Skip to comments.How Assad Wooed the American Right, and Won the Syria Propaganda War
Posted on 09/10/2013 4:48:12 PM PDT by Third Person
Even before President Barack Obama put his plans to strike the Syrian regime on hold, he was losing the battle of public opinion about military intervention. Part of the credit, no doubt, goes to a successful media blitz by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime and its supporters. In an interview aired on Monday night, Assad himself advanced his government's case to Charlie Rose, saying that the United States had not presented "a single shred of evidence" proving the Syrian military had used chemical weapons.
Assad has always been able to skillfully parry Western journalists' criticisms of his regime -- and, at times, it has won him positive international coverage. Before the uprising, the U.S. media often described the Assad family as Westernized leaders who were trying to bring their country into the 21st century. The most infamous example was Vogue's profile of Asma al-Assad, which described Syria's first lady as "a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind ... [with] a killer IQ." But even experts in the field went along: Middle East historian David Lesch wrote a biography of Bashar describing the president as a modernizer, before changing his mind during the uprising.
The carnage over the past two and a half years put an end to much of this praise -- but now pro-Assad media outlets have found a new way to influence the American debate. Assad supporters' claims have repeatedly been republished unquestioningly by right-wing commentators in the United States, who share their hostility toward both Sunni Islamists and the Obama administration. It's a strange alliance between American conservatives and a regime that was one of America's first designated state sponsors of terror, and continues to work closely with Iran and Hezbollah.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
But right-wing Americans partisans have not been shy about simply copy-and-pasting claims made in pro-Assad media outlets when it suits their interests, no matter the source. For example, the website Jihad Watch, which is run by leading Islamophobe Robert Spencer, repeated a claim by the Arabic-language al-Hadath that Syrian rebels attacking the Syrian town of Maaloula "terrorized the Christians, threatening to be avenged on them after the triumph of the revolution."
It doesn't take much time reading al-Hadath to realize that this is a site staunchly loyal to the Syrian regime and its allies -- and therefore inclined to dramatize stories of rebel crimes. The website contains an editorial by the editor-in-chief lauding Hezbollah, and another article reports that a kidnapped European writer said that the rebels launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack (the writer has denied making such claims).
Other stories in such publications, of course, would never see the light of day in the U.S. media. Al-Hadath, for example, features a section dedicated to news about Israel titled "Know Your Enemy" -- a strange match for the American right-wing, to say the least.
Assad and the Tea Party, partners in crime... the left's new slanderous meme.
Assad didn’t do anything. He still sucks, and runs an authoritarian regime. But, he isn’t out there killing and raping apolitical Christians. The rebels—or rather, the foreign forces who took over the rebellion—did it to themselves by their barbaric behavior.
Or it could be that the right doesn’t trust this president after all the lying and scandals. It should give the author pause that Assad and Putin have as much or more credibility than Obama. But he’ll just chalk it up to racism.
Sure beats the hell out of the new meme for Obama and the democrats...arming Al Qaeda and other assorted Islamist animals.
Hey Assad: We're still waiting for a single shred of evidence that Osama Bin-Laden is dead never mind if you got chemical weapons. Evidence means squat to this administration, even when it comes to our own Ambassador and Seals being murdered.
Nope Assad is a brutal dictator but he’s a stabilizing force who doesn’t kill his people or neighbors at random.
Cuba is more of a threat to us than Assad.
Right, if we are anti-American intervention we must be pro-Assad.
The concept - “It’s None Of Our Business” just does not compute with them.
Obama’s Benghazi lies is the biggest reason to distrust the claims of “proof” about Assad’s involvement in the chemical weapons attacks.
Obozo lies 24/7. Nothing he says should be taken even remotely as being factual. And his actions show he serves foreign masters not the interest of the US.
Assad didn’t do sh**, but the Radical Left has to have someone to blame Obama’s/their failure on....
When is Zero’s speech?
(I am in Central time zone)
Oh noes! We’ve been busted as Assad’s co-conspirators! Good for us nobody reads this crap.
“But right-wing Americans partisans have not been shy about simply copy-and-pasting claims made in pro-Assad media outlets when it suits their interests, no matter the source.”
Of course, the leftists pimping the ANSWER/DailyKos/NBC bs during the Bush years did not.
What a self-serving piece of hate.
We are not Assad apologists, we just learned a great deal on Sept. 11, 2001, and would prefer to keep Islamic power at a minimum.
Muslims are the planet’s terrorists, evil to the core. (yeah, I know there are moderate Muslims, but one does not hear of them often)
9 PM Eastern Time. Be sure and get your toilet cleaning equipment a the ready. ;)
If this article was from 1979 it would be about ...
How the Shah was beaten by the Left and lost the
Iran propaganda war.
He was a “modernizer” too, fat lot of good it did.
It comes to this - Assad is telling me one thing, and Obama is telling me something else. I don’t have any particular reason to trust either one of them, but I can point to many more instances of having been lied to by Obama than I can Assad.
While mass killing innocent women and children is nothing new for the terrorists; a slightly bigger kill count than the typical car bombing of a mosque or outdoor market, plus a reduction on pressure for rebel leaders to find more food for civilians in their ‘territory.’
If they had taken out a rural village, it might have actually been more believable; well, except that the Russians caught them at it last time, and the assumption that the urban area as well as loads of instantly uploaded videos would compel immediate attacks on behalf of Al Queda backed forces.
I've tried to press a few liberals on the issue, but they come just barely outside of openly admitting that they think that Islamics are bat guano insane and kill for kicks. That's the only rationale that liberals have to hang on Assad as for motive for his government taking an action like this.
When you talk to them, could you PLEASE ask they why we should bomb Assad’s forces on behalf Al Qaeda? You know, the folks that murdered 3000 American in 2001 and took several other runs at us before that and since then?