So, where is the criticism of the President?
Haitians rioted in the streets while our President golfed. Over two weeks have passed since the earthquake and still we cannot get food to the starving there. Some days our efforts seem puny.
Three American doctors who went to Haiti as volunteers called our response an embarrassment, so disorganized it caused extra deaths.
We supposedly patrol the streets, yet vendors sell for profit the food the U.S. donates. Thieves are rampant throughout Port-Au-Prince. Gangs steal scarce fresh water from desperate survivors.
UN forces have taken to firing pepper spray and tear gas into crowds. Food piles up in warehouses while people outside starve. Corruption is rampant. One U.S. official says distribution is so poor that families cannot rely on any particular location for food.
One Italian official calls our efforts “pathetic.” He says we have organized our efforts poorly. Co-ordination between our efforts and others is wretchedly inept. There is a 7-day backlog of over 1000 flights of precious relief supplies.
One French official accused the U.S. of trying to occupy Haiti. Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua condemn our efforts. Castro does too. The criticism is so strong that Secretary Clinton felt she had to fend it off.
So, where is the criticism of President Obama? Where are the editorials blistering his administration’s efforts? Where are the celebrities questioning whether he cares about these people? Where are the pundits attacking his poor leadership in this? Where are the politicians barking to the world about his shortcomings? Where are the videos of Haiti’s horror, split-screened with our president golfing? Where are the sound bites from desperate souls? “Obama, you have deserted us in our hour of need!!”
There is little or no criticism of President Obama. Because Big Media do not want to embarrass him. If his political enemies attack him over Haiti, Big Media will ignore them.
Why was there so much criticism of President Bush following Katrina? (Why did the press and celebrities berate him over our relief efforts following the Thai tsunami?) Because Big Media wanted to embarrass him. When his political enemies attacked him over Katrina, Big Media gave them foghorns.
Should President Obama be criticized over Haiti? I doubt it. Certainly not at this point. He took Haiti’s plight seriously and called forth the forces we could muster. And President Bush should never have been criticized over Katrina. He was equally as sincere in his efforts. Should we conduct post-mortems? To study mistakes and plan for better responses in future? Of course we should. With that sort of attitude instead of a scapegoat mentality.
The attacks on Bush were mud-slinging at its worst. The left saw a crisis far too good to waste. They politicized every scrap of it. Their efforts represent one of the most repugnant in our political and media histories.
Each president ordered federal machinery into action to help people caught up in disasters of immense proportions. Thousands of troops and volunteers, hundreds of churches and charities, doctors and nurses, many agencies and more put forth massive efforts to help the afflicted.
In one disaster Big Media abetted the savaging of a president and those around him. To gain political advantage. In the next disaster, they protected a president from criticism. To keep him looking good to the voters.
Fending off the criticism is proper, during the crisis. Putting it into perspective makes sense. Encouraging it and adding to it, to win votes for opponents, is about as sleazy as it gets.
From Tom ... as in Morgan.
For more columns and for Tom’s radio shows (and to write to Tom): tomasinmorgan.com.