Gay Patriot Header Image

Is this America?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:12 am - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Katrina Disaster,Media Bias

Caught this on Drudge last night:

Let me start by saying that I don’t blame President Obama for the problems plaguing the Big Apple in the aftermath of Sandy. But, bear in mind, how quick the legacy media were, seven years ago, to blame George W. Bush for the problems plaguing the Big Easy in the aftermath of Katrina.

We heard all sorts of horror stories, most of them untrue, about the goings-on at the Superdome, most supposedly Bush’s fault.  So, why is Drudge the only one linking the desperate situation in parts of Manhattan to the president?

And when Katrina hit, the city most impacted was governed by a Democratic Mayor, the state by a Democratic Governor.

When Sandy hit, New York had a Mayor who would endorse Obama, the state has a Democratic Governor.

Over at the American Thinker, J. James Estrada contends that the electrical outages might not have happened had congressional Democrats not blocked a Bush administration plan to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.  (Via our reader Former Left-Leaning Lesbian.)

RELATED: BLOOMBERG DIVERTS FOOD, GENERATORS FROM DEVASTATED STATEN ISLAND TO NYC MARATHON

ALSO RELATED: Applying Bush/Katrina rules to Obama/Sandy

CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE:  Anderson Cooper is reporting the crisis on Staten Island.  (Via Instapundit.)

FROM INSTAPUNDIT:

BARACK OBAMA’S KATRINA, WITH BLOOMBERG IN THE ROLE OF RAY NAGIN? This Depressing NBC Segment On Staten Island Could Change The Way The World Sees Hurricane Sandy. “This NBC segment on the situation this week on Staten Island is awful, and makes the response look horrible.”

Barack Obama lacks solutions to the debt problem

One Facebook, a liberal friend shared this image purporting to showing how much debt the nation accumulated under the presidents since Reagan.  It seemed the purpose was to exonerate the incumbent while laying the blame at the feet of his predecessor for our nation’s $16.208 trillion debt.

On January 20, 2009, the day the incumbent took office, the national debt stood at $10.627 trillion, meaning it increased approximately $5.581 trillion on this Democrat’s watch (less than a full term in office.)  By contrast, “[t]he Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency.

Now, to be sure, maybe Obama did indeed “inherit” a budget out of balance, but he had solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress during his first two years in office.  In his campaign, he had promised a “net spending cut” while he office as he had promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term.

He achieved neither of those goals.  He didn’t even come close.

On the current campaign trail, he is not putting forth any plan to reduce the deficit should he win reelection.

It seems that those who created the above chart seek to pass the blame for the nation’s debt onto Obama’s immediate predecessor, as if that will absolve the incumbent of not having a plan to control federal spending.

Could Republican and Democratic turnout be even this year?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:30 am - October 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Bush-hatred

For the past few weeks, conservatives have been contending that polls giving Obama a substantial margin have done so largely by oversampling Democrats.  The most recent CNN poll, for example, favored Democrats by 8 points.  In 2008, a year very favorable to the president’s party. Democratic was only 7 points higher than Republican turnout.

This year, most serious pollsters forecast a much narrower Democratic margin.  Scott Rasmussen thinks Democrats will likely have a 2-4 point advantage this November.  I tend to think it will be loser to 2 points, but sometimes I wonder if Republicans will run even with Democrats, each party’s partisans making up a near identical portion of the electorate.

The last time this happened in a presidential race was 2004 when “Republicans managed to turn out their base at ‘supercharged’ levels.”  Republicans weren’t the only ones eager to vote that year.  Democrats were eager to evict George W. Bush from the White House.

Family members reported high school friends returning to Cincinnati to canvass for John Kerry.  Democrats were motivated to vote and doing what they could to get their vote out.  They were not depressed or otherwise, dispirited.  They wanted to win; they thought they could win.

Given that in 2004, when both parties were motivated, turnout was even, I wonder sometimes if we could see a similar pattern this year.

