We have all the major newstations discussion a possible October surprise. There is a reference to a possible "surprise" downthread that seems to be catching all our attention. BUT....when you read an article, that has facts that cannot be confirmed, because "authorities" who were not "authorized" to speak on the said story, are then unable to supply the necessary evidence to judge the legitimacy of that story and most importantly when DRUDGE and Faux News have already covered this story, perhaps we should wait before going into a wild speculation.
We have 4 days left. Whether these next 4 days are going to be a success or failure is up to us. WE the people. Although admittedly, "BREAKING" news catches my attention, we really need to hold the media to a higher standard. We should be demanding that when the media breaks a story, they have correlating evidence evidence to back that story up. If we don't demand this, and instead fall back into "OH NOES!!!", then we are falling right into the trap of the classic smear. AP has throughout this last election cycle been less than credible in the slant of their news. Why do you think that more an more newspapers are canceling their subscriptions to AP? When a story breaks, I expect more information than a "person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango's case.".
First of all: Why is somebody speaking on condition of anonymity regarding a case that no one was authorized to discuss?
Second of all: Why now, why not bring this up last week, a couple of weeks ago, last year?
Third of all: AP throws in this caveat, which smells of good ole' Republican smear
"The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release."
Fourth of all: what the hell?
"Onyango's case — coming to light just days before the presidential election — led to an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday's election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors, the U.S. law enforcement official told the AP.
The unusual directive suggests that the Bush administration is sensitive to the political implications of Onyango's case coming to light so close to the election."
Whether this becomes big news is up to us, as American people. Do we let a vague, unsubstantiated story which offers no opportunity for the public to discern the seriousness or legitimacy of said story to dictate how we approach the last few days?
IRONIC: "
A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Kelly Nantel, said the government does not comment on an individual's citizenship status or immigration case"....
....Um sounds as though the government does comment, they just do it anonymously...
Time to buck up here. Any smear can be turned around. All we have to do is demand that the media start asking questions about convenient leaks coming from the government. We should demand to know why this leak came out now. We should ask AP, "why do you report on a story with which the American Public will not have the opportunity to find the facts any time soon due to it's highly sensitive material and due process?"
Most importantly, we should ask ourselves, where did our critical thinking skills go? I know that it is crunch time. I have a knot in my stomach just waiting for Tuesday. But stories such as the one presented down thread, are not going to help me afford to my bills. They will not bring our troops home. They will not fight against hunger, poverty or global warming. With all do respect, stories such as this will not solve our current economic crisis. Whether true or not, this vague story is serving it's only purpose, and that is to distract us.
NOW BACK TO WORK!
OBAMA/BIDEN