A question or an editorial?
I'm sure you're aware that the U. S. and Iran have reached a deal on nuclear weapons, subject to the "approval" of the Congress. President Obama spoke about this and then took questions. Major Garrett (that's his name, he never served in the military) asked the following:
"As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran, three held on trumped-up charges, according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans? And last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. Many in the Pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Would you comment?"
President Obama was the first to take him to task for this question. His response was:
" I've got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I'm content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails, Major, that's nonsense, and you should know better. I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody is content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates."
Major Garrett is the Chief White House Correspondent for CBS News and as such is no stranger to the President. Did he go too far with this question to President Obama? CNN's Dana Bash, the network's Chief Congressional Correspondent said this, "There’s a fine line between asking a tough question and maybe crossing that line a little bit and being disrespectful, and I think that happened here." Clearly she thinks he went too far.
I do not agree with her. Part of being a journalist means you have to ask the tough question. Some on social media are saying that what Mr. Garrett did was to editorialize and not pose a real or direct question. I disagree with that as well. Restated, his two questions were, is the President okay with all of the celebrating going on over this accord while four Americans remain hostage with the nation we just made a deal with; and, did he hang his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff out to dry with the agreement's terms regarding ballistic missiles and conventional weapons.
They are both excellent, tough questions. Questions the President did not want to respond to. Should the release of the hostages been tied to this deal? No. The Iranians would have sought extra questions. If we had wanted to use these negotiations to leverage the release of those hostages we should have refused to negotiate until the hostages were freed. There was no way the economic sanctions in place against Iran would have ended without these negotiations being successful. Should President Obama be "content" that four Americans languish in the custody of the Iranians while he trumpets this successful achievement? That's for the president to determine on his own. A better answer than scolding his questioner might well have been, "I'm pleased we were able to make a deal but remain saddened yet hopeful that we will ultimately gain the release of these four Americans who are being held improperly." It isn't an all or nothing issue. You're allowed to be happy you accomplished something and still feel sad you didn't get everything you wanted done, done.
Elected officials get indignant when asked the tough questions. When Pat Robertson was out in his "pre-campaign" prior to his actual campaign for the 1988 presidential nomination, I asked him a couple of tough questions and he was not pleased. I've had other politicians scold me or ignore me for asking questions they didn't want to deal with. Asking these questions comes with the job of being a journalist just as ducking those questions goes hand in hand with being a politician.
Well done, Mr. Garrett.
"As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran, three held on trumped-up charges, according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans? And last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. Many in the Pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Would you comment?"
President Obama was the first to take him to task for this question. His response was:
" I've got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I'm content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails, Major, that's nonsense, and you should know better. I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody is content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates."
Major Garrett is the Chief White House Correspondent for CBS News and as such is no stranger to the President. Did he go too far with this question to President Obama? CNN's Dana Bash, the network's Chief Congressional Correspondent said this, "There’s a fine line between asking a tough question and maybe crossing that line a little bit and being disrespectful, and I think that happened here." Clearly she thinks he went too far.
I do not agree with her. Part of being a journalist means you have to ask the tough question. Some on social media are saying that what Mr. Garrett did was to editorialize and not pose a real or direct question. I disagree with that as well. Restated, his two questions were, is the President okay with all of the celebrating going on over this accord while four Americans remain hostage with the nation we just made a deal with; and, did he hang his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff out to dry with the agreement's terms regarding ballistic missiles and conventional weapons.
They are both excellent, tough questions. Questions the President did not want to respond to. Should the release of the hostages been tied to this deal? No. The Iranians would have sought extra questions. If we had wanted to use these negotiations to leverage the release of those hostages we should have refused to negotiate until the hostages were freed. There was no way the economic sanctions in place against Iran would have ended without these negotiations being successful. Should President Obama be "content" that four Americans languish in the custody of the Iranians while he trumpets this successful achievement? That's for the president to determine on his own. A better answer than scolding his questioner might well have been, "I'm pleased we were able to make a deal but remain saddened yet hopeful that we will ultimately gain the release of these four Americans who are being held improperly." It isn't an all or nothing issue. You're allowed to be happy you accomplished something and still feel sad you didn't get everything you wanted done, done.
Elected officials get indignant when asked the tough questions. When Pat Robertson was out in his "pre-campaign" prior to his actual campaign for the 1988 presidential nomination, I asked him a couple of tough questions and he was not pleased. I've had other politicians scold me or ignore me for asking questions they didn't want to deal with. Asking these questions comes with the job of being a journalist just as ducking those questions goes hand in hand with being a politician.
Well done, Mr. Garrett.
posted by me at 4:17 PM
<< Home