lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And
after that exchange, Varus clarified what he was talking about. To you. Right after the bit you just quoted. You've got a pretty darn selective memory going on, don't you?
lolgaxe wrote:
Only if you believe this administration has been in charge for the last 60+ years.
I'm not sure which skin you're using, but comments higher up are said before ones lower down, right? Cuz, you know ... the comment you quoted of mine came well before the Turin/Varus conversation.
Yes. And my point was that
even after the clarification, Turin still thought that this was just about the President no longer giving photo ops after giving a speech.
Do you see what I was getting at? Varus had already clarified that he was talking about the situation room photo, yet Turin (and others, including you) still pretended that this was just about staged photos taken after a televised speech. I quoted Turin because his was the clearest example of this.
Quote:
Something like six hours, and still doesn't make a difference to the Turin/Varus conversation. And, you know. You still being wrong about it.
Wrong about what? Varus was correct in that this is clearly about spinning the whole "faked situation room story". You don't find it the least bit suspicious that while the story talks about "suggestions of fakery" surrounding Obama's televised announcement of OBL's death, that wasn't what those suggestions were about? I don't know anyone who was pointing at the photos from the speech and saying "Those are fake!!!". There was, however, lots of buzz about the situation room photo having been faked/staged though.
But by making the story about the speech he gave, it allows them to address the "faked photo" surrounding the OBL operation, while making it appear like it was all about something relatively benign. It's designed precisely to make anyone who hears about a "faked" photo related to OBLs death think of this and not the situation room photo. You honestly don't see this? Or you do but think it's a great cover?
I honestly wonder just how far people will go to willingly participate in this sort of deception. You seriously think this was about a photo shoot taken after the Presidents speech? Cause if so, then you are gullible as hell.
Quote:
Connecting dots is easy, until someone starts adding dots to the picture.
That's not the case though. Look at this from the other point of view. There's this operation to kill OBL. Obama gives a speech about it. Then the White House press corp release photos showing the senior administration officials apparently actively reacting to events as they occur during the operation, which appear in all sorts of media about the event. People dig into the issue and it turns out that said photo was staged after the fact, even after interviews and comments made by people there making it clearly appear as though the photo wasn't staged (like Clinton explaining the expression on her face in the photo for example). This is beyond just a staged photo op. This appears to be faked propaganda designed to present a false impression to the public about the operation itself.
Then, a story appears about how in the wake of concerns about a completely different staged photograph which no one cares about, the White House is looking for ways to change the policy of staging photos after live speeches. You don't see how this is spin? Honestly? It's designed to make people think the whole issue was about something other than what it actually was about. You can't see this?
