A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.
Just days after a chemical attack in Syria attributed to the Assad regime killed more than 70 people, conservative outlets began to grapple anew with the possibility of U.S. intervention in the region. Not all were enthusiastic about the prospect.
On Thursday, the Daily Caller, aggregating coverage from CNN, wrote that President Donald Trump had “reportedly told some members of Congress that military action is a real possibility.” As the publication went on to point out, “The statements appeared to represent a change in Trump’s policy, given the president considered Assad a potential ‘natural ally’ in the fight against terrorism in November.”
This apparent shift frustrated some commentators. In an opinion piece published by the Daily Caller, Elliot Resnick addressed Trump directly, asking, “Do pictures of dead innocents render irrelevant all the logical points you raised while running for office? Is America to go to war every time a leader around the world kills innocents?”
As the story developed, Fox News contemplated possible military options in a segment featuring former Green Beret Lt. Col. Michael Waltz, who proposed that it’s “important to look at the strategic picture” and called for “a limited military response.”
Other conservative publications, however, suggested that nonconservative outlets were actually driving calls for intervention. In “CNN Bangs War Drums on Syria,” for example, LifeZette chided the cable channel for suggesting that Trump would have to “pull back from his ‘America First’ foreign policy.”
Many outlets expressed the importance of caution. The Federalist offered “14 questions that proponents of war in Syria must answer before anyone considers whether military intervention to remove Assad is the best course of action for the American people.” Those questions included “How will deposing Assad make America safer?” and “What lessons did you learn from America’s failure to achieve and maintain political victory following the removal of governments in Iraq and Libya, and how will you apply those lessons to a potential war in Syria?”
National Review’s David French stressed that any military action in Syria risks provoking Russia. “Even a single skirmish with a nation like Russia,” French wrote, “could inflict more American casualties in one day than, say, the last few years of combined military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.”
In other news:
Conservative outlets greeted Mitch McConnell’s activation of the so-called “nuclear option” with enthusiasm, often suggesting that it marked a victory for the GOP. Drudge Report linked to a report about the news with a picture of a mushroom cloud:
Screenshot
On the Daily Caller, an opinion post from January titled “The Filibuster Must Die” found its way back on to the site’s list of most popular stories. Breitbart suggested that the filibuster’s death would restore the natural order of things, writing, “Thursday’s historic move harmonized Senate rules, removing the possibility of minority filibusters of Supreme Court nominees.”
While Fox News noted, “The actual deployment of the nuclear option was cloaked in obscure parliamentary-speak,” it described the development as “ground-shaking.” A brief National Review blog post described it as a “Victory” for McConnell, claiming, “His performance shows the advantage of knowing what you’re doing, and pursuing a strategic goal through canny and well-considered tactics. Congratulations.”
On social media, posts suggesting that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson had identified half a trillion dollars in errors at his agency spread widely:
