Summary: A CNN exchange highlighted a charged question about past drone programs and current strikes, exposing what a commentator called a double standard in how the media and Democrats react to presidential uses of force.
If Barack Obama were blowing up narco-terrorists, would Democrats and the media be in an uproar? The scene on national television made the point bluntly: selective outrage looks political, not principled. Operation Southern Spear has been described as precise strikes against narco-terrorist targets in the Caribbean, and normal voters mostly see it as law enforcement and defense, not an illegal war.
Last night on Abby Phillip’s show, CNN commentator Scott Jennings put the question directly to his liberal co-panelists and pinned them with history and logic. He asked, “Did you ever ask or wonder if Obama was committing war crimes?” and then pressed for who actually said it at the time. The exchange forced Democrats to acknowledge that there was criticism in the Obama era, but it also exposed how outrage ebbs and flows depending on who’s in the White House.
Jennings brought up the so-called Disposition Matrix and the drone strike program that unfolded under Obama, a campaign that included roughly 500 strikes. Those operations killed militants, but they also produced civilian casualties and stirred legal and ethical questions that were debated in think tanks and on talk shows. If critics demanded accountability then, the commentator argued, they can’t act surprised when similar questions get raised about strikes under a different administration.
Scott Jennings: “Did you ever ask or wonder if Obama was committing war crimes?”
Jeff Flake: “Yes.”
Abby Phillip: “For the record, okay, for the record, there was bipartisan outrage over President Obama’s very liberal use of drone strikes.”
Scott Jennings: “Did anybody say Obama committed war crimes?”
Abby Phillip: “Hold on a second, yes.”
Scott Jennings: “Who?”
Abby Phillip: “Many people did. Many conservatives, many liberals did.”
Emma Vigeland: “We’re not at war with Venezuela.”
Scott Jennings: “We’re at war with narco-terrorists.”
The exchange put a spotlight on the broader point that America has been engaging armed groups without formal declarations of war since World War II, a reality many recognize whether they like it or not. Pop culture captured that awkward truth in Wag the Dog, and the practical reality is messy: presidents use military and paramilitary tools to remove threats while evading full-scale war rhetoric. That creates debate, but it also invites a consistent standard rather than episodic outrage driven by partisanship.
Critics on the left are treating the recent strikes as if they’re unprecedented and unlawful, while ignoring the precedent of previous administrations. The political effect of that posture is predictable: voters see coordinated denunciations as partisan theater. When a Republican president authorizes targeted strikes that disrupt drug-running terror networks, many Americans treat it as a legitimate defense of borders and interests, not a legal free-for-all.
There’s also a practical argument embedded in the television back-and-forth: narco-terrorists are not ordinary criminals and they operate with transnational reach, often using terror tactics to protect trafficking operations. Calling them what they are reframes the strikes as counterterrorism, not imperial aggression. That framing matters in public debate because wartime language and legal frameworks carry weight with jurists and diplomats, but voters care most about safety and results.
Beyond the policy debate, the segment made clear that rhetorical tactics influence public perception. When commentators point out old controversies like Databases, drone lists, and civilian deaths under previous administrations, they’re asking for consistent scrutiny now. If media and Democratic figures want to apply the same ethical standard they claimed under past presidents, they need to be willing to do it across administrations and not just when a political advantage appears.
Finally, the television moment was also entertainment for partisans: commentators like Scott Jennings seized a live mic to corner co-panelists into specific answers, and some guests provided them. Jeff Flake was an easy target, and the exchange reminded viewers that certain pundits and politicians show up repeatedly in these debates for predictable lines. For anyone watching, the takeaways were simple: question the selective moralizing, demand consistent application of scrutiny, and remember that voters notice when outrage looks strategic.
