Let me start by pointing out the hypocrisy here. When Obama first ran for office, he ran on opposition to the invasion of Iraq. He also opposed Bush’s use of secret C.I.A. prisons and the warrantless surveillance of the Patriot Act. He attacked Bush for denying Guantanamo Bay detainees civil rights, and he promised to close the facility. He said he would ban “harsh interrogation techniques.” And many on the left, though I don’t recall Obama saying this specifically, really hated the use of drones and wanted it stopped. And he spoke of having a humbler foreign policy.
Well, Obama took over and lo and behold, he did none of this – except ban waterboarding. To the contrary, Obama became uber-Bush. His Justice Department tried to strip the Gitmo detainees of person status, in violation of the Constitution and international law. His Justice Department decided that military tribunals rather than civilian courts were just fine. And now, his Justice Department has not only decided that drones are cool, but they’re way cool and they should be used with reckless abandon.
The left has remained completely silent on these points, just as they cheered when he tried to bully Honduras (after saying we needed to stop interfering in Central America), just as they cheered when he sent troops to kill pirates, to fight rebels in Africa, to bomb terrorists in Somalia and Yemen, and to basically fight a Laos-type war in Pakistan, just as they pounded their chests when he bombed Libya, just as they are now screaming for him to bomb Syria. This is all the things the left hated about Bush, only on steroids. As an aside, they also used to fight things like land mines and the use of depleted uranium in shells... until Obama took over, now they’re cool.
Now get this, this is rich. When the Justice Department issued their memo on drones the other day, the left finally decided they need to say something. Said some ACLU hack:
“That memo coming out, I think, was a wake-up call. These last few days, it was like being back in the Bush days. It’s causing a lot of cognitive dissonance for a lot of people. It’s not the President Obama they thought they knew.”Cognitive dissonance my smoking rear end... try willful collaboration. You’d have to be willfully blind to somehow fail to see what Obama has been doing for four years and to only now understand that Obama=Bush.
Anyway, here’s the deal with drones.
First, the problem I’ve had with the left on this issue is that there is no logic to their reasoning. Leftists have opposed drones on principle, and the reason seems to be that they don’t like the idea of the American military killing someone without those people getting a chance to kill American soldiers. This is what they are saying when they whine about wars being fought by “remote control.” This is bull. There is no logic to this whatsoever, nor is there any morality to this. The idea that it’s only acceptable to kill someone if you endanger yourself in the process is, frankly, retarded thinking. And I think it comes from their anti-American sentiment in that they don’t want the American military to be able to fight without suffering casualties. This is as stupid as arguing that soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to use guns because it’s too easy to kill someone with a gun before they have a chance to try to knife you, and it’s immoral to argue that if we are going to go to war, then we need to take proportional causalities.
Over time, they’ve added a new strain to the anti-drone argument. This one holds that the problem with drones is that they are “indiscriminate.” This is, of course, nonsense. The US is not flying drones that are out there picking their own targets and fighting a war without human input. That’s the science fiction view, not the reality. And it doesn’t take a human pilot to be able to identify the targets that will be hit. So again, this is stupid.
Then they came up with the idea that drone strikes are evil because they are depriving terrorists of their constitutional rights. Only, they have no such rights. So the left hunted around until they found some dead terrorist with American citizenship and they claimed, “see, Bush is killing Americans with drones without due process.” The counter to this is, of course, that when you engage in armed combat against America, you really have no rights. Sadly for the left, however, before this issue caught on, Obama took over and they had to shut up for fear of hurting the image of their Warrior in Chief. So the issue went away.
BUT... now we come to what Obama is doing, and this is where the problem arises. Not only has Obama’s Justice Department decided that killing Americans is fine, but they went further. They decided that something called “signature strikes” are fine. Signature strikes are the racial profiling of the terrorism world. Basically, the CIA is allowed to blow you up if you engage in conduct that appears to be terrorism related even if it doesn’t have a clue who you are. In other words, Obama is letting the CIA blow people up because they are doing things that fit the profile of terrorist without any idea of who these people are or what they are doing. That actually is a violation of international law which doesn’t let you target non-combatants.
