Video: Kurtz wonders where the media skepticism went

posted at 9:30 am on March 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I caught part of this segment from Reliable Sources yesterday and watched the full segment last night, where Howard Kurtz asks what happened to the post-2003 media insistence that the Iraq war occurred because of a lack of questions being asked by journalists. That meme was always more self-preening than reality anyway; the run-up to the Iraq war took nine months and had considerable opposition in both Congress and the media. In contrast, the action against Libya seems to have been decided nearly overnight, after a few weeks of vacillation, and the media has been mostly disinterested until the UN finally took a vote on the crisis. What happened to the media’s “won’t get fooled again” pledge?

One of the panelists suggests “media fatigue,” the consequence of having to cover a series of uprisings in the region, with the crises in Japan on top of those. Kurtz dismisses this by noting that the media are not so fatigued that they’ve stopped broadcasting 24/7. The natural impulse to support a military action could account for some of the resulting lack of critical analysis; it makes sense to start looking operationally at a military action once it begins rather than chew on whether it should have begun at all. Given the lack of critical views in the much shorter run-up to Operation Odyssey Dawn, though, it appears the media got caught with its pants down.

John Boehner wonders why no one at the White House is talking to Congress about this operation, and for that matter the American people:

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.

The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”

Matt Lewis agrees, and thinks it’s good advice that Barack Obama should take:

Since 9-11, the American public has grown understandably “gun-shy” about any sort of limited military action. There is little faith that the U.S. can accomplish even a limited mission (such as a no-fly zone) without being sucked into a longer engagement. Part of the problem, I think, is that missions are not clearly defined for the American public, thus opening the door for “mission creep”.

President Obama has an opportunity to restore some faith in America’s ability to exert a positive influence in the world, but it will require effectively communicating why this was the right thing to do — and how it can be accomplished. … Oh yeah, and it will require actually accomplishing our goals — and then leaving. But it starts with winning the argument — something Obama has clearly not accomplished.

For a leader who often talks about “teachable moments,” this is his opportunity.

First, though, Obama has to actually lead, which involves coming home and talking with Americans rather than juggling soccer balls on the streets of Rio while he sends the military into a new theater of action. Kurtz’s panel mentions the strange public relations of the White House leading up to the start of Operation Odyssey Dawn, but practically no media has pointed out that Obama is likely the first President in the modern era to launch aggressive military action against another nation without addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or even sticking around Washington to lead during the opening phases of the operation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They’re not anti-war. They’re anti-Republican. That was the problem all along.

Notice we’ve stopped getting hourly death counts from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there’s little coverage of either these days despite raging battles in the latter.

amerpundit on March 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM

He’s got a D next to his name….

Gallagher is talking about this now

Great post Ed

cmsinaz on March 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM

it appears the media got caught with its pants down.

They always got their pants down for obama. It’s just the usual pro obama bias.

the_nile on March 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Spot on ameripundit

cmsinaz on March 21, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Obama is going to find out what it is like to make a decision without political cover. Bush spent years defending his decision to go to Iraq. But he always had the political cover of Democratic support. If things go bad in Libya, Obama will own it in ways that Bush never had to deal with. To put it another way, Bush survived in 2004 because he had gotten Democrats in Congress to sign off on his invasion of Iraq; if things go bad in Libya, Obama will lose re-election in 2012 because he will have no political cover.

And this has nothing to do with how well our military will conduct the operation. Our military could win the battle, but lose the war in chaos of the ensuing leadership vacuum.

RedSoxNation on March 21, 2011 at 9:38 AM

What happened to the media’s “won’t get fooled again” pledge?

You have got to be joking, right?

pilamaye on March 21, 2011 at 9:39 AM

“Gunwalking” scandal final straw leading to resignation of U.S. ambassador to Mexico

In recent weeks, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has said in public he doesn’t trust Pascual. Several sources close to diplomatic circles inside Mexico tell CBS News that from Mexico’s viewpoint, the ATF “gunwalking” scandal was the final straw in a series of controversies.

Insert witty screen name here on March 21, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Anyone but a gop
-lsm

cmsinaz on March 21, 2011 at 9:40 AM

One of the panelists suggests “media fatigue,” the consequence of having to cover a series of uprisings in the region,

You have too many talking heads to suffer fatigue. You just don’t want to report the truth when it doesn’t fit the narrative that you have formatted.

darwin-t on March 21, 2011 at 9:40 AM

it appears the media got caught with its pants down.
They always got their pants down for obama. It’s just the usual pro obama bias.

the_nile on March 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM

their pants are always down it just a matter of whether they’re on their knees or grabbing their ankles

darwin-t on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM

The MSM is okay with their POTUS authorizing war without the approval of Congress. Interesting precedent.

