Another sign of the Democrats grasping at straws in their eagerness to attack Republicans is their attempt to read an attack on the likely Democratic presidential nominee in President Bush’s address last Thursday to the Knesset in Jerusalem.
Yet, in that speech, the president made no reference to Barack Obama nor to the Democratic Party, mentioning the name of only one Democrat, former President Harry S Truman and then in a mostly favorable context. So, what was the reference which so excited all the leading Democrats as well as a growing list of left-wing bloggers, ever looking to be offended by conservatives’ comments and Republican remarks? Well, you see, the president faulted those (“some” was his exact word) who would “negotiate with the terrorists and radicals,” likening them to Nazi appeasers.
New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg observe that the president’s remarks have been “widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama,” who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria.”
Note the clever use of the passive here. “Widely interpreted” if your idea of a broad-range of interpretation includes Democrats and their supporters in the mainstream media.
And the Democrats have been quick to allege that Obama was the target of these remarks. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “the party’s top four Democrats [have] come roaring out of the blocks in unison.” Even Joe Biden joined in the fun, using an expletive to fault the president for saying something he didn’t say.
Given the speed of the new media, that due to my focus on gay marriage last week, I’m only getting to this now, it seems that other bloggers and pundits have already said pretty much all that I wanted to say about this, but it so amused me to watch the Democrats outraged over something that wasn’t said, that I just had to chime in. They really are grasping at straws to find offensive Republican statements.
But, it does say something about Barack Obama’s prickliness that, as James Taranto put it, when he and his supporters “hear the president talking about countenancing hatred, appeasing terrorists and breaking ties with Israel, they think: He’s talking about us!”
In observing that since the president did not accuse Obama or other Democrats of appeasement, Jim Geraghty wonders if they were “using mental telepathy to identify those Bush refers to as ‘some.’”
The Anchoress had a great roundup about this brouhaha, building on a point she made in a previous post that “the headlines and stories have moved away from Bush and any full-text, contextual display of the speech to making it all about Obama.”
It’s a pretty amazing speech about the founding of the State of Israel, the history of our relationship with that democracy and our shared goals. But, the MSM is more interested in creating a fuss about something that isn’t’ even in the speech so instead of inviting readers to consider what the president actually said, they dwell on what he didn’t say.
Seeing this as yet another example of the media spinning for Obama, she writes, “If I were a journalist, I’d be embarrassed.”
Anyway, just read the whole thing and follow some of her links, for there’s lots of good stuff in the posts she references.
She really gets at the meaning of this hullabaloo, something which I’ve described as the media’s borrowing from Obama’s playbook. This is a story about media cheerleading for Obama. here’s more to it than that. Let’s also bear in mind how quick the Obama campaign was to assume the president was talking about his campaign when he referenced those who would appease terrorists.