Barack Obama

Memo to Andrew Sullivan: You're Helping Obama Wage an Unscrupulous Drone War

It's time to stop ignoring the bad because of a perceived worse

|

at least it's not torture?

Conor Friedersdorf made waves in the blogosphere when he basically pointed out to the president's supporters that their man's foreign policy has been atrocious on the human rights front and that he wouldn't be supporting Obama again.

Mitt Romney's full endorsement last night of Obama's prosecution of the drone war, lack of due process and all, prompted Andrew Sullivan to ask Friedersdorf if he thinks Romney would be "as scrupulous" (tee-hee) as Obama has been on the drone war.  He added that "in a small way" Friedersdorf may be helping hand the drone war machinery the Obama administration built to a President Romney, which Friedersdorf wrote might happen

Yet Sullivan's apologism for Obama's reckless drone campaign helps in no small way to keep it politically feasible. To wit, Sullivan's trotted out the spectre of a return to the policies of Bush-Cheney and the "end of reality-based government" in America. Yet, as I noted when Sullivan first made the claim, Barack Obama's government is far from reality based itself:

[T]he president adopted much of the Bush strategy on counter-terrorism. Is torture any less connected to reality thanextrajudicial killing? Is a military commission more divorced from reality than a due process consisting of conversations?

The president doubled down in opposition to the reality-based community last night, attacking Mitt Romney for holding the same position on keeping troops in Iraq past their withdrawal date that Obama advocated as president. Romney called him out on it but the inconsistency was left unaddressed by Obama and unexplored by the debate moderator, Bob Schieffer. Obama's supporters are not interested in reality-based government, they're interested in keeping their man in office.

Apropos, from The Onion:  Obama Takes Out Romney with Mid-Debate Drone Attack

Via the Drones twitter feed

NEXT: Romney Spent Much of Debate Agreeing With Obama

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, Romeny is going to do exactly what Obama has done and rightfully defend it by calling it “bi-partisan”. And civil libertarians can thank Sullivan and his ilk for enabling him to do that.

    1. Slight threadjack – Glenn Greenwald’s take on drones

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..sfeed=true

      From the article:

      There’s one other vital point to be made here. Joe Klein says that “there is a really major possibility of abuse [of drone power] if you have the wrong people running the government” – in other words, we can trust Obama with it, but not the big bad Republicans. This was precisely what Bush followers used to say about his claimed powers of due-process-free eavesdropping and detention: maybe this would be scary if Hillary Clinton could do this, but I trust Bush to use it only against the Bad Guys.

      1. Greenwald offers no evidence that Obama is abusing the drone program. Why would he? What exactly does Obama get out of randomly killing Pakistanis? I dislike Obama as much as the next guy but I see no reason to believe he just wants to randomly bomb people.

        I thin Obama is doing his best to deal with the very difficult situation of our enemies hiding amongst the civiliam population. There is no way to fight such enemies without killing innocent people. Indeed that is why they hide in civilian populations. And when Greenwald claims that the drone program is the same as the Times Square bomber he is just wrong. Trying your best to fight an enemy hiding in the civilian population and killing innocent civilians is not the same as specifically targeting civilians for the single purpose of killing said civilians and no one else.

        Greenwald knows this. He just doesn’t admit it because he is a complete dishonest ass clown. His is just a lying sack of piss.

        1. Jesus John – this is why people on this site laugh at you. Did you even read the article I linked to?

          I’m not a big fan of Greenwald when it comes to most things …. but when Glenn rips Joe Klein a new one over Klein’s idiotic justification to the use of drones…just because the person in charge of determining who dies, is the “right” type of person…even I’ll applaud Greenwald.

        2. The Drone program is an abuse.
          It’s killing people in another country which we are not at war with.
          It’s cowardly that our troops have no
          skin in an indiscriminate tactic that accepts the killing of innocents.

          1. “cowards” is what losers have called people with superior military technology since the invention of the bow and arrow.

            1. No, it’s what we call people who murder from afar for no good reason. I’d call a LOT of people who kill defenseless civilians “cowards”. And I call people like you “murderer apologists”.

