Are journalists and pundits really that stupid?

I love the Daily Show, but even John Stewart last night in discussing ISIS seemed to do what so many other journalists and pundits do…they expect the President to tell them what the plans are with the ISIS battle. This was really rampant during the Iraq invasion. Numbskull W would be giving a briefing and some journalist would ask for strategic information. Seriously? Do you really think the president, or any of his minions in the Armed Forces would tell you what the real plan was? Did it ever occur to them that maybe the bad guys have TVs too? Or am I missing something?

I love the Daily Show, but even John Stewart last night in discussing ISIS seemed to do what so many other journalists and pundits do...they expect the President to tell them what the plans are with the ISIS battle. This was really rampant during the Iraq invasion. Numbskull W would be giving a briefing and some journalist would ask for strategic information. Seriously? Do you really think the president, or any of his minions in the Armed Forces would tell you what the real plan was? Did it ever occur to them that maybe the bad guys have TVs too? Or am I missing something?
The "journalists" just want an excuse to excoriate the president. If he refuses to answer the question they will say he doesn't have a plan and that he's floundering. I suspect they are all from Fox News and similar organizations or directly from the Republican party. They know very well he wouldn't answer the question. Lois
I love the Daily Show, but even John Stewart last night in discussing ISIS seemed to do what so many other journalists and pundits do…they expect the President to tell them what the plans are with the ISIS battle. This was really rampant during the Iraq invasion. Numbskull W would be giving a briefing and some journalist would ask for strategic information. Seriously? Do you really think the president, or any of his minions in the Armed Forces would tell you what the real plan was? Did it ever occur to them that maybe the bad guys have TVs too? Or am I missing something?
An experienced politician is able to placate the press with a general plan of action without giving away any secrets. The Prez. Could say "my plan is to bomb ISIS into submission" without revealing any military secrets as to how the plan will be carried out. I'm not a Reagan fan but he was a master of propaganda and could "reveal" secrets to the press that rattled the enemy, e.g. The Starwars program. The press seems to think that Obama is holding out on them and they love to dig and sniff believing there's a conspiracy of silence. Besides, it's an election year and the Republicans are trying everything in their power to discredit him hoping that the fall out will take out more Dems. Meantime the press is ever vigilant for newsworthy items. As for FOX news, it speaks for itself! Cap't Jack
I love the Daily Show, but even John Stewart last night in discussing ISIS seemed to do what so many other journalists and pundits do…they expect the President to tell them what the plans are with the ISIS battle. This was really rampant during the Iraq invasion. Numbskull W would be giving a briefing and some journalist would ask for strategic information. Seriously? Do you really think the president, or any of his minions in the Armed Forces would tell you what the real plan was? Did it ever occur to them that maybe the bad guys have TVs too? Or am I missing something?
An experienced politician is able to placate the press with a general plan of action without giving away any secrets. The Prez. Could say "my plan is to bomb ISIS into submission" without revealing any military secrets as to how the plan will be carried out. I'm not a Reagan fan but he was a master of propaganda and could "reveal" secrets to the press that rattled the enemy, e.g. The Starwars program. The press seems to think that Obama is holding out on them and they love to dig and sniff believing there's a conspiracy of silence. Besides, it's an election year and the Republicans are trying everything in their power to discredit him hoping that the fall out will take out more Dems. Meantime the press is ever vigilant for newsworthy items. As for FOX news, it speaks for itself! Cap't Jack
'The Prez. Could say “my plan is to bomb ISIS into submission" ' Boy, that should work! Lois
‘The Prez. Could say “my plan is to bomb ISIS into submission" ‘ Boy, that should work!
And by that you mean... ?

It would create a Hydra.

I agree and despite the overwhelming public outcry against involvement in Iraq, then Syria “mission creep” is probably going to happen as the ISIL atrocities mount up in Kobani and Baghdad. The Reps. will force Obama’s hand and back we go for the next ten years. The Pentagon is chomping at the bit to go back in and the fear mongering political commercials will tip the balance as more Americans see ISIL terrorists streaming into the country over the Mex.-U.S. Border. It’s total BS but fear is a great motivator.
Cap’t Jack

It would create a Hydra.
WOULD ? I thought that's what Bush and Cheney managed to do quite well already, and we're simply continuing to help it's further multiplication along. Or as it was succinctly explained by By Aubrey Bailey, see http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17396/
‘The Prez. Could say “my plan is to bomb ISIS into submission" ‘ Boy, that should work!
And by that you mean... ?
By that I mean no sensible president would ever say that because it would bring opprobrium down on his head immediately. It would be a completely emotional response and he would look like an irresponsible fool for saying it. Even a hawkish president would not make such a statement. It's the stuff of right wing talk shows, not presidents, who are expected to show restraint in their statements. Lois

