See what you want to see…”Faces? What faces?”

The Washington Post echoed the consensus of the news media by reporting that the White House has apologized for not treating the anti-terrorism march in Paris with the respect and attention it deserved. “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

Oh, that’s an apology now?

Interesting, given that the word “apology” was notably absent from the statement. I will await, then, an admission from the horde of Obama defenders, like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and many others in the “We come to praise Obama, not to critique him” brigade that has guarded the Presidents flanks for going on seven years now, an admission that our President did indeed go on an “apology tour” around the world, regretting past U.S. policy of every sort. Over at the New York Times where Krugman reigns, the then-public editor Arthur Brisbane declared in 2012 that Mitt Romney was lying when he called Obama’s various mea culpas apologies, writing.

[P]erhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less: “The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

Funny: if that’s the standard for what an apology is—actually using the word “apology”—then the White House hasn’t apologized for embarrassing the nation and insulting the world.  You just can’t have it both ways.

Well, maybe you can, if you’re Barack Obama. My assessment is that Democrats, the White House and the President rely upon the news media to make sure that he can have it both ways, and also counts on the short memories of the public to let him get away with it. This was an apology because it reflects well, or at least better, on the President. The spate of earlier speeches expressing regret and shame at past U.S. actions were not apologies, because that’s the spin Obama wanted to prevail when he was being criticized during the 2012 campaign. Of course the news media complied.

This still predominant instinct in the news media—incredibly—is on display in the Post news story today, by Greg Jaffe and Katie Zezima, about the Paris botch. It has boot-licking passages such as this:

“Obama has tended to take a cold-eyed view of war and peace that has played down the cultivation of personal relationships with fellow leaders and, at times, placed a priority on talking with enemies, said White House officials and foreign policy analysts. “He sees [foreign policy] as a giant puzzle,” a senior administration official said, “an intellectual problem to be solved.”

That’s right: Obama allowed this incredibly stupid incident to occur because he’s so darn intellectual. This may set a record for confirmation bias. Now I tend to think that when leaders repeatedly do dumb things, its because they don’t know what the hell they are doing, not because they are approaching their job as “an intellectual problem to be solved.” Then there’s this paragraph:

“Earnest declined to say who inside the White House was responsible for selecting the senior U.S. representative at the rally, though he said it was ‘not a decision that was made by the president.’ Still, the decision offered some insight into how Obama has managed his relationships with European leaders, who have sometimes felt neglected by a White House focused on the Middle East and Asia.”

What? The man is the President: the decision not to go by definition is his decision. This is called “avoiding accountability.” If the decision wasn’t made by the President, how could it “offer insight” on “how Obama has managed his relationships with European leaders”? It only offers insight on how disengaged and incompetent he is, and how he allows ideologues, political hacks and incompetents to make key decisions for him.

Naturally, we get this from the Post…

“Several leading Republicans criticized the Obama administration for not having a more prominent presence at the rally.”

…continuing the threadbare narrative that it’s the mean old Republicans who keep unfairly finding fault with this brilliant, unappreciated leader, and finally this:

“For all the hubbub in Washington, the supposed snub caused few ripples in Paris, where attention remained focused Monday on the historic nature of Sunday’s march — and the continued security threat facing the nation.”

Got that? “Supposed” snub. And look: no harm done! What’s all the hue and cry about? Damn Republicans.

Nah, there’s no media bias.

________________________

Source: Washington Post