Media and Leftist Hypocrisy on Obama's War on Terror


         Recently, we learned of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military tribunal at Guantanamo, as President George W. Bush advised early.  Guantanamo is still open for business, thus breaking a major campaign promise of President Barack Obama to close it. 

         Where are the civil libertarians? 

         Obama also about-faced on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), supporting its extension rather than ending it as he pledged; he also extended the controversial "Patriot Act," "warrantless wiretapping," and rendition policies of the Bush era. 

         Where are the protests? 

         There have been 45 US fatalities in Afghanistan in April; 36 in May; 157 for 2011.  More than 592 US deaths have occurred in Afghanistan since Obama announced his "troop surge" December 1, 2009; 937 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office in January 2009, or more than 60% of the 1,512 Americans killed in that ten year war, America's longest. 

         Where is the outcry in the press? 

         There have been 180 lethal drone attacks in Pakistan carried out by the CIA under Obama.  More than 2000 people have died as a result, many of them civilians. 

         A "Kill Team" in Afghanistan was identified recently consisting of a rogue group of US soldiers who in 2010 went around killing Afghan civilians, mutilating their corpses, and photographing them.  One hardly heard of it, unlike the Abu-Ghraib scandal in 2004, arguably a lesser crime (no one died), which received months of coverage.

         Obama has also ordered airstrikes in Yemen killing civilians, although you probably never heard of it.

         There are some 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan, 30,000 of which were added by Obama.

         There were 11 US combat deaths in Iraq in April; 24 for 2011, 60 for 2010.  Five were killed in Bahgdad by insurgents, June 7, 2011, the greatest single day loss of life in two years. 

         Where's the coverage? 

         Obama officially ended the US combat mission in Iraq in August 2009, but left 50,000 troops to "aid and assist."  Yet even now though there are negotiations to maintain a significant troop contingent beyond the 2011 deadline.  And while Obama promised to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, he has hinted that they may stay as long as 2014

         Where are the anti-war Democrats?  

         The combined costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2010 was $171 billion, roughly the same for projected costs for fiscal year 2011, more than any year under Bush save 2008. 

         Where is the outrage by Democrat “deficit hawks” who complained bitterly during the Bush era? 

         In the meantime, Obama has now involved the US in a third war in Libya, and without Congressional approval.  On May 2, 2011, US Navy Seals assassinated Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, without notifying that nation's government or seeking its consent thereby violating its sovereignty and transgressing international law. 

         The media and the left positively swooned over their "gutsy" President.

         Despite Obama's presence on the world stage for more than two years, his numerous apologies, speeches, bows, scrapes, and other efforts to "reach out" to the Muslim world, Muslim attitudes in key countries have hardened against the US, not softened.  Terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are more popular than the US in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan.

         Yet no one on the left or in the media seems to care. 

         Under Bush, we heard endlessly about America's deplorable standing in the world, our sinking international reputation, or how we had alienated the Muslim world.  But not now.

         Globally, Islamic terror particularly against other Muslims, but also against members of other faiths, has surged dramatically in the last two years under Obama compared with the prior two years under Bush.

        Yet no apparent revulsion of the grisly terrorist attacks amongst our chattering classes?

        What are we to make of the left and the media?  Surely, something like the difference in the initial at the end of a name (from 'R' to 'D') wouldn't affect attitudes on something so critical as war and death? 

         But, if not, then where is the media coverage of America at war under Obama?  The searing op-eds?  The above the fold, front-page photos of death and mayhem?  Or of returning flag-draped coffins?  Where are the casualty and death counts?  The pained interviews with grief-stricken families?  The angst-ridden reporting of grim milestones, such as the one thousand deaths reached in Afghanistan May 18, 2010, under Obama? 

         Where are Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney, Peace and Justice, ANSWER, and other prominent leftist, anti-war types since Obama took office?  Where are the marches and rallies?

         Where is the indignation over the "shredding" of the Constitution, the wiretaps, renditions, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, military tribunals, and detentions?

         Where are the calls for investigations, resignations, and impeachment?  

         Where were the demands by Democrats and the media for "Congressional approval" before Obama began lobbing Tomahawk missiles into Libya as we heard so much of before the war in Iraq? 

         Where are the Bush/Hitler analogies under Obama, or the Obama-era cries of "No blood for oil"?  Or the Obama version of the anti-Bush movies, books, plays, art exhibitions, and conferences, now that Obama sits in the Oval Office? 

         Whatever became of the prominent anti-war Democrats under Bush?  Where are Senators Dick Durban, John Kerry, and Harry Reid, or Representative Dennis Kucinich, or former Senator Hillary Clinton, or even Barack Obama himself, on Barack Obama's "War on Terror?"

         They are silent...

         It appears that liberals, the left, Democrats, and the media are anti-war when it suits their political interests; as a means to an end; a way to hound and destroy political opponents; a pathway to power; mere political posturing and opportunism.  They seem far less concerned for the deaths of American soldiers and innocent civilians, or the infringement of civil liberties and the Constitution - when their guy is in there. 

         But on the fundamental issue of war, killing, and death, who would have thought the left would have been so promiscuous? 

         What became of its "principled" opposition to Bush's "War on Terror" now that Obama runs it? 

         Surely, on the question of American involvement in war, the commitment of US troops, and the loss of blood and treasure, its position would be … unshakable.

         But it is not.  It just depends on who's in power. 

         In other words, they are frauds...



  • Harvey Chaimowitz

    June 16, 2011

    The truth of this blog is undeniable, but don't neglect to add that Kucininch and several others are now suing the administration to stop the action in Libya without congressional approval. Kucinich is against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. No doubt, the liberal protesting types mentioned here are quiet now because the election of a Democrat gives them permission to hope he is trying his best to end hostilities, whereas, when a Republican is in power, they naturally assume he wants, enjoys, full-time war as a way of enhancing his reputation and enriching his military-industrial corporate backers. Whether this is true or not, there is plenty to point to as at least suspicion, if not proof. But there is a minority clamoring for the end of this war on all its fronts. They remember the minimalist war-style of Bill Clinton who lost very few men in the engagements he took part in, especially the way he handled the first attack on the Trade Center in 1993, just a month after he was sworn in as President. He sent no army, declared no war, spent not much money, but quickly tracked down the perps using the FBI and CIA and they were tried IN NEW YORK CITY AND ALL ARE COOLING THEIR ASSES IN PRISON FOR LIFE!
    When it came to Bin Laden, Clinton asked his military if a team of specialists could be dropped into Afghanistan and assassinate the bastard. No, the military bigshits told him, that would never work. Oh, really? Where are those experts now, playing checkers with Bush's chicken hawk mothers who convinced the challenged 43rd president that Iraq was the perp, not Bin Laden. So, liberals like I tend to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he truly wants to end this thing, but can't until he's reelected. No doubt, we are all somewhat misguided, and I thank Doctor Moss for shaking me awake. He's damned good at that.

Add Comment