Will The Media Call Obama a Hypocrite?

Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has launched hundreds of Cruise Missiles into Libya inflicting major damage and killing civilians. He has also kept two wars going while ramping up the battle in Afghanistan.

Sounds like a warmonger.



Now, I’m not here to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of Obama’s war policy, just to point out the inconsistencies in the media’s reporting on the issue of Obama and his wars. Did I mention this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner launching these attacks? In getting that award he was honored for, "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I could make a joke out of that statement, but this is serious stuff.

First, notice how carefully the media works to not peg the invasion of Libya (yes, sending missiles is an invasion) on their Dear Leader. The international coalition is doing this, not Obama, is what they are telling us. Put that in the context of what the media told us with George W. Bush and Iraq.

Bush had 40 nations join the efforts in Iraq; do you think the media ever considered that war anything other than "Evil Bush’s War?" They still mention the Mission Accomplished banner in derision, long after the mission was actually successfully accomplished. Also, the media will rarely point out that this attack on Libya would not have happened without US backing. Had Obama said no, there would’ve been no “international coalition,” yes, it is that simple.



While I’m at it, Barack Obama can thank George W. Bush that Madman Gadafi doesn’t have nukes. It was Bush who talked Gadafi into sending his nukes to a warehouse in Tennessee where they can do no harm. This invasion of Libya would not be happening if Gadafi still had those nukes, without them, Gadafi is more of a neighborhood bully knocking his citizens around, those type are everywhere in the Middle East and Africa. Bad stuff indeed, but there’s no chance of a mushroom cloud right now and that fact changes everything. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize can look tough here because Bush had already removed Gadafi’s big gun. I’ve yet to hear the activist old media mention this vital fact.

One of the media’s favorite themes during the Bush administration was how he supposedly was “King George” who wanted to circumvent Congress and rule over America. Of course, this was a silly premise, but where are they now with Dear Leader ignoring Congress on the Libyan War? Granted, Obama does not have to get their approval, but even "Evil Bush" got Congressional approval for Iraq, twice. The media forgets/ignores that Democrats demanded a second vote approving Bush’s actions in Iraq shortly before the 2002 mid-terms so that they could show America that they were bullish on national security. The Democrats never mention their support of the Iraq War and the media helps them erase their multiple positive votes on taking out Saddam, remember, this was Bush’s War he waged for personal reasons -- or perhaps it was for oil? Hmm --where are the “No Blood For Oil” signs from Code Pink and their friends? Will the media show us anti-Obama protests? The activist old media has been telling us (inaccurately) for the last two months that the rise in gas prices was because of Libyan oil, so will they conclude that Obama is starting this war because of oil? That’s an easy connection to make, but they’ll conclude Bush was a brainiac before they’ll say Obama went to war for oil.

Obama is doing everything the media said they hated during the Bush regime:

America is choosing sides in a civil war.

We are working towards regime change.

We don’t have an exit strategy.

We don't know who/what will replace Gafadi.

We are stretching our military resources with three wars.

We are being imperialists --I could go on and on.

Clearly it was not the policies the media were against with Bush, it was the President.

With that, all David Gregory could do on Sunday is lament over “how much is on the President’s plate right now,” and he continued, “This is a lot to manage at one time.” Boo hoo, Obama had time to get those March Madness brackets done. Also, perhaps, just perhaps, Mr. Gregory, all these problems are happening in the middle east right now because this administration has spent the last two years enabling terrorists by denying their existence. You might want to look into that angle for next Sunday’s show. Also, pull out some of those sound bites from Obama about Bush and our Iraq policy at the time. Here’s a few fer ya---this is 3 minutes of required viewing for media context. BTW, this video is from Obama’s own web site.

For the record, let’s get this straight---the media told us for 6 years under Bush that regime change in Iraq was bad, and now somehow this regime change by a beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner is good. Just for the record, Saddam Hussein was 10 times the terrorist that Gadafi is. A reminder to my media friends of the evils of Saddam --
"rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more.

Saddam’s not that anymore. He’s dead and so are his sons, Uday and Qusay, so there won’t be another generation of monsters in Iraq. That was the war the media hated because Bush was the architect (again, ignoring the Democrats votes) and we should also note here, Bush was not a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The media should let those people getting pounded by Cruise Missiles in Libya that that honor was Obama's in 2009. They'll feel much better.

advertisement

Breitbart Video Picks

advertisement

advertisement

Fox News National

advertisement

advertisement

Send A Tip

From Our Partners