              1. His argument was “It’s cowardly that our troops have no skin in”, meaning that it’s cowardly that our troops are not put in harm’s way by the tactic.

                Other “cowardly” tactics include
                Artillery
                Navies
                Bombers
                Missiles

                1. Are you categorically against every military campaign and tactic in history, or are you a “murder apologist”?

            2. No, this is cowardice.

              This whole “collateral damage” argument is pure, unfiltered horseshit. They are randomly shooting missiles into groups, and claiming that anyone who got killed had it coming. That isn’t “collateral damage”, that’s terrorism.

              1. Is every aerial bombing campaign in history terrorism?

                Total war and terrorism are different things.

                1. Utilizing total war when your enemy is terrorism, is probably going to look a lot like terrorism. If people seriously think you can fight the War on Terror like it’s WWII against Germany and Japan, they’re either ignorant, stubborn, idiotic, or some combination of the three.

                  1. So what you’re saying is now that we’re fighting the war on terror, things that used to be legitimate war tactics are now “terrorism”.

                    That doesn’t make any sense.

                    1. No. I’m saying the concept of using total war against a tactic (terrorism) is idiotic and is going to result in actions that could be described as terrorism. Total war is effective when fighting a nation-state with a central government, a capital, a uniformed military, supply lines, etc. It’s useless in a global war on terrorism, and is only going to result is the needless deaths of lots of innocent people

                    2. They can only be described as terrorism by people completely unfamiliar with the definition of terrorism. I agree that total war might not be an excellent strategy, but suggesting that it’s terrorism just hi lights your ignorance.

                    3. “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”

                      I would say total war in this context certainly intimidates the local population, and I would say there political purposes to the War on Terror. More to the point, I used the term “could be described” and in my first post “looks like” to reflect on how meaningless the term “terrorism” has become in the last ten years. Greenwald had a pretty good article on this a while back

                    4. Using that definition, the following things are terrorism:

                      All wars.
                      All laws enforced by police.
                      Spanking your kids.

                      So I’m thinking it’s a bit too broad.

                    5. So now you’re starting to understand. I agree that terrorism is inherently a broad ill-defined concept. Doesn’t stop politicians from fearmongering about it to exploit the frightened population into supporting things they normally wouldn’t

                    6. Nobody’s arguing with you on that point.

                      I’m arguing that describing our use of drones as terrorism is moronic.

                    7. Killing non-combatants who have nothing to do with our actual enemies is in no way equivalent to being at war with a specific country. But you know that, you simply don’t care as long as you can rationalize it away.

                    8. So every time a country fights a counter insurgency or guerrillas, and kills an innocent civilian, it’s terrorism?

                      Bullshit.

                    9. Every time a country randomly targets people (like Al-Qaeda), it’s terrorism yes. And when we attack people in places we haven’t declared war, that’s just further support for the truth that it’s terrorism.

                      a counter insurgency or guerrillas

                      Defining everyone you kill after-the-fact as “terrorists” doesn’t make them such. But you don’t really care, of course.

                    10. 1) We don’t “randomly” target people. Obama’s got a kill list, remember? You think we just draw those names out of a hat?

                      2) Undeclared wars are all terrorism now? Don’t tell South Korea.

                      3) You’re conflating guerrillas with terrorists, not me. I’m pointing out that both groups wear no uniforms, represent no specific country, and hide among civilian populations for safety. That doesn’t make fighting a counter-insurgency terrorism, even if it results in civilian casualties.

                    11. 1) We don’t “randomly” target people. Obama’s got a kill list, remember? You think we just draw those names out of a hat?

                      I’m not referring exclusively to the “kill list”. We have drones in various countries that simply kill any males 16 years old or over in certain areas. And responders to drone kills. And funeral mourners. I’d say that’s fairly random, yes.

                      2) Undeclared wars are all terrorism now? Don’t tell South Korea.

                      Never did.

