Finding inconsistencies where none exist.
In a recent appearance on MSNBC, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank suggested an inconsistency between Republican desires to remove Obama from office, and Republican complaints that the Secret Service was not adequately protecting Obama from harm.
Why is that inconsistent? Can’t we both oppose a president and want to protect the President? The Presidency is greater than the man or his policies.
Noah Rothman of Hot Air reported:
Milbank: Why would GOP want Secret Service to protect Obama?
Among the fears Milbank suggests the GOP is aggravating for political gain are concerns that the Secret Service is underperforming.
“They’re even making a campaign issue of the Secret Service,” The Post columnist said, “saying things are so bad that even the President of the United States, the President of the United States we would like to remove from office by the way, is not being adequately protected by the Secret Service.”
First, what a shocking and offensive insinuation to make. Yes, Republicans (and Democrats, I’d venture) can oppose a president of the opposite party and also not want any harm to come to them. Second, the suggestion that voicing concerns about the increasingly apparent incompetence in the Secret Service amounts to fear mongering is just as insulting.
Here’s a video of the exchange:
Of course, this could be a classic case of media projection.
Does Dana Milbank remember the Bush assassination fantasy film “Death of a President”?
Kevin Sullivan of the Washington Post wrote this in 2006:
Bush ‘Assassination’ Film Makes Waves Across the Pond
Nearly every British newspaper on Friday carried photos of the “assassination” of President Bush — or, rather, the eerily realistic depiction of it from a new documentary-style television film that is causing an uproar in Britain.
The film, “Death of a President,” has been alternatively derided as a tasteless publicity grab and defended as a serious look at a plausible event that could have dramatic ramifications for the world.
“It’s a disturbing film,” said Peter Dale, head of More4, the television channel that will telecast the film in England in October. It is scheduled to debut this month — on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — at the Toronto Film Festival.
“It raises questions about the effects of American foreign policy and particularly the war on terror,” said Dale, who denied criticism that the film made an anti-Bush or anti-American political statement. “It’s a fairly attention-grabbing premise, but behind that is a serious and thought-provoking film.”
And don’t get me started about assassination fantasies about a President.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.