The December 29 edition of ABC‘s This Week wasn’t the usual Sunday show fare. This time around the show presented short profiles of “Game Changers” of 2013, one of whom was Pakistani youth activist Malala Yousafzai, who was shot by the Taliban for her outspoken commitment to education.
At the end of the report, ABC‘s Bob Woodruff says this:
Despite her popularity, Malala continues to speak truth to power. When President Barack Obama invited her to the White House, she expressed concern about the innocent victims killed by American drone attacks and asked him to refocus on education.
This is notable for a simple reason. When the two met back in October, Malala’s story was big news everywhere. But somehow her direct criticism of the White House’s drone attacks failed to make much news (FAIR Blog, 10/15/13). Yousafzai was named “Person of the Week” on ABC World News on October 11; the next day ABC‘s 20/20 devoted an entire hour to her story. But there was no mention of her criticism of US policy.
The only mention of drones on that 20/20 broadcast came from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who said, “The greatest threat to the Taliban is not American drones. It’s girls like Malala.”
That’s not exactly how she might put it–so it’s good to see ABC finally giving viewers a look at a part of this story most of the media haven’t considered newsworthy.
We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia…
War is peace…..
The mini true runs the show.
eventually someone will look back and boy oh boy there is no statute of limitations on treason and murder
what this country needs is a purple party, where red and blue come together and unite against the fascists
I love the girl BUT….she is not more of a threat to these thugs than our drones are.Ask them.They would put another bullet in her head toot sweet.Our drones keep their heads down .They make their pronouncements now from a cave instead of a town square.The thing about drones is this…..I compare them to SUVs.Whenever you had an accident the press would write SUV kills man.Whenever we kill a terrorist it says “drone attack” kills blah blah blah.Drones are simply a machine that carries out the presidents will.If not that it could be a thousand other things.The only argument is “the presidents will”//.Is it correct or not.
The only argument is “the presidents will”//.Is it correct or not.
I have to say I can see your point, where your thinking all literal and mechanical. The Pen is Mighter than Sword, thought I don’t carry a ball point for the purpose.
Sad to say, that no the argument isn’t just about ‘the presidents will’. It is about who is on the other side of the joy stick trigger that is pulling it. That is who’s will it will be, as it will soon be coming to a town near you.
http://rt.com/usa/us-drones-internal-use-419/
FAA proposes widespread civilian drone use in US airspace by 2015
Published time: November 08, 2013 12:25
Edited time: November 10, 2013 12:44
So maybe we should really be paying attention to Malala, who by all accounts is now an “Expert source on drone use in civilian populations during wartime conditions in peace”.
Frank your lost…Pad I think your saying drones as an instrument may be being used without presidential authority.As far as I have read……The president authorizes directly drone strikes.Cruise missiles.F-15 strikes.Gun ship strikes.And any other weapon used.Drones are already moving into old school in the weapons dept.I just love folks like Frank acting as if drones are something new.Nothing more than the newest V-2 rocket.Little(lot) more accurate.But nothing new under the sun.The weapon used is unimportant.It is the will of those launching it that matters