So the question now is, will the left stand by their supposed principles (fat chance) or will they continue their deafening silence to support Obama? To give you a sense, feminists haven’t said word one about the massive gender-based pay disparities in the White House, gays stayed silent for four years about Obama’s lack of support for gay marriage, environmentalists still won’t admit that Obama sold them out in Copenhagen, etc. etc.
I think conservatives need to turn up the heat here. Rand Paul is doing this and I’d like to see others do it too. Obama gets away with talking self-righteously but acting the opposite. It’s time to put an end to that. Make him choose... expose his left flank. Don’t think that by remaining silent, you will leave the door open for the next Republican president to do the same... the left doesn’t work that way.
Finally, there’s an interesting point someone made the other day which is worth tossing into the discussion. The thinking is that the reason Obama is using massive numbers of drone attacks is purely political: he wants to avoid capturing terrorists because he doesn’t want to deal with the headaches created by his rhetoric. Basically, he doesn’t know what to do with them, where to put them, or how to keep them without trying them, because his rhetoric wiped out all the options. Nor does he want to deal with the possibility of being in charge when a terrorist attack happens and people find out it could have been prevented if his administration had actually questioned the people they caught. Thus, he thinks it’s safer to kill them all. Interesting. Maybe they should have waited on that Nobel Peace Prize?
Thoughts?
35 comments:
I should clarify on the racial profiling point... it isn't that the CIA will bomb an al Qaeda camp without knowing who is there, it's that the CIA can blow up someone who is doing something that they think looks like something terrorists do.
For example, suppose you and your ten friends grabbed your AK-47s and you decided to race across the desert for a little snipe hunt one night. If a drone happens upon you, you may look enough like a terrorist that they can bomb you without first trying to figure out who or what you are or what you're doing.
That's the problem with signature strikes.
These apparently will be ended before the next President takes over, but for now they're still allowed.
Of course all political partisans are, at times, guilty of hypocrisy, but the left seem to be masters at it. I expect it from them, but it has always particularly galled me that the media that pretends to be "mainstream" and objective are such willing accomplices. Obama has probably come to realize that our jihadist enemies don't play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Most Obama voters don't listen to those who will criticize this, and even if they do realize what is going on, will go through all the rationalization exercises to justify it now, or simply dismiss it from their minds. Translation: he won't pay much political price, and doesn't really give a shit since he won his last election (unless he can drum up enough support for a shogunate.
Jed, Believe it or not, the liberal mindset on this is actually easy to understand. They care about motive only. Thus, anything Republicans do is evil because they assume Republican motives are evil. Blow people up, you did it because you're evil and hateful racists. Help people out, you want something. But they KNOW the Democrats have good motives. So when they blow people up, it was all done in the name of bringing peace. When they hurt people, it's ok because they meant to help people. Molest a 14 year old Guatemalan prostitute... it's ok, the other things you do make up for it.
I know that's hard to wrap a logical mind around, but they really do think like that -- "only motive matters."
Andrew....Scenario:
- Now that The One has been re-elected, you will hear more and more from the usual suspects about these issues. They will again become the go-to groups the media highlights. It will again become such an unpopular tactic that Obama will decree that the Defense Department and CIA put in place policies that prohibit the use of drone strikes except during a declared war and on known enemies. No more strikes in Pakistan. He will then be lauded for his stopping an abhorrent practice that the US military was engaged in. All will be forgotten and forgiven and his Peace Prize will again be shined and placed on his mantle.
Yes, everyone will forget about his extensive use and personal targeting and blame the drone strikes on "Bush era" protocols. Thank God Obama stopped them! Isn't he just the most wonderful President EVER?! His legacy is secure.
(I really hate being right on these things)
I like the take on the drone issue. This is really just a logical extension from the liberals back in the day who used to complain about aerial bombing on the grounds that "these pilots are dropping bombs on people who never did anything to them," etc. Grow up.
Andrew, in addition to judging things by assumed motives, there is another facet to the way the left regards military action that you won't glean from the MSM b/c it is part of the puzzle. I'm still haunted by a conversation I had over 10 years ago with a liberal friend who spelled it out for me, and ever since I've caught glimpses of the same thinking in almost every conversation I've had with a liberal regarding the military. But I've strung you along enough.