Let me submit a few facts for your candid consideration:

Blaming Bush: Obama team’s default reaction for its problems

It’s as if they make to make 2012 2008 all over again.  President Obama has been in office for over 3 years and 8 months and  yet his Vice President blames Bush:

Can’t these guys ever take responsibility for their actions?

Do we want to be led by a team constantly lamenting the situation they inherited (rather than trying to fix them) and blaming their predecessors for their problems? Shouldn’t they instead be coming up with solutions to the debt crisis?

UPDATE:  Too bad Joe didn’t listen to his boss who, on March 19, 2009, told Jay Leno that ‘one of the things’ he was ‘trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.‘”

Too busy reporting flaws in Romney’s campaign to notice failure of Obama’s policies

My workouts provide a window into media bias.  Yesterday, while doing cardio, I caught CNN”s Piers Morgan interviewing a variety of pundits on MItt Romney’s tax returns.  Seems that CNN (save for a brief respite on Erin Burnett OutFront) focused not on the incumbent’s foreign policy failures, but on the minutiae of Mitt Romney’s imagined misdeeds.

Commenting on just one of those foreign policy failures, Walter Russell Mead rejoices that . . .

. . . thankfully we have a Democratic president, and in an election year the normally feisty American media—the same media that worked night and day to expose every flaw and contradiction in the Bush policies in the region (and they had plenty to expose)—is too busy reporting the flaws in the Romney campaign (again, there’s much to report) to pay attention to anything as insignificant as a comprehensively failed presidential strategy in a foreign war.

(H/t Instapundit.)  No wonder distrust in the media continues to climb.

Chick-fil-A: Latest object of the left’s “two-minute” hate
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day: response to left-wing bullying

As we’ve noted on more than one occasion, all too many on the gay left — as well as some of their straight allies — are ever ready to call opposition to gay marriage as hate speech. Their reaction to prominent defenders of traditional marriage, like Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy, resembles that of their reaction to certain prominent Republicans, from Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to Newt Gingrich in the 1990s to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin in the 2000s, to the Koch Brothers in the current decade.

Some have developed quite a habit of using harsh language to decry what they describe as “hate”.  Indeed, more often than not, their language seems far more hateful than that of the supposed haters.  Like the loyal citizens of George Orwell’s Oceania, they seem to delight in venting their negative emotions upon those deemed enemies of the party.  Yet, their venting does seem to last longer than two minutes.

Mr. Cathy’s unapologetic advocacy of traditional marriage made him — and his chicken chain — an appropriate target to which certain leftists could direct their venom.  This whole hullabaloo seemed more about the need of some to vent than about the merits (or lack thereof) of the target’s arguments.

No wonder that Glenn Reynolds, like a good number of social moderates and libertarians, doesn’t think the response to this venting, AKA Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day . . .

can be interpreted as opposition to gay marriage, so much as a response to bullying. But I do think that the bullying has probably tainted the gay-marriage brand, which is too bad. The gay-marriage argument is already winning — there’s no need to engage in Rahm Emanuel-style attacks, and doing so merely invites pushback. And, frankly, I’m happy to live in a country where people’s response to bullying is to push back.

It is those very “Rahm Emanuel-style attacks” that served as the tipping point for many social libertarians (including yours truly).  As blogging law professor William A. Jacobsen put it:

The threat to free speech represented by the actions of the liberal political leaderships in ChicagoBoston, San Francisco, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia should be the ultimate wake up call. (more…)

What Specific Bush Policies Created the Mess Obama “Inherited”

After the market meltdown in September 2008, most Democrats (as well as their allies in the legacy media) pointed, in the most general terms, to Bush-era “deregulation” as the cause of the crisis. They did, to be sure, often have trouble identifying specific regulations the then-president lifted–or laws and regulations that Republican Congresses had repealed while W served as the nation’s chief executive.

Indeed, three years ago, I reminded our readers that

Even Obama-supporting columnist Sebastian Mallaby wrote, during last fall’s campaign, that the “claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.

