Biden furious with ‘unduly hawkish’ media coverage of Afghanistan debacle: report

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

CHECK OUT for best SWAG!

President Joe Biden and his allies are reportedly “furious” at the media for covering them objectively for the first time since the president took office in January.

For the past seven months, the media have for the most part repeated the administration’s every talking point near-verbatim and stayed clear of seeking to hold the president accountable for virtually anything save, perhaps, for his taste in ice cream.

However, the administration’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan was so poorly executed and steeped in incompetence that even their sycophants in the mainstream press are now for the first time crying foul.

But according to Biden, this is a big no-no.

“Biden and his allies are furious with what they see as reporters’ and pundits’ unduly hawkish coverage of the exit,” HuffPost, a partisan left-wing website, lamented in an opinion “report” published Friday.

One of his allies is Obama era deputy press secretary Eric Schultz.

“The media tends to bend over backwards to ‘both-sides’ all of their coverage, but they made an exception for this,” Schultz complained to HuffPost.

“They both-sides coverage over masks, and vaccines, and school openings and everything else. Somehow [the Afghanistan withdrawal] created a rush to judgment and a frenzy that we haven’t seen in a long time.

He thinks that the media have provided fair and equal coverage to Republican talking points on issues such as masks, vaccines, etc. This, of course, is demonstrably false.

But on the issue of Afghanistan, he appears to think the media have chosen to focus in on only one side — the ostensibly neo-Republican side that’s been critical of the president’s botched withdrawal and has been demanding that he do something.

Far-left Sen. Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy adviser, Matt Duss, concurred.

“The extent to which the media is privileging voices who have gotten this wrong for years is ridiculous. What we’re seeing is an attempt by the Washington foreign policy establishment to expiate its sins of over 20 years by putting this on the Biden administration,” he said to HuffPost.

According to an unnamed “source close to the White House,” the media have been seduced by the “blob” that is the foreign policy establishment.

“They are elevating the Blob, whose members spent years lying about progress in Afghanistan. The result is that many in the press are left effectively endorsing the view that the U.S. should have sent more American service members into Afghanistan to fight and die to stop another Taliban offensive — despite supposedly being impartial,” the source said.

If they perhaps are being partisan — versus objective for the first time since Biden took office — it may be because there are tens of thousands of U.S. citizens and Afghan allies stranded in Afghanistan, fearful of possible execution.

Here’s the thing: All evidence points to the conclusion that this could have been prevented.

“[T]he White House should have done more to protect American citizens and allies in Afghanistan. The administration could have better prepared for mass evacuations at Kabul’s airport,” New York magazine notes.

“It could have expedited the processing of the 18,000 applications in the the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program’s backlog.”

It could have also left the Trump administration’s crisis evacuation agency intact, initiated the Civil Reserve Air Fleet early instead of waiting until the last minute and maintained control of Bagram Air Base instead of abandoning it.

The president failed to do what was necessary, disaster resulted and now he’s finally being held accountable because even members of the left-wing media recognize that what happened in Afghanistan is unacceptable, full stop.

But according to him and his allies, THIS is what’s truly unacceptable.

“People now say to me and others — many of you say it on air — ‘Why did we have to move because no Americans were being attacked? Why did we agree to withdraw 2,500 troops when no Americans were being attacked?'” the president complained Friday in an attempt to divert attention from his failed withdrawal.

But as noted by numerous critics, for most people — certainly most Americans, according to polling data — the issue isn’t that he carried out the withdrawal of U.S. troops that began under the Trump administration.

The issue is that he carried out the withdrawal in the worst way possible …


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles