Obama Press Secretary unsure if U.S. troops in Afghanistan are terrorists
At a press briefing at the White House today a member of the press corps asked Jay Carney, in light of the Boston bombings, whether a U.S. airstrike earlier this month resulting in the unintended deaths of eleven people claimed to be civilians could be called an act of terrorism. In what seems to be been an unprecedented response the official public representative of the President of the United States declined to defend the American service members involved or draw conclusions as to whether or not they were committing acts of terrorism.
Category: Foreign Policy, Media
Jellyfish are equally spineless, but lead much happier lives.
___other___ucker
What a fuckin’ wiener.
Should I die on the battlefield, I hereby bequeath my spine to Jay Carney.
Thats probably because, by US Government definition, it could be construed as terrorism.
“…claimed to be civilians”. By who, the Taliban?
Oh, yeah, Jay Carney, boy-child, is a total douche.
Goes to show the complete and total lack of the military and warfare by the pukes in the current administration.
If they have any evidence that a commander deliberatly targeted civilians by order or implication the commander would ( and should) be in custody.
Terrorists attacks target civilians, legitimate military actions may cause civilian casualties through miscommunication, failure of hardware or enemy action, but aren’t the same thing.
“Thats probably because, by US Government definition, it could be construed as terrorism.”
No, that’s probably because Jay Carney is an asshole–as is the fool who asked him the question.
The US troops must be the enemy, too. Why? Because others regard them as the enemy. Maybe I should watch the clip but I don’t want to have to patch a wall–again.
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!
When did HAMAS get a press seat at the White House?
Nice fuckin’ segue bitch! To conflate a terrorist act against runners in the Boston marathon – vice – military actions against AQ in a warzone.
Jay Smarmy tapdances around Al Jazeera’s question. Classic WH press secretary bullshit.
I would like to put up a large billboard on the commuter routes into Chitown:
Jay Carney is a spineless asshole who works for a spineless asshole.
I just don’t have the money for that right now.
@13 – If I knew your address, I’d send you the money. (But I don’t think the billboard would last too long, but it’d be worth seeing.)
#14 – Thanks for the offer, but hang onto your cash. There’s always a way. 🙂
This guy is a clown.
GT, using more than one word? D’you need a gift certificate for Massage Envy, so you can unwind?
Oh, fudging statistics by Bodaprez!
Almost forgot about that.
90% of Americans, huh? Didn’t ask me? I said ‘no’ to this legislation in every survey I answered. 80% of Republicans? What Republicans was he talking to?
I see this as further proof that B. Hussein 0bama & Co. WILL NOT pass on any opportunity to spit on us Vets, Carney makes a jellyfish look rock solid!
@17.
Touche.
What a tool……. Then again calling him a tool isn’t fair because tools are useful
You know what? I watched this, and I’m going to disagree with you guys here. I feel like he deflected the question (He’s a press guy, that’s what they do!), and said straight out that ‘We have US forces involved in a war zone, that was planned in Afghanistan and assisted by the Taliban’. He basically told her to A) Don’t be stupid, there’s a war on, and B) Don’t forget who started it and C) Piss off and ask the DoD.
Watching him, he thought carefully about how to respond….And for that his restraint is WAY better than most here. My answer would’ve been much more succinct.
PressSec ANCCPT: “No, you dumb twat, there’s a war on and the Taliban likes to use human shields. Now can I get a question from someone who doesn’t suck at their job?”
@22. Okay, I watched the first 30 seconds. That was enough for me. The questioner ashed whether he considers a bombing earlier this month to be a form of terrorism. Carneyval’s opening, “Well, I would have to know more about the incident….” Done. Wrong answer. He represents the White House and, as such, the United Styates and the commander in chief of our Armed Forces. No slack. None.
Air Cav, you’re looking at this from our point of view, which is a soldiers point of view. We like short, direct and to the point. This guy is anything but: He’s a mouthpiece for a Chicago trained political machine. He’s a wordsmith. I don’t disagree with the premise of what you’re saying, but this administration isn’t exactly known for expressing unequivocal views on things. He was about as clear as they ever are.