What was pointed out to me is that liberals, just like anyone else, want to sleep soundly at night. They like the idea of a government that aggressively pursues our enemies abroad and prevents them from reaching our shores. They perhaps like the idea a little more than the average conservative or independent. What they don't like is knowing about it.
It's a very cynical attitude to be sure, but for all the bluster over how evil Bush or any other Republican is in their military pursuits, what really irks them is the knowing about it. Feeding this is the typical liberal's belief that the MSM is genuinely non-partisan, so when they hear about casualties numbers and bombings on the news, they take it that the guy in charge is a clumsy oaf banging through the china shop. They wail about "illegal" acts when what they would prefer even more decidedly illegal acts such as covert assassinations. It ain't a crime if ya don't get caught, seems to be the underlying reason.
So in relation to the media suddenly "waking up" to Obama's drone strikes, I would say that they've deemed him to be "too clumsy." Which completely underscores what you've said about exposing Obama's--or any Democrat's--left flank. That is the way in which a partisan right-wing counter-media should operate, primarily to expose those stories which the partisan left-wing establishment media ignores. Unfortunately, the way it exists, it is 95% commentary and the 5% news comes off the AP wire and just receives different spin.
“signature strikes”
I have been uncomfortable with this whole drone killing thing, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. I, like may people, am uneasy about bombing areas in countries for which we are not officially at war AND with out the knowledge of that country. But, then how different is that from sending Seal Team 6 in. So, thank you for actually putting a name to what I REALLY have issues with..."Signature Strikes". It is one thing to target an actual known terrorist in a known place. I am on board with that - I shed no tears for Al-Alwacko or his son. But just targeting a place because someone MAY be doing something that LOOKS like terrorism especially without any kind of Congressional/Judicial oversight - NO!
It is frustrating that the same people who were out on the street protesting Bush's every move, are nowhere to be found. I point that out regularly on HuffPo when these topics come up. No one has given me a clear answer.
The other revelation that Obama was nowhere to be found for 7+ hours during and after the Benghazi consulate attacks is another one. Where are the Michael Moore et al. who repeatedly continue to condemn Bush for waiting 7 minutes to get up and walk out of room full of children on 9/11?
Long story short, drone strikes are the least risky way to deal with terrorists, so they will continue to be employed.
Cindy Sheehan, Ron Paul and their followers may be incensed, but most Americans don't care too much about death so long as its not Americans or someone clearly innocent doing the dying (citizenship of the suspicious guys in the desert doesn't matter).
It wasn't drone strikes that gave Bush trouble (among the mainstream), it was the American casualty figures and the perception that Bush was a man without a clue willing to fight to the last soldier to make the Middle East free (McCain was probably toast no matter what he did, but his willingess to go to war with Iran didn't fill many people with confidence).
Bush and Obama's policy of knocking over autocracies and encouraging democracy was defensible (and its one I have defended) but it is more bloody than most Americans are comfortable with.
The problem is that Obama has declared that the US will be pulling out troops on his watch, which is the only thing most people care about (wars cost big money, but the government spends/has spent so much the massive cost of war has lost the power to shock).
If the Republicans want to hit Obama in a place the public cares about, I'd suggest 'Why not pull out the troops immediately? Why have more good men die so that a country nobody cares abotu can crumble a little later?'.
Chill Andrew. Democrats have vast experience in prosecuting low level asymmetric war scenarios. They've been doing it against the American public for decades.
Patriot, I think you're right. I think that so long as Obama bans the practice before he leaves office, the left will call it something "he stopped" rather than something "he did."
I think, however, that the conservatives who are going along with him in the belief that this means the next Republican can do the same by pointing to Obama are deluded. The left doesn't work that way. It will be a war crime again once Obama leaves office.