Last night, as I was reading Karl’s post how how extremism is “not just a GOP P.O.V“, a similar thought about Obama’s rhetoric came to mind.  Just as he and his allies blamed deregulation in the abstract in 2008, now, they’re blaming Bush policies in the abstract for the crisis which Republicans believe to be the collapse of the welfare state model.  “In the Obama version”, David Brooks writes, “the welfare-state model was serving America well until it was distorted a decade ago by a Republican Party intent on serving the rich and shortchanging the middle class.”  (H/t: Karl who excerpted it.)

And just how, Mr. President, did George W. Bush and his Republican minions distort that model?  What specific policies did they implement which shortchanged the middle class?

Am wondering if Mr. Obama ever cites specific Bush policies when he laments all the problems he inherited from his predecessor.  And, no, whining about tax cuts for the wealthy doesn’t count (particularly since Mr. Obama chose to extend the Bush-era tax rates–and the Bush cuts didn’t just go to the wealthy).

Tax cuts don’t cause market meltdowns.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Our critic Levi helps make my point:

Bush is responsible in that there was no atmosphere of regulation from the federal government, so all these financial entities went berserk. Additionally, the tax cuts that Bush passed freed up a lot of rich people’s money, which directly lead to more severe inflation of the housing bubble and made the impact when things burst that much more dramatic. It definitely has to do with some policies that Bush enacted, but it’s his responsibility mostly on the basis of his inaction.

No atmosphere of regulation?  What does that mean.  And note that the only specific Bush policy he cites is one that Obama chose to continue.

Desperately Dissing W

Conservatives have long criticized the immediate past President of the United States for failing to rein in spending under his watch.  To be sure, the federal deficit did start declining in FY2005 and did so until the election of a Democratic Congress in 2006. But, we believe he could have done more to restrain the growth of government and curtail its regulatory power.

Save on national security issues, most of us on the right never really saw George W. Bush as a conservative. Still, he was a good man.  He never blamed his predecessor who left him with a compromised intelligence apparatus — and a weakening economy.  And since leaving the White House nearly three-and-one-half years ago, he has seen fit to treat his successor in a similar manner, never criticizing him in public nor even faulting the incumbent for his relentless attacks  – not even defending himself against those attacks.

And still today, Barack Obama won’t let up.  In 2008, his party desperately wanted to see W depart.  That Republican may be gone so long, but his successor as well as said Democrat’s campaign cronies just can’t help bringing their bogeyman up.  The incumbent looked backward yesterday in his campaign speech on the economy — where he was supposed to be about looking forward to his next term — to allude to the problems under his predecessor:

“From 2001 to 2008 we had the slowest job growth in half a century,” Obama said, arguing that the economy has done worse under recent Republican presidents. . . .

“Why do we think they would work better this time? We can’t afford to jeopardize our future by repeating the mistakes of the past,” Obama said, hoping to tie Romney’s policies to those of former President George W. Bush.

Repeating the mistakes of the past would mean failing to oversee the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) at the heart of the financial crisis.  And, to borrow an expression, “living beyond our means” and needing “to make some adjustments”.  Seems the incumbent is the one repeating his predecessor’s mistakes. (more…)

Good Grief, he’s blaming Bush again

Barack Obama in 2009: “And one of the things that I’m trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.

A helpful interpretation of his remarks this year:

(H/t Jim Geraghty and Ed Morrissey.)

The legacy media, like the Obama campaign, delight in dissing W

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:30 am - June 12, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Bush-hatred,Media Bias

Last Thursday, the media were all abuzz about one of their favorite talking points, about how the immediate past President of the United States was a horrible, no good very bad man — and people just didn’t like him.

Take a gander at this image from AOL/HuffPo heralding the results of a new CNN poll:

You can bet that the headline writers were just salivating at the chance to write that headline.  The same folks who, when showing the economic statistics of his administration report only the job losses at the end, but somehow forget to point out the relatively sound economy for the better part of his term — and the Democratic Congress in place when it went south.