That said, I truly don’t believe there are many people in DC that say what they mean anymore (except for Joe Biden, bless his senile old heart). The ones that do tend to get excoriated by the media.
And, think about it, what has been the main goal of this administration in terms of press relations? Risk mitigation. They try so hard to not say anything offensive that they end up either looking like they are either clueless, wimps or like they actively support the other side.
@24. I respect your view and I like it when reasonable people disagree with a majority view. (Reasonable excludes Joe and PornoSippy, of course.) Not all spokesmouths have to equivocate. I expect that sort of thing from the State Dept. and, yes, I am not surprised when THIS admin’s mouthpiece has a go at fence sittiing. But there are times when playing neutral and sidestepping an issue until it can be weighed for political fallout is simply wrongheaded and mistaken. In my view, this was one of those times. Carney could have said many things. It’s not a matter of Monday morning q’backing. How about, “I resent the question. American troops do not engage in terrorism. In point of fact, we are–and have been–in far away lands, at great personal risk to our troops, for the very purpose of quashing terrorism.”
Anonymous(25): agreed. The fact that Carney didn’t reply with something similar to what you suggested is proof positive that the man is a fool and is out of his depth.
ANCCPT: Anytime a reasonable person goes against the popular grain, it garners my respect. (Of course, ‘reasonable person’ excludes Joe and PornoSippy). I understand that very often a spokesman must parse his words and essentially say little or nothing, at least until the potential political fallout of an honest response is considered off camera. I certainly expect the sort of answer Jay Carneyval gave to be appropriate for, say, the state Dept. But, in this instance, he could have said many things, including, “I resent the implication of your question. Our troops are not terrorists or engaged in terrorism. In point of fact, they are in distant lands for the express aim of quashing terrorism. Next question.” Mealy-mouthed fence sitting on this topic is flat-out wrong for the spokesman of the American forces’ C-in-C.
Man. What a mess. I was 25–and never saw it posted. So, I rewrote as best I could recall and, thus, a similar reply is in cmt 27. Sorry.
Fuck this president and his administration.
@26–and as the spokesman for the administration goes, so goes the administration.
I agree w @25 – that would have been a much better, and definitive response to the question.
That said, I must admit I enjoyed watching Carney tap dance around the the “do you still beat your wife” style question. It’s the same BS tactics the Chicago machine uses against anyone who doesn’t carry their water….
My .02
http://imageshack.us/a/img593/2035/document4.jpg
Was it terrorism or not? I don’t know. But you’d have to be blind no to notice the dichotomy between the response to one American child being tragically killed in Boston, which generates front page news and anguish around the country, and the response to scores of childresn killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, which merits barely a shrug. What’s up with that kind of double standard?
Joe, all I can say at this point is, you don’t know because you don’t want to know. And what I don’t know is why you come here and toss a turd in the punchbowl, every single time without fail.
re #33
What defines terrorism, and much else, isn’t the result. It’s the intent. If you can’t navigate the comparative morality of the two scenarios you’ve outlined then deserve all the contempt heaped on you here.
re #32
Is that yours? Do you have a signed version?
I don’t know why this is complicated. One little picture can sum it up nicely.
Bah. Ok. Image tags aren’t supported. Here you go:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wqt94YtMCAY/UHEGNlmr2eI/AAAAAAAAELc/55oDVlsx6xY/s1600/SOLDIERS+OF+ISRAEL+AND+OF+ARABS-3.jpg
#36
Yes it’s mine. The original I sent to the White House had my signature. I’m currently finishing law school and in the beginning stages of applying to receive a JAG commission so I wasn’t sure it would be prudent to post it to the internet with my name included.
re #39
Fair enough. Good luck.
re #39
Much appreciated, I’m going to need it. My background helps but with so few slots it’s still ridiculously competitive.
[…] 2009 Cairo speech. Jay Carney is the White House Press Secretary, the same man who recently couldn’t find the moral clarity to reject the notion that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are […]
Got a response…I may as well have asked for a pony.
http://imageshack.us/a/img405/6371/09uy.jpg