It looks like your biggest complaint about Bill Clinton is total bullshit then since it was Congress that defunded the Superconducting Supercollider, not the President.
Give me a break. Americans who encounter facts that they don't like will always dismiss them as "spin". That is what Americans are programmed to do.
Moore was one of the few voices who pointed out how full of shit the Bush administration was during their push for the War in Iraq. People who rejected this criticism and the inconvenient facts therein, implicitly endorsed the claims of the Bush administration. And that's why America wasted billions of dollars and killed thousands of innocent people on a stupid war that dramatically reduced America's global and regional influence and credibility.
"Michael Moore falls prey to a mistake in ethical reasoning by failing to expound that taxation is immoral as well as the rest of my trite ideological drivel."
It's curious how Americans, particularly the American right-wing, describe Moore as a propagandist but still believe the American government, military, and corporate behemoths are creditworthy sources. Moore's portrayal of the Iraq War is much more accurate than the Bush administration's. For example, Americans eagerly swallowed bullshit claims about WMDs, aluminum tubes, Nigerian yellowcake. But when Moore points out these lies and the media's complicity in spreading them, the media calls Moore a propagandist. Unfortunately, most people (in America but also everywhere else) have neither the capacity or the inclination to critically examine the dominant media narratives.
It's the same thing with Wikileaks. People just don't want to hear the inconvenient truth. It's not comforting to know that one's government is lying to you and is, for example, engaging in a covert war in Yemen. They would rather have Assange prosecuted so they could maintain the myth of an honest, well-meaning, responsible American government that fights for freedom and human rights.
Did you read the article? It said exactly that increased levels of CO2 will be mitigated by increased growth of green plant life, and that the current models are too aggressive in their estimations of negative effects
Did you read the article? From the abstract:
By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6C
In other words, the projections are generally consistent with other projections of warming, but some of the numbers have been tweaked by incorporating some negative effects. The study affirms the central concerns of the climate science community, and honest skeptics should at least acknowledge this.
It's real rich to lecture your peers about reading the article and claiming that other people are "ignoring evidence" when you can't even be bothered to understand the abstract.
And I suppose that the microsecond after another study is published that contradicts this one, you will immediately concede that the climate science community was right all along? No?
Give me a break. One study, no matter the conclusions, does not settle a debate. This latest study is one piece of the puzzle whose significance is yet to be determined.
Furthermore, this study affirms the central arguments of the climate community while tweaking the numbers. Neither this study nor its authors support climate change denial.
I stand corrected on one point: The prosecutor does, in fact, at least claim the women explicitly said stop. Nonetheless, there are still significant contradictions in different media accounts of what has happened. The ambiguities are exacerbated by Sweden's bizarre terminology like "Surprise Sex", "Coerced Consent" which would seem to be mutually exclusive with forcible rape.
That's not how the allegations go. It's more like this: (a) she sleeps with him first on the night, he uses a condom; (b) he is going to sleep with her again on the morning, doesn't put a condom on, she tells him not to do it without a condom, and he does it anyway.
There is nothing in the NYTimes article that justifies this elaborate portrayal of the events. Is there another source that justifies this?
It's not that not stopping after a condom breaks is rape in Sweden, it's that not stopping after the woman says "stop!" that matters. Nobody invented that on the fly just for fun.
When exactly did either woman say "Stop"? Where did you get your information?
I ask because your interpretation doesn't square with the factual record. For example, Assange wasn't wearing a condom when he fucked Jessica, so how could Jessica withdraw consent because of a broken condom?
Everyone is interpreting the claims of the prosecution that consent had been withdrawn to mean that the women actually said "No", "Stop", or "Don't". That is the interpretation the prosecution would like us to have. Indeed, that would be rape. But I've never seen the prosecution actually claimed the women ever said "No." The claims of the prosecution have been very vague, and its sounding more and more like BS. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that consent was "withdrawn" implicitly such as when Julian made the sex riskier by having unprotected sex with other women.
In any case it's clear that the women were initially pleased with Assange and only reported the events to the Police immediately after they discovered that Assange had been sleeping around with other women. That doesn't sound like rape, that sounds like promiscuity.
Actually, according to an editorial penned by Assange's lawyer last week, he started having sex with each woman with a condom on, with their consent. At some point, the condom either came off or broke.
That interpretation contradicts the factual record. The article made it very clear that a condom was not even used in the second liaison with Jessica, therefore it would have been impossible for it to "come off or break."