How might this play out in this year’s presidential election?” wonders Phil Pruitt of Yahoo! News’s The Ticket.  “Don’t be surprised if the Obama campaign mentions the name of George W. Bush at every opportunity, and don’t be surprised if that strategy works,” answers CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

And does Mr. Holland have data showing that strategy works?  Or evidence that any president every won reelection running against his predecessor?   Why doesn’t Yahoo! inquire into Obama’s “need” to whine about the problems he inherited?

That might require a little more work than dancing with the delight at the bad poll numbers of a favorite media bogeyman — one who, unlike a Mr. J. Carter, doesn’t put himself perpetually in front of the cameras trying to buttress his image.

UPDATE:  Three years and (nearly) five months into his term, Obama is still whining about the problems he fought so hard to fix:

The president also said that Republicans, not Democrats, caused the current budget crisis. “I love listening to these guys give us lectures about debt and deficits. I inherited a trillion dollar deficit!” he said. Obama compared Republicans to a person who orders a steak dinner and martini and then, “just as you’re sitting down, they leave, and accuse you of running up the tab.”

Um, actually, Mr. Obama, you asked them to leave and then proceeded to run up the tab even further than they had.

Even the Huffington Post notes Obama’s anti-Bush obsession

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:37 pm - May 31, 2012.
Filed under: Blame Republicans first,Bush-hatred

Their image promoting the unveiling of the White House portrait of the immediate past President of the United States:

Was anyone arrested for criticizing W?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:40 am - May 25, 2012.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Misrepresenting Conservatives,Obamania

Recall that North Carolina teacher, now suspended without pay, who upbraided a student for daring to, as she put it, “disrespect” the President of the United States in her classroom.  She had told her class that it was “criminal to slander a president”:

“Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush?” she says of former President Bush. “Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”

Oh, really, where does it say that in the Constitution?

Nobody, points out blogger Rhymes with Right, himself a teacher,

. . . was arrested for saying bad things about George W. Bush. In fact those who did so became cultural heroes — don’t you remember that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and that Cindy Sheehan was treated as some sort of demigod by those opposed to Bush and his policies?

Yes, even in the dark days when that supposed fascist reigned in Washington, people remained free to criticize the president and were often celebrated for doing so.

I wonder how many of those same people will criticize the North Carolina teacher for criticizing a student who engaged, to borrow an expression they might like, in “the highest form of patriotism.”

Still wanting to impeach W — 3 years after he left the White House

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - May 7, 2012.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,LA Stories

Remember the old joke from the 1990s about knowing it’s time to get a new Volvo when the McGovern sticker starts to peel off.

They may have to make up such jokes about anti-Bush bumper strips.  Just caught this today and snapped the picture with Canon PowerShot A490, enhancing it via iPhoto:

UPDATE: When I posted this picture on a political group on Facebook, one subscriber wrote, ” If Bush were impeached today, would Cheney become President? :-)”

If the answer is, “Yes,” I’m all for impeachment.

Spiking the Osama ball, Obama forgets what team he’s on

Democratic-generated complaints notwithstanding, there was nothing wrong with George W. Bush highlighting his leadership in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks as he campaigned for reelection. He was reminding us of how he had handled his job, uniting the nation at a challenging time. And since he was asking us to keep him on for another term, it was entirely appropriate to provide a record of his accomplishment.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Obama reminding us under his watch, Navy SEALs got Osama bin Laden.  We got it done under his watch.  He has every right to take credit for it.

He may be, as Glenn quipped earlier today, overplaying it a bit. And to borrow the metaphor the blogmeister used, the man who scores the touchdown has every right to spike the ball to celebrate his score.  Only he should also acknowledge the man who threw the pass as well as the coach — as well as the other members of the team — who helped him into scoring position.  In other words, Obama may have been in position to score the kill, but he did it as part of a team.

And that team didn’t just include Democrats.  Under Mr. Obama’s Republican predecessor, the team (to stay with the metaphor) moved the ball down the field [See UPDATE below].  The team didn’t score points against Republicans, but against enemies of the United States, enemies shared by both parties.

