Source
r/PoliticalDiscussion•
MAVP

Has DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz said anything about her gaffe a few days ago?

On the night of the last debate, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was taped responding to a question about Obama's kill list. In her response it was clear that the Congresswoman wasn't even aware that the president has a kill list. This caused an uproar among Left and Right wing commentators. I've done a couple of searches, but I haven't found a response from Wasserman-Shulz or her aides. Is anyone aware of a follow-up by the Congresswoman?

Posted Oct 26, 2012, 7:01 PM UTC

09
repmack•

That woman is horrible. The DNC would get rid of her if they knew what was good for them.

4
la_Policia_Ideologia•

I think being a scumbag is a prerequisite for chairing a major political party.

0
MAVPOP•

Ok, but I assume, then, that you aren't aware of a response to the uproar?

-2
cashto•

Probably she just wasn't aware that was the derogative term used by opponents of the War on Terror to refer to, and to make sound more sinister, the list of terrorists targeted by the military persuant to the AUMF and reviewed by the President under his authority as commander in chief.

2
[deleted]•

Probably she just wasn't aware that was the derogative term used by opponents of the War on Terror

Right....the woman whose sole job is to be a mouthpiece.....doesn't understand what "kill list" means?

There's out of touch, and then there's out of touch. If what you're saying were true, she would out of touch by at least two and a half Romneys, the national unit of measure for aloofness.

5
Elidor•

It's a list of people to be killed. Calling it a kill list is not a case of hyperbole, and is in fact quite reasonable. And it's nowhere near as sinister as the obviously unconstitutional power being claimed for the Executive. But not to worry - they've come up with a properly Orwellian phrase just for people like you: disposition matrix. Wrap your tongue around the beauty of that and say it with me: disposition matrix. It that not a masterful bit of doublespeak? You may wish to practice using it in a sentence, so it doesn't sound too awkward.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list

2
MAVPOP•

No - it's been all over the media. Both Left-wing and Right-wing news channels and reporters have used the term. And the term has been used directly, to the President's face, repeatedly and he knew exactly what the question was referring to. In the linked video, you can skip to 1:30 to get to the question that specifically uses the term "kill list." Obama answers the question without asking for clarification.

This isn't some obscure terminology used by crazy conspiracy theorists - it's a common term used by most everyone - yet, the DNC chair wasn't aware of it.

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
cashto•

Obama answers the question without asking for clarification.

Q: "Well, then, let me ask you then also about the so-called "presidential kill list" that's gotten a lot of attention, and this list of folks that have been targetted for assasination, and on that list have been US citizens that have not been afforded trial such as Anwar al-Awlaki. How do you, as president, or any presisent for that matter, regardless of party or person, utilize that power to assissinate even US citizens?"

A: "Well, first of all, you're basing this on reports in the news that have not been confirmed by me, and I don't talk about our national security decisions in that way ..."

  1. The reporter seems to provide quite a lot of clarification up front, unlike in Wasserman-Shultz's case, the only properties of the kill list are that it's a) secret and used to b) assassinate "people" (i.e., not terrorists, suspected or otherwise). So, I'm not surprised she interpreted the reporter's question as a sinister conspiracy theory which she was heretofore unfamiliar.
  2. It's clear in the phrasing of the question, "so-called", and the pushback in the President's response, it's not agreed that this is a generally accepted, non-inflammatory term.
  3. It may be all over certain parts of the media. At the same time, it's not an issue that has been raised by either candidate, their campaign or their respective parties. Nor was it raised by the moderator in the debate. So I think Wasserman-Shultz is justified in not immediately understanding what the reporter's was referring to.
0
wtfusernametaken•

I would have said to her "you're right it wasn't in the debates... Do you know why they didn't ask about the kill list?"

1