so you went from what you thought was a more biased source (npr) to what you thought was a less biased source (reuters) and it turned out to be the same report? 'we claim it's a matter of national security on the totally-solid basis of we say so' etc?

> The omitted specifics around "national security" suggested that perhaps there was more to the story

there were and still are no specifics provided by the administration on how this is a matter of national security to the point of halting the project, only implausible pretexts which are insufficient by default until convincingly proven otherwise.

given the 'national security because we said so but with more words' pretext, we see there was and is indeed no more to the story than that.

▲

palmfacehn 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly. If there were a compelling rationale, we would expect NPR to downplay it.

If red hatted wolves were devouring NPR radio hosts, their cries for help wouldn't be sufficient. We would need external verification. Additionally, their editorial support for wolf attacks against opposing partisans would be hypocritical.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

> If there were a compelling rationale, [I] would expect NPR to downplay it.

Exactly – Given your editorial stance, I expect that you would expect that, and yet the evidence here shows that you were wrong to: There was no compelling rationale for this action, thus NPR could not have reported one.

	▲	palmfacehn 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You've taken a long road to observe something I acknowledge in my original comment, while sidestepping the point.