On Friday’s TRMS, Rachel Maddow spoke to NBC News Islamabad Bureau Chief Amna Nawaz about a growing controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism program – its drone strikes in Pakistan.
“For nine years the US has been killing people using remote-piloted aircraft in the nuclear-armed, fairly unstable, rabidly anti-American nation of Pakistan. President Bush started this policy but President Obama has tripled down on it. The Obama administration did finally admit to the fact that we are doing this in year nine of the policy, just last month,” said Maddow.
The US has staged 300 strikes in Pakistan since 2004, and questions surrounding the casualty tally are racking up. Anger against the US is growing across Pakistan, with anti-drone rallies also gaining momentum. Maddow shared never-before-seen footage of damage caused by a US drone strike and asked Nawaz about her recent interview with anti-drone Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar earlier this week.
Akbar represents the families of civilian victims of drone strikes in Islamabad. He explained to Nawaz:
“The problem is that no one cares if ‘nobody’ is killed, and by ‘nobody,’ I mean a person who is nobody. A person who is probably just living in that area, has no money, no education, no representation,” he said. “The point here is that if we are successful in killing one or two people who we really want to kill, in order to do that we kill 40 people – who cares? And this is a sad kind of attitude we have from the American government and unfortunately from my own government."
Nawaz says that’s how the fight to eradicate terrorists may end up creating more. She told Maddow:
“We know that [the Obama administration] thinks this is a program that’s working, we know that the top commanders in al-Qaeda that they’ve been trying to go after, they’ve been able to knock them off, that leadership in al-Qaeda has basically been decimated as a result of this. But they are playing a bit of a game with this. Privately, anonymously officials will tout successes of this program, but publicly they will not go into the details of much of the program.”
So far, the CIA has declined to comment. Check out a map of the DoD’s current and future U.S. drone activities here.
Leave a Comment:
So, exactly how does Doctor Maddow receive credit for this information and video? Answer, she doesn't....not at all, imo. People risked their lives to transport and transfer this video and info and there as usual is Doctor maddow willing to jump in front of their parade to take credit for their efforts. She does what she does, she grabs info and quips and articles and presentations and buzz words, etc., etc., from other folks and presents said info as if it were generated by herself, and attempts to take credit which she does not deserve. She's basically a dramatic teleprompter reader who exaggerates and caricatures her reactions and gestures. She's a rich cable news actress and has become predictable.
@reveal5, what do you think news pundits do? It's not like she does anything different then hosts on fox news and cnn except maybe provide better quality of news, quips and insights. you sound bitter.
I think this particular instance is particularly cheeeeeesy. I do agree that it is sop for Punditworld. Also, I agree MSNBC is indeed better than Fox, if that's a compliment. It's kind of like saying MSNBC is better than a yeast infection, which would, indeed, be true. I simply think MSNBC's and Doctor Maddow's cholesterol levels are way too elevated, cheesily speaking.
I also think that a couple or 3 or 4 MSNBC hosts ... or their staffs ... or their contributors or all of the above, are absolute kleptomaniacs in this regard. . without question. Bein' swipey snatchers is just sop for these folks, imo. It just took me a little while to figure out what you take for granted and know to be true. . Pundits tend to be well paid pond scum, metaphorically speaking. They do leave a bitter taste. I still like O'Donnell and others however and don't spread my disdain to all pundits or their guests, some of whom exhibit absolute brilliance at times and definetely moderate or stay away from the cheeeeeese.
Although her book is well written I totally disagree with her opinion on not using drones. At this time they are the best weapon available and putting none of our troops at risks. bin Laden was so scared of them he warned is fellow terrorists flee where they were hiding. Are they perfect? No, but they are by far the most effective weapon there is and are becoming more and more precise.
As far as her argument is with the U.S. Constitution does she really think the founding fathers had drones in mind when they wrote it. No Just like the Citizens United Decision. That founding fathers are turning in their graves saying that equals free speech.