Why did the Obama administration ignore warnings about Iraq?
Major cities falling to ISIS in troubled country
After President Obama spoke about Iraq, Politico posted a story last week that said Democrats were “starting to unite” behind his policy. It reported that party members “from a broad ideological spectrum” supported the decision to deploy 300 military advisers as terrorists threatened Baghdad.
Readers who ventured beyond the frothy claim were rewarded with this hidden gem: “Senate Democrats actually did not watch the president’s speech on Thursday, instead talking energy policy over lunch.”
[pullquote]
In other words, anything Obama said was good enough for them. Nothing, not even the possible creation of a new jihadist state, can wake Dems from their hypnotic daze. Their master’s voice turns them into iron filings, obedient to his magnet.
Pass the dessert, I vote yes!
What, pray tell, is the Obama “policy” they are uniting behind? Since he didn’t actually articulate one, the only conclusion is that they support him, period.
That the leftist media remain a sucker for story lines about Democratic unity, as opposed to those about a Republican “civil war,” is a disgrace that helps define the age of Obama.
Uncurious and unserious journalists are not journalists. They are stenographers at best, shills at worst.
To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post, click here.
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.