                      3) You’re conflating guerrillas with terrorists, not me. I’m pointing out that both groups wear no uniforms, represent no specific country, and hide among civilian populations for safety.

                      I never said guerrillas, you’re the one claiming they’re all “insurgents” or “guerrillas”, and I’m saying that defining “terrorists” or “guerrillas” as “people targeted by drones” is a dishonest definition.

                      That doesn’t make fighting a counter-insurgency terrorism, even if it results in civilian casualties.

                      We aren’t a “counter-insurgency”, since there’s not “insurgency” in many of the countries we’re talking about, and we’re not simply going after terrorists, we’re killing anyone who fits a loose idea in a particular area, with no knowledge of who they actually are. Defending this by saying “killing random people we know nothing about is ok as long as some of them might be terrorists” is morally reprehensible.

        3. Yes John, you don’t trust the government to be honest and competent in running anything else, but they’ll competently run a drone program with total efficiency and the utmost importance on morality.

          Not to mention that’s not even Greenwald’s point. His point is that people like Klein defend the drone program because they think Obama would never abuse it, and ignore the fact that eventually someone they don’t trust will have that power

          1. Yes John, you don’t trust the government to be honest and competent in running anything else, but they’ll competently run a drone program with total efficiency and the utmost importance on morality.

            No, you misunderstand John’s post. John’s point is that he DOESN’T CARE if it’s honest or competent, so long as even one more terrorist gets killed. He doesn’t think innocent lives matter when we have “enemies”. If there’s collateral damage of noninvolved parties, that’s irrelevant to him. This idea, by the way, goes contrary to what he said in a post several days ago, where he claimed not to trust Obama or ANYONE with a drone program.

            1. This idea, by the way, goes contrary to what he said in a post several days ago, where he claimed not to trust Obama or ANYONE with a drone program.

              I’m wrong on this, that was Tulpa. We regret the error, and offer this correction.

  2. Romney is a corporate tool so his drone war is evil but Obama is for the people so his drone war is acceptable.

  3. I still want to know what the hell happened in Benghazi and why didn’t we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?

    Would’ve been nice to hear that question last night. Oh well.

    1. Protecting American lives, particularly those of American diplomats, is not a core function of government.

  4. Actually the more I think about it, I bet Romney does less drone strikes and captures and interrogates more. And Sullivan will claim without a wiff of irony that that is much worse than just summarily executing people via drone strike.

  5. It won’t be long before the left can get back to protesting the war and saying Romney is just like BOOOOOSH, while conveniently forgetting about Obama’s role.

    1. Let me know when Obama lies us into a ground war that costs $1 trillion and 4400 US lives for nothing.

      1. Let me know when Obama does anything at all to end that war, which has killed 1400 troops under his watch.

        1. Obama pulled all troops out of Iraq within the last year.

          1. If by “pulled out” you mean “failed to extend the SOFA like he wanted”, then OK.

            1. So we should judge Obama not by his actions, but by what he really wanted?

              1. When he only undertook those actions because he was forced to, yes.

                1. Let me guess, when Obama does something you agree with, he was “forced to”, but when Obama does something you disagree with, it was entirely of his own free will.

                  1. In this specific case, he was definitely forced into it. We’re talking about one specific cause here Derider. Not to mention, he just followed the timeline of an agreement formed by Bush

                  2. When Obama DOES something, it’s on him, whatever it is. When he TRIES to do something, that reflects on him too. He SHOULD be blamed for trying to keep our troops in Iraq, directly contrary to what he claimed when he was running. We can’t all be Democratic shills, Derided.

                    1. He offered to leave 5K troops to train the Iraqi military, and they said no.

                      OBAMA IS TERRIBLE I AM SO MAD!

                    2. He offered to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq. And it was Congress that said no. Apparently Romney’s bad for wanting these things, but Obama’s good? You’re evading the point that Obama claimed he wanted us out, then said we REALLY, REALLY needed to stay. And isn’t “training” basically what our troops in Afghanistan are doing too?