From my reading of the article, it appears that consent wasn't actually withdrawn until the two women found out about each other. When Assange's 40-something feminist activist lover discovered that Assange had some enjoyed a hot 20-something piece of ass on the side, then both the encounters retroactively became "rape".
64% failed?? That's outrageous. Even in the setup you describe students would have a 1/3 chance of cheating successfully. To me this suggests that virtually everyone was cheating, including a substantial fraction of the 36% who apparently passed. They just got lucky and cheated from somebody with the right test.
I am convinced that my company decided to allow Facebook because they wanted direct access to people's personal lives and if you use Facebook over the network you give that to them. They can monitor and store every interaction with FB, and nosy managers can get access to this whenever they want. If they didn't let people access FB over their network, then they couldn't legally invade their privacy.
The two explanations for rape aren't contradictory. The "power" theory suggests a psychological mechanism that might induce a male to rape. Evolutionary explanations suggest why a propensity to rape would be persistent and evolutionary advantageous but doesn't explain the mechanism that causes some men to decide to rape.
Actually the government and its corporate directors already have all the power. The power they have is not merely their limited 'constitutional' power, but mostly their control of the economy and the media. We The People don't have shit for power. We The People are collectively a bunch of illiterate dipshits with a few scattered, ineffective dissidents. No bill gets passed unless it further advances or entrenches corporate interests. Any remedy for our national problems that depends on We The People doing anything besides sit on our fat asses is a non-starter. So if the best we can do is place our welfare in the hands of We The People then we're fucked.
First, you may recall from high school that when you add salt to water you raise its boiling point. You're going to severely compromise the effectiveness of your swamp cooler if you are using salt water. Second, the poster above you (chrysrobyn) was right: If you are constantly evaporating saltwater then the salt will accumulate and you would need to deal with that. Third, saltwater rusts the hell out of everything. Fourth, the proposed system uses salt as a desiccant, it's not using saltwater as an evaporate medium.
yeah, f*** those scientists and their "golbal warming". If scientists were so smart then where is my carbon neutral car????
As an American, I believe the role of scientists should be to enable me and my fellow fat ass countrymen to live a cloistered, ignorant life of immense ease and comfort. Frankly, the lure that all my problems will be magically solved by scientists is the only reason I can tolerate all those people who think they are so smart.
Those houses are not designed by architects and are not a reflection of the field of architecture. Most houses are put together by developers, using variations on common pre-approved designs. Developers use the same designs in Maryland that they use in Phoenix. Some architect probably legally signed off on the plans at some point, but that is the limit of his role. Only the most superficial changes are ever made to the plans, and developers rarely consider the weather, the sunlight, or the orientation of the actual lot in which the house will sit.
I absolutely agree that there are a lot of shitty buildings out there, but they probably weren't designed by "architects". They were mass produced by developers and purchased en mass by consumers who could either care less or are just too damn impressed with granite countertops to even consider efficiency.
Don't blame the field of architecture. They've been the ones advocating energy efficient buildings more than anybody. Blame the developers who sell and consumers who buy such poor products because they are so nicely polished.
Riiiiiiight... I'm sure Ford was providing actual cars to your uncle's shop. Likewise, NASA was providing actual rockets for your Daddy's model rocket club. And then all those greedy school administrators decided to extort those honest and generous folks in big business for cold hard cash so they could shove it in their fat pockets.
It couldn't possibly have been that the American business community decided to abandon social responsibility in favor of the Libertarian "greed is good" credo during the Reagan era. It definitely wasn't the case that the traditionally symbiotic relationship between the private and public sector was plundered so some greedy asshole could take home higher 3rd quarter profits. Golly, free market libertarianism is infallible so I guess the problem is that tyrannical school administrators terrorized business leaders by refusing to accept their in-kind donations of rockets and automobiles.
Of course, I wonder what Ford was doing giving free shit away to public schools in the first place. Sounds like communism to me. Didn't they ever read Ayn Rand?
$0 cost, but there is a significant opportunity cost. People that get a good job instead of a PhD can accumulate a quarter million dollars worth of assets while grad students are eating ramen.
No, you're not asking me a clear question. What you're doing is asserting that I am biased on the grounds that I "interpreted" your words. You refuse to say how I was wrong in my interpretation or clarify what your position actually is. At this point you've taken no discernible position whatsoever, aside from saying that I'm just biased. You're not saying anything else. And you just want to change the subject from a substantive argument about American institutions into an obnoxious meta-argument.