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

You can’t win a war from the air and Gadhafi is a deranged despot that will fight to his death. Furthermore, are we certain that these “rebels” are any better than Gadhafi or are we simply supporting the revolution for the sake of the revolution?

Love game . . . your serve Obama.

rplat on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

What happened to the media’s “won’t get fooled again” pledge?

You have got to be joking, right?

pilamaye on March 21, 2011 at 9:39 AM

I too try to figure out if Ed is faking this “battered media consumer” denial.

the_nile on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

What happened to the media’s “won’t get fooled again” pledge?

..it turned into “protect Obama at all costs” on Jan.20,2009.

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 9:46 AM

It’s not “media fatigue”. It’s a lack of interest due to their left-wing bias. It’s why they’ll harp on Bush firing attorneys(a perfectly legal act), yet give Barry a pass on canning and smearing Gerald Walpin(an illegal act). It’s why they’ll fully vet Joe the Plumber in less than 24 hours while there are still tons of unanswered questions about Obama’s past over 2 years into his damn Presidency. And it’s why Bush got raked over the coals for Iraq when he spent nearly a year building up a coalition to go to war while Obama gets minimal heat for attacking Libya without even having a defined goal.

Doughboy on March 21, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Silly Kurtz. Doesn’t he know there’s been no need for media skepticism since January 20, 2009?

Ward Cleaver on March 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM

The republicans need to keep screaming and shouting and reminding the American people of the double-standards especially where the MSM is concerned. President Bush was constantly barraged by criticisms and accusations from the left while President Obama is praised, excused, and protected by his cronies on the left, especially the media with all the bungling going on. And now that Hillary is some kind of war hawk, they praise her “presidential” performance where Libya is concerned. Say what?!? This woman loathes the U.S. military because of her draft-dodging husband and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near them let alone make decisions that could jeopordize the lives of those amazing men and women!

mozalf on March 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM

You can’t win a war from the air and Gadhafi is a deranged despot that will fight to his death. Furthermore, are we certain that these “rebels” are any better than Gadhafi or are we simply supporting the revolution for the sake of the revolution?

Love game . . . your serve Obama.

rplat on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

The rebels have leadership that has sworn allegiance to Osama and many of them fought against our Soldiers on the battlefield in Iraq.

“humanitarian” reasons does not pass the smell test here.

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 9:50 AM

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people.”

According to whom, and show me where it says that in the Constitution??

PatriotRider on March 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Kurtz’s panel mentions the strange public relations of the White House leading up to the start of Operation Odyssey Dawn, but practically no media has pointed out that Obama is likely the first President in the modern era to launch aggressive military action against another nation without addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or even sticking around Washington to lead during the opening phases of the operation.

It’s Obama’s personal exit strategy — wait until you’ve got the official backing of the U.N., leave no video of him announcing the incursion and implementation of the no-fly zone, and if things turn bad, you can still try and get out of taking responsibility by throwing the U.N. and some of its other key member nations under the bus.

The past three weeks — from failing to act against Quadaffi when he was on the brink of toppling to acting now, when his control of Libya is far greater — makes perfect sense if you simply remember every action Obama takes on a controversial issue is focused on his efforts to vote “present” and be able to shift the blame for failure elsewhere if things go wrong, while still be able to claim the credit if things do go right.

jon1979 on March 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Impeach !!!

BowHuntingTexas on March 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”

- Barack Obama 2007

Syd B. on March 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM

gotta love a hack…..when the realize everyone is a hack….and they ain’t nut’n special

roflmao

donabernathy on March 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM

The MSM is okay with their POTUS authorizing war without the approval of Congress. Interesting precedent.

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

They are apparently okay with going into oil rich countries that did not attack us or pose an immanent threat now also.

Where is Osama??????

..amazing what a ‘D’ in front of a name can do.

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 9:53 AM

One of the panelists suggests “media fatigue,” the consequence of having to cover a series of uprisings in the region,

the “we too tired” defense?? WTF

ted c on March 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM

the “we too tired” defense?? WTF

ted c on March 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM

He ain’t in no ways tired.

