Thursday, August 14, 2008

Who's presumptuous now?

So let me get this straight. Obama, after being criticized relentlessly by McCain for failing to to have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, goes there and is received with great enthusiasm, both in the occupation zones and on other stops on his trip. He makes some inspiring speeches in which he has the "audacity" to suggest the free world should work together to make the planet a better place. McCain and his trained monkeys in the elite media howl that he's being presumptuous.

Similarly, when Nancy Pelosi, took a bi-partisan condel to the Middle East on a fact-finding tour, the elite media and the entirety of the wingnut chorus railed for weeks about how she was usurping the president's role in foreign affairs. Back then, they were equating wearing a head scarf with treason.

Now comes McCain, walking back on his initially belligerent rhetoric towards Russia, but is reportedly in daily phone contact with the Georgian president and is sending his own emmisaries to the country. Talk about violating the Logan Act. Isn't that the president's job?

It's not surprising that McCain would be keen on helping Georgia considering his chief foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann was paid millions to lobby for the country's interests here. And as a former director of PNAC and a chief architect of the debacle in Iraq, neither is it surprising that Scheunemann and McCain falsely encouraged the Georgians to believe they would have military support from the US in their misguided challenge to Russia. Neocons talk big like that all the time.

Nor is it shocking to discover that the elite media seem to find McCain's untoward conduct 'presidential' rather than presumptuous or really just plain batshit crazy. But it is disappointing and frustrating to watch our overpaid media elites get away with this painfully transparent double standard -- again -- in order to carry McCain's water.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger CG said...

Is McCain actually going there? I noticed that the opinions you reference make no mention of the fact that the US has military and civilian advisor's there.

The commenter at Firedoglake also leaves out the fact that Obama did not vist Katrina victims until September 5, 2005 and then went to Houston, not NO. In fact he did not step foot in NO until Aug 2006.

Comparing this situation to Pelosi is preposterous. She took it upon herself to negotiate on behalf of the US and Israel during a time of peace. There was no reason to be there.

I also noticed that both op-eds failed to mention Gov. Tim Kaines comments on how Obamas request for a cease-fire was agreed too by the Russians. Obamas statment was perfectly in line for his position as senator, but having a potential VP candidate even suggest that a senator from Illinois had anything to do with the cease fire IS presumptuous.

Getting facts straight is half the battle, and if you lean too far to the left or right you end up blinding yourself to the truth.

2:26:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

CG - how nice of you to stop by. You misread the post I think. The point is we knew that Katrina was going to be big and he and Bush were partying instead of paying attention to American's problems and after it became clear that it was a huge problem, he didn't exactly go on TV and say were all New Orleanians now, did he?

The point further being, that this is the fruit of materialistic conservatism.

1:08:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home