In other words, it’s one thing to campaign on his own accomplishment, quite another to suggest your opponent wouldn’t have done the same thing.  As 2010 CPAC blogger of the year Ed Morrissey puts it:

Obama would be on firm ground to highlight that victory in the war on terror, as he does in his tedious “Forward” campaign video. Implying that Romney would have let Osama bin Laden go under those circumstances is, as [Arianna] Huffington says, despicable.

Yup, even that liberal blogress condemned the attack ad: (more…)

Didn’t media/Dems get all upset when W used 9/11 photo in his re-election campaign to help Republican campaigns?

Charlie Spiering reports that Obama spikes the bin Laden football. . . again:

“A year ago today,” the Obama campaign tweeted this morning, sharing again the famous White House photo of President Obama and his staff in the Situation Room as they watched the Osama bin Laden operation unfold.

You can almost see the president pulling the trigger himself. . .

UPDATE: Here’s why I changed the title:

The White House approves of the Republican congressional campaign committee’s plan to sell a photograph of President Bush — taken hours after the September 11 attacks — to raise money for the GOP, a move Democrats call “nothing short of grotesque.”The White House photograph shows Bush aboard Air Force One, talking to Vice President Dick Cheney on the afternoon of September 11.

UPDATE: But, there’s this from the Washington Post:

President Bush’s day-old reelection advertising campaign generated criticism and controversy yesterday, as relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes charged that television commercials using images from the attacks were exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

Median household income down more after Obama’s first 3 years
than it was after W’s first 7

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:07 am - May 1, 2012.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Economy

Although candidate Barack Obama assailed then-President George W. Bush “for wage losses suffered by the middle class” in the 2008 presidential campaign, more “than three years into” his ” own presidency,” reports Bloomberg’s Mike Dorning, “those declines have only deepened“:

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.This decline in income could have a greater impact on average voters than the unemployment rate.

Via Instapundit. With less take-home pay, they have to set aside a grater proportion of their income for housing, groceries and other necessities, leaving less for recreation — and making it more difficult to save up for big purchases, like down payments on homes.

Obama: better to be cool than accomplished?

Yesterday, Ann Althouse, reminding us that his predecessor gave up golf when he was chief executive, wondered as the president’s latest effort to appear cool:

Does a slow jam with Jimmy Fallon send the wrong message? Or do we not think about the mom whose son may have recently died anymore? (Obama has no Cindy Sheehan dogging hounding him bothering him… at least not that we see in the news.)

Why is Obama immune from the criticism that normally befalls a President? Back in 2008, running for President, Obama pushed back the press one time with “Why is it that I can’t just enjoy my waffle?”

It’s like that was a really hard question — why is it that he can’t just enjoy his waffle… and his multiple vacations and his golf and his rock concerts in the White House and his slow jam with Jimmy Fallon?

The answer is: Because you have a job. You applied for it. We hired you. Make us believe you’re doing it.

Via Instapundit.  Seems he’s more interested in the perks of office than its responsibilities.

It’s not just that we’re still at war, it’s also that the nation has big problems, many exacerbated by the president’s policies in his first three years in office.  Our debt is skyrocketing, entitlements face insolvency and the president has neither pushed his fellow partisans in the Senate to vote on his budget nor put forward solutions to reform Social Security or Medicare.

Perhaps, his attempt to be “cool” is part of his campaign strategy.  In Commentary, Peter Wehner observed that:

Given his inability and unwillingness to run on his record, the Obama strategy appears to rest on achieving three things: (1) energizing the turnout of his base (minorities, young voters and liberals); (more…)

Obama campaign spokesman makes Romney’s point

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Bush-hatred,Economy

Last night, Piers Morgan led off his eponymous CNN show by asking his colleague Wolf Blitzer to offer his thoughts on Mitt Romney’s speech.  Blitzer agreed that “It was absolutely an excellent speech from — from his perspective because it looked — it looked like sort of an unofficial acceptance speech of the Republican presidential nomination.”