Then I guess by your definition Obama isn’t very sensible because he’s already stated it! And that seems to be his plan at present although critics see it as a failure. They want a ten year troop commitment in Iraq and an invasion of Syria to root out ISIL. That’s what I meant by “mission creep” despite the public’s disfavor. They’re waiting for the Nov. elections. If the Rep. Take the Senate you’d better believe they’re going to press for an invasion.
Thttp://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/09/11/378362/obama-says-us-will-bomb-isil-in-syria/
Cap’t Jack

Then I guess by your definition Obama isn't very sensible because he's already stated it! And that seems to be his plan at present although critics see it as a failure. They want a ten year troop commitment in Iraq and an invasion of Syria to root out ISIL. That's what I meant by "mission creep" despite the public's disfavor. They're waiting for the Nov. elections. If the Rep. Take the Senate you'd better believe they're going to press for an invasion. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/09/11/378362/obama-says-us-will-bomb-isil-in-syria/ Cap't Jack
Heard that talk and it sounded pretty crazy, it's as though they think Bush/Cheney's invasion plan for Iraq was a success, rather than a Hydra creating disaster… or act of pure insanity to be more accurate. so let's just keep doing the same idiotic actions, that harm easily ten times more innocent civilians and creates yet more fanatical hatred filled vengeance seeking extremists. But our politicians and their industrial masters rather believe in the inane bull poop flowing from their mouths since it does serve the bottom of line of personal profits for the .001%
"I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq," Obama said during a speech delivered from the White House on Wednesday. "America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat," he added. … During his speech, the US president outlined Washington’s strategy against the terrorists. "Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy," Obama said. “In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape and force women into marriage," he said.
We bomb neighborhoods, mangel children, destroy families and homes… it's so nice to have God, and certitude, on our side [puking frownie]
Then I guess by your definition Obama isn't very sensible because he's already stated it! And that seems to be his plan at present although critics see it as a failure. They want a ten year troop commitment in Iraq and an invasion of Syria to root out ISIL. That's what I meant by "mission creep" despite the public's disfavor. They're waiting for the Nov. elections. If the Rep. Take the Senate you'd better believe they're going to press for an invasion. Thttp://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/09/11/378362/obama-says-us-will-bomb-isil-in-syria/ Cap't Jack
Citation, please. When did Obama say, "My plan is to bomb ISIS into submission." Those exact words, please, which you put into quotation marks. No weasel words. The exact quote, with a reliable source that I can access. Lois
"Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy," Obama said.
A quote from the article I posted Lois and remember I said he "could" say that, not that he did say it. He's postured many times about containing, destroying, and degrading ISIS so his intent is very clear and at this moment the bombing campaign is all we're actively doing. So, even though he didn't actually say "bomb them into submission" he's doing just that without committing ground troops. When that happens you can substitute "bayonet" them into submission if you like. It's just posturing anyway. You're nit-picking. Cap't Jack
"Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy," Obama said.
A quote from the article I posted Lois and remember I said he "could" say that, not that he did say it. He's postured many times about containing, destroying, and degrading ISIS so his intent is very clear and at this moment the bombing campaign is all we're actively doing. So, even though he didn't actually say "bomb them into submission" he's doing just that without committing ground troops. When that happens you can substitute "bayonet" them into submission if you like. It's just posturing anyway. You're nit-picking. Cap't Jack
You are obfuscating. You did say that Obama could say "My plan is to bomb ISIS into submission." My point was that no sensible president would say such a thing. You said it is your opinion that that's what he meant when he spoke of a "counterterrorism strategy". A counterterrorism strategy does not mean "bomb them into submission," no matter how you twist it. He was being careful of how he phrased an answer, but it is only your opinion that what he said translates to "bomb them into submission." There are plenty of counterterrorism strategies that fall far short of "bombing them into submission." Lois

So how is what I said that he “could” have said in any way different than "“I plan to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL”? Now he’s talking about sending in more troops (as I predicted in an earlier post) and even progressives in the party are pushing back against this disastrous plan and for good reason; it’s been done before. You’re hung up on semantics Lois and no I’m not obfuscating, you are and your point is moot anyway now that he’s fallen into the same trap as Bush. We’re going into back into Iraq and possibly Syria (I’ll bet McCain and his war hawk buddies are beside themselves with glee) to defeat the black clad terrorists, again. As the author of the article alludes, it’s like trying to squash mercury, splattering it in all directions. So say “bomb into submission” or “degrade and destroy” has the same connotation, with the same results.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/11/obama-strategy-bomb-syria-escalate-iraq-pilloried-progressives
Cap’t Jack