You can’t say you weren’t warned. J.E. Dyer’s post yesterday on the blood lust exhibited by the anti-Trump media came well before Trump National Security Adviser and retired General Mike Flynn officially tendered his resignation, though the handwriting was on the wall. It was also on social media, where members of the press began celebrating early with tweets like “One down, four hundred to go.” (I guess liberals have conveniently forgotten their seething outrage when Rush Limbaugh said at roughly the same point in Barack Obama’s presidency that he hoped Obama would fail.)
(J.E. will have much more to say about the Flynn departure and the media reaction to it in a major post. This is merely a warm-up act.)
So now that Flynn’s departure is a done deal, what are members of the elite media saying? Here via The Guardian is MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe:
Cast your mind back to four months ago, when Donald Trump was just a long-shot candidate with a hot-headed adviser by the name of Michael Flynn.
It was the homestretch of the presidential election and national security wasn’t some side issue, mentioned in passing. Trump promised he would be a tough national security president with the toughest national security team.
In fact, one of his favorite arguments was that Hillary Clinton couldn’t be trusted with the country’s national security because, he claimed, she couldn’t be trusted with her private email server.
It sounded ridiculous at the time. But after a month of this gonzo president, our memories are already fading. Propaganda will do that to you, as George Orwell warned us all in 1984.
Putting aside the over-the-top rhetoric (“gonzo” president?), Wolffe’s argument — that Clinton would have somehow been a better pick — is absurd…