Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies

June 18th, 2013 4:45 PM

It’s becoming rather commonplace for a liberal so-called “journalist” to point out the double standard by which media members are in general quite accepting of domestic surveillance under the current administration.

Count former New York Times columnist Bob Herbert amongst those willing to acknowledge this, for on MSNBC’s Now Tuesday, Herbert said, "There would be just tons of outrage on the left if Bush, Cheney or any Republican were pursuing the same policies that Obama is pursuing in the war against terror" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ED RENDELL: Can you imagine if this current incidence or incident had happened in the Bush-Cheney era? What would progressives who are sort of soft-peddling it, what would they have done?

ALEX WAGNER, HOST: I don't know that all progressives aren't soft-pedaling it. Some are.

BOB HERBERT: A lot of progressives are soft-pedaling it. I do think that there would be just tons of outrage on the left if Bush, Cheney or any Republican were pursuing the same policies that Obama is pursuing in the war against terror.

Okay, so I imagine that some of you are yawning because we've been hearing this a lot in the past week. Does that mean we should be any less offended, angered, or frightened by it?

Yes, I said frightened.

Isn't it possible that all the scandals currently plaguing the White House are the result of an adminstration knowing that it can do whatever it wants without any backlash from its adoring press? Or from its adoring voters?

Consider how the news media last month were giddy about the President's poll numbers staying up despite all the controversies in his lap. Would that have happened under any other president in our lifetime?

Before you reflexively answer "Bill Clinton," consider that just last month, the left-leaning Kirsten Powers said that even he wouldn't have been able to get away with the Benghazi coverup.

Not only is that likely true, but Clinton also would probably not have gotten the media support Obama has for these subsequent scandals.

After all, the press are supposed to act as a check and a balance to government NOT a rubber stamp which is what the current news media have been since Obama was elected.

This has gone to such a level that we are now witnessing so-called journalists completely abdicate their known positions on domestic surveillance to support the president they helped to twice get elected.

At what point will the employers of these hypocrites realize that those that work for them are no longer performing the function they were hired for and begin taking actions to remedy the situation?

Or is that just wishful thinking for the executives at the heads of these news media outlets are just as willfully abdicating their principles - and potentially those of our Founding Fathers! - in order to protect the 44th president?

If that's the case, what is our nation becoming?

Certainly not anything that resembles what it was before January 20, 2009.