I believe it was either on Real Clear Politics or Politico where I recently read an article about five Obama policies that have drawn the ire of Liberals and Conservatives alike, but for different reasons. I cannot really get into the head of a Liberal (can anyone?) and the gist of this entry is to underscore the huge discrepancy in treatment by the media when it comes to liberals and conservatives and the tremendous pass they and others give our alleged constitutional scholar-in-chief, Barack Obama.
In that article, they listed five policies/actions by the Obama Administration where he has gotten a pass and where a relatively more conservative person like George W. Bush would have pilloried in the press, on liberal websites, and by Congress. I am not going to center on four of them, although they certainly do present problems. For example, flying around on Air Force One to swing states for fundraisers and campaign speeches certainly pushes the limits. Supposedly, Obama has attended over 100 such events whereas the "dumb" George Bush had, at this point in 2004, attended less than half that number of events. Also, compare the number of golf outings by Obama to date versus those of Bush. In fact, that article stated that after the Iraq invasion, Bush gave up golf because it appeared a public relations nightmare. Perhaps Obama should get a pass here since he does delegate authority to any number of czars thus freeing up time for him to tee off. And I really don't have problems with the occasional presidential vacation. Incidentally, did he predict his March Madness bracket choices before snapping cameras yet because I may have missed that media frenzy.
Instead, I wish to focus on but one aspect of the differences and I really tried to visualize Democratic/Liberal reactions to these actions if George Bush had done this. For some reason, I keep seeing the face of Dennis Kucinich and Debbie Wasserman Schultz dancing in my head- both images which are quite scary and downright nightmarish. And that is the Obama policy when it comes to the war on terror.
First, let me state that even though they have dropped the phrase "war," it remains just that. Of course, in some realms, Obama is trying to reform the effort from a "war" to one of a criminal justice paradigm as if a terrorist really cares about things like due process, jury trials, and the rule of law. Secondly, I really don't have a problem with Obama and company targeting known terrorists by Predator drone, cruise missiles, or a bullet to the back of the head in a crowded market in Yemen. I will go even further and state I do not care if that terrorist abroad has American citizenship or not. I don't care if the former John Smith of Flagstaff, Arizona is now Mohammed al-Anwar hiding behind women and children in the deserts of Afghanistan or Yemen. As far as I am concerned, they lost all claims to the honor of American citizenship when they left this country in the name of jihad and began targeting true American citizens in acts of terror. Ironically, it also illustrates their stupidity that they would do so since the very America they now try to tear down is the very America that would have fought tough and nail for their "rights" had they stayed here, not become involved in terrorism, and spouted their hate nevertheless. That is the greatness, richness and beauty of America.
But, what I object to is Obama and especially Eric Holder not being taken to task in the media for these acts. And I did try to imagine what the reaction would have been had the administration of George W. Bush announced that a terrorist had been taken out by a Predator drone in Yemen, and an American "citizen" at that. There would have been questions at press conferences, the liberal internet sites would have been abuzz with the "unconstitutional" acts of a President gone mad trampling on the rights of people, Congressional hearings into these alleged violations of international law and all sorts of horrors. Rachel Maddow would have already gone on a rant somehow suggesting that Bush's use of these tactics were somehow relate to Bush's shortcomings. And forget Ed Schultz! His head would have spontaneously combusted long ago as he spewed hatred amidst a pool of drool. Alberto Gonzalez or John Ashcroft dragged before Congress to defend the actions. The liberal media would have trotted out alleged foreign policy experts who would once again remind us that these actions only breed more terrorism, not to mention the constitutional scholars who would tell us that the American military targeting terrorists was against our best sensibilities and all that makes America great as well as the Constitution.
But when it comes to Barack Obama, there is no such outcry. There are a few reasons for this. It is painfully obvious that Obama entered office probably the most naive winner of an election. He obviously thought that "hope and change" would somehow convince crazy Islamic terrorists to lay down their guns and bombs and put all those plots on hold. He also learned that all the rhetoric on the left, some that he spewed on the campaign trail, does not match the reality of the situation and of terrorism. He soon may have learned that a Predator drone is a lot more cost-effective, doable and final than a trial by one's peers in a court of American law. He learned that the scummiest of the scum on a military base in Cuba are not so wanted by other countries. As for that situation, give them a military lawyer, pull them before a military tribunal, try them and if guilty, use a firing squad. I personally don't see the major problem here.
The only problem I see is the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration in this area. I see the hypocrisy of the media in not holding his feet to the fire. If the policy and actions were so shocking when Bush was President, why are they now passe when Obama is President? I see the hypocrisy of Congress and Democratic Congressional leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy. I see a President who should be thankful that Bush preceded him and laid the groundwork for his actions today. Clearly, the actions are legal under the authority Congress granted Bush- the same authority Obama has- to take out PERSONS, organizations and countries that supported terrorism. And that is the whole point the Left fails to realize. If they are legal under Obama, then they were legal under Bush because no law or Congressional directive has changed since 2001 in this area. Once again, liberals hhave proven themselves the hypocritical jackasses we knew they were all along.