T-Rav, By large, I agree. This is just liberals being upset about war in general, and they don't like the idea that the US is successful at it. They don't think it's "fair" that the enemy doesn't have an equal chance to kill US soldiers. This is what their "proportional war" garbage is about.
tryanmax, That's insightful and I think you're absolutely right. I've seen that impulse in ALL liberal policies. They want things to "be" but they don't want to know how they got that way or who is being hurt. Thus, taxing a rich person to the point of poverty is fine if it does a good thing, but the rich person is EVIL if the liberal is forced to hear about the person about whom the taxes have been taken. It's the same way Germans ignored the concentration camps... out of sight is acceptable.
You see this in every facet of their behavior. It's fine to lock someone up for life... unless you see that person on the news. It's fine to eat meat... unless you see the animal about to be slaughtered. It's fine to close plants to save the environment... unless you see the people who will lose jobs. Starving in Africa is fine... unless you see the kids.
Liberalism is about instant gratification and it harshes the buzz when they are forced to see the victims of the things they advocate.
So I think you are right, that liberals are more than fine having the military wipe out whole populations... so long as they don't need to hear about it. So I think that conservatives really need to think about this and they need to start "putting a human face" on everything the left does, especially when they claim moral superiority in their rhetoric.
Bev, You're welcome. I agree with your take. I am uncomfortable with us bombing in countries in which we are not at war without permission, but I can accept it when we're sure we're hitting somebody bad and important. BUT this idea of bombing people who just kind of sort of look like they're doing things terrorists might do is a problem. I think that ultimately, that is a dangerous way to fight wars which will blow up on us. I also think it's immoral to kill people you are not at war with when you don't even have an idea who the person is you've targeted or why exactly you've made them a target. That's not something the US should be doing.
On the leftist who remain silent, I think this is the trust evidence of their hypocritical mindset: they claim morality, but they have none. There are simply no limits on the rotten conduct they will condone so long as the right person with the right motives is doing them. And then they will turn around and claim moral superiority for opposing other people they don't like from doing the same thing.
I hate Hitler analogies, but this is exactly how the German people let him round up the Jews -- he seemed like he had a good purpose for doing it.
tryanmax - I think you are right on your analysis of "protect me, but don't tell me".
Anthony, Agreed on all points. The drone thing never caught on against Bush because the public doesn't care how people die so long as bad guys die. They only care when you blow up a family of five on their way to al Disneyia.
And the problem Bush had was really one of perceived (and actual) incompetence, which the media exploited.
Obama doesn't face that, even though he's been equally incompetent, because the media isn't exploiting his incompetence and because conservatives keep giving him cover. The withdrawal is the classic example of the problem with our side. It's obvious to anyone who is paying attention that we are just wasting time and lives in Afghan. There is no legitimate government and we will hand the country right back to the Taliban the moment we leave. In effect, we will have achieved nothing. So why delay withdrawal?
But conservatives won't make this case because too many conservatives currently think that we can kill our way to a better world. This is beyond ignorant, but it's become a mainstay of conservative thinking. So they are incapable of seizing opportunities to make life difficult for Obama and his crowd because they want to see us keep fighting until we "win," which isn't possible. It's like winning the war on crime.
Thus, we end up being incapable of making life difficult for Obama because we basically back his play on the issues where we should be attacking his hypocritical rhetoric to force him into either declaring openly that what he's doing is ok or forcing him to actually walk the walk.
K, Isn't that the truth!
rlaWTX, the police motto should be: "to serve and protect... and you never need to know about it." :)
I think that conservatives really need to think about this and they need to start "putting a human face" on everything the left does...
Well put, Andrew. That is precisely the tactic the left has used for as long as I've been paying attention. That's what it is all about whenever a Democrat trots some unfortunate up on stage at a rally. The implication is meant to say, "You see this sadness? Republicans did this!" Heck! Obama even did this at SOTU with lines at polling places by putting some centenarian in the gallery as if to say, "Would you make this lady stand for hours in line?" Apparently early voting does not exist for her.
