In response to:

When Terrorists 'Killed' In Drone Strikes Aren't Really Dead

My2CentsMore Wrote: Dec 11, 2012 1:27 PM
Obviously a opinion column, not a news item. If it were a news report she would be accused of violating the standards of good journalism. U.S. intelligence says they will “neither confirmed nor denied” the person of interest has been killed and she takes this a proof that they have stopped looking for them? When they are targeted again later? She should go after the reports who continue to use discredited sources instead. She considers “A private investigation suggests” and that he has not been arrested or ‘black-bagged’ as sufficient proof that the FBI has not checked up on the guy? Maybe they just contacted the Belgium police, ran his prints, and said ‘Nope, not this one either.”

PARIS -- Is "killed by a drone strike" the new "alive and well"? If you pay close enough attention, it makes you wonder what's really going on.

Here's how this charade usually goes: One or more major news organizations runs a story about some Middle Eastern terrorist being killed in a drone strike, usually in Pakistan. The reports, typically generated by some murky Pakistani intelligence source -- are neither confirmed nor denied by U.S. intelligence. The boilerplate response is instead something like, "We can only confirm they were in the area." It's kind of like asking, "Did you sleep with...