Another Press Conference to Remind Us Why We Don’t Care About Press Conferences

Another Presidential press conference, and yet another reason to observe why presidents (of any political stripe) aren’t fond of press conferences.   There isn’t much reason for the general public to get exercised about these press Q & A’s either.

The topics were fairly predictable: The Civil War in Syria and the possible use of chemical weapons — by someone, sometime;  Benghazi; Immigration and our diplomatic and agency relations with Mexico; The implementation of the Affordable Care Act; The Boston Marathon bombing; The Sequester and the FAA fix; Guantanamo; Jason Collins.  Yawn.

Notice that not a single one of these questions addresses the single most important topic of interest to Americans — jobs and the economy.  The economy is polled at 40%; Budget and the national debt comes in at 6%; Immigration at 4%; Gun Safety at 3%; Health Care at 3%; Terrorism at 3%; and an unspecified “other” at 34%.   So, where were the questions about our unemployment statistics? Manufacturing?  Trade relations and implications?  Job creation legislation?  The effect of the Sequester on the GDP?  Crickets.

A second item of note is that the questions concerning foreign policy (Syria, Benghazi) were derivative.  The “red line” question was productive, but the follow up on the tragedy in Benghazi concerned a claim by Republican operatives, with dubious reputations for accuracy, that diplomats were not available for public comments.  This came  from the GOP lawyer who once opined that Valerie Plame couldn’t be “outed” because she wasn’t an undercover operative for the CIA — a patently false statement, from a patently unreliable source.

The Boston Marathon and national security question was a classic example of White House Press Corps self referencing:

“…There is also a series of senators — Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham — who allege that all these years after 9/11, there still wasn’t enough intelligence shared prior to the attack.  And now, Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Benghazi and Boston are both examples of the U.S. going backwards on national security.  Is he right?  And did our intelligence miss something?”  [transcript]*

This must be what passes for research amongst members of the press elite — Senator Greenroom makes a comment on television, reporter watches the presentation, reporter asks the President (or other available public official) about Greenroom’s comments, the response is treated as “news.”

The reporter might have been able to answer her own inquiry had she some familiarity with the State Department’s annual terrorism report.  The report for 2011 is now available online.  It would seem that a person, supposedly adept in reporting national issues, would be aware of the annual reports and would know the reports are  statutorily mandated.

A more important question might have been raised about intelligence sharing had the questioner demonstrated a bit more nuanced understanding of the topic.  There could have been a question about both the possibility that the FBI and CIA are often loath to share information, the sharing of which would indirectly expose sources and methods — and another line of inquiry concerning the delicacy of cooperation with Russian police and intelligence sources.  How can we effectively and efficiently share information with the Russians without becoming a cat’s paw for Russian intentions in Chechnya, or without becoming entangled in Russian internal politics?  Or, on the other hand, without compromising Russian sources and methods when they are attempting to assist us?

Those lines of questioning died in the wake of the self-referential, inside the Beltway, Village approach to journalism.

Meanwhile back in the real world:  Not only was there not a single question about jobs and the economy, there were some other very obvious questions that weren’t voiced.

The current death toll in the factory collapse in Bangladesh now stands at 411.  The European Union is considering revising its standards for duty free and quota free trade from countries which do not implement and enforce work place safety regulations. [Reuters]  The U.S. Department of Commerce has not yet posted any comments on trade with countries with few, if indeed any, worker safety laws in evidence (May 1, 2013) — Question, Mr. President: Does the U.S. Department of Commerce intend to review our trade relations with nations which have very unimpressive implementation of worker safety regulations?  More crickets.

And, pertaining to gun safety?  How much more productive would it have been to avoid the realm of Theater Critics and observe that initial efforts to expand gun ownership background checks to gun shows and Internet sales failed (Didn’t you twist enough arms?) and to ask:  Mr. President — The Tsarnaev brothers were in possession of a 9mm Ruger semi-automatic hand gun, alleged to be the weapon that killed the MIT police officer, and we know that the older brother was placed on the Terrorist Watch List.  [GUK] Should we seek to close the gun show and Internet sale loopholes to preclude those who are on terrorist watch lists from obtaining firearms? Should we amend 18 USC 842 to include those on terrorist watch lists from legal possession of explosives?   If anyone with a computer can locate this information within a half hour from online sources, then why is the there such a paucity of background information on display during White House press conferences?