/He slept in after last night’s feast and festivities.

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Interesting times we live in.

Instead of Shock and Awe, we’ve got Shuck and Jive.

KyMouse on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM

I caught some of Morning Joe this morning, and in fact the erudite, sophisticated intellectual snobs that frequent that venue were none too happy about Barry’s Big Adventure.

Naturally Curly on March 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Instead of Shock and Awe, we’ve got Shuck and Jive.

KyMouse on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Dat’s raciss.

/

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM

the run-up to the Iraq war took nine months and had considerable opposition in both Congress an
d the media.

I do not remember anything close to “considerable opposition” in the media during the runup to the Iraq war. The media was largely supportive of the war before it started, and was for a good deal afterwards.

YYZ on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people.”

PatriotRider on March 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM

…except in Rwanda….Darfur….Iran……Yemen….China….

……so according to the press, Iraq was a just and noble cause now.

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM

BTW, here’s an interesting factoid on Brazil. Dopey went there to tout free trade meaning Brazil buys US goods from the US and thereby the US can create jobs.

That. Is. A. Lie.

Brazil can only sell goods that are made in Brazil.

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I think it’s swell that Kurtz has noticed the obvious for once. But really, is this news to him? Seriously what cave is deep and dark enough for one not to known this basic fact of reporting over the last 4 or 5 decades!

Hey Howard, here’s a hint: Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz and Brent Bozell and many others have made careers out of reporting this “revelation” or yours.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2011 at 10:00 AM

One of the panelists suggests “media fatigue,” the consequence of having to cover a series of uprisings in the region, with the crises in Japan on top of those.

Now I understand perfectly why there was little or no media coverage on the death threats of Republicans in Wisconsin.

Media fatigue

Rovin on March 21, 2011 at 10:03 AM

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”

- Barack Obama 2007

Syd B. on March 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM

They need to keep repeating this bcs it really does say it all.
The man is a liar, & will do & say anything he likes without regard to what he said before.
The means justifies the ending he has in mind, which is social justice & the destruction of America as an influence in the world’s politics, economy, & all power in general.
He hates everything America represents.
It’s only one action of many toward achieving the goal.

Badger40 on March 21, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Rovin on March 21, 2011 at 10:03 AM

ZING!
+100!

Badger40 on March 21, 2011 at 10:03 AM

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”

- Barack Obama 2007

Syd B. on March 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM

No, no no….. this is different, he checked with the UN so its all cool.

Koa on March 21, 2011 at 10:03 AM

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people.”

…really….where was this “moral obligation” when hundreds of thousands of lives were on the line in Iraq???

” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics). withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).

The platform of the democratic party is built on lies and hypocrisy….

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM

OhBOMBa could attack Japan right now and the msm would back him.

artist on March 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Waldo strikes again. Our shadow president declares war, doesn’t say why, doesn’t tell objectives, too frightened to stand up and acknowledge the obvious. Figures the Arabs are too dumb to figure it is Obama’s attack because Obama is partying it up in Brazil. Change you can believe in if you are a blind follower of Teh One!

Herb on March 21, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Let us never forget that when Bush was sending troops into combat, he understood what happens there. He was a trained fighter pilot (although without combat experience) who spent years in and around the military in his National Guard training and flying career.

O’Bozo has exactly the same military knowledge as any other Hawaiian and Muslim Indonesian raised kid who went to leftist schools on affirmative action scholarships and hung around with militant black Marxist-poseurs, which is to say less than zero.

What he knows is zero, and what he thinks he knows is wrong.

Jaibones on March 21, 2011 at 10:09 AM

that in the Constitution?? PatriotRider on March 21, 2011

This is precisely the danger of having a massive military industrial complex. This was the fear when the term was coined. Its provng to be a rather prescient fear. If our President believes he is able to act unilaterally, that just makes him a petty caesar. However, if our Congress and by exension, WE, allow him to actually act unilaterally without fear of repercussion, then he is no longer a petty caesar, but rather a de facto caesar.

Scary times indeed when you stop to consider all the wider questions about the man.

KMC1 on March 21, 2011 at 10:10 AM

ut practically no media has pointed out that Obama is likely the first President in the modern era to launch aggressive military action against another nation without addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or even sticking around Washington to lead during the opening phases of the operation.

