In previous pieces examining Tucker Carlson’s very honest analysis, we also saw how at times it gets blown to shreds by his own defensive behavior when questioned. Since the modus operandi of the American mainstream press (of which Fox News a part) is a sensationalized yelling match instead of a legitimate and civilized debate, it is often difficult to separate the rhetoric from the reality.
To this end one ought to always listen and think critically, because rhetoric may gin up emotions, but it does not transmit facts. This is antithetical to real news dissemination. However, exceptions occur very often in our day and this situation was clearly in need of an impassioned refutation.
The associate editor of Commentary magazine, Noah Rothman, went on record accusing Mr. Carlson of being a “Russian propagandist” for saying that there remains a question as to whether or not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was behind the alleged gas attacks shown to have been carried out in Douma last week. Rothman’s screed was to call Mr. Carlson “unpatriotic” as well, for doubting the narrative ostensibly put forth by the mainstream media and a few significant names from Congress.
Mr. Carlson notes, rightly that Secretary of State Mattis has voiced fundamentally the same doubt, and that this should give a lot of credence to the simple fact that Tucker is stating: that we need to have our facts straight before doing anything rash.
Simple enough, but apparently this is not the case if you are a media propagandist in the manner common to so many in the American press. Noah struck back:
Rothman: “Whether you know it or not, you are advancing pro-Assad narratives, and you you should check out Iran TV, Press TV and the Kremlin-funded network RT to see the favorable coverage you are receiving… (I don’t believe you are doing that intentionally…)”
Tucker’s response, starting with “I don’t seek that coverage” is reasonable enough, though impassioned, but the whole line from Rothman brings up another basic issue:
Is something wrong by definition just because powers that don’t have your worldview say it?
This is the real problem. Russia denies Syrian involvement. Syria denies its involvement. And as the days have passed we see that this narrative is falling apart, and that there is a strong possiblity that there was no gas attack at all, but rather a completely fabricated and staged event, designed to draw the Americans into a response, or rather, to justify an increased role, most notably an attack on Syrian forces and one that could involve an attack against Russian forces operating in the region.
Now there is a lot of spin about this possibly evolving into a WWIII scenario. While this is actually a rather remote possibility, an American attack without proper and reliable assessment of the situation and its responsible parties is absolutely insane, and would (and should) draw a military response if an innocent party to this matter is attacked with military force. If that happens the possibility of escalation does indeed increase exponentially. Wars have a tendency to grow out of control by nature.
Rothman is quite the spin doctor, and his fast-talking approach is characteristic of much of the MSM narrative style. If they talk fast, and in a glib and connected manner whatever they are saying must be true.
Here again, Tucker snags Mr. Rothman:
And of course, Rothman adeptly tries to squirm out of it. He uses a lot of “we know… X” statements, to again mislead. Do we really know? Actually, according to our own defense secretary, who is often considered a “warmonger”, we don’t.
Tucker holds his point like a bulldog holds a stick. Despite Mr. Rothman’s desire to spin this story, apparently to excite American people to support yet another war in some far off place that doesn’t want us there in the first place… well, Tucker hangs on to hold his point.
Rothman takes an interesting question – “What does America have to gain by going to war in Syria?” And his answers are asinine. The first one indicates that chemical weapons are a threat to our own troops in foreign countries, so we need to be there to get rid of the weapons.
This is funny, because if we didn’t have troops in places where they were neither wanted, asked for or needed, they also would not be at risk from chemical or any other kind of attacks from fighters in foreign lands. The amazing thing is how poorly thought Rothman’s answers are, and yet, also, how much time he clearly spent in preparing them. Again, he is super glib with the talking points, but the points themselves make no sense.
Perhaps this makes no real difference to the Americans who read his pieces because they are too busy taking hits on their joints while they read or listen to him. That cannabis can sure change your thoughts. Maybe he was smoking some of this stuff as he was preparing this response too… it makes about as much sense as any drunk or high person’s speech does.
The video actually has a second part as Mr. Carlson has Nigel Farage of Great Britain on to give his take. His point of view is worth linking to here:
Here, cooler heads are shown, and the former head of the UK’s Independence Party, Mr. Farage’s analysis appears to be spot on. As you will hear in the video, Farage points out that the record of recent US interventions in Middle Eastern nations has been disastrous, naming Iraq and Libya as two major examples, that both left these nations in worse shape, and not better. Again the question of “why should we be there?” is paramount, and the answer overwhelmingly appears to be “there is no compelling reason to do anything.”
The use of military power has only one purpose. It is to kill people and break things. And although as a conservative and an American, I love and respect our military forces, I cannot use that reverence to justify the use of such power against people and places that are not presenting themselves as a direct threat to the United States. Here is the reason:
If you kill people that didn’t attack you, or if you break things that don’t belong to you and never threatened you in the first place, that makes you the wrongdoer of the worst and deadliest order.
It is that simple.
The unfortunate fact is that in many places in the world, American forces have been deployed for causes that are far less than immediate danger to the Republic, and the possibility of using them yet again, and for no well-informed reason, should be enough to make even the most committed warmonger stop and take a second look and a third look. If we attack the wrong people, they will fight back and win because they have just been unjustly provoked, and Right will be on their side.
In back of Tucker’s questioning, then, is not anti-American propaganda. What is there is actually the finest of American ethics that still remain in some of our people – and it was expressed well by President Theodore Roosevelt in his time:
“Speak softly, and carry a big stick.”
While our media and social climate may not allow us to speak softly in America these days, the notion of not acting until we KNOW is still alive and well, and Tucker, almost alone among American news media people, has been steadfast in reflecting this point of view.
May God help him and – all the rest of us who are still sane – to prevail.