                    3. OBAMA IS TERRIBLE I AM SO MAD!

                      Except Democrats think this WOULD be a bad thing, since Dems AND Obama have criticized Romney for the same stance, while pretending it was Obama who “ended” our presence in Iraq. Obama’s a liar and you’re a shill.

                    4. Romney’s stance was to have more troops that would be an active fighting force.

                      Obama’s a pragmatist and you’re a moron.

                    5. Pragmatist? Is that the word they use these days for corrupt politicians with no principles?

                    6. Romney:

                      I think we’re going to find that this president by not putting in place a status in forces agreement with the Iraqi leadership has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way and we should have left 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 personnel there to help transition to the Iraqis’ own military capabilities.

                      You are a liar, and Obama is a liar and a murderer. But anything to rationalize his actions, right?

                    7. Let me get this straight.

                      You think Obama’s bad because even though he listened to Iraq when they said we needed to leave, he tried to have some nominal presence there. We only left because we “had to”.

                      But you give Romney a pass when he says that Obama should have tried harder and left even more troops? You think there was literally no choice but to withdraw troops. Either Romney wanted to leave troops in Iraq without their consent or he has no understanding of the political situation there.

                      What nonsense.

                    8. You think Obama’s bad because even though he listened to Iraq when they said we needed to leave,

                      Except he didn’t listen to Iraq, it’s Congress that didn’t listen to HIM.

                      We only left because we “had to”.

                      Not only does this contradict the stance he claimed before he was president (how convenient), that we only left BECAUSE WE HAD TO is precisely why he was wrong. We should have left because we should have gotten out of there, which fortunately Congress stuck to.

                      But you give Romney a pass

                      Straw arguments are made of straw. My position has been that they were both wrong to want a continued occupation of Iraq. That you’re reduced to attacking arguments I haven’t made isn’t a good sign for your argumentation.

                    9. What, exactly, did Congress have to do with this?

                      I think the answer is “absolutely nothing”.

                    10. You’re correct on this, I was wrong. I seemed to be under the impression that Congress passed something to end the war, but that resolution never got past the Senate.

          2. Obama pulled all troops out of Iraq within the last year.

            That one, we actually can pin on Bush.

  6. Why is everyone suprised that the left doesn’t care about foreigners being killed by a Democratic President? They didn’t care about Waco or Stalin and Mao’s victims so why should they care about Obama’s?

    1. I have seen no evidence that the right gives a tinker’s damn about the lives of foreigners, either.

      The Team Red cheerleading on this site after March 20, 2003 made it perfectly clear that there were a lot of (at that time) Bush supporters who thought killing Iraqis was OK.

      There were damn few of us who opposed GWII from the outset.

      1. This is very true. As a Mea Culpa, as it was ramping up, I remained neutral on GWII (you do mean Gulf War II, right?), maybe slightly for it… because of 9/11 (as best as I can remember). But after we quickly routed the Iraqi government and the whole thing turned into a nation-building quagmire, my discomfort with the whole thing trounced any initial positive feelings I had on GWII. It was particularly disgusting to see the GOP justifying guys driving around in HumVees getting killed and killing civilians year after year– to what end, I know not.

        Same thing with Afghanistan which arguably had real justification for it. IN about 23 hours we had eliminated the Taliban government and shoved Bin Laden into a very dark corner. We should have left. Our continued presence there is a stain on our honor. But I don’t see any evidence the GOP sees it this way. We’re “killing terrorists”. So bomb away.

    2. Lefty Chris Hitchens supported the Iraq War disaster.

      What is your fucking point?

  7. It’s a shame how many people are blinded by the shoddy statistical logic behind outcome-based or strategic voting. Less sycophantic, reality-based pundits should make a case for the best candidate on the ballot instead of falling for the lesser of two evils delusion or the “my vote matters!” delusion. If more did this, perhaps it could start a necessary shift away from perpetual war and debt.

    1. Because they would all vote for Johnson? Hardly. They would be just as likely to vote for Jill Stein or worse Nanny Bloomburg. I don’t think she would get us out of debt.