This. He got us involved in another war while on vacation!!! He never wanted to be CinC.

sammypants on March 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM

..it turned into “protect Obama at all costs” on Jan.20,2009.

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 9:46 AM

What cost? They surrendered any semblance of credibility during the Clenis administration. They keep going because the alternate media isn’t strong enough yet to challenge their stranglehold. They are hoping their black messiah will see to it that doesn’t happen. They haven’t yet learned that Turdboy doesn’t care for them any more than any other useful idiot or expendable pawn at his disposal.

SKYFOX on March 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Scary times indeed when you stop to consider all the wider questions about the man.

KMC1 on March 21, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Exactly. Someone pushed him to do this and I don’t think it was Hillary. He is closely tied to K-Daffy.

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 10:13 AM

their pants are always down it just a matter of whether they’re on their knees or grabbing their ankles

[darwin-t on March 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM]

You’re getting close. It’s not the media’s pants which are down, but you’re right that they’re grabbing something.

Dusty on March 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM

SKYFOX on March 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM

..The press went all in during Obama’s campaign with the “Obama is so smart…Obama can bring the world together…Obama is a lightworker….Obama will bring change to Capitol Hill….Obama will end all wars”…….
…………….the press went all in and now they are coming up with nothing put a pair of deuces…..

…..the “watchdogs” are nothing more than “lapdogs”…

Complete fail.

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM

ut practically no media has pointed out that Obama is likely the first President in the modern era to launch aggressive military action against another nation without addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or even sticking around Washington to lead during the opening phases of the operation.

This. He got us involved in another war while on vacation!!! He never wanted to be CinC.

sammypants on March 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Obama does not want his face attached to any military action….out of sight…out of mind.

We have had a virtual blackout of the war in Afghanistan to protect Obama’s “anti-war” image and help keep his leftist base.
No “body counts” on MSNBC anymore…..little to no front page war porn……no screams from liberal pundits and hollywood about “all the children being killed” and “endless wars”……

The press is more than happy to carry on about how “skillful” Obama is to be able to “juggle” his partying in Rio with launching attacks in Libya…..

…the press is even labeling the bombs for Obama.
…”it was British bombs that struck Gaddafi’s compound”…
…like this makes some kind of difference.
Anything to create the illusion that their liberal hero can bomb the sh!t out of other countries and still be their “anti-war” President…..

Baxter Greene on March 21, 2011 at 10:27 AM

The POTUS can take any military action he wishes for a defined period of time. To continue he has to ask Congress. If Obama only plans a few weeks of action he doesn’t have to tell Congress squat.

Theworldisnotenough on March 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM

You can’t win a war from the air
rplat on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Japan may disagree.

We all know that. It’s simply is it a war you need to win?

tomg51 on March 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”

- Barack Obama 2007

“. . . unless I’m The President, in which case I’m free to ignore the Constitution (that flawed, racist document) and unilaterally authorize any military attack I want, for any reason I say, despite the fact that it does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. (And the MSM won’t utter a peep about my hypocrisy).”

– Barack Obama 2011.

AZCoyote on March 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM

I do not remember anything close to “considerable opposition” in the media during the runup to the Iraq war. The media was largely supportive of the war before it started, and was for a good deal afterwards.

YYZ on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM

*citation needed

Good Lt on March 21, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Kurtz wonders where the media skepticism went

Meanwhile, Rovin wonders where the DailyKos skepticism went also:

Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:53 AM EDT
Obama Has betrayed Libyans, Africans and himself, Shame

Results of the post: a jaw-dropping 86 comments, most of then in defense of Obama’s decision.

How many ways can you say liberal progressive hypocrisy at its finest?

Rovin on March 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM

If the media is exhausted it’s from all the genuflecting and from have orgasms over the messiah’s every little socialist propaganda utterance.
-

RalphyBoy on March 21, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Libs must be getting whiplash from all of the spinning they have to do to legitimize Obama doing something Bush would have done in the same manner Bush would have done it.

That’s what happens when every single criticism you make is political by design – you eventually paint yourself so solidly into a corner that you can’t then turn around and defend what you spent the better part of an entire decade arguing against with the tenacity of a pack of rabid, hate-filled wolves.

Good Lt on March 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM

NewsBusters| Howard Kurtz: Media Drumbeating War Again, Not Asking Skeptical Questions About Libya
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/20/howard-kurtz-media-drumbeating-war-again-not-asking-skeptical-questio

StewartIII on March 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM

The media

Tokyo Rose

faraway on March 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM

I will say this again: Richard Fernandez prophecy will come true.