Republicans are way to wonkish; they think talking about outcomes is enough, but people need to be shown. The right-wingers on the radio do worse by simply mocking the tactic as victimology, thereby poisoning the well for Republicans who might turn the tactic around. There should be interviews with displaced victims of Superstorm Sandy begging Obama to do something. There should be a running counter every night until full power is restored to the northeast. We need human interest stories about people leaving California--dreams abandoned--in search of better prospects elsewhere. There should have been daily reports on "The Fall of Detroit" for years now. And repeat, and repeat, and repeat!
We should be turning every tactic the left uses around on them. It's the only way to make the fight fair.
tryanmax, I couldn't agree more on all point.
Conservatives don't get this because they don't focus on people. They focus on statistics and "principles," i.e. theory. Theory doesn't sell.
They should be highlighting the human cost of Obama's/liberalism's failures exactly like you say. Why aren't we beating the drums about the failures of inner city schools, the destruction of Baltimore, Detroit, or other liberal cities. Why don't we highlight the small businesses who lay people off because they can't afford the taxes in California and who flee liberal states. When the propose a new law, we should have a dozen stories about real people who will lose their jobs and their healthcare and their kids will suffer because of it.
We don't do this because out side doesn't get it. Our side thinks that politics is a theoretical game and it's about debating points. Check out places like the Daily Caller and you'll see the disconnect. They are busy doing all the inside baseball stuff I was talking about the other day -- Benghazi, Fast and Furious, voter id scandals involving one guy. None of that means anything to the public.
I think it's also something that requires genuine journalistic skills to do, and I don't see those on our side. Our "journalists" are either news readers who spin (like on Fox) or they are pundits who give opinions. I don't see any conservatives who actually dig for and compile information. Thus, even if you wanted to do a Fall of Detroit series (a brilliant idea) who is out there to do it?
These are the types of things that need to change.
tryanmax, To me, the biggest failure of Fox news has always been that they don't do any independent work. They read AP stories and just spin them. That's like following the enemy's battle plan and just hoping you win each engagement. Fox news is a 100% wasted opportunity.
Lots of great commentary here. Truly, on the drone issue at least we've seen some honesty from liberal commentators: "Yeah, if Bush was doing this it would be bad, but I trust Obama." This is close to actual quotes I've read, and my question is, "Why the hell do you trust this guy?"
The answer, of course, is that he's a Democrat and therefore has pure motives.
"But what if he lied about his motives?" The answer, of course, is that he had to lie to protect his real motives, which are, of course, pure.
I will now speak in my native french and say, "Fuck you, Lefties."
More have died in 4 years under Obama in Afghanistan than in 6 years under Bush, yet nobody hears that. Obama routinely kills innocents in Pakistan with his drone strikes using his "double tap" strategy, yet nobody hears that. Obama's white paper on his drone policy indicates that drones could be used on American soil against American citizens merely based on the government's suspicion.
Again, in my native french, "Fuck you, Lefties."
The CIA under Petraeus was being converted to a purely paramilitary operation, but even then, subsets of the agency were conducting other military operations without his knowledge or approval. Then they found a way to kick him to the curb, so all restraint on the agency is off. Obama hates the military, so he wants his CIA to conduct shadow wars instead while leaving the military to whither and die without direction on multiple fronts.
Again, "Fuck you, lefties."
There is nothing to trust about Obama. He is not a good man. His motives are evil, they are about money, and they are about power. I will sum up his foreign policy as follows: "I don't care. You guys handle it. I will claim credit for the good and blame you for the bad."
Fuck you, Lefties.
wahsatchmo, Excellent use of French! LOL!
There is a real circular "reasoning" to the way the left thinks: what a leftist does is ok because they trust his motives. They trust his motives even though he lies about everything, including his motives, because he's a leftist and thus can be trusted even though he lies. This is all circular nonsense.
And you are right about Obama's motives -- they are money and power, nothing else. His entire administration has been one big pay off to union supporters and banks.
You are also right about the way he is trying to convert the CIA into basically an unmonitored military. I still remember how much grief the Democrats gave Reagan over Nicaragua and how they screamed that the US should never be allowed to conduct "secret wars". They also smeared the Pentagon for assassinating enemy leaders in Vietnam. Yet, all of that is not only cool now, it's WAY cool to them.
wahsatchmo - So THAT'S why right before someone swears, they say "Pardon my French"! It really IS French! Mystery finally solved. Thanks.