      1. Anything to get Obama out! I’d suck the Devil’s cock for that! /John

  8. I’ve been following these articles and the pissing contest as it developed. Sullivan is an absolute fuckwit tool in all of it. The lefty commentariat is full of these morons today – Greenwald properly skewers Joe Klein for the abominable quote “…but the bottom line in the end is whose 4-year-olds get killed.”

    Vicious, hateful, stupid tools.

    1. Meanwhile the wingnutteri is gnashing their teeth while parsing words – “an act of terror” is not a terrorist attack to them.

      And Romney’s continuous lies about a fictitious “apology tour” have been revealed.

      The right-wing bubble is still lacking in reality.

      Enjoy it, you aborto-freak Creationists.

      1. It was an apology tour, and by the Left’s own standards, it was a necessary one.

        According to you and people like you, W. fucked up the country’s rapport with other countries so badly that electing Obama was necessary to mend fences. And that’s what the tour was about.

        Just own up to it already. Either Bush fucked up foreign policy and an apology was necessary or he didn’t and it wasn’t, and hence the tour had no purpose.

        1. You’re not considering option 3: Bush fucked up our military policy and Obama met with foreign leaders about something other than apologizing.

          1. And Obama’s military policy differs how exactly?

            1. For one thing, we let our allies do some of the heavy lifting, like in Libya.

              1. And going to war illegally, while we drone strike random people. Don’t forget those parts.

                1. We’ve been going to war without a vote of congress and blowing up innocent civilians since 1946. Nothing has changed! Fuck Obama!

                  1. Yes, your point that they were all bad presidents is well taken.

                    1. But my point that it’s silly to blame Obama and not Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter… was apparently too subtle.

                      And it’s insane to criticize Obama for going on an “apology tour” and to also hold the opinion that every US president that preceded him is a war criminal.

                    2. Derider, you’re on a libertarian website. We’re not hacks who pick and choose who and when we criticize based on what party they belong too. And at least Bush got some form of congressional approval in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than you can say about Obama in Libya

                    3. Right, you’d never find global attacks on “liberals” here, you bastions of truth and liberty.

                      Shit, you think the war in Iraq was more justified than the war in Libya! Go team Red!

                    4. Right, you’d never find global attacks on “liberals” here, you bastions of truth and liberty.

                      You’d never find attacks on “conservatives” here either! OH WAIT….

                      And I’m not sure what a “global attack” is in this context. Care to elaborate?

                    5. Attacks like “all liberals are ________” (fill in something Rush said today).

                      You really don’t ever find attacks on conservatives like that here.

                    6. Attacks like “all liberals are ________” (fill in something Rush said today).

                      Rush is overrated as a band. Have they even put out anything recent? You can’t expect me to keep up on things like that.

                      You really don’t ever find attacks on conservatives like that here.

                      Heh. Good one.

                    7. I think there is often too much generalization about liberals and other groups around here, but that has nothing to do with my point that we don’t excuse actions based on what party the person committing them belongs (or belonged) to

                    8. And your second paragraph is an absurd strawman. I didn’t say the war was more justified. I said that Bush got congressional approval of some sort, which Obama didn’t. Doesn’t make it more justified by itself, but it counters your point that no one gets approval for anything these days (as if violating the Constitution is ok as long as other people have been doing it for a long time)

                    9. But my point that it’s silly to blame Obama and not Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter… was apparently too subtle.

                      I blame all of them when they break the law or otherwise hurt uninvolved people. But apparently that was too subtle.

                      And it’s insane to criticize Obama for going on an “apology tour” and to also hold the opinion that every US president that preceded him is a war criminal.

                      Whether or not they are “war criminals” has nothing to do with waging wars on presidential power alone. That’s not a war crime, it’s breaking U.S. law. The Executive branch is not it’s own legislature. It doesn’t get to decide when it goes to war.

                    10. Yes, it does.

                      The power congress has is to deny funding, which they never do.

                    11. Yes, it does.

                      You might want to brush up on the definition of “war crime”.

                      The power congress has is

                      To declare war. Not the president.

