I’m not the most sensitive person on the planet when it comes to politically correct garbage, if you couldn’t already tell. The idea of “microaggressions” and all the other crap Democrats make up to divide and manipulate people makes me sick. Show me proof of something that stands up to scrutiny and I’m in, but I do not accept anything lightly. Someone's sensibilities being upset is not proof and, more often than not, will cause me to recoil in the opposite direction. Like I said, I’m not really sensitive when it comes to this garbage.
That doesn’t mean I can’t see it or recognize it. And this week, at a White House press briefing, the overt racism and hatred of Israel was so painfully obvious that even the Ayatollah thought they were piling it on a little too thick.
Israel bombed a van with workers from the World Central Kitchen in it, killing all 7 inside. It would take a special kind of stupid to think Israel saw a food truck and decided it and its occupants needed to die. Then again, the progressive left is a very special kind of stupid…
The White House press corps spent an awful lot of time badgering John Kirby, the White House press secretary they trot out when a “historic” moron poorly reading a briefing book just won’t do, about this accident.
Selina Wang, “senior” White House correspondent for ABC News (I put senior in quote because she’s 30 and has no real experience doing anything beyond talking on TV, but somehow gets a prime job at ABC), asked, “On the death of those World Central Kitchen aid workers, which includes one American who was killed. Netanyahu’s reaction was, ‘it happens in war.’ What is your reaction to that comment from Netanyahu?”
Kirby, to his credit, didn’t take the bait. And make no mistake, it was bait.
Wang came back for more, following up with, “But how can you take Netanyahu at his word? As Nancy was saying, this was a deconflicted zone. They had marked their car. They had even coordinated their movements with the IDF.”
Recommended
That’s kind of what Netanyahu meant when he essentially said that accident happen in war. The fact that he admitted it was an accident is why you can take him at his word, Wang.
Israel makes a mistake that harms civilians, they admit it and investigate to not only find out what happened, but to try to prevent it from happening again. Hamas actually targets civilians, claim credit for it and the entire progressive industrial complex in the United States is maneuvering to protect them every chance they get.
Then Wang asked, “So how can the U.S. continue to send aid to Israel without any conditions? Yes, they have a right to defend… how can the U.S. can continue to send military aid into Israel… without any conditions. Is there no red lines that could be crossed?”
The desperation to cut off Israel is as palpable as jealous sibling’s hope the “good” kid gets caught smoking. It’s pathetic and activism. It’s progressivism, not journalism.
But Wang wasn’t alone. Niall Stanage backed her up with, “ust wanted to follow up a question that came from the front row about the conditions of military aid and you said that the questioner wanted you to hang some conditions over their necks, that [of] the Israelis, and your tone suggested you wouldn't do that. Why not?”
Democrats oppose sending violent criminals to jail for any longer than it takes to get their prints, but Israel must be punished for an accident. Hamas gets a pass for their deliberate actions and STILL holding more than 100 hostages (including Americans), but “those damn Joooos!”
Stanage, not to be outdone in the stupid department, came back with, “But on the point of conditions, the President, on February 8, issued a memo and it said — you already know this, but just for context — it said that it was the policy of this administration to prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Is firing a missile at people who live in food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law?”
These people have no sense of reality. What would Israel gain by deliberately targeting a food truck? Nothing. But if an investigation reveals that the person who fired the rocket was on a diet and mad at food, we will know.
What’s more likely to have happened is, in real time, they misidentified the van as a Hamas van, or had a “tip” that identified it as such. A terrorist group that uses ambulances to move people and weapons around, and wraps itself in civilians normally, is not beyond using civilian vehicles to get around. That reality doesn’t occur to the press, they have a progressive agenda and that’s all that matters.
Piling on further, the UK Independent’s Andrew Feingberg asked, “you described the strike as a possible mistake by Israel. According to Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, it wasn’t one strike, but three. The first one, then an interval during which aid workers got out of their vehicles, removed the wounded, tried to move to another vehicle, which was struck, and then a third strike — what — as they tried to move and escape in a third vehicle, at which point all of them were dead. How would the second and third strikes of these marked vehicles be a mistake? And why would the U.S. not more forcefully set conditions on the use of U.S.-made weaponry when it is being used to target aid workers? If the first one was a mistake, the second two were targeted with the intent of killing everyone in that convoy. So, how do you respond to that, sir?”
If you were convinced a vehicle was carrying terrorists, would you seek only to disable it? Or would you kill them, even if it took a couple of shots?
I don’t know what happened, but do know none of these “journalists” know what happened either. I believe we will find out and, should something be found to have been deliberate, those people will be held accountable. These members of the “4th estate” want blood; they want consequences. They want to harm Israel. I’m not Jewish and I see that.
I also see they don’t seem to be aware of it, at least most of them. These are people who’ve been fed a narrative and way thinking – more directly, a way of not thinking critically, simply trained like one of Pavlov’s dogs – to never question authority and they obey.
Maybe “hate” isn’t the right word for what a drone is capable of, but there isn’t really a better one.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member