Watching MSNBC last night, I was as surprised as I was delighted to see that in the wake of NBC News’ revelations about Obama’s drone-killing program, the indefensible policy was being directly confronted, and harshly, even by those often afflicted with the Obamabot disease. Although I somewhat expected such a reaction from Rachel Maddow, I almost sprayed my drink when none other than Ed Schultz went all firebagger on the Presidential posterior. (Admittedly, Chris Matthews was still getting that old thrill up his leg, but he was only notable in his loneliness at 30 Rock.)
“At last,” I thought, “even the righties won’t be able to resist this, and some measure of sanity might come out of it.” And then I woke up. As it turns out, the Kenyan Manchurian DarkCommoFascist who is as diabolically driven as he is shiftless and malingering, has, for the first time, done something right, but mean old hippies and the liberal media are, simultaneously, hypocritically critical and meekly silent about the whole thing. The head swims.
In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson gamely attempted to turn the sorry tale into another comically futile Legacy Project endeavor for his old boss, George W. Bush, to the surprise of exactly nobody. To further pummel that dead horse, he invoked quotes from Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc. that seem to support preemptive action against developing threats, carefully avoiding mention that the Nazis and Commies to whom they alluded were, well, real, unlike, say, Saddam’s WMD.
As the jalopy of his argument sputtered noisily into the ditch, he wrapped up by darkly intoning that Obama’s current critics would be sorry, indeed, when those elusive terrorists finally do murder us all in our beds. Nice effort, Mike, but 2003 was a decade ago, and you’re no Dick Cheney.
Then came Charles Krauthammer, who thinks the leak of the drone memos was actually a cleverly orchestrated PR campaign by a White House that is really bent on (sigh) “apologizing” for America and coddling its enemies, trying to look “tough” and thus charm, uh, somebody. Maybe him? Well, you can forget that. He grudgingly admits (and no one does grudgingly better than Chucky) that although indiscriminate, extrajudicial killing is better than baseball and hotdogs, put together, dead people can’t be tortured, so even that’s some kind of sissy cop out. No dice there.
Next up is Mark McKinnon, who risibly claims to be morally conflicted about wantonly making bug splat out of random (browner) people, but nonetheless decides that drone killings are just too good to pass up, like an ice cream cone on a hot day. You see, they’re CHEAP! And so far, anyway, they seldom vaporize white people! Best of all, nobody even notices! Like on 24! He thoughtfully warns, though, that despite all these undeniably neato advantages, they could become a liability if some dirty Habib ever gets his paws on one and starts vaporizing the white. He does deserve a bit of extra credit for his insight on that little point, one which completely escaped the rest of his brethren.
Finally, there’s Marc Thiessen, whose insatiable bloodlust is matched only by his jaw-dropping stupidity, chiming in to claim that the “liberals” who called for Bush’s head over his war-mongering and assumption of imperial powers are all meekly acquiescing to Obama doing things even worse, or rather, better. In Theissen’s addled mind, apparently, Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Ed Schultz, the ACLU, Ta-Nehesi Coates, Adam Serwer, Code Pink, Rachel Maddow, and many others on the left are, what? Closet Republicans? Faking it? I would suggest he get out more, but I think society is better off if he remains right where he is, away from sharp objects in the WaPoo playpen.
Any hope that the yapping cabal maniacally dedicated to the destruction of the twice-elected President would seize on such an easy, obvious, and most importantly, justified, reason to discredit him is, as we see, laughably unfounded. For them, Death=Good, Obama=Bad, and Death+Obama=, well, see 1 and 2.