As my regular readers know, I have written a series of posts on the never-ending hypocrisy of modern day liberalism. In fact, when asked for their political affiliation, many democrats just cut to the chase and check the box labeled “Hypocrit.” It saves time and is, indeed, synonymous.
I actually predicted the latest spate of hypocrisy several days before it began to rear its ugly head. After Secretary of State Kerry’s sabre rattling speech on Syria (which followed President Obama’s sabre rattling speech, which followed President Obama’s other sabre rattling speech), I made the following prediction. I said that, if we take military action against Syria, the liberals, particularly the media lap dogs, would leap to the president’s defense. “Oh my God, the atrocities,” they would say, “It is fully justified to attack a despot who uses chemical weapons on his own people.”
Uh, wait, hold the phone. I recall another dictator whose use of chemical weapons on his own people was well-documented. His name was Sadam Hussein. You may not remember him because he’s now, well, dead. Dead because President George W. Bush saw the atrocities he committed and killed him. That, according to the liberal elites, was a terrible mistake. A war we never should have started. A war President Bush clearly started because Sadam threatened his daddy.
In this post, I am not addressing the advisability of either the Iraq war or the pending Obama war in Syria. These are complex questions better left to another blog. I’m writing only about consistency vs. hypocrisy.
Guess what? The first bomb hasn’t been dropped on Syria and my prediction has already rung true. The Obama sycophants over at the New York Times have prewired their unconditional support for the war that hasn’t even started yet with their op-ed piece on Tuesday titled Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal.
Pathetic, but completely predictable.