NewsBreakingOnline

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday went to great pains illustrating the similarities between President Obama's Libya address to the nation and his December 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Not surprisingly, the devout dove suddenly turned hawk chose not to discuss the irony (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW: Whether or not you like this intervention in Libya, it is clear that the President's explanation for why it is justified matches what he said he would do with military force, what he would see as the justifiable use of the U.S. military. It is clear that it matches what he said about that issue at the very start of his presidency, when in his first year as president he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Maddow then played a clip from that acceptance speech back in December 2009, and a part of Monday’s address containing some similar language and concepts, after which she continued: MADDOW: 2009, “America cannot act alone.” 2011, “The burden of action should not be America’s alone.” Whether you are for or against American participation in an international intervention like this war in Libya, it is the type of intervention that this president said at the outset he would favor as president. As for the differences between him and the previous guy, as for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq. So, rather than point out the hypocrisy not only in Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize months before he expanded the war in Afghanistan and started a new one in Libya, but also in these speeches having any similarity at all, she instead made the case that such likeness was a good thing while taking the opportunity to bash Bush. Truth be told, we have entered a new era in liberal media bias when doves are growing talons before our very eyes. Let's understand that we have absolutely no idea how this incursion is going to turn out for America, Libya, or this region. This is complicated by our very involvement in humanitarian military missions in the past being by no means without their disappointments and casualties. Despite this, devout, military-hating leftists have lost the ability and/or the desire to express any skepticism concerning this legislatively un-sanctioned mission. Like her colleague Ed Schultz, it appears Maddow's devotion to Obama has trumped all her natural, lifelong anti-war instincts. Between the two of them, the past ten days have been like watching Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders root for the New York Giants. I can't wait to see what color her pom poms will be tomorrow.