I just looked at the wire reports of Bush's speech at the Knesset. The major outlets are buzzing about the unfairness of what they perceive as a slam on their favorite candidate, Barack Obama.Here is CNN:
"In veiled attack, Bush criticizes Dems for terrorist 'appeasement'"
.
First paragraphs:
President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II.
The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.
After Bush's comments were widely reported, the White House denied they were an attack aimed at Obama.
According to Obama's Web site, he favors "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, and is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."
He does not favor talks with Hamas, which the U.S. government has listed as a terrorist group.
(AP photo via CNN)
.
McClatchy and the New York Times and others join CNN in the the whinefest.
.
At McClatchy, the main story seems to be Obama's hurt feelings. The McClatchy headline: Obama slams Bush over 'appeasement' remark in Israel.
.
More whining from the New York Times: "Bush Speech Criticized as Attack on Obama"
.
More whining at the International Herald Tribune: "Bush issues veiled attack on Obama"
.
If you want to know what Bush really said, you'll get better information from bloggers than CNN and McClatchy and the New York Times, who are now acting more like Obama superdelegates than reporters of news.
.
.
The media's rush to defend Obama not only shows the left-wing tilt, it also illustrates how media has failed to inform Americans about the threats posed by terrorists - particularly threats against Israel.
