Martin Bashir, one of the most left-wing hosts on MSNBC, is apparently not liberal enough for Esquire’s Charles Pierce, who tore into Bashir’s show calling it a “moral nightmare.”
What sent Pierce into a frenzy was a segment on Bashir’s show on Monday of this week, where he discussed the Obama administration’s drone strike policy with MSNBC military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs, and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who Pierce called a “career military hawk.”
First, Jacobs explained the precision that the drones afford the military, and that the decisions to use them are made “at the highest possible level,” meaning Obama. That prompted Pierce to wonder exactly what the difference is between Obama’s decisions on who lives and dies by the use of drones and LBJ’s selection of bomb targets in North Vietnam, which liberals were harshly critical of at the time.
Next came O’Hanlon’s defense of the drones, in which he told Bashir that a majority of the 2,500 people who have been killed by the strikes have been terrorists. He said that the “moral justification” for using them was that they help keep our troops out of harms way, even though they are being used as part of an undeclared war against a country (Iran) we aren’t at war with, and whose government isn’t happy with us for doing so.
Yet despite Iran’s open hostility towards the U.S., we are supposed to care what they think?
But what seems to have irked Pierce the most is that a liberal host on a liberal network wasn’t able to find what he considers a credible liberal—O’Hanlon doesn’t count since according to Pierce he’s a hawk—to argue why using the drones is a bad idea. Apparently having O’Hanlon on was seen by Pierce as essentially justifying war on moral grounds, which runs counter to standard left-wing beliefs.
If Pierce can’t trust Bashir to do the Left’s bidding, then who can he trust?