The Associated Press now reports that Mohammer Khadaffi has pledged to wage a “long war”, which as the post above argues, is his best strategy for keeping power. On a phone interview with Libyan state television, he said:

“We promise you a long war,” he said.

He called the international assault “simply a colonial crusader aggression that may ignite another large-scale crusader war.”

This should be a warning that while the Duck of Death may be crazy he is not stupid. Fighting a protracted war of attrition is in his best military interests while using its maneuver power to force a quick decision is in the best interests of the allies. Unfortunately, by declaring itself limited to half-measures, the alliance has given Khadaffi advance notice of its limitations and he will exploit this policy shadow. He will focus his actions in areas where he knows the West has self-limited itself.

If, in two months, Gadaffi is making Direct-to-Al-Jazeera videos where he’s hanging out in his Playboy bunker with the Ukrainian nurse, playing Call Of Duty and drinking Moai Tais while mooning Obama and hosting Osama bin Laden, this will turn into a huge, craptastic, disaster.

When Gadaffi has Chavez over to the bunker to play a round of Madden ’12, you’ll know that this Administration has officially jumped the shark.

victor82 on March 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM

I do not remember anything close to “considerable opposition” in the media during the runup to the Iraq war. The media was largely supportive of the war before it started, and was for a good deal afterwards.

YYZ on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM

A pre-invasion editorial from the NY Times endorsing Bush’s action would prove your point. Got any such links?

In reality, during the runup, many “news organizations” were flogging their “polls”, which showed that Americans wanted a diplomatic resolution instead of a military one. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll published just days before we went in, in fact, showed support for a war would drop if Bush didn’t get UN approval.

Del Dolemonte on March 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM

More media fatigue:

Front cover New York Times online, (before they go behind the wall):

Libyan officials and state television have said that dozens of Libyan civilians were killed in the air attacks. But an Indonesian newscaster, Andini Effendi, reported Sunday that she was able to visit two Tripoli hospitals after the airstrikes early on Sunday and found no influx of casualties, only empty ambulances. Libyan officials promised Sunday to bring foreign journalists to a funeral for civilians killed in the attacks. But the funeral turned out to be more of a pro-Qaddafi political rally, and the true number of dead remained a mystery.

On the way to the funeral a bus full of journalists was parked waiting for about 25 minutes near a waterfront cemetery, until the arrival of several trucks carrying hundreds of Qaddafi supporters waving green flags and wearing green headscarves. Then, when journalists entered the cemetery amid gunfire in the air and pro-Qaddafi chants, they found three freshly covered graves and 24 empty cinderblock holes.

One of the recent burials was for a person who was said to have died of causes unrelated to the attacks. Another was said to be of a 3-month-old girl, Siham Atabeeb, who was said to have been killed when a bomb hit her home. But neither of her parents nor any siblings were there, and people who said they were more distant relatives told conflicting stories about whether her mother was also wounded and whether she had any siblings.

The whole story is about how there’s “little or no civilian casualties”, and does not even mention Obama’s name until the second page. Of course, if the was “Bush’s War”, his name would be in every other sentence along with indictments and atrocities.

But remember folks, there’s no bias here, only fatigue.

Rovin on March 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM

They always got their pants down for obama. It’s just the usual pro obama bias.

the_nile on March 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Leaning Forward

VelvetElvis on March 21, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Andy McCarthy takes exception to Boehner’s statement, saying that the objection to O’s actions in re to Libya has more to do with its extra-Constitutionality. This administration cedes our nation’s sovereignty to the UN and the Arab League. It has done so with regard to elements of the Geneva Conventions, too.

onlineanalyst on March 21, 2011 at 11:14 AM

They’re not anti-war. They’re anti-Republican. That was the problem all along.

Yep, it’s as simple as that.

Bob's Kid on March 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Washington Post also suffering from media fatigue:

In remarks broadcast on state television, Gaddafi also denounced foreign forces as “Nazis” and claimed that U.S. and European airstrikes have killed “thousands” of civilians. Allied officials denied that coalition strikes have caused significant civilian casualties.

The intensity of the attacks startled the 22-member Arab League, which had backed the creation of a no-fly zone. Secretary General Amr Moussa called an emergency meeting of the organization in the wake of a bombardment that he said “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians.”

