Obama’s Drone War. If Obama Had A Son, Would He Look Like This?
Given the sudden interest in Obama’s drone wars, I wanted to remind you that some of us have long questioned Obama’s kill list and drone war. Many on the left are suddenly outraged by it. How: convenient: AFTER the election. Here is a part of what I said a year ago in my post, “It’s Time To End The Pakistan Drone Strikes” :
“According to the article former CIA acting general counsel John A. Rizzo and other officials have “fought to keep most information about the Pakistan drone war out of the public eye. Journalists have been unable to get answers to legal questions such as on what basis the government decides to kill.”
It’s interesting to me that Obama would do this. I’m assuming that he saw true danger in Pakistan and/or he didn’t want to seem soft on terrorism. Obama even went as far to authorize a CIA-directed drone attack that killed two jihadists who were American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, in Yemen. One can only imagine the howling from the left if it had been Bush who had done that. To be fair, there have been a few on the left, such as Glenn Greenwald who did show outrage about that, but for the most part, the snarling dogs that called Bush a warmonger with every breath, has remained quite sedate regarding Obama. Remember, we are not at war in Pakistan. These are not drone strikes in Afghanistan.”
Maybe it’s time the left stop protecting Obama from every bad decision he makes, and join me in calling for an end to the drone strikes.
Then in June I wrote a piece called “Obama’s Real Kill List':
“The New York Times piece on Obama’s terrorist “kill list” got a lot of attention. It listed the names of those chosen for execution by CIA and Pentagon drones outside the conventional battlefield. The names not listed on the kill list are those innocents in other countries killed by the strikes. But they are dead all the same.
The anti war protests have gone silent. Although I must admit Code Pink and Glenn Greenwald have stayed consistent in their beliefs. War is a bloody thing. Like most people, I am anti war. I just realize that sometimes we must fight evil. Most everyone agrees that fighting Hitler was the right thing to do, but I don’t think we have agreed about what fighting evil means since then. We seemed to have re-defined evil to fit our own political agenda. During the Iraq war, there was collateral damage. Which is a terrible thing. Do I believe our boys did everything in their power to keep that from happening? Yes, I do. But I did understand the left’s outrage at it. Especially when you don’t agree with the reason for the war in the first place. But we aren’t war in Yemen, are we? Yet Obama seems determined to drone the heck out of it. As with Bush, I assume they know something we don’t. I hope it’s good, and I hope it’s keeping us safe, because innocents are being killed.”
The first known drone strike in Yemen to be authorized by Mr. Obama, in late 2009, left 14 women and 21 children dead in the southern town of al-Majala, according to a parliamentary report. Only one of the dozens killed was identified as having strong Qaeda connections.
Misleading intelligence has also led to disastrous strikes with major political and economic consequences.
Misleading intelligence? Remember when the left went insane crazy over that? Oh yes. That was when Pres. Bush was President. Pres. Obama gets a pass, that is…..until after the election. Now, the left can show a bit of moral outrage. : As of December 2012, there have been 178 confirmed children killed in Obama’s drone strikes. This doesn’t count innocent men and women.
Unfortunately, liberal voices in the United States are largely ignoring, if not condoning, civilian deaths and extrajudicial killings in Yemen – including the assassination of three American citizens in September 2011,: including a 16-year-old. During George W. Bush’s presidency, the rage would have been tremendous.
Yes, many of us have been questioning why Obama has produced SIX TIMES the number of drone strikes in four years than Bush did in eight years. Many of us are questioning Obama and even some Republicans who somehow think it’s ok to kill U.S. citizens, no matter how vile, without due process. Even the most heinous among us are: guaranteed: due process under the law. But that sort of thing never seems to stop Pres. Obama from doing exactly what he wants to do, and a willing smitten press letting him do it.
There was a time (During the Bush years, of course) when a article like this written in the NYT, would have produced a 24/7 news loop reporting on it. But I’m betting that everyone reading this right now never heard or saw that piece written back in June. After all, the media had a President to re-elect.
Also back in June I also wrote a piece called “The Death of Principle.” In it I quoted Jason Brennan, Ph.D. Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at Georgetown University at : BleedingHeartLibertarians.com, another liberal who has been consistent. Here he spanks his fellow liberals pretty badly, and points out perfectly the hypocrisy:
2012 Obama supporters have a different moral outlook from 2008 Obama supporters. Most Obama supporters just don’t care that Obama does this kind of stuff, even though when Bush did it (and did less of it), it made them furious. Why?
Perhaps they think, “Well, Obama’s such a great guy. If he does this stuff it too, then he must have good reason. After all, he gets daily CIA briefings and we don’t. He knows more than we do.” If you genuinely think this way,then I submit you must now apologize to George W. Bush for your previous protests. To be consistent, you must say, “Bush was right and I was wrong. He knew what he was doing and I didn’t know better. The fact that Obama does the same and more shows Bush was right.”
Or, perhaps the explanation is what psychologists call “intergroup bias” or “in-group/out-group bias”. We are biased to view our side as good and the other side as evil. We are biased to make excuses for our side and damn the other side for slightest transgression. Obama, in his foreign policy and in his behavior toward intelligence gathering, has simply been an extension of George W. Bush. If Bush had had a third term, he probably would have acted much the same as Obama. The Left would have condemned him for it. But if (from the Left’s perspective) our guy does it, then it must be okay.
The United States once claimed to be a symbol of freedom, of respect for the rights of all people, and of respect for the rule of law. The 2012 election proves we have no right to wave this banner.”
I also wrote back in June, “So, why is President Obama doing this?: Retired admiral Dennis Blair, the former US Director of National Intelligence has the answer, and is quoted as saying that it is: “the politically advantageous thing to do – low cost, no US casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.”
Isn’t this always the way with Pres. Obama? It’s always about what is politically: advantageous: in the short term for him, and forget the long term. Forget his liberal ideals also, I might add. Whether it’s Obamacare, gay marriage, or not deporting young illegals, it’s all about what it gives him politically in the short term.”
One is left to ask one question, although harsh, it points out the depth of Obama’s hypocrisy. The question is this; If Obama had a son, would he look like this?
FacebookTwitterEmail One of the myths that the Left consistently recycles is that Democrats lose elections because the Republicans hit them
FacebookTwitterEmail I can understand issuing a travel alert to U.S. Citizens traveling abroad, but why go public about closing embassies?:
FacebookTwitterEmail According to four star general, “Dingy” Harry Reid, the surge has failed, “Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President