ADDED: CIA nominee John O. Brennan defends the drones.
"We must, however, use these technologies carefully and responsibly.... Consequently, we apply rigorous standards and a rigorous process of review." He added that "we are working to refine, clarify and strengthen this process and our standards." But the government currently has the authority to conduct drone strikes "against al-Qaeda and associated forces" without "geographical limitation," he said.
Posts
111 comments:
I think he's right.
Joint Chiefs say they only received one call from The Won regarding Benghazi, "Do what you gotta do" and then nothing. Seven hours. Nothing more. Not even that from Cankles. Nothing at all from "What difference does it make?" Total shits they are.
We ought to defund the military entirely. We're 16 trillion dollars in debt! It's a bloated mess rife with fraud and insider crony capitalism.
We are spending more than the next 13 countries COMBINED.
Unsustainable!
Why do MY TAX DOLLARS have to pay protection for some pussy somewhere that can't protect themselves?
A flight of B-52s raining carpet bombs on Viet Nam did seem heavy handed. A modern drone can kill the one we want to kill like a sniper does.
Obama is our sniper.
if by "we" you mean those who whined about Gitmo, and by "want" you mean a foreseeable consequence, then yes.
who could have predicted making it too big a pain in the ass to capture people would result in same people being killed? oh yeah, I did.
We are spending more than the next 13 countries COMBINED.
I'll take a wild guess and say we spend more than the next 13 countries combined in everything.
Perverse incentives. The Left (and some libertarians) and their lawyers and lawsuits have fetishized "Sacred Enemy Prisoner Rights" so vehemently that the best solution is to kill them, vs. be accused of violating any "prisoner rights" or be accused of "toorrrrrrturrrre!" (which some have said is torture if the enemy prisoner thinks it is, including mental torture like the humiliation of having females guard a jihadi.)
Meanwhile, the political polling done by the Bushies and Obamites show that the large majority of US citizens (including the Democrat sophists that clubbed Bush on all of it while giving Obama a pass) - don't mind it if we whack the Jihadists without trial. They could care less about a traitor American's "precious due process rights" if they are working with enemy forces to kill Americans and can't be captured without risk.
And truth be known, if the Islamoids come back and take out large numbers of US civilians again (several thousand plus) - Americans are fine with killing enemy Muslims women, their kids, little puppy dogs in the terrorists houses, and any eldery Jihadis...
We proved the premise in Vietnam.
on the other hand, the American people don't like to see America run out of town with its tail between its legs (e.g. the Saigon Embassy 1975, or Blackhawk Down, or Soldiers strung up on bridges, or carved up by villagers., or left hanging in Benghazi)
The very idea of American soldiers, or its citizens for that matter, on the end of a radio or phone asking for aid and the Government the other end of the line hanging up or going to a fund raiser, puts knots in this old solfier's guts.
America in its heart understands we can't be the world's 911. That we have to pick and chose our fights, but our allies need to count on us, our enemies fear us and the Powell Doctrine fits that bill well.
Drone warfare, not so much....
Out of sight out of mind is exactly right.
People who seek perfect security in life deserve the Totalitarian State they find themselves living in.
Although I am fine with withdrawing from Europe and Asia. Maintain our naval strength along with a couple combat brigades, a core spec ops contingent and the rest into reserve / guard units.
Withdraw from NATO since, like garage says, why spend our tax dollars defending those pussies?
The worst thing we have to confront is the One hisownself. making a different big bad world appear.
gm appears to be a trool.
And when the fiber optic cables get cut, or the underwater pipelines get bombed,
ehhh, What difference, at this point, does it make?
Then they can spend their money on their NHC and tell us how crappy ours still is.
Then they pay danegeld.
It's the only way they understand.
"But the government currently has the authority..."
The authority derives from where?
I always wanted a president who could kill Amrican citizens at his/her discretion. Only problem is, he keeps ignoring my requests to "off" the people down the street.
Bullshit.
Democrats like Obama decided they had a wedge issue with the whole "torture" meme that would play in the media echo chamber.
Turns out, pious Democrats are the ones without the "stomach for the unseemly business of taking prisoners, extracting information from prisoners, and then (maybe) going through the emotional, time consuming, and costly business of a trial."
Matt Lewis needs to stop projecting Obama's hypocrisy on "Americans".
I often wonder if we'll reach a point with automated machine warfare like that Star Trek episode A Taste of Armageddon, where war is fought completely on a virtual plane.
