Thread by @AG_Conservative

So let's talk about that Omar video. I watched the whole thing before commenting.

Her comments in the video can be interpreted in two ways:

1) We should focus anti-terror methods on white men bc they are biggest threat.

2) We should not let fear dictate anti-terror policies.

The shorter viral clip makes you likely to assume she meant 1. The longer clip can fairly be interpreted either way depending on whether you want to give Omar the benefit of the doubt.

A lot of people on the right did not give her that benefit.

Usually this is one of those political fights that each tribe just assumes they are right and doesn't matter much. No one's opinion about Omar will change much because of it. Especially since some people will clearly defend her regardless what she says.

But once again the media tried to tip the scales. Instead of simply reporting on it as a political fight that was up for interpretation, they chose a side. Something everyone and their mother knows they would never do if a Republican was in the same position.

Instead of saying "the longer video provides context that could lead to a different interpretation," the press accused those that didn't give her the benefit of the doubt of smearing her.

Ex: vox.com/policy-and-pol…
thehill.com/homenews/senat…
washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/…

When would these outlets ever jump in to defend a Republican based on context? Especially when interpretation isn't clear.

Also, I do like The Hill referring to Hasan as a "reporter" and sharing his ridiculous assertion that attacking Omar is inciting death threats.

And that's the problem. It's fine if these were open partisans, but you can't pretend to be neutral gatekeepers while you're constantly picking and spinning for one side.

It's just not credible.