The military spokespeople are hired liars whose job it is to portray our military efforts as benevolent.
And you juxtapose that with the following point:
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
I can only interpret this as a suggestion that the innate "smear" bias of the press somehow runs counter to the bullshit machine of the American military. And when you say press, I presume you are talking about American press, not Chinese press, since we are talking about America where virtually nobody reads foreign press.
Now you're claiming that this isn't what you are saying at all. You weren't talking about American press which you actually don't believe effectively counters the pentagon PR machine. You just like making completely non sequitur statements about the press after other people criticize the Pentagon. And you apparently accept the fact that government/military spokespeople are totally full of shit and they have been bullshitting us about Iraq for the last 8 years.
In misinterpreting what I said, which was extremely clear, you've exposed some of your biases. That's okay - we all have them. Me. You. Everyone. Now, do you suppose that your evaluation of the heavily edited, fuzzy, grainy, black & white film was as unbiased as your evaluation of my clear, simple, concise single sentence?
Oh yeah, congratulations on your "clear, simple, concise single sentence". Whichever sentence it was that you are referring to. I'm sure it was completely clear, simple, and concise. It's just so hard for me to tell which sentence you are talking about because they are all so clear, simple, and concise. Keep writing those clear simple and concise sentences and you'll go far.
1) I never said that only the American press is biased. I mentioned American press because the American press is the institution that you falsely claimed was adversarial to the pentagon PR machine.
As for bias in the American press, if you look closely, you'll see it cuts both ways.
2) No need for any evidence or arguments. Just assert your viewpoints as facts. Then you can try to change the subject when you're caught bullshitting. I'm impressed. You've been trained well by American media.
As far as WMD, perhaps if Saddam wasn't afraid that his life depended on perpetuating the perception that he might have WMD, the claims might not have been believable.
3) Saddam cooperated with round after round of UN weapons inspections. He was cooperating with another round of inspections when Bush, enabled by a gullible American public and a sycophantic press, ordered the invasion of Iraq. After the WMDs were proven to not exist, PR flacks rewrote history to justify their actions. It was just more bullshit, but it was quite effective. We can see your posts as evidence that gullible Americans now aggressively repeat this bullshit on their own volition.
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
What a laughable claim to make given that the American press core is comprised of sycophants and stenographers that obsequiously transcribe the words of government officials and report them as truth. That's how USA got in a war with Iraq in the first place: Judy Miller and other reporters promoted the government's bullshit claims of WMDs, and the gullible masses of Americans believed the government because, gosh, it's not like they would lie about something as serious as war.
It appears that you do believe the USA military's PR, because you think that the killing of an innocent man and his would-be rescuers are a rare occurrence. You may claim that there exists circumstantial justification for the killings, but there is nothing in any video or any military report that suggests that the situation was anything unique. It was just another day and another innocent group of Iraqis being gunned down by the USA.
Fundamentally, the question that needs to be answered is whether or not our military is a benevolent force in Iraq. The wikileaks video shows that the USA's ability to promote Iraqi welfare is severely compromised (to say the least) by its willingness to kill the innocent. Defenders of the military have responded by claiming that in the fog of war sometimes we must kill the innocent out of practicality. But to the extent that this is true, it only raises further questions about America's role in Iraq.
In order to determine if the USA can play a positive role, we need to ask: how often are the innocent killed?
The big lie is that these sorts of casual killings of the innocent are rare occurrences and this one just happened to be caught on film. (Much like the suggestion that the Abu Ghriab was the work of a "few bad apples" instead of a snapshot of the systematical torture regime that we have instituted). If you believe that these killings are rare despite all the evidence that they are an everyday occurrence, then you are a sucker.
For months the US military falsely insisted that they had absolutely nothing to do with the journalist's death. They repeatedly dismissed the allegation and even mocked the suggestion as silly Islamic paranoia. Only when evidence to the contrary came to light did they concede that they did kill the guy. Once the truth came out, they PR department instantly offered a new rationale for what transpired.
We see this all the time. The military spokespeople are bullshitting everybody to the maximum extent they can get away with. If a fact might reflect poorly on the USA military, then that fact is summarily covered up. The military spokespeople are hired liars whose job it is to portray our military efforts as benevolent.