                    12. “declaring war” is utterly meaningless. Presidents have been using the military to attack people without congressional declarations of war since Washington.

                      The only real power congress has over the president when it comes to the deployment of troops is funding.

                    13. You’re full of shit Derider. Declaring war was not a meaningless formality. It was understood at the Constitutional convention and the state ratifying conventions that Congress held the power to take the country to war. No early president did anything remotely close to Korea or Vietnam

      2. Needs more christfag.

      3. PB, you get that I’m complaining here about the left commentariat being a bunch of vicious jerks celebrating killing children and that the best you’ve got is to bitch about right-wing wordsmithing?

        I mean, come on, dude. Sad.

  9. The drone strike, which killed three of Romney’s sons sitting near the debate stage, reportedly also took the lives of at least 45 civilians, including 12 Lynn University students, nine Secret Service agents, first daughter Malia Obama, and two cameramen.

    “Military operations of this ilk are dangerous, and occasionally a few innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire,” said Carney, describing the lost arm and severe second-degree facial burns inflicted on debate moderator Bob Schieffer as “necessary collateral damage.” “However, we must realize that this is a price we pay when we face our greatest challenges.”

    +1

  10. Obama’s supporters are not interested in reality-based government, they’re interested in keeping their man in office.

    Please tell me you didn’t just now figure this out, Ed.

    1. They’re a cult, not a party with a coherent governing philosophy.

      1. Cue up some Vernon Reid guitar…

    2. Ed is a fawning Bushpig who probably whacks off to the same torture pictures Cheney and Bolton do.

      1. I’d rather be tortured than have me and my family killed by a drone strike. But that’s just me.

        1. This is assuming torture isn’t done anymore too

          1. Actually, in one of Bush’s sane moments he ended Cheney’s sadistic pleasure machine.

            Bush is better than Cheney but so was Savonorola.

            1. Sadistic Pleasure Machine is either my new band name or a line of barbed dildos.

              Or both, why limit my money-grubbing opportunities?

              1. Money-Grubbing Opportunities sounds good, too. This thread is a goldmine!

  11. Memo to Andrew Sullivan: your sole purpose as a human being for the better part of the last decade is to write something so lame that you give bloggers who were just going to go to bed, an excuse to post something.

  12. The blood on Obama’s face in the Onion pic is a nice touch, but there should be more of it.

  13. Has anyone ever encountered a lefty honest enough to explain why water boarding makes Bush a war criminal but killing people with a drone is OK?

    1. “Obama is a decent man who inherited a big mess. I’m glad I’ll never have to be president and make those kinds of decisions.”

    2. A while back I started asking people just what it would take for Obama to no longer get their vote. The #1 response was that nothing would, because a third-party candidate wouldn’t win and a prospective Republican would, like a law of nature, always be worse. That’s some reality-based community shit right there.

      I know some hard lefties who are disgusted with him, but most of the people who never tired of talking/posting stuff all day long about the misdeeds of Bush are silent on Obama’s actions, because they didn’t actually give a shit about civil liberties and the rule of law, they just enjoy bitching about those fucking idiot racist redneck Republicans who vote against their own interests and are racists and aren’t we so much better than them, blah blah blah.

      Also a lot of flat-out denial of stuff like the massive increase in federal medical marijuana harassment/increased deportations/kill list, perhaps because they get 100% of their news from ThinkProgress and the like and apparently they don’t think that stuff is a big deal unless a Republican is in power.

      Man, I’m cranky about this shit, I can’t wait for the election to be over.

    3. We’ve always considered torture to be more immoral than killing civilians in a war.

      We prosecuted Japanese officers for water boarding soldiers after world war 2, but not for causing civilian casualties in battle.

      1. I don’t know who this “we” is, other than more liars like you.

        We prosecuted Japanese officers for water boarding soldiers after world war 2, but not for causing civilian casualties in battle./blockquote

        Except we haven’t declared war, and non-combatants being killed by robots in the sky isn’t in any way a “battlefield”. Just going around assassinating people is called “murder”. But of course, your only interest is in rationalizing anything “your side” does. Actual morality and rule of law – principles in general, really – don’t matter to you.