Drone war is ok with me if it meets our objectives. I don't think it will. And how long will it be before AQ has drones of their own?
It might be if it was working.
Under Commandante zero's malign neglect, Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself while Choomie goes after a few top guys.
No way to fight a war IMHO.
garage mahal said...
We ought to defund the military entirely. We're 16 trillion dollars in debt! It's a bloated mess rife with fraud and insider crony capitalism.
The same can be said for green tech and entitlements.
Why not kill them instead?
We are spending more than the next 13 countries COMBINED.
Unsustainable!
And who's been doing all of the spending since '06?
Why do MY TAX DOLLARS have to pay protection for some pussy somewhere that can't protect themselves?
Look in the mirror and you may want to reconsider that statement.
Frankly, I like the idea The Blonde and I can go to Mexico, Jamaica mon, or on a cruise and know the bad guys will think twice about bothering us because they might get a visit from the 1st Ranger Battalion.
Withdraw from NATO since, like garage says, why spend our tax dollars defending those pussies?
Yes, screw NATO. Sorry, but also you. Why do I have to pay for your security?
Because you won't let me protect myself.
"Is Obama's drone war giving us exactly what we want?"
Exactly?
Probably not. Many Americans, most of them Obama voters, would prefer to live in the fantasy world in which the US stands down it's military forces, divorces itself from Israel, disengages commercially from "developing," third-world economies, and thus no longer provokes attacks, which are due, don't you know?
But some quotient of voters realize this fantasy is just exactly that, and Obama, to some degree, knows that normal Americans generally understand Democrats are reflexive pussies when it comes to defense and security, so something must be done.
Developing a robust drone capability fits the bill, perfectly.
Think "Shock and Awe," but at the retail rather than wholesale level.
The problem is, not all military problems can be solved by a drone strike.
Eventually a ship, a plane, a tank or a man in boots with a rifle will be necessary. Drones make idiots ignorant of that sad fact.
traditionalguy said...
A flight of B-52s raining carpet bombs on Viet Nam did seem heavy handed. A modern drone can kill the one we want to kill like a sniper does.
On the other hand, a B-52 solution is much cheaper.
1 hellfire is $25,000 For that you can get nearly 100, 500 pound general purpose bombs (mark 82's)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb
sometimes the old ways are the better ways :)
What's the value in plausible deniability? Who's making the accusation?
Let's clear up Matt Lewis's "us":
"And here's the ugly truth: Obama is giving [Progressives] what we want.
[Progressives] have an unspoken agreement with the president. Obama never promised America he wouldn't kill people more aggressively than his predecessor. But with a wink and a nod, he gave [Progressives] plausible deniability."
Use Democrats rather than Progressives, and I doubt your mileage would vary much. The fact is for Americans, the people judging are the citizens of the foreign country where the drone strikes are being carried out. Those people don't care who is President, what political party you support, but that you are an American. Obama isn't giving Americans plausible deniability. Obama's pissing off other nations and hiding that fact from us.
War criminals and murderers always use elevated language and appeal to standards of "responsibility" to obfuscate and justify their own criminal acts.
"Is Obama's drone war giving us exactly what we want?"
Maybe, but some of "us" pretended that they didn't want it right up until the President told them that they did.
The appeal to authority is ridiculous. They want to kill us, so we're killing them first. Because we can.
Because you won't let me protect myself.
Protect yourself any way you see fit. I'm not stopping you.
Me: I have as much chance of getting hit by a terrorist or invading army as I do winning the Powerball. And I don't want to pay for it. I'd rather do it myself.
without "geographical limitation,"
Is sovereignty a dead issue in the age of Drones?
Might makes right is our premise?
Doesn't that bother some on the left as well as the right?
Imperial Rome could make the same claim. It didn't make them loved much...
I wonder how many Obama bundlers are opening companies that build "green" drones as we speak?
garage: Why do I have to pay for your security?
Yeah man, so call up Rahm, since we know Chicago is a financial basket case, and demand he defund the police department. Chicago can't afford it, and when Chicago goes bankrupt, nobody else needs to pay for their security, right?
We ought to defund the military entirely. We're 16 trillion dollars in debt! It's a bloated mess rife with fraud and insider crony capitalism.
Absolutely, and social security and medicare too. Those folks are going to die soon anyway, why waste the money?
All the drone war does is incite more Arabs to join Al-Qaeda.
Add to that the power vacuum left in Libya (thanks to Obama's drone and air war but no boots on the ground) that has now made Al-Qaeda the top dog not only there, but has brought inroads for them in Algeria and Egypt.
