I also don't understand how anyone can say that Captain McDronesBombingTheFuckOutOfMultipleCountriesDaily is somehow "soft" in his foreign policy dealings...
I also don't understand how anyone can say that Captain McDronesBombingTheFuckOutOfMultipleCountriesDaily is somehow "soft" in his foreign policy dealings...
Because he's sending robots to do a human's job!
I don't know about you but I find robots coming for me way scarier...
I also don't understand how anyone can say that Captain McDronesBombingTheFuckOutOfMultipleCountriesDaily is somehow "soft" in his foreign policy dealings...
Because he's sending robots to do a human's job!
I don't know about you but I find robots coming for me way scarier...
Well people in either Desert Storm or Iraqui Freedom would surrender to the UAV because they knew Naval gunfire was coming their way.
I just don't understand how anyone would perceive this to be a "coverup." It was an attack amidst a sea of various protests and a few riots in the region.
I'm astounded that people think that the US government can cover up shit-all. The couldn't cover up Watergate, or Clinton getting a blow-job in his office, and yet people think they can handle an actual large-scale conspiracy?
Not to mention, as someone who has worked on and off in the media for some time now, I don't think I've ever met someone in the media who, if the government came knocking and said "Do be a chap and put out this information instead of the truth", wouldn't laugh and have a story out about the Government trying to manipulate the media to cover up shady deeds before John Q Federale even left their office.
I just don't understand how anyone would perceive this to be a "coverup." It was an attack amidst a sea of various protests and a few riots in the region.
I'm astounded that people think that the US government can cover up shit-all. The couldn't cover up Watergate, or Clinton getting a blow-job in his office, and yet people think they can handle an actual large-scale conspiracy?
As someone who works for (but isn't employeed by) the government, trust me when I say there is absolutely nothing to worry about. They can barely tie their own shoes, let alone cover something up.
The whole semantic bullshit about the statements on September 12th is just that, semantic bullshit. But let me illustrate even further why it is bullshit:
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)
That was in Colorado on September 13th. So yeah, the notion put forth by Romney and Ryan, that it took the Obama administration "weeks" to declare the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism is utter and complete horseshit.
The whole semantic bullshit about the statements on September 12th is just that, semantic bullshit. But let me illustrate even further why it is bullshit:
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)
That was in Colorado on September 13th. So yeah, the notion put forth by Romney and Ryan, that it took the Obama administration "weeks" to declare the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism is utter and complete horseshit.
Yea I said this a page earlier, I find it funny that no one was able to refute that evidence.
One of my friends and I were actually discussing that last night, in the context of NPR and the more specific context of Planet Money and other shows that provide in depth analysis and examination of very specific issues. I see why people level that complaint at NPR, saying it has a Liberal Bias, since it certainly doesn't have a Conservative bias... but really they simply provide the facts of the matter, and sometimes some analysis. There are only a few shows I know that actually are opinion-based, and even those shows tend to try to provide both a (R) and (D).
Forum, let's discuss NPR. Do they really have a Liberal bias?
I think NPR suffers from the fairness fallacy way too often, more so than other, private networks in some cases. When I listen to Tell Me More on my way into work and I hear equal air (and sometimes equal weight in the form of affirming or encouraging (or even neutral) responses from the host) given to some real Right Wing or racist or homophobic or misogynistic crackpots, I want to tear my radio out.
Maybe they're just letting them hang themselves, sometimes, but when they frame it as "Well this crackpot also has some concerns to share, Crackpot?"
[CRACKPOT rants for 5 minutes about nonsense.]
"Oh, well, that's very interesting. Respected expert in the field, what can you add to that?"
ETC.
Sometimes, they ask some very superficially challenging questions, but way too often, Crackpot is treated as a respected guest. Fuck that. Courtesy is earned by people who actually participate in society instead of trying to knock it all down.
So why did Carney and Susan Rice continue to say the attack in Libya was because of a YouTube video?
After the debate Obama told the moderator that he waited two weeks before using the full terrorist designation for the attack because he wanted to be sure the intelligence was solid. So why did he blame the video so quickly and stick to that for two weeks?
So why did Carney and Susan Rice continue to say the attack in Libya was because of a YouTube video?
After the debate Obama told the moderator that he waited two weeks before using the full terrorist designation for the attack because he wanted to be sure the intelligence was solid. So why did he blame the video so quickly and stick to that for two weeks?
Did the speculation regarding the source of the attack change the official response to the attack in any way? I don't think it did. Why are you harping on this? Because you're desperate to criticize the president, evidently. This is the weakest possible of all criticisms and you sound like a fool beating it like a drum.
(The interviewer actually says "What it is like for you to hear the President of the United States call your dad a liar", but I'm pretty sure Obama never actually called Romney a liar, he only ever called out Romney's statements as untrue. BUT, I might have missed it if he did, I wasn't giving it my whole attention.)
After the debate Obama told the moderator that he waited two weeks before using the full terrorist designation for the attack because he wanted to be sure the intelligence was solid. So why did he blame the video so quickly and stick to that for two weeks?
I think you answered your own question there. To elaborate: People want to a reason for the attack. In a vacuum of plausible explanations, and with riots happening over the video, the administration seems to have taken the easy route and blamed the video. They stuck by it because that's what administrations do, until they had plausible in-why in god's name am I even arguing this, it has absolutely zero bearing on what happened in response.
I like the part where he reasons that he can't take a swing at Obama because of the Secret Service, and not because he's the fucking President of the United States of America, of which Tagg is a not only a citizen but a fairly well known politician's son. Uhh, hello?
Seriously, people in politics and their families used to be groomed to avoid these sort of terrible gaffes. Obviously they've learned it's not necessary anymore because half the country is in a fucking coma anyway and will never wake up.
Kids have always been kids. We pay way more attention to the detail of it now than we did in the past. I remember seeing news about who Chelsea Clinton was dating at times.
Comments
Or similarly, as Robert E. Lee once said:
Not to mention, as someone who has worked on and off in the media for some time now, I don't think I've ever met someone in the media who, if the government came knocking and said "Do be a chap and put out this information instead of the truth", wouldn't laugh and have a story out about the Government trying to manipulate the media to cover up shady deeds before John Q Federale even left their office.
FOR REALS.
Yea I said this a page earlier, I find it funny that no one was able to refute that evidence.
Forum, let's discuss NPR. Do they really have a Liberal bias?
Maybe they're just letting them hang themselves, sometimes, but when they frame it as "Well this crackpot also has some concerns to share, Crackpot?"
[CRACKPOT rants for 5 minutes about nonsense.]
"Oh, well, that's very interesting. Respected expert in the field, what can you add to that?"
ETC.
Sometimes, they ask some very superficially challenging questions, but way too often, Crackpot is treated as a respected guest. Fuck that. Courtesy is earned by people who actually participate in society instead of trying to knock it all down.
After the debate Obama told the moderator that he waited two weeks before using the full terrorist designation for the attack because he wanted to be sure the intelligence was solid. So why did he blame the video so quickly and stick to that for two weeks?
(The interviewer actually says "What it is like for you to hear the President of the United States call your dad a liar", but I'm pretty sure Obama never actually called Romney a liar, he only ever called out Romney's statements as untrue. BUT, I might have missed it if he did, I wasn't giving it my whole attention.)
Seriously, people in politics and their families used to be groomed to avoid these sort of terrible gaffes. Obviously they've learned it's not necessary anymore because half the country is in a fucking coma anyway and will never wake up.