Nor did the White House press corps give evidence they’ve looked across the pond lately.  Eurozone unemployment has risen to a record high, and Italian unemployment is higher than it’s been in the past 20 years.  [IBT]  Question Mr. President:  With the current economic troubles in the Eurozone in mind, what implications might this have for U.S. manufacturing and service sector exports to Europe?  What would this mean for American workers?  Never asked.

In short, what we saw on our televisions was yet another unfortunate display of a Bubble Wrapped press corps, asking insider questions about insider issues.  And, all without so much as a nod to the economic problems besetting the American public — stagnant wages, continuing long term unemployment, increasing income disparity, and a still improperly regulated financial sector which gives no indication that they’ve learned anything from their last debacle in 2007-2008.  Crickets.

* the transcript link as of May 1, 2013 references another release, and if the link is corrected readers may have to click on the Speeches link on the website.

Yosemite Sam Shallow: Romney’s Foreign Policy

There’s shallow, and then there’s so shallow you wouldn’t get your shoe laces wet if you stepped in it.  Thus we have Governor Romney’s foreign policy statement.

“The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.”  [WSJ]

Where to begin? How about the conflation between the Libyan and Egyptian situation?  Let’s stick with Libya.  Secretary of State Clinton spoke to the situation in Benghazi without referring to the infamous inflammatory film trailer, only hours after the attack on the consulate:

“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible.” [State 9/12/12]

To say that the Administration has “finally conceded” the attacks were the result of terrorists is to ignore Secretary Clinton’s opening sentence:

“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings.”  [State 9/12/12] (emphasis added)

That would be “heavily armed militants.”   Where did Secretary Clinton speak to “This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long,” in her remarks on behalf of the American government?

Evidently, the Romney campaign didn’t get the memo from the State Department in which they’ve now been able to firmly identify those who attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi:

“The Department of State amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and E.O. 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula to include the new alias, Ansar al-Shari’a (AAS). The Department of State previously designated AQAP as an FTO and under E.O. 13224 on January 19, 2010.”  [State 10/4/12]

These designations are not made lightly, nor are they simply elaborations of unsubstantiated news reports or the product of punditry — the designations have consequences.

“The consequences of adding the new alias for AQAP include a prohibition against knowingly providing material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, Ansar al-Shari’a, and the freezing of all property and interest in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States, or the control of U.S. persons. The Department of State took these actions in consultation with the Departments of Justice and Treasury.

In addition, today the United Nations 1267/1989 Al-Qa’ida Sanctions Committee listed AAS. As a consequence the group now faces a worldwide assets freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo. The actions taken today against AAS support the U.S. effort to degrade the capabilities of its parent organization, AQAP. We are determined to eliminate AQAP’s ability to execute violent attacks and to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat their networks.” [State 10/4/12]

Let’s look to the generalities adopted by Governor Romney, such as the statement: “…attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.”

And, there’s nothing like having an opponent who wants to wage perpetual war to make any neoconservative delighted beyond reason.  Here we have all the necessary elements, (1) a “dark ideology,” which can be easily conflated with an entire religion; (2) a valiant nation out to protect women and girls; (3) the adoption of the Al Qaeda pipe dream of the revival of the Caliphate (don’t bet on it); and (4) the “perpetual war” motif which refers back to the neat and tidy categorizations of the Cold War Era.

What we have here is a rhetorical amalgamation of neo-conservative bombast, anti-Muslim propaganda, a smattering of the White Man’s Burden, and the proposal that we readjust the old Cold War classifications into which we can conveniently shove various and sundry new governments.

So, what is Governor Romney’s complaint?

“But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.  Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.” [WSJ]

This in the part where we’d expect to find some suggestions for how to shape policy.  Instead we simply heard a justification for intervention.

“Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.”  [WSJ]

The statement is demonstrably false.   First, the U.S. is in a delicate position in some Middle Eastern nations.  Our previous support for the Mubarek regime in Egypt has left many Egyptians with a bitter after taste.  Secondly, we can point to some very tangible kinds of support to both the new  Egyptian and the Libyan governments.   Those in the fact based universe will want to consult the State Department’s fact sheet on aid to Libya, describing aid ranging from political and electoral development to health and medical services.   American aid and expertise lent to the new Egyptian government is the subject of a fact sheet released by the State Department on September 24th.  For good measure, there’s also a summary of U.S. support for the new Tunisian government.

The remainder of Governor’s speech was a litany in support of intervention. Possibly military. Maybe economic. Could be aid based?  In short, a relatively empty framework into which those wishing to hear support for both military intervention or more foreign aid may find rhetorical sustenance.