The hypocrisy of the liberal media is once again on full display. The WaPo’s Greg Miller has a lengthy piece about the substantial body count Obama has racked up using top secret drone strikes. Let me be clear, I have no problem with the drone strikes. I think it’s great. It’s about the only thing Obama has done right.

What I hate is the hypocrisy of the media. There would be shrill condemnation eminating from the WaPo, NY Times, and every other media organ were Bush still president. They would be decrying the illegal targeted killings and calling for him to be tried at the Hague. But since it’s Obama doing the killing, you get very calm and analytical pieces about the fascinating drone program and Obama’s willingness to use it.

Obama has also overseen the unprecedented blurring of the Pentagon’s JSOC with the CIA. Another issue the media would be hysterical about were the Messiah not president.

Even Greg Miller felt the need to mention this obvious double standard:

Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists. It is a measure of the extent to which the drone campaign has become an awkward open secret in Washington that even those inclined to express misgivings can only allude to a program that, officially, they are not allowed to discuss.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, described the program with a mixture of awe and concern. Its expansion under Obama was almost inevitable, she said, because of the technology’s growing sophistication. But the pace of its development, she said, makes it hard to predict how it might come to be used.

“What this does is it takes a lot of Americans out of harm’s way . . . without having to send in a special ops team or drop a 500-pound bomb,” Feinstein said in an interview in which she was careful to avoid explicit confirmation that the programs exist. “But I worry about how this develops. I’m worried because of what increased technology will make it capable of doing.”

I can assure you that any “concern” Feinstein has with the program would be expressed at a much louder volume and in front of TV cameras were it not Obama doing it. Think about how ridiculous this actually is. The media was absolutely foaming at the mouth over the secret CIA prisons. You would think Bush had recreated the Soviet gulags. The worst he did was dunk 3 terrorists in water a few times to make them talk. The media was hysterical about the horrific and gruesome “torture” taking place.

Obama and his corrupt Attorney General ,Eric Holder, came into office prepared to prosecute CIA agents involved in the enhanced interrogation program. Obama loves to brag about ending the interrogation program and closing the CIA prisons. That alone makes him a hero in the eyes of the media. I guess they prefer killing to talking.

Rather than capture and interrogate people in secret prisons, Obama chooses to kill. Making a terrorist uncomfortable to get information is a “war crime.” But being the judge, jury, and executioner of not only foreign terrorists but American citizens is perfectly fine. Bush held one American citizen in jail on a Navy ship without trial and the media was apoplectic. Obama has executed 3 American citizens via drone strike since becoming president and no one seems to mind.

You would think Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi would be condemning the “murders” and calling for hearings and impeachment. Not so much.

Where is Eric Holder? Where is our fearsome warrior for “social justice” when we need him? I realize he’s busy ginning up phony voter disenfranchisement cases in the South, but Americans are dying at the hands of a rogue president!

The truth is I can’t stand Obama, but I think he’s done a fair job of prosecuting the War on Terror. He’s been much more aggressive than I anticipated he would be. I just wish the media had treated George W. Bush’s less than lethal tactics the same way they are treating Obama’s killing spree. Obama is doing what is necessary to keep the country safe just as Bush did. It’s outrageous the way Bush and Cheney were and continue to be demonized by the same assholes who condone Obama’s tactics.

Joe Biden is crying foul after Human Events’ Jason Mattera did an AWESOME ambush interview on him outside the Senate chambers. He wants an investigation into whether Jason broke the rules by ambushing him in that location. But really he’s just mad that Jason exposed him as the jackass he is.

I find it especially rich when journalists in academia talk of “journalistic ethics.” I guess those “ethics” went on hiatus during the 2008 campaign when the media was actively working to elect Barack Obama.

It doesn’t get much better than this. It was the king of Freudian slips. Lefty CBS News reporter Norah O’Donnell grills WH press secretary Jay Carney about the debt deal. She wants to know where the revenue increases are that Obama promised. Notice the curious use of “we.”

UPDATE

It turns out we got this wrong. Here’s what Matt Lewis at The Daily Caller says:

The impression was that in saying “we got nothing,” O’Donnell was identifying herself with the liberal side — a clear violation of journalistic ethics.

Because there was crosstalk, it’s easy to understand why some people — especially those already skeptical of the press — might have assumed the worst. But upon a second or third hearing, it appears that what O’Donnell actually said was this: “But you have Democrats saying ‘He gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing.’”

That changes the context completely. Other Conservatives concur with Lewis on this. Norah O’Donnell is undoubtedly a left wing Obama supporter, but in this instance there was no outright liberal media bias on display.

Some will undoubtedly call me racist for assuming MSNBC’s decision to hire Sharpton was for racial reasons. But let’s be honest, the only reason anybody f*cks with Al Sharpton is for racial reasons. But the reason MSNBC’s motives are so clear is obvious. Al Sharpton is a terrible host. He’s a terrible interviewer, he can’t read a teleprompter for sh*t, and he has a failing radio show. The only reason Sharpton still has a radio show is because no one would dare cancel it. He’d scream racism and have his minions protesting with bull horns outside the station.

However, there are others who believe there’s more than phony racial diversity at work here.

From Breitbart TV:

Why would a news organization like NBC News risk further tarnishing their brand by honoring someone with this record by giving him the honor of hosting a show, especially considering he has vowednot to criticize President Obama as we enter a presidential election season?  The answer appears to be found at the highest levels of Comcast/NBC.

