My Experiment With Rep. Robert Wexler on Fixing One Media Flaw That Angers A Lot of Viewers/Listeners

I talked it over with Cheryl… a lot. We discussed a whole lot of the ramifications of the question, Wexler’s issues with Jewish constituents, his support for liberal causes—and Cheryl came back, after doing a ton of research, with four questions. I had my one question and I whittled away two of Cheryl’s questions because I didn’t want to take too much advantage of Wexler’s good will and ask that he write us a whole report.

After a good 15-20 minute conversation with Wexler’s chief of staff, Eric, and then an extended conversation with Cheryl, I put together the following message to Eric.

Thanks for the phone time this morning. Much appreciated.
Here are the questions we discussed on the Rob Kall Radio Show last night that we'd like to have answered by congressman Wexler:

OpEdNews editor Cheryl Brien-Wright wrote:

1. The resolution states there is nothing that "shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran," but if Iran responds aggressively to the above actions such as US ships stopping Iran's and attempting to board for inspection (as I believe the US would respond aggressively if such a thing were imposed on us) would the President not then have reason to retaliate militarily?

2. Where does it state in the resolution the demand that the President work with an international coalition not an American unilateral act.


And, as I discussed with you, here's my question.

This resolution will give Bush an excuse to combine the congressional authorization given to him in 2001 to respond to terrorists so he claims he has explicit approval from congress to ratchet up the effort to block Iran from importing finished petroleum products to include a naval blockade. And isn't it a mistake to trust Bush not to exceed the authorization here, so he will use the resolution as a pretext to start violent hostilities?

Lastly, as we discussed, this process of follow-up of a live interview with the "big" follow up questions that weren't asked seems to be an idea that could dramatically improve the current state of the media. When TV interviewers have two minutes with an interviewee, there's no way to get real substantive discussion that gets to the meat of the issues accomplished. Willingness to follow the short interview with a detailed, more in depth response makes for a more informed public and more transparent leadership. Your participation in this sets an example. There's no reason why all the other media people on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. can't be doing the same thing we are doing. I'd like a brief comment on your thoughts of the idea of a post live interview follow-up.

I'll be posting your responses on OpEdNews.com and the Huffingtonpost.com

He replied pretty quickly that he’d have an answer for me. It didn’t happen overnight. That’s fair enough. It was the weekend. The answer came in on my birthday, Sunday, at 10:02 AM EST. Here’s what Wexler’s chief of staff had to say,

Here ya go Rob. I will get more info to you next week on what is happening with the resolution.

__________

Thanks for the phone time this morning. Much appreciated.
Here are the questions we discussed on the Rob Kall Radio Show last night that we'd like to have answered by congressman Wexler:

OpEdNews editor Cheryl-Brien Wright wrote:

1. The resolution states there is nothing that "shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran," but if Iran responds aggressively to the above actions such as US ships stopping Iran's and attempting to board for inspection (as I believe the US would respond aggressively if such a thing were imposed on us) would the President not then have reason to retaliate militarily?

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4