Jon Stewart Destroys Obama's Former Press Secretary Over Drone Hypocrisy

[chance1]

Jon Stewart took former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to task for his admission that he lied about drones to the press corps and the american people

Stewart ended up concluding, in essence, that press secretaries are hired to deceive Americans. He called Gibbs a "human shield against what we on Earth call what’s actually going on."

how can we believe anything that Jay Carney says ? and I don't



http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-s...ly-show-2013-2

[JayHawk]

You also left out that Stewart equally trashed Bush's press secretary as an exclamation point. Is it astonishing to anyone that press releases are not all the information that the Executive has on different items?

I get people's desire to make a case out of drone usage. In fact, as I have said before, I welcome it. We need to drive Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC) revision to include provisions guiding the use of automated force. LoAC is not followed in its entirety in any war, but it provides standing in the worlds eyes for international disagreement resolution. We need those agreed uses in place prior to nations we would call rogue acquire the technology.

Imagine a nuclear Pakistan (ok got it) with a deteriorating Government that is being subverted by Radical Islamist (ok got it) with a drone to hug the coast and fly north over our unprotected border with Mexico. maybe it has just one teensy weensy nuc bomb on board....

We need a method to restrict the items required and the only way to get those sort of sanction is through international agreements like the various provisions of LoAC. Perhaps it will be called something different and remain separate ... it does not matter. We need international backing.

[chance1]

Stewart's riff about "analo-glasses" was hilarious

And his basic premise that once a liar always a liar was spot on

Gibbs of course is doing the msnbc shuffle and

He's a journalist ? He's a liar

Proven so

And not to be taken seriously or as honest

Which msnbc doesn't take issue with

[Sausy]

It's good to see some intellectual honesty(by Jon Stewart and by JayHawk) regarding the drone stuation. It's something that if we don't act in concert with others internationally can literally come back to bite us in the ass in a most devastating and unintended way.

[Just_Believe18]

I am always leery of high-profile government officials beginning to work with partisan media. The Republican party does this with Fox news and clearly former members of the Obama Administration is doing the same with MSNBC. Although I often agree with MSNBC's commentary, it does not help to design a partisan network as a counter to the joke that is Fox News.

I find that the position of Press Secretary is inherently corrupting. You are only allowed to speak to the message the White House wants you to give to the Press. It is impossible to answer all of the Press' questions with truth and transparency. The federal government is naturally secretive over its actions. The drone program was a new, secretive operation during that time, and the Obama Administration has spent years slowly revealing it to the public on its own time. I don't think that's right, but under any Republican or Democrat administration, I don't see how it would be any different. We went through the exact same thing for 8 years under the Bush White House.

[rareboy]

^ Quoted for truth.

The US has crafted the position of ministry of propaganda into one person wearing a flak jacket who gets to stand in front of the ravening press corps and dleiver nothing but platitudes, talking points and outright lies.

Why the American people put up with this charade is beyond me.

Having said that, I'll bet that 75% of the country was happier not knowing about a drone program that has picked off 4700 people. It is the actual knowing about it that now forces coming to terms with it. But I also understand that 83% of Americans approve of the drone program.

[xbuzzerx]

I am always leery of high-profile government officials beginning to work with partisan media. The Republican party does this with Fox news and clearly former members of the Obama Administration is doing the same with MSNBC. Although I often agree with MSNBC's commentary, it does not help to design a partisan network as a counter to the joke that is Fox News.

I find that the position of Press Secretary is inherently corrupting. You are only allowed to speak to the message the White House wants you to give to the Press. It is impossible to answer all of the Press' questions with truth and transparency. The federal government is naturally secretive over its actions. The drone program was a new, secretive operation during that time, and the Obama Administration has spent years slowly revealing it to the public on its own time. I don't think that's right, but under any Republican or Democrat administration, I don't see how it would be any different. We went through the exact same thing for 8 years under the Bush White House.

On the issue of transparency however it's worth noting that the Bush Administration actually placed plants in the crowd of reporters to give softball questions like "how did you like my Christmas card" and similar.

[palemale]

Deceiving the public regarding military and intelligence matters is the one area of bipartisanship in America. The very act of classifying documents and information leads to deception. I'm not so naive to think that nothing should be classified. However, by being in continuous war mode, we have a government in continuous deception. As the ancient Greek playwright, Aeschylus, said before the birth of Christ, "In war, truth is the first casualty."

[JayHawk]

I am always leery of high-profile government officials beginning to work with partisan media. The Republican party does this with Fox news and clearly former members of the Obama Administration is doing the same with MSNBC. Although I often agree with MSNBC's commentary, it does not help to design a partisan network as a counter to the joke that is Fox News.

I find that the position of Press Secretary is inherently corrupting. You are only allowed to speak to the message the White House wants you to give to the Press. It is impossible to answer all of the Press' questions with truth and transparency. The federal government is naturally secretive over its actions. The drone program was a new, secretive operation during that time, and the Obama Administration has spent years slowly revealing it to the public on its own time. I don't think that's right, but under any Republican or Democrat administration, I don't see how it would be any different. We went through the exact same thing for 8 years under the Bush White House.

On the issue of transparency however it's worth noting that the Bush Administration actually placed plants in the crowd of reporters to give softball questions like "how did you like my Christmas card" and similar.

I can note one difference. Bush's admin was producing 'commercial" like news pieces and giving them to american media outlets. Markets in the south rolled the pieces with no disclaimer as if they were actual news. That is propaganda. The press secretary is supposed to only answer specific questions and not comment on others. How many times have you watched a major crime investigation press briefing and the police refuse to answer questions or even offer unproven facts as factual information? They do it to shape the issue or drive the investigation. While the two examples are apples and oranges, the concept is true and fair in each case. I do not presume to think the federal government should tell me everything it does, nor do I want to know.

The more troubling trend that has been set by the last five administrations is the shaping the story as you release details because they know if the truth came out all at once that potentially criminal charges could result. That sort of thing would be inevitable with enough public outrage. They know that they can shape the message to their favor and reduce the impact because it has been demonstrated time and again. That is worrisome but inevitable.