george w. bush can read my pet goat w/out a teleprompter. and remember when junior went to india and traded nuk-u-lar technology for 'delicious mangoes'?
So, if you do believe that the numbers were inflated, how is it "bad journalism" to point out, using available estimates and White House statements, that the numbers are inflated?
yea, I typically don't care for the 'well bush did this....' auto-rebuttal. but this is a case where it seems justifiable. I mean, has anyone seen Bush give one of his speeches where he just 'wings' it? if Obama wants a telepromter. by all means. use one.
Because we don't know one way or another. It could be a myth, but it might not be. Clinton's trip to Africa is irrelevant in this article as very little detail was given. What kind of accommodations were given? What is the difference in cost between comparable accommodations in Africa vs the hotel Obama and his team is staying in? None of this information was provided, not to mention Clinton's trip included significantly less people (apparently.) How many of those people shared rooms? How many are this time? What kind of deals were given? Who bid on them? Etc, etc, etc. It's bad reporting to say the claim "doesn't hold water" or is a "myth." That's opinion. NPR would fire Anderson Cooper for this article!
imo, the 'well bush did this...' rebuttal is generally relevant as many things bush-supporters criticize obama on were things bush did too. it does seem a little much to bring a teleprompter out for speeches infront of elementary schoolers, for example. but the whole fox news/republican attack on him anytime he busts it out is pretty ridiculous - they act like he is only one to ever use a teleprompter.
If the $200 million claim is inflated, even a little bit, then "myth" is an appropriate descriptor. Let's explore this, Clinton's trip was $5.2m per day. Let's say that Obama's trip is incredibly opulent and that the cost is a whopping ten times what Clinton's Africa trip were (personally, I tend to believe the CBO's estimate because they are able to compare apples to apples and they are the ones who said the trips were similar, but I digress). That would mean that the cost would be $52 million per day or 1/4 what the claim you admit was "inflated" cost. Is 25% less enough to call the claim a "myth" or to say it "doesn't hold water?" Even a generous treatment of the completely unsubstantiated claim of a single Indian indicates that his statement was, at best, mythical.
I have to say -- though it has little to do with the infantile argument in this thread -- that I like reading about all the preparations for hospitality that India is undergoing. I've been thinking recently that hospitality isn't something we do so much in the States anymore (it is commoditized with hotels and restaurants and services), and to see people going all out like that is heartwarming.
Can you show me where the the CBO claimed the trips were similar? I didn't see that, I only saw where CNN claimed the trips were similar and then gave the CBO estimate for the Clinton trip. Either way, this is a silly argument because I don't really care about Obama's trip I just don't like Anderson Cooper.
yes, it's at an elementary school, but wasn't it brodcast to a national audience? either way basso... this is the guy who you said 'history will see as one of the better presidents in history' or something like that... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0eV6y2C-iEg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0eV6y2C-iEg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> we both know there are hundreds more. you don't really have a leg to stand on here.
Wait - why? There is no factual evidence behind them, so they are a myth. A myth isn't necessarily untrue - it's just not something supported by fact. This story is basically the definition of a myth. But besides that, the simple fact is that the entire Afghan war costs less than $200 million per day. So the numbers aren't just exaggerated - they are just pure nonsense.
i agree, but it just comes across as stale when it's used all the time. imo, it gets back to lil puns post about getting away from the real issue and deduces the debate to finger pointing and poo flinging.
They can use the positive publicity after the "screwup" that the media painted India as after the Commonwealth games.
