https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/28/obama...errorists/
Headline says it all.

"For more than a year, the leaders entrusted to protect the country and administer justice on behalf of Americans victimized by terrorists instead used their awesome reach against a domestic political rival...."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/po...ws-904945/

"Two sets of headlines over the weekend described the suicide of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. From the Washington Post Sunday morning:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48

The Post has since rewritten that, though the description of an “austere religious scholar with wire-rimmed glasses” remains in the lead paragraph. Meanwhile, the headline on Foxnews.com:

Al-Baghdadi kill: how the daring military operation went down

The Post headline would fit a quiet academic who died in his sleep, not a genocidal jihadist leader. The Fox headline is less nuts, but still not quite right: al-Baghdadi wasn’t killed but reportedly committed suicide, while pursued by American “military dogs....”"


"...Meanwhile, in what increasingly feels like a monolithic bloc of anti-Trump media at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc., the Baghdadi headlines were a remarkable collection of angst-ridden talking points. Even if you’re not the kind of person who can ever celebrate a violent helicopter assault that results in the deaths of children – I count myself in that number – the difference in how this story was covered compared to analogous stories about bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was striking. Apparently, the salient facts about the death of al-Baghdadi included:


Trump didn’t “inform some key Democrats” about the operation;
Trump “notified Russians… before telling congressional leaders”;
The Baghdadi raid was “complicated” by Trump’s plans to withdraw from Syria, happening “in spite of” Trump, not because of him;
The raid was a “victory built on factors Trump derides” (i.e., it was a win by intelligence agencies Trump has criticized);
Trump’s gloating tone contrasted with the more “measured” tone of Barack Obama after the bin Laden operation;
The operation was like watching a movie, except “there was no live audio” (this was the New York Times where the “whimpering and crying” detail came from);
Trump is going to “milk” the political benefit of Baghdadi because he needs to, because of impeachment and other problems;
Trump’s situation room photo appeared more “staged” than Obama’s, experts said. In fact, they were taken before the raid even happened!..."

"...Trump is inspiring similar insanity now with Fox’s opposites at the Times, Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I’m no fan of Trump either, but this has gotten to the point where there’s no longer anyplace to go, if you’re looking for unslanted first-draft takes on news. I’m increasingly forced to turn to the BBC and AFP to try to grab raw quotes and numbers before spin doctors in American outlets have a chance to salt news with hot takes...."

(10-30-2019 09:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/po...ws-904945/

"Two sets of headlines over the weekend described the suicide of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. From the Washington Post Sunday morning:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48

The Post has since rewritten that, though the description of an “austere religious scholar with wire-rimmed glasses” remains in the lead paragraph. Meanwhile, the headline on Foxnews.com:

Al-Baghdadi kill: how the daring military operation went down

The Post headline would fit a quiet academic who died in his sleep, not a genocidal jihadist leader. The Fox headline is less nuts, but still not quite right: al-Baghdadi wasn’t killed but reportedly committed suicide, while pursued by American “military dogs....”"


"...Meanwhile, in what increasingly feels like a monolithic bloc of anti-Trump media at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc., the Baghdadi headlines were a remarkable collection of angst-ridden talking points. Even if you’re not the kind of person who can ever celebrate a violent helicopter assault that results in the deaths of children – I count myself in that number – the difference in how this story was covered compared to analogous stories about bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was striking. Apparently, the salient facts about the death of al-Baghdadi included:


Trump didn’t “inform some key Democrats” about the operation;
Trump “notified Russians… before telling congressional leaders”;
The Baghdadi raid was “complicated” by Trump’s plans to withdraw from Syria, happening “in spite of” Trump, not because of him;
The raid was a “victory built on factors Trump derides” (i.e., it was a win by intelligence agencies Trump has criticized);
Trump’s gloating tone contrasted with the more “measured” tone of Barack Obama after the bin Laden operation;
The operation was like watching a movie, except “there was no live audio” (this was the New York Times where the “whimpering and crying” detail came from);
Trump is going to “milk” the political benefit of Baghdadi because he needs to, because of impeachment and other problems;
Trump’s situation room photo appeared more “staged” than Obama’s, experts said. In fact, they were taken before the raid even happened!..."

"...Trump is inspiring similar insanity now with Fox’s opposites at the Times, Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I’m no fan of Trump either, but this has gotten to the point where there’s no longer anyplace to go, if you’re looking for unslanted first-draft takes on news. I’m increasingly forced to turn to the BBC and AFP to try to grab raw quotes and numbers before spin doctors in American outlets have a chance to salt news with hot takes...."

It was interesting to watch Geraldo Rivera last night totally lambast the left's headlines paper by paper and network by network, as Geraldo listed the litany of horrific murders and tortures carried out by this jihadist.

We got his number two guy on the 28th in Syria. Like I said the other day. Let's not give these thugs any press other than the announcement of their deaths. 2 down, next target up, and life goes on in the U.S. Nothing hurts them more than that.

Why should he inform "key democrat leaders"? How certain can we be that somebody as vengeful as Pelosi or Schumer would not find a way to leak the information in order to sabotage the mission, just to make Trump look bad.

And before you ask, no, I do not believe that either one of them possesses sufficient integrity not to do something like that.

(10-30-2019 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why should he inform "key democrat leaders"? How certain can we be that somebody as vengeful as Pelosi or Schumer would not find a way to leak the information in order to sabotage the mission, just to make Trump look bad.

And before you ask, no, I do not believe that either one of them possesses sufficient integrity not to do something like that.

Funny you say that.. I forgot where I read it, but I guess during a meeting before the raid, several key Dems were stating that he was being too soft on ISIS..

Then on SNL they did the "Making ISIS Great Again" skit.. A few hours later, boom...

I think he was wise to play it close to his chest... If they are going to act like children, they get treated like children, I mean 10 days prior Nancy stormed out of a briefing on Syria.