i like reading between the lines. the problem is that, its so subjective. if you dont like the person, you tend to “read” something negative. if u like him, then positive — sabi nga ni jojie “editorializing”

mas may simpatya ako kung sabi ni robredo: “the primary objection of dilg is to stop jueteng”, then the next day “we changed our minds, extra-judicial killings na”.

but the fact is “marching orders” does not mean primary objection.

sequence of events you yourself outlined:
1) robredo says: “juenteng is part of the agenda/stop jueteng” (i.e. marching orders)

2) pnoy says: “its not the top priority” because of the stuff i mentioned…

there is no playing up. thats whats so confusing to me!

from the sequence, 2 things are clear: jueteng is on the agenda, but its not the priority.

that is so easy to understand!

yun lang. di ba simple lang? bakit may flipflopping?

the reason he downplayed jueteng is that there are urgent issues that need to attended to: human rights violations, media killings, peace and order, disaster assistance mititgation, etc…

Pnoy CANT WIN.

if he says, solve juenteng, people say, “paano ang mga human rights victims!”

if he says “lets solve these urgent problems first”, people will say “look, he flipped flopped!”

cant it be possible for the admin to have a list of things to do, and then be FREE to allocate resources based on their relative urgency?

isnt this the OBVIOUS thing to do? dont we live this way ourselves? why criticize pnoy for stuff that is obvious and good?