The Comcast/NBC merger would not have occured if not for the approval of the FCC.  One FCC commissioner, Democrat Michael Copps, voted against the merger saying that it would “erode(s) diversity, localism and competition”.  The “diversity and localism” issue is something that had been a key concern for newly appointed FCC Comissioner Mignon Clyburn when she took her position early in the Obama Administration.  And she held out her approval until she was certain that it would not be an issue.

She was swayed by a “diversity memorandum of agreement” signed by Sharpton and developed with help from his National Action Network.  Clyburn, daughter of South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, said the diversity memorandum “will serve to keep the new entity (Comcast/NBC) honest in promoting diversity.”

From The Daily Beast:

Sharpton has a long and well-documented history of leveraging his civil-rights profile for his own benefit. Grabbing a prime-time anchor spot in exchange for cheerleading for a controversial merger would be the capper on that career. It’s gone remarkably unnoticed that Sharpton was the first major black leader to endorse the Comcast merger, which met fierce resistance.

And to drive home the point about just how bad Sharpton is:

Is that the foul odor of media corruption in the air? Say it ain’t so.

The media was absolutely hysterical over the Abu Ghraib scandal. The NY Times ran a front page story about it for weeks and weeks. There were not enough pages in the Washington Post to fit all the Abu Ghraib coverage. The WaPo could have changed its name to Abu Ghraib Daily they wrote so many stories about it. I don’t necessarily take issue with that because it was a big story and an important story. But a strange thing has happened.

Flash forward to 2011 and a similar story has been unearthed only this time in Afghanistan and this time under Obama. If you don’t know anything about it don’t blame yourself. The US media has decided war crimes aren’t such a big deal when they happen under a president they voted for.

A handful of US soldiers went rogue and began murdering civilians for sport and collecting body parts from them as trophies. One would think the left wing press would be foaming at the mouth to get a hold of that one, eh? Not so much.

The Guardian and Der Spiegel broke the story and claim to have more than 4,000 photographs of the horror. Again, one would imagine The NY Times salivating at the thought. In reality, not so much.

Does anyone really believe this story would be ignored if it happened under Bush? Or any Republican president?

S.E. Cupp recently started working for Glenn Beck. She has a new show on Beck’s website. She invited Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher on to discuss the media’s coverage of Wisconsin. Tommy is about as liberal as it gets. He’s essentially Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi with male genitalia. That said, he’s a fair guy. Unlike Stretch, Tommy is willing to admit hypocrisy and stupidity on his side when he sees it. Therefore, I respect him. I also have to give a shout out to Mediaite. It’s a website I enjoy reading despite the manic depressive fits it sends me into.

Russia’s government controlled news media takes a dim view of the Reagan presidency. They even go so far as to lecture the “mainstream media” in America for not accurately reporting on Reagan’s legacy and having a “selective memory.”

The “selective memory” charge is particularly amusing considering what the Russian media chose to leave out of Reagan’s legacy. You know, the part about him bringing an end to the Soviet Union.

(hat tip Verum Serum)

It’s hard for me to even get mad about this because it’s just so predictable. In fact, I was just thinking this morning how strange it was that the left hasn’t attacked Reagan on his 100th birthday. With all the celebrations this past week and Sarah Palin riding horses at the Reagan ranch, I figured the left would come out swinging. Of course, that was before their liberal Messiah decided he was Reagan 2.0. As a result, Reagan criticism has been rather muted on the left. A president they’ve loathed for a lifetime has suddenly become a swell guy…like Obama!

[Watch Ronald Reagan's 1989 farewell address from The Oval Office]

But Michael Kinsley over at the LA Times couldn’t help himself. He had to try and at least land a couple of glancing blows to Reagan’s legacy. Not only does Kinsley hate Reagan, he hates that his liberal Messiah actually wants to be like Reagan.

Worst of all, Reagan, with his sunny disposition amid catastrophe, taught Americans that it will all be OK; don’t worry about it. So for 30 years we didn’t worry about it. Now we’re worried. But it’s a little late. I don’t call that greatness, or worth emulating.

Hey Michael, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Your man is no Reagan. More importantly, he doesn’t want to be. Like everything else with Obama it’s all about optics. Obama thinks if he studies Reagan and adopts his rhetoric he can turn his presidency around. It’s yet another hat trick designed to fool the American people. What Barack Obama and his cronies don’t realize is that Ronald Reagan wasn’t playing a character. He didn’t adopt his persona and policies based on polling data. He didn’t say what he said as a front for a hidden political agenda.

The reason the American people responded to Reagan the way they did is because he was genuine. They could sense that what he said was what he truly believed. And more importantly, what he believed was both good for America and good for Americans.

Barack Obama is the polar opposite of Ronald Reagan. Nobody knows what he really believes because no one really knows him. But his destructive policies are neither good for America nor good for Americans.

You can read more analysis on Kinsley’s hit piece over at Big Journalism.

Unhinged WaPo columnist Dana Milbank is still refusing to back down from his belief that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are responsible for violence. Incredibly, he told Howard Kurtz that even if they aren’t tied to the AZ massacre they should still be held accountable for inciting the unstable.

Rabid left wing partisans like Milbank don’t give a damn about facts or evidence. It’s pointless even having him on. You already know what he’s going to say regardless of the facts presented to him. Had Jared Loughner been a member of Green Peace and a card carrying Communist, Milbank would still insist that Beck and Palin were at fault.

What this is really about is Milbank trying to boost sales of his horrible Glenn Beck biography — which I will not link to. He can’t let an opportunity like this go to waste. He has to try and generate as much blood money as he can through lies and deceit before the media moves on to a new story.