East “is unraveling before our eyes.”

In fact, our position in the area has rarely been stronger. Grateful mobs of citizens are now marching in Libya to rout the terrorists who dared to attack our representative. Iran is isolated from the world, its economy collapsing, its mullahs staggered. Syria, their longtime cat’s paw, is now engulfed in a civil war, unable to do any more of its bloody mischief in the region for the time being.

But this isn’t enough for the right, which wants a president who will both press for war with Iran and stand behind not just Israel but Bibi Netanyahu’s strategy to hold on to the West Bank in perpetuity. Just ten years after swallowing whole the Bush Administration’s lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the mainstream media seems willing to ingest any number of new fantasies about the region, even if it means immersing us in quagmires that will make Iraq look like a walk in the park. It’s a betrayal of their trust, and a betrayal of their country—but one they’d apparently rather undertake than risk anyone on the right yelling at them.

Share
Single Page
is a contributing editor of Harper’s Magazine. His essay “Why Vote?” appeared in the October 2012 issue.

More from Kevin Baker:

Context November 25, 2016, 11:26 am

A Fate Worse Than Bush

Rudolph Giuliani and the politics of personality

From the July 2014 issue

21st Century Limited

The lost glory of America’s railroads

Appreciation June 26, 2014, 8:00 am

The Twenty-Three Best Train Songs Ever Written—Maybe

From Johnny Cash to “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad”

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Average number of complaints of excessive force lodged each day against police in the three largest U.S. cities:

14

The naming of boys after their fathers increased after 9/11 in U.S states with a pronounced honor culture

A jury in Arizona heard closing arguments in the trial of a Mesa police officer charged with the murder of Daniel Shaver, a twenty-six-year-old traveling pest exterminator who was staying at a La Quinta Inn when he was shot and killed by a response team after guests in a hot tub outside his window mistook for a rifle the pellet gun he’d used to eradicate birds from a local Walmart and reported him to the hotel staff.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today