After Obama decided on military action without Congressional approval, almost no stories mention 'executive order' or national emergency or the Constitutionality of this decision; in stark contrast to stories on Trump's border decision, which has always been framed by in these terms.
Unlike with Trump's border action, stories before Obama declared his emergency order are bland, milquetoast fare.
Five days later, CNN ran a headline framing the President's decision in his own terms: 'Obama: Not acting in Libya "Would have been a betrayal of who we are"'; the Washington Post did similarly in their story 'Obama: US had responsibility to act in Libya'.
After several members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, publicly expressed concerns that the Libyan missile strikes were not constitutional, and might actually merit impeachment, CBS News ran the story 'Is Obama's Libya offensive constitutional?' At that point, an accurate headline would have mentioned the Congressional criticism Obama was receiving.
The Economist was asking 'Can Donald Trump use emergency powers to build a southern-border wall?' even before Trump created the emergency order;the same publication not only didn't question Obama's Libya actions, it celebrated them with the glowing headline: 'The birth of an Obama doctrine'.
Unlike their convoluted framing of Obama's Libya decision, the Times explicitly references in its pull-no-punches headline the emergency device the president will use: 'As Congress Passes Spending Bill, Trump Plans National Emergency to Build Border Wall'.
How different the world might be if 'using an executive order to demand Libya strikes' had been a headline during Obama's administration.
https://spectator.us/national-emergency-president/
Unlike with Trump's border action, stories before Obama declared his emergency order are bland, milquetoast fare.
Five days later, CNN ran a headline framing the President's decision in his own terms: 'Obama: Not acting in Libya "Would have been a betrayal of who we are"'; the Washington Post did similarly in their story 'Obama: US had responsibility to act in Libya'.
After several members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, publicly expressed concerns that the Libyan missile strikes were not constitutional, and might actually merit impeachment, CBS News ran the story 'Is Obama's Libya offensive constitutional?' At that point, an accurate headline would have mentioned the Congressional criticism Obama was receiving.
The Economist was asking 'Can Donald Trump use emergency powers to build a southern-border wall?' even before Trump created the emergency order;the same publication not only didn't question Obama's Libya actions, it celebrated them with the glowing headline: 'The birth of an Obama doctrine'.
Unlike their convoluted framing of Obama's Libya decision, the Times explicitly references in its pull-no-punches headline the emergency device the president will use: 'As Congress Passes Spending Bill, Trump Plans National Emergency to Build Border Wall'.
How different the world might be if 'using an executive order to demand Libya strikes' had been a headline during Obama's administration.
https://spectator.us/national-emergency-president/
No comments:
Post a Comment