Morgan then turned to Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt for the president’s perspective.  And by the manner in which he deflected questions raised by the presumptive Republican nominee’s speech, the Democratic flack effectively made Mitt Romney’s point.

When CNN anchor asked Labolt for his “reaction to Mitt Romney’s speech“, he cited “particularly” the Republican’s “claim that because the president has failed America, he [Obama] will run a campaign, and you are effectively running the press for that campaign, full of diversions, distractions, and distortions.”

Labolt focused on the choice offered by the coming election.  In a followup question, Morgan pressed the point, “What happens if a large number of Americans come November conclude that actually most of the answers [about whether we're better off today than we were four years ago] to that are no?”

Instead of responding, Obama’s spokesman attacked Romney:

Well, the fact is a better title for Governor Romney’s speech tonight than “A Better America” should have been “Back to the Future.” Because he’s proposing the same economic policies that got us into the economic crisis in the first place. More tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, letting Wall Street write its own rules again.

You know we’ve tried those same policies before. We passed those tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. They were supposed to unleash growth. They were supposed to unleash job creation and they didn’t.

In office three years now, but still running against George W.

Yeah, Labolt did offer a few tidbits of good news in the current lackluster recovery, but his focus was on distorting Romney’s record, diverting attention away from “growth [which] surely feels like stagnation rather than a strong recovery” with personal income which is “flat to falling.”  Such attacks are nothing more than distractions from Obama’s real record.

ADDENDUM: (more…)

Older now, but Obama is still running against the W

On Monday, when doing cardio at the gym, I looked up to catch President Obama’s speech at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.  In the eighteen minutes that I watched the speech (until CNN cut away), I heard little but attacks on Republican policies, with frequent references to the middle class.

In a report on the speech (via Instapundit), The Washington Times‘s Dave Boyer reported that

Pausing between $10,000-a-plate fundraisers for his re-election campaign, President Obama called on Congress in a highly partisan speech Tuesday to approve a tax increase on the wealthy to pay for programs for the middle class.

This “highly partisan speech” was an official speech, allowing the president to bill taxpayers for the fundraising trip to the Sunshine State, packing the 30-minute address, as he did, “in the midst of three fundraisers in the battleground state, prompting complaints by Republicans that Mr. Obama was fleecing taxpayers for campaign travel.”

In the speech, billed by the White House, as remarks on the economy, the president offered no new policies to strengthen the anemic recovery, choosing instead to fault Republicans for gutting what he calls “investments” (his terms for government grants):

They proposed a budget that showers the wealthiest Americans with even more tax cuts, and then pays for these tax cuts by gutting investments in education and medical research and clean energy, in health care.

. . . .

Now, thousands of medical research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS would be eliminated.  Tens of thousands of researchers and students and teachers could lose their jobs.  Our investments in clean energy that are making us less dependent on imported oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.

Note the conditional of the president’s attacks.  People could lose their jobs.  Investments in “clean” energy?  Has he been paying attention to the number of such companies which have gone belly up (despite receiving federal grants and loan guarantees)? (more…)

Different presidents, different (media) standards

Over at Commentary Contentions, Michael Rubin contrasts the media reaction to the actions of a handful of U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison to the murderous shooting spree conducted by one soldier recently in Afghanistan:

The reaction to Abu Ghraib was too often cheap, as pundits and partisans sought to ascribe guilt up to and including President Bush and Vice President Cheney. In the aftermath of the Afghanistan shooting, some Republicans criticized Obama for apologizing—but were roundly and rightly castigated by other Republicans.

That so many sought to transform the evil occurrences at Abu Ghraib into a partisan whip with which to flog Bush was wrong.

The military, as Rubin reminds us, has launched an investigation into the actions at the Iraqi prison before the media got wind of the story.  (Read the whole thing; it’s short.)

In both cases, a rogue American service member (or members) committed atrocities, evil in their own right and damaging to the U.S. national interest.  In neither case had the president ordered (or the military countenanced) the actions.  And yet there wasn’t the same media frenzy for the more recent barbarity.

Wonder why that is.