Great comments and in general I agree with everyone. (quiet, I'm not a wishy-washy moderate)
One thing we forgot about that the average democrat does well is the basic principle of Party trumps Person.
Most clear thinking dems know that Obama is a joke but they will never admit it publically because it would hurt the party. They do a much better job closing ranks especially in a crises. Because many republicans almost seem to enjoy cutting off their nose to spite their face, they weaken any chance of improvement. Romney, while not perfect, would have been much better for republicans due to how certain program are conducted and who gets on judicial benches, etc. Democrats rarely destroy and eat their own. Embarressments get swept under the rug.
Bev, the origins of the work are unclear as there are similar older words in German (ficken) or possibly fuk-, which means to strike. It may also come from High German word pfluog, which means to plow, as in a field.
It is also possible that there are Latin origins futuere, which became foutre in French. It may also derive from the Latin word futus which possibly means to (pro)create. There are also Greek phyo which means of a man to beget and to a woman to give birth to or the word pephyka.
Hope that helps. Thank you Wikipedia
Well, here's a shocker. Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily points out that the vast majority of Pakistanis are somewhat miffed at the US indiscriminately bombing the shit out of them with CIA-controlled robot planes.
What nerve. Don't they know Obama's a Democrat?
wahsatchmo, Clearly, they didn't get the memo. Obama has only the best of motives.
Koshcat, I think the Democrats do work on the idea of party trumps person. And they have very few scruples about defending their own for the good of the party or in how they attack anyone who isn't of the party.
To sum up: We have SWAT teams for every fricken government department. The local variety routinely show up in front of the wrong people's doors and mess up their lives. So called "Liberals" either don't care or are in favor of taking out US citizens in contradistinction to due process and the Constitution. We have drones over our homes. We are nearly strip searched every time we go to the airport and if you object you will be strip searched. TSA is expanding to random traffic stops and trains. Our phones and e mails are being arbitrarily searched for naughtiness.
I noted today that the old Salvation Army and Goodwill charity drop boxs have now been replaced in my area by an "American Veterans" organization with a stylized Eagle symbol in the "totalitarian chic" style. While under Bush, our military were attacked as manics, criminals or idiots. Under Obama they and the police are now generally idolized in the media, who rarely brings up the ubiquitous privacy violations going on in the country.
Is anyone else getting a creepy feeling here?
K, Honestly, yes. This is all kind of creepy.
>>I think that so long as Obama bans the practice before he leaves office, the left will call it something "he stopped" rather than something "he did.">>
In other words, the flip-side to Fast & Furious, right? It's OK, I live in LA County and have become accustomed to leftists' pretzel logic.
Eric, Pretzel logic is a great way to put it. And when they finally run out of arguments, they fall back on the tried but true... "that's different."
LA County, huh? I would imagine you're probably right at ground zero for lunacy!
K, if that is your real name, you seem unreasonably paranoid. Please present your papers and report to the nearest re-education department.
As an aside, here is an article from the left about the pros/cons of creating a "drone court" which grant warrants allowing drone strikes.
LINK
I think the problem with Obama's use of drones is one of temperance. I am uncertain of the truth of it but it seems that Obama is using drones in more places and in more times than Bush ever did. It also appears that unlike Bush Obama likes to gloat about his success. The killing of Bin Ladin is a perfect example. I truly beleive that had Bush gotten Bin Ladin the body would have been dumped in the ocean and no one would have heard of it.
IF the raid had came out in the public Bush would have said that no one was there. This would have been the smart thing to do. The terrorists would have bee3n filled with doubt and fear if the never heard from OBL instead of being emboldened by his martyr status. I think Bush flawed as he is was much smarter than Obama in this area.
My fear is this. You cannot wantonly kill like we are doing without eventually emboldening your enemy to strike back. The fear of the strike is more powerful than the strike itself. True terrorism does not have a signature. They don't walk around with AK 47s. They blend in and place bombs. by the time you notice them they are already killing someone.
I see the reckless use of drones as a negative. But I don't really know.
Post a Comment