{"id":35358,"date":"2021-09-01T06:09:46","date_gmt":"2021-09-01T10:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=35358"},"modified":"2021-09-01T06:09:46","modified_gmt":"2021-09-01T10:09:46","slug":"president-dementia-not-happy-with-coverage-of-his-epic-biden-fail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=35358","title":{"rendered":"President Dementia not happy with coverage of his Epic Biden Fail"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. Over the last week, since the Biden caused collapse of Afghanistan and the Fall of Kabul, along with the 10\u2019s of thousands of Americans that the maladministration has abandoned, the Communazi Propaganda Corps\u2019s coverage has turned from \u201cHe can do no wrong!\u201d to \u201cWTF, Over?\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Sunday talking head shows started asking some very difficult questions, and the Maladministration Minions started squirming rather awkwardly, and basically provided answers to the tough questions that had no bearing on the questions asked. President Dementia and his handlers have noticed this turn of events, and they are not happy. Here are the details from HuffPost<\/a> <\/b>(Huffpost? Surprised me too. A\/W<\/i>):<\/p>\n

As President Joe Biden<\/a> ended his news conference on Friday afternoon about the United States\u2019 withdrawal from Afghanistan<\/a>, a reporter called out an especially bellicose question.<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cWhy do you continue to trust the Taliban<\/a>, Mr. President?\u201d the reporter said. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Bellicose? How is that question bellicose? Oh, right. Huffpost. Never mind.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the militant group\u2019s poor human rights record and ultra-conservative Islamist ideology, multiple U.S. administrations have successfully negotiated with the Taliban. The Taliban have complex interests. As Biden noted on Friday, the organization is at war<\/a> with the faction of the self-declared Islamic State (also known as ISIS), which is competing for power in Afghanistan.<\/b><\/p>\n

There is a small difference in how previous administrations negotiated with the Taliban. Before Dementia Joe bumbled his way into office, the usual method was \u201cDo you agree? Good.\u201d then when the Taliban broke their word, we bombed them, shot them and killed them. Then we talked to the next batch of terrorists. Wash, rinse repeat. This is something the maladministration of President Bumbling Dementia either forgot or ignored.<\/p>\n

But the reporter\u2019s criticism-masquerading-as-query was the culmination of a week\u2019s worth of dramatic finger-pointing and fretting from a Washington press corps that usually prides itself on neutrality.<\/b><\/p>\n

Neutrality? On what planet is this? Oh wait. Huffpost. More leftist then the old Soviet periodical, Pravda. I forgot. Never mind.<\/p>\n

Although the White House\u2019s failure to foresee the rapid fall of the Afghan government and prepare accordingly has exacerbated the chaos of the U.S. withdrawal, Biden and his allies are furious with what they see as reporters\u2019 and pundits\u2019 unduly hawkish coverage of the exit. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThe media tends to bend over backwards to \u2018both-sides\u2019 all of their coverage, but they made an exception for this,\u201d said Eric Schultz, a deputy press secretary under President Barack Obama. \u201cThey both-sides coverage over masks, and vaccines, and school openings and everything else. Somehow [the Afghanistan withdrawal] created a rush to judgment and a frenzy that we haven\u2019t seen in a long time.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The media\u2019s idea of covering both sides of an issue is to ignore one side that doesn\u2019t tow the Progressive Communazi line and accept at face value anything the president\u2019s press people say, provided they were of the \u201cCorrect\u201d party. With Obama, it was generally bending over, and asking for lube, \u201cIf it wasn\u2019t an inconvenience.\u201d<\/p>\n

As The Intercept has chronicled, the problem of media bias toward foreign adventurism is especially acute among talking heads<\/a> paid to discuss military policy on television. Former U.S. military generals often inveigh against the withdrawal on cable news with just their past military titles rather than their current careers as contractors who stand to profit from an extended presence in Afghanistan.<\/b><\/p>\n

You\u2019re quoting the Intercept? They make Huffpost look further to the right then RedState<\/a>. However, the military talking heads that I have seen, and I have been mostly ignoring them, aren\u2019t so much opposed to the withdrawal so much as how it was done under President Dementia. You couldn’t plan a better Epic Biden Failure if you tried.<\/p>\n

The president himself vented similar frustration Friday during remarks at the White House. \u201cPeople now say to me and others ? many of you say it on air ? \u2018Why did we have to move because no Americans were being attacked? Why did we agree to withdraw 2,500 troops when no Americans were being attacked?\u2019\u201d Biden said. <\/b><\/p>\n

Biden noted that in the past year the dearth of casualties was thanks to an agreement that then-President Donald Trump made with the Taliban promising a timeline for withdrawal on the condition that the Taliban not attack U.S. forces.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That was due to two things. First, the Greatest President of the 21st<\/sup> Century, Donald Trump, agreed to pulling out in May. President Dementia decided to ignore that and said, in his usual tone deaf way, that we would pull out on September 11th<\/sup>. Someone managed to break through the fog in his brain and suggest that committing to that date was not a good idea and the optics would be bad. So Dementia Joe decided to do his Bug Out Boogy last week. The Taliban saw what a loser he is and decided to just conquer everything. They knew that the Maladministration wouldn\u2019t do anything about it. (And they didn\u2019t)<\/p>\n

He then noted that if the U.S. reneged on its commitment to announce a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban would escalate their offensive and the U.S. would have to respond in kind.<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hey dumbass, the agreement was for May, NOT August or September. You\u2019re the one who reneged on the agreement because it was agreed to by President Trump, and all things Trump have to be undone.<\/p>\n

Now that Biden is taking a step that U.S. presidents have been very reluctant to take, he is facing a tidal wave of either negative coverage that omits critical context or outright condemnation from many of the same journalists who ignored the war under Trump and for years before.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Obviously, the Huffpost is one of the few remaining Fake News organizations that can\u2019t wait to give provide children to rub the hair on his legs. Most of the others, who were willing to overlook the senile pedophile\u2019s predilections can\u2019t overlook the potential slaughter of between 10 and 40,000 Americans that the maladministration is abandoning. (The Huffpost has no problem if they all get killed. As far as they\u2019re concerned, they shouldn\u2019t have been there in the first place)<\/p>\n

The story goes even deeper in it\u2019s delusions that the media is hostile to the maladministration and is full of warmongers. Their stupidity is blinding. The author of the piece, Daniel Marans, appears to be the classic moonbat. I\u2019m not finding a lot about him, but what I have located is saying \u201cHi! I\u2019m a member of the media. I hate republicans, I hate Trump, I hate the United States and I will bend over backwards for anyone who attacks America.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Barking<\/a><\/p>\n

In other words, he is the perfect propaganda writer for the Huffpost. I say propagandist because this column has absolutely no basis in reality, much like President Bumbles Dementia\u2019s general world view for the last 50 years. The Washington press corps has no choice but to ask tough questions. People are seeing what a complete failure Dementia Joe is. Yes, they will try to cover up as much as they can, but they have to at least appear to be unbiased. (As we know, appearances can be deceiving)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I would like to thank Daniel Marans and Huffpost for reminding me why I avoid Huffpost. I usually stumble into a story by the Huffpost once every few years, and now I\u2019ve been vaccinated and can go back to safely ignoring them. You should too.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (3<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n