Thread by @DrewHolden360

🧵Thread🧵

It seems not all pointless foreign wars are created equally in the eyes of the Democrats, the media, and the chattering class.

When Trump hit Syria, it was an outrage. But under Biden? Well, apparently things are different.⤵️

I’ll get to the usual structure in a second but I had to start with this beauty from @Lawrence.

You may remember that, when a strike was carried out without congressional approval under Trump, it was met with immediate blowback in Congress.

But now, when @SpeakerPelosi has the ability to actually bring the House back in session, we get crickets.

Funny, that.

There were a lot of Dems in the House saying the same thing. Here is @RepBarbaraLee, who was VERY upset about the “beyond unconstitutional” strike in the Trump years.

Any reason you aren’t saying the same thing now, Rep. Lee?

Will👏we👏get👏clap👏hands👏this👏time?

Do we think that @tedlieu believes the move by Biden is “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” or “ILLEGAL” too?

If so, it would be a good time for him to say so.

And we’ve gotten nothing but silence from @PramilaJayapal, who seems less interested in the prospect that striking Syria would “let our country careen into more war” this time around.

Their fellows in the Senate were similarly incensed.

One Senator in particular comes to mind. You may remember @KamalaHarris, current US Vice President of the United States, was deeply upset about Trump’s move.

TBD on her running mate’s

She wasn’t alone in the administration. @jrpsaki’s old tweet has gotten new attention.

Wonder if we’ll get to hear how things are different this time?

Anyone awake from Congressional Democrats on this? Are we just taking today off?

Also very curious how @MSNBC frames the issue then vs. now.

And MSNBC highlights a pattern here. I want you to tell me if you can spot the difference for how @nytimes framed Trump’s strikes vs. Biden’s.

Biden’s move was “carefully calibrated” whereas Trump “talked tough. But his strike on Syria was restrained.”

It isn’t a compliment.

The most egregious might be @NPR.

What about this times’ critics, NPR? Do we get to hear from them?

Anyone else remember the last time @ABC talked about a President striking Syria?

At least they got real footage this time!

Can you spot the difference in coverage from @CNBC ?

And no media call-out section could be complete without mentioning @CNN.

The blue checks have a way of getting out over their skis on this stuff.

Or surely @davidfrum is just hard at work on his additional reasons for why striking Syria without congressional approval is bad?

And speaking of people who pushed lies about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may remember that, in 2017, @MaxBoot finally found a Middle East conflict he didn’t like.

Thankfully we’re back to normal now.

You all beat me to @DavidAFrench

Also, as @NumbersMuncher pointed out back in 2017, it’s impossible to talk about hypocrisy on Syria and not talk about President Trump’s complete and total about face.

So we get a new episode on Syria, @iamjohnoliver?

You may remember that, last time, @ACLU was all over Trump’s Syria strikes.

We haven’t heard anything from them this time. It seems they’re tied up fighting for equal pay and against transphobia in women’s sports, or something.

No thread could be complete without a mention of @JoyAnnReid, who is no longer interested in national security risks for such things (or anything Syria related).

It’s since been deleted - and from behind the block - the real hypocrisy winner in all this might be @amy_siskind, with just a true galaxy brain perspective.

Partisan excuses for unilateral presidential action are nothing new - especially where war is concerned - but this is just shameless.

Can we at least get an excuse? Or maybe a shred of media interest in the flip-flop?

It’s just gonna be four years of this isn’t it.