        1. Oops, last paragraph shouldn’t be in block quotes.

        2. We being most Americans.

          We being elected Democrats.

          Take your pick. There’s never been a period in time where either of those groups considered torture to be less reprehensible than civilian casualties in war.

          And the fact that you think drones are somehow morally different from F-15’s because the pilot sits 100 miles away is quaint. ROBOTS IN THE SKY! BOOGA BOOGA!

          1. How many Democrats supported the war in Kosovo? A fucking lot. I sure did.

            No declared war? Check.
            Aerial bombing campaign? Check.
            Significant civilian casualties? Check.

            It’s not rationalization, it’s consistency.

            1. Yes, consistent in that there was a Democratic president at the time

            2. If that’s your consistency, you’re welcome to it. I’m consistently opposed to your immoral and non-legal reasoning.

              1. OK, I’m glad you agree that this:

                “Has anyone ever encountered a lefty honest enough to explain why water boarding makes Bush a war criminal but killing people with a drone is OK?”

                Is nonsense.

                1. That has nothing to do with what I just wrote. My comment immediately above yours derides your support for illegal and immoral measures.

                  1. It’s the comment I was responding to initially. If your comments were off-topic, oh well, I guess.

                    1. How many Democrats supported the war in Kosovo? A fucking lot. I sure did.

                      No declared war? Check.
                      Aerial bombing campaign? Check.
                      Significant civilian casualties? Check.

                      It’s not rationalization, it’s consistency.

                      My replies here have all been to this. If you want to lie about the topic, oh well I guess.

          2. Derider is like a walking stereotype of a Democratic hack. There’s literally nothing this guy could do that you wouldn’t defend.

            1. His arguments on this subject remind me of John’s arguments.

            2. I think Obama’s been shitty on medical marijuana.
              I think Obama should have sought tougher regulations on Wall street.
              I think the stimulus was too small, and too focused on tax cuts.

              Should I continue?

          3. There’s never been a period in time where either of those groups considered torture to be less reprehensible than civilian casualties in war.

            I somehow doubt that. Who REALLY thinks being killed is better than being hurt? That’s just plain silly.

            There’s never been a period in time where either of those groups considered torture to be less reprehensible than civilian casualties in war.

            For one thing, if they’re killing random people, it ISN’T any better. Duh. I never said it was, so this straw argument only further shows that you have no real rebuttal to my points.

            Plus, drone strikes should be easier to precisely target. If you’re REALLY just randomly drone striking any males in the area, that’s not just wrong but stupid since it’s entirely unnecessary in order to target the actual terrorists. But they don’t bother, because they, like you, don’t care. I swear, you and John are like twins separated at birth sometimes.

            1. I was responding to this:
              “Has anyone ever encountered a lefty honest enough to explain why water boarding makes Bush a war criminal but killing people with a drone is OK?”

              And my answer is “That’s been true of most elected Democrats since Clinton, see Kosovo”

              1. That’s a non-answer. “That’s been true” doesn’t explain at all why Bush water-boarding is a war crime but Obama assassination isn’t. Unless you’re claiming that most elected Democrats have explained it?

                1. Because torture is defined as a war crime in the Geneva Convention, but collateral damage that kills civilians isn’t.

                  Remember, the same people that nuked Nagasaki tried the Japanese as war criminals for water-boarding.

                  1. Ok so arresting, detaining, and torturing someone is a war crime, but as long as you skip all that and just assassinate the person, it’s all good? You people are pathetic

                  2. collateral damage

                    They aren’t collateral damage, they’re INTENTIONAL casualties. Our government just doesn’t even attempt to determine whether they’re combatants or not.

                  3. Remember, the same people that nuked Nagasaki tried the Japanese as war criminals for water-boarding.

                    And I think nuking Nagasaki was wrong. Pointing out that other people before you were morally inconsistent doesn’t help your case, Blue John.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.