The drone war will, in time, just make the terrorist stronger for Obama fails to find the ROOT CAUSE and fix it.
There is no doubt in a few years Al-Qaeda will be quite powerful in Libya, Algeria, Egypt, and yes, back in Afghanistan. All thanks to Obama's 'drone strategy failure.
Yeah man, so call up Rahm, since we know Chicago is a financial basket case, and demand he defund the police departmen
I don't live in Chicago. What do I care?
Yes, screw NATO. Sorry, but also you. Why do I have to pay for your security?
Well, defense of the homeland and its citizenry is, a core duty of any government.
Adding to the solemnity of the proceedings, Code Pink arrives in vagina camo to protest. That certainly elevates the discussion.
garage mahal said...
We ought to defund the military entirely. We're 16 trillion dollars in debt! It's a bloated mess rife with fraud and insider crony capitalism.
I see garage is pretending not to understand the difference between spend nothing and don't greatly increase spending. You'd have to search long and hard to find anyone less honest.
"Meanwhile, the political polling done by the Bushies and Obamites show that the large majority of US citizens (including the Democrat sophists that clubbed Bush on all of it while giving Obama a pass) - don't mind it if we whack the Jihadists without trial. They could care less about a traitor American's 'precious due process rights' if they are working with enemy forces to kill Americans and can't be captured without risk."
First, that's "couldn't" care less.
Second, it doesn't matter if a "large majority" of Americans "don't mind if we whack the Jihadists without trial." All this reveals is either the lack of information these Americans have about what the programs really are and the powers the President claims for himself, or that, if they are aware of what these programs really are and what powers the president claims for himself and they still "don't mind" they are fucking dumbshits who will get the tyranny they are asking for.
What do I care?
You don't think Rahm will ask for a federal bail out? Why wait for it? Demand he defund the police now. And while your at it, call your own city council and demand they defund your local police department. You're tired of paying for everyone else security, so be consistent. I'm sure that also means social security as well, so you got some calls to make.
“The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”
Senator Obama, 2007
railing against excess Executive Power by the Eeevil Booosh
Protect yourself any way you see fit. I'm not stopping you.
Well you certainly seem to lean on the side that thinks the Second Amendment is archaic and should be repealed. You may not agree with the sentiment but you appear to blindly pull the liberal lever.
During the 2008 campaign we heard Democrats argue that Guantanamo was creating new terrorists all the time. Isn't it likely to be the case that drone strikes will do the same, only at a greater rate? Having someone's children killed as collateral damage from a drone strike is not likely to endear that someone to the United States.
When lots of American soldiers die it obviously doesn't look good for the administration in power. But a big terrorist attack on American soil could be worse for Obama. So anything Obama can do to keep Al Qaeda disrupted and disorganized is in his political interest. Drones offer a way to continue to thwart terrorist scheming by taking out key individuals without risking American lives (and receiving all that bad publicity).
Sure he may upsets a few progressives who may be a little bit more clever, but they'll always support him anyway so it doesn't matter.
I don't live in Chicago. What do I care?
You're quite the mean-spirited Republican.
The drone war will, in time, just make the terrorist stronger for Obama fails to find the ROOT CAUSE and fix it.
Well I have heard this argument before. The Islamist world doesn't need much to get its knickers in a twist. We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq on 9/11/01 yet they seemed to gave enough rage to kill 3000 people that day.
When a cartoon sends them into murderous riots, suffice to say the root cause is that they're batshit crazy. Hard to fix that.
Imperial Rome could make the same claim. It didn't make them loved much...
Quoting that great Merican: The Drill SGT :)
The logical connection goes to a Roman Emperor who famously said:
Let them hate us so long as they fear us.
I have used the quote before, but normally I don't mention that it was Caligula who said it.
somehow in the context of drone warfare, the Caligula / Obama Imperial overreach connection makes sense
I am OK with killing bad guys with drones, but could the liberals at least drop the sanctimony on waterboarding/enhanced interrogation stuff?
...but could the liberals at least drop the sanctimony on waterboarding/enhanced interrogation stuff?"
What planet are you from?
AQ disrupted & disorganized.
How quaint, how mid-2006.
His kinetic leading-from-behind re-armed them.
The Drill SGT said...
I have used the quote before, but normally I don't mention that it was Caligula who said it.
His pathologies later in life notwithstanding, Little Boots grew up on campaign, so he probably was talking good sense there.
Sadly