One would think that with so many lies having been completely exposed over the years (their "non-involvement" in this killing being merely one of them), people would learn that the PR wing of the DoD is not a credible organization. Why is the new spin about the killing any more credible than the previous spin? It's hard to believe that, gosh, our soldiers had the best intentions when they killed that guy and the people who tried to rescue his body merely because the army said so.
And yet, many people who should know better do believe the military. They bought into the false narrative that Pat Tillman was killed fighting the Taliban and that Jessica Lynch was some sort of Amazonian Rambo who was overrun by insurgents. All the lies that are casually fed to us every time a PR guy makes a statement. They believe all this shit.
Are people just that gullible and stupid? Probably not. I think the USA just has legions of people who are willing (some eagerly so) to swallow the military's propaganda because they simplistically view the world as "us versus them". The US Army military represents "us". It's critics represent "them". And the fundamental truth is not important to them
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like your biggest complaint about Bill Clinton is total bullshit then since it was Congress that defunded the Superconducting Supercollider, not the President.
Give me a break. Americans who encounter facts that they don't like will always dismiss them as "spin". That is what Americans are programmed to do.
Moore was one of the few voices who pointed out how full of shit the Bush administration was during their push for the War in Iraq. People who rejected this criticism and the inconvenient facts therein, implicitly endorsed the claims of the Bush administration. And that's why America wasted billions of dollars and killed thousands of innocent people on a stupid war that dramatically reduced America's global and regional influence and credibility.
"Michael Moore falls prey to a mistake in ethical reasoning by failing to expound that taxation is immoral as well as the rest of my trite ideological drivel."
It's curious how Americans, particularly the American right-wing, describe Moore as a propagandist but still believe the American government, military, and corporate behemoths are creditworthy sources. Moore's portrayal of the Iraq War is much more accurate than the Bush administration's. For example, Americans eagerly swallowed bullshit claims about WMDs, aluminum tubes, Nigerian yellowcake. But when Moore points out these lies and the media's complicity in spreading them, the media calls Moore a propagandist. Unfortunately, most people (in America but also everywhere else) have neither the capacity or the inclination to critically examine the dominant media narratives.
It's the same thing with Wikileaks. People just don't want to hear the inconvenient truth. It's not comforting to know that one's government is lying to you and is, for example, engaging in a covert war in Yemen. They would rather have Assange prosecuted so they could maintain the myth of an honest, well-meaning, responsible American government that fights for freedom and human rights.
Did you read the article? From the abstract:
By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6C
In other words, the projections are generally consistent with other projections of warming, but some of the numbers have been tweaked by incorporating some negative effects. The study affirms the central concerns of the climate science community, and honest skeptics should at least acknowledge this.
It's real rich to lecture your peers about reading the article and claiming that other people are "ignoring evidence" when you can't even be bothered to understand the abstract.
And I suppose that the microsecond after another study is published that contradicts this one, you will immediately concede that the climate science community was right all along? No?
Give me a break. One study, no matter the conclusions, does not settle a debate. This latest study is one piece of the puzzle whose significance is yet to be determined.
Furthermore, this study affirms the central arguments of the climate community while tweaking the numbers. Neither this study nor its authors support climate change denial.
There is nothing in the NYTimes article that justifies this elaborate portrayal of the events. Is there another source that justifies this?
When exactly did either woman say "Stop"? Where did you get your information?
I ask because your interpretation doesn't square with the factual record. For example, Assange wasn't wearing a condom when he fucked Jessica, so how could Jessica withdraw consent because of a broken condom?
Everyone is interpreting the claims of the prosecution that consent had been withdrawn to mean that the women actually said "No", "Stop", or "Don't". That is the interpretation the prosecution would like us to have. Indeed, that would be rape. But I've never seen the prosecution actually claimed the women ever said "No." The claims of the prosecution have been very vague, and its sounding more and more like BS. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that consent was "withdrawn" implicitly such as when Julian made the sex riskier by having unprotected sex with other women.
In any case it's clear that the women were initially pleased with Assange and only reported the events to the Police immediately after they discovered that Assange had been sleeping around with other women. That doesn't sound like rape, that sounds like promiscuity.
That interpretation contradicts the factual record. The article made it very clear that a condom was not even used in the second liaison with Jessica, therefore it would have been impossible for it to "come off or break."
From my reading of the article, it appears that consent wasn't actually withdrawn until the two women found out about each other. When Assange's 40-something feminist activist lover discovered that Assange had some enjoyed a hot 20-something piece of ass on the side, then both the encounters retroactively became "rape".
