On Thursday, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz informed his dwindling audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose conflict in Syria, conservative lawmakers who oppose war do so only because they hate Obama.
He also blamed George W. Bush for Obama’s inability to cobble together an international coalition.
Schultz started the segment by asking what it takes to get Republicans to support Obama’s air strike.
More than once, Schultz said he agrees with those who oppose conflict in Syria, but “for completely different reasons.”
But Schultz said Republicans “don’t hate war, they hate this guy, Barack Hussein Obama” pointing to a picture of the president standing with Joe Biden.
“They just cannot stomach the fact that they might be agreeing with him,” Schultz added.
He went on to attack Donald Rumsfeld, saying the former defense secretary “lied” America into a conflict in Iraq, but now opposes war “because he doesn’t like the president.”
Schultz then played a clip of Rumsfeld explaining to CNN why he believes Obama’s latest adventure is a bad idea.
The MSNBC host then told his dwindling audience that the reason Obama can’t build a coalition of allies is because the Bush administration “lied to the world about the war in Iraq.”
“We now have a credibility issue because of this crowd,” Schultz claimed, ignoring Obama’s own “red line” statement and his subsequent claim that the “world” set the so-called red line instead of him.
Schultz then cherry-picked clips of former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum from the 2012 primary and blamed him for Obama’s inability to build an international coalition.
Of the 199 members of Congress opposing action in Syria, 145 are Republicans and Tea Partiers, Schultz said.
He went on to excoriate conservatives, who he claimed never turned from war, and played clips of prominent Republicans calling for support of war in Iraq.
Ironically, Schultz reiterated his opposition to war, saying he doesn’t believe in international intervention, and echoed the concerns of many — including conservatives — who say the outcome is uncertain.
But Schultz maintained the only reason conservatives don’t support action in Syria is their alleged hatred for a black president, all the while failing to address the nature of those Obama and others are asking America to support.
Schultz said he even called for a “no” vote on war, telling his audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose war in Syria, it’s not okay for conservatives to oppose war in Syria, because he believes his motives are pure.
“But my motives are a heck of a lot different than the motives of these conservatives,” he claimed.
Schultz then asked his audience to participate in a poll asking if conservatives oppose war because they hate Obama.
Over 89 percent of the 1,400 people who answered the poll said “yes.” Just over 10 percent said no.
Later, Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., told Schultz that Republicans are “weakening the military” with budgetary policies, and simply want to oppose Obama.
Nevertheless, he said he could not support Obama because there’s not enough information indicating a military strike is the right thing to do. He also told Schultz that his constituents oppose war by a factor of 15-1.
Jon Soltz of Votevets.org told Schultz that 78 percent of his members are against conflict in Syria.
“There are a lot of veterans that are — liberal, Republican, progressive — it doesn’t matter,” he said.
It’s simply another example of the liberal double-standard we have all come to expect from the alleged “news” network known as MSNBC.