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” said Moussa, according to Egypt’s state news agency.

Mullen said he had seen no evidence that the attacks had caused civilian casualties but charged that Gaddafi had created human shields around radar and missile sites.

“The goal of this mission is not to get rid of Gaddafi, and that is not what the U.N. licensed. And I would not call it going to war,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on “Meet the Press.” “This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives, and it was specifically targeted on a humanitarian basis.”

Number of times the Washington Post “questioned” the validity of casualty reports in this story? Zero!

Number of times President Obama’s name is mentioned in the story—-once!

Circle the wagons MSM—it’s what you liberal rags do best.

Rovin on March 21, 2011 at 11:20 AM

The media was largely supportive of the war before it started, and was for a good deal afterwards.

[YYZ on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM]

LOL. You have unique definitions for “large” and “good deal”.

Dusty on March 21, 2011 at 11:22 AM

What happened to the media’s “won’t get fooled again” pledge?

They are whores to Obama. Period. End of discussion.

GarandFan on March 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM

The natural impulse to support a military action could account for some of the resulting lack of critical analysis; it makes sense to start looking operationally at a military action once it begins rather than chew on whether it should have begun at all.

I want to know when we started looking to “journalists” for political analysis. The stupidest students I have are majoring in sociology, education, or journalism. Why would anyone think they have even basic knowledge or understanding of the things they report on?

DrMagnolias on March 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Saw Rove on Fox this morning and he said all the dithering beforehand allowed us to look weak and Khaddafi ran with it. Also said that by Obama saying Khaddafi needs to go and then if he actually doesn’t, we will be weakened further.

silvernana on March 21, 2011 at 12:01 PM

The media was largely supportive of the war before it started, and was for a good deal afterwards.

[YYZ on March 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM]

LOL. You have unique definitions for “large” and “good deal”.

Dusty on March 21, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Here’s the very first paragraph of the very first editorial the NY Times wrote after the war had started. Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me!

From here, the sound of the war that began last night is inaudible. As veterans realize and almost every writer on the subject of war has reminded us, the experience of this new, unwanted war will be unknowable except among those who will be there for the fighting.

Del Dolemonte on March 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM

They always got their pants down for obama. It’s just the usual pro obama bias.

the_nile on March 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM

I’m sorry, but that’s an image I really could have done without.

nukemhill on March 21, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I think they are probably annoyed with The Won at getting the military people back into the news. Especially so close the a Spring offensive in Afghanistan that Gen. Petraeus is going to be tough. We wouldn’t want the media to have to start talking about the war again or view any of those coffins they went to court to film. But I have faith that they will be able to frame the events in the best possible light for our hapless CIC.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Mr. Obama is not a serious person.

Mason on March 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM

They’re not anti-war. They’re anti-Republican. That was the problem all along.

amerpundit on March 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM

First post bulls-eye.

Could have closed the thread right there.

Bruno Strozek on March 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM

The press is also too tired to report on the massive protests meeting Obama in Brazil. But oddly when the same thing happened to Bush when he went there, it was the lead story.

Iblis on March 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM

He ain’t in no ways tired.

Key West Reader on March 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Yes, he is — soccer is exhausting. :)

Dopenstrange on March 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM

“shallow coverage, shallow coverage…”
Pot, meet kettle.

Dopenstrange on March 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Media? We have a media? I thought we had a fan club.

And to be fair an anti-fan club, of which I am a proud member…

The fan club really can’t be caught worrying about the details of silly little things like wars! How un-fanlike.

petunia on March 21, 2011 at 1:51 PM

are we certain that these “rebels” are any better than Gadhafi or are we simply supporting the revolution for the sake of the revolution?
rplat on March 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

I don’t know about “we” since the Soccer Ball-in-Chief hasn’t told us yet.

As far as the media goes, I would say yes – for the sake of revolution.

Mr_Magoo on March 21, 2011 at 3:49 PM

What happened to the media’s “won’t get fooled again” pledge?

They slipped into Obama’s ars.

May they all choke on what they consume there.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM

The POTUS can take any military action he wishes for a defined period of time. To continue he has to ask Congress. If Obama only plans a few weeks of action he doesn’t have to tell Congress squat.

Theworldisnotenough on March 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Where does the constitution mention that?

JSGreg3 on March 22, 2011 at 6:53 AM