Dan Rather: The number of press praising Trump's Syria air strikes “as 'presidential' is concerning”

Veteran American journalist Dan Rather says he is “concerned” by how many in the U.S. press are praising Donald Trump's whimsical missile assault last night on Syria as “presidential.”

Dan Rather is not the only one alarmed by this attitude.

From Dan Rather's Facebook page:

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.

It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.

There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.

The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.

The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.

[photo: Dan Rather]

Notable Replies

  1. War always gives the press a great big boner. When the bodies of the kids start coming home, every single journalist was opposed to the war all along. Integrity is so rare.

  2. i am so loving this contract-free, internet empowered, zero-fucks Dan Rather. he's like, "ok, younger media people, take notes: THIS is how journalism should be working."

  3. Shuck says:

  4. To save time I'll just quote myself from the missile strike thread:

    It was so predictable and aggravating: calling him "Presidential" for launching an airstrike, not giving a damn about whether it was effective in preventing the deplorable activity that supposedly inspired it for more than a week or two. These lazy starf*ckers might as well call him "erudite" for having launched his university, or a "gourmet" for selling repackaged sub-par steaks. Even after they were called out for their part in allowing a known grifter to become POTUS, the MSM pundits are back to their old habits.

    Ted Koppel has also been great in this way lately.

  5. mewse says:

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

80 more replies