64% failed?? That's outrageous. Even in the setup you describe students would have a 1/3 chance of cheating successfully. To me this suggests that virtually everyone was cheating, including a substantial fraction of the 36% who apparently passed. They just got lucky and cheated from somebody with the right test.
I am convinced that my company decided to allow Facebook because they wanted direct access to people's personal lives and if you use Facebook over the network you give that to them. They can monitor and store every interaction with FB, and nosy managers can get access to this whenever they want. If they didn't let people access FB over their network, then they couldn't legally invade their privacy.
The two explanations for rape aren't contradictory. The "power" theory suggests a psychological mechanism that might induce a male to rape. Evolutionary explanations suggest why a propensity to rape would be persistent and evolutionary advantageous but doesn't explain the mechanism that causes some men to decide to rape.
Actually the government and its corporate directors already have all the power. The power they have is not merely their limited 'constitutional' power, but mostly their control of the economy and the media. We The People don't have shit for power. We The People are collectively a bunch of illiterate dipshits with a few scattered, ineffective dissidents. No bill gets passed unless it further advances or entrenches corporate interests. Any remedy for our national problems that depends on We The People doing anything besides sit on our fat asses is a non-starter. So if the best we can do is place our welfare in the hands of We The People then we're fucked.
Which word does the Hebrew Bible use to mean "systematic genocide"? When the Israelites annihilate their neighbors was it retzach or ariga?
First, you may recall from high school that when you add salt to water you raise its boiling point. You're going to severely compromise the effectiveness of your swamp cooler if you are using salt water. Second, the poster above you (chrysrobyn) was right: If you are constantly evaporating saltwater then the salt will accumulate and you would need to deal with that. Third, saltwater rusts the hell out of everything. Fourth, the proposed system uses salt as a desiccant, it's not using saltwater as an evaporate medium.
yeah, f*** those scientists and their "golbal warming". If scientists were so smart then where is my carbon neutral car????
As an American, I believe the role of scientists should be to enable me and my fellow fat ass countrymen to live a cloistered, ignorant life of immense ease and comfort. Frankly, the lure that all my problems will be magically solved by scientists is the only reason I can tolerate all those people who think they are so smart.
Those houses are not designed by architects and are not a reflection of the field of architecture. Most houses are put together by developers, using variations on common pre-approved designs. Developers use the same designs in Maryland that they use in Phoenix. Some architect probably legally signed off on the plans at some point, but that is the limit of his role. Only the most superficial changes are ever made to the plans, and developers rarely consider the weather, the sunlight, or the orientation of the actual lot in which the house will sit.
I absolutely agree that there are a lot of shitty buildings out there, but they probably weren't designed by "architects". They were mass produced by developers and purchased en mass by consumers who could either care less or are just too damn impressed with granite countertops to even consider efficiency.
Don't blame the field of architecture. They've been the ones advocating energy efficient buildings more than anybody. Blame the developers who sell and consumers who buy such poor products because they are so nicely polished.
Riiiiiiight... I'm sure Ford was providing actual cars to your uncle's shop. Likewise, NASA was providing actual rockets for your Daddy's model rocket club. And then all those greedy school administrators decided to extort those honest and generous folks in big business for cold hard cash so they could shove it in their fat pockets.
It couldn't possibly have been that the American business community decided to abandon social responsibility in favor of the Libertarian "greed is good" credo during the Reagan era. It definitely wasn't the case that the traditionally symbiotic relationship between the private and public sector was plundered so some greedy asshole could take home higher 3rd quarter profits. Golly, free market libertarianism is infallible so I guess the problem is that tyrannical school administrators terrorized business leaders by refusing to accept their in-kind donations of rockets and automobiles.
Of course, I wonder what Ford was doing giving free shit away to public schools in the first place. Sounds like communism to me. Didn't they ever read Ayn Rand?
$0 cost, but there is a significant opportunity cost. People that get a good job instead of a PhD can accumulate a quarter million dollars worth of assets while grad students are eating ramen.
No, you're not asking me a clear question. What you're doing is asserting that I am biased on the grounds that I "interpreted" your words. You refuse to say how I was wrong in my interpretation or clarify what your position actually is. At this point you've taken no discernible position whatsoever, aside from saying that I'm just biased. You're not saying anything else. And you just want to change the subject from a substantive argument about American institutions into an obnoxious meta-argument.
And you juxtapose that with the following point:
I can only interpret this as a suggestion that the innate "smear" bias of the press somehow runs counter to the bullshit machine of the American military. And when you say press, I presume you are talking about American press, not Chinese press, since we are talking about America where virtually nobody reads foreign press. Now you're claiming that this isn't what you are saying at all. You weren't talking about American press which you actually don't believe effectively counters the pentagon PR machine. You just like making completely non sequitur statements about the press after other people criticize the Pentagon. And you apparently accept the fact that government/military spokespeople are totally full of shit and they have been bullshitting us about Iraq for the last 8 years.
Oh yeah, congratulations on your "clear, simple, concise single sentence". Whichever sentence it was that you are referring to. I'm sure it was completely clear, simple, and concise. It's just so hard for me to tell which sentence you are talking about because they are all so clear, simple, and concise. Keep writing those clear simple and concise sentences and you'll go far.
1) I never said that only the American press is biased. I mentioned American press because the American press is the institution that you falsely claimed was adversarial to the pentagon PR machine.
2) No need for any evidence or arguments. Just assert your viewpoints as facts. Then you can try to change the subject when you're caught bullshitting. I'm impressed. You've been trained well by American media.
3) Saddam cooperated with round after round of UN weapons inspections. He was cooperating with another round of inspections when Bush, enabled by a gullible American public and a sycophantic press, ordered the invasion of Iraq. After the WMDs were proven to not exist, PR flacks rewrote history to justify their actions. It was just more bullshit, but it was quite effective. We can see your posts as evidence that gullible Americans now aggressively repeat this bullshit on their own volition.
What a laughable claim to make given that the American press core is comprised of sycophants and stenographers that obsequiously transcribe the words of government officials and report them as truth. That's how USA got in a war with Iraq in the first place: Judy Miller and other reporters promoted the government's bullshit claims of WMDs, and the gullible masses of Americans believed the government because, gosh, it's not like they would lie about something as serious as war.
It appears that you do believe the USA military's PR, because you think that the killing of an innocent man and his would-be rescuers are a rare occurrence. You may claim that there exists circumstantial justification for the killings, but there is nothing in any video or any military report that suggests that the situation was anything unique. It was just another day and another innocent group of Iraqis being gunned down by the USA.
Fundamentally, the question that needs to be answered is whether or not our military is a benevolent force in Iraq. The wikileaks video shows that the USA's ability to promote Iraqi welfare is severely compromised (to say the least) by its willingness to kill the innocent. Defenders of the military have responded by claiming that in the fog of war sometimes we must kill the innocent out of practicality. But to the extent that this is true, it only raises further questions about America's role in Iraq.
In order to determine if the USA can play a positive role, we need to ask: how often are the innocent killed?
The big lie is that these sorts of casual killings of the innocent are rare occurrences and this one just happened to be caught on film. (Much like the suggestion that the Abu Ghriab was the work of a "few bad apples" instead of a snapshot of the systematical torture regime that we have instituted). If you believe that these killings are rare despite all the evidence that they are an everyday occurrence, then you are a sucker.
For months the US military falsely insisted that they had absolutely nothing to do with the journalist's death. They repeatedly dismissed the allegation and even mocked the suggestion as silly Islamic paranoia. Only when evidence to the contrary came to light did they concede that they did kill the guy. Once the truth came out, they PR department instantly offered a new rationale for what transpired.
We see this all the time. The military spokespeople are bullshitting everybody to the maximum extent they can get away with. If a fact might reflect poorly on the USA military, then that fact is summarily covered up. The military spokespeople are hired liars whose job it is to portray our military efforts as benevolent.
One would think that with so many lies having been completely exposed over the years (their "non-involvement" in this killing being merely one of them), people would learn that the PR wing of the DoD is not a credible organization. Why is the new spin about the killing any more credible than the previous spin? It's hard to believe that, gosh, our soldiers had the best intentions when they killed that guy and the people who tried to rescue his body merely because the army said so. And yet, many people who should know better do believe the military. They bought into the false narrative that Pat Tillman was killed fighting the Taliban and that Jessica Lynch was some sort of Amazonian Rambo who was overrun by insurgents. All the lies that are casually fed to us every time a PR guy makes a statement. They believe all this shit. Are people just that gullible and stupid? Probably not. I think the USA just has legions of people who are willing (some eagerly so) to swallow the military's propaganda because they simplistically view the world as "us versus them". The US Army military represents "us". It's critics represent "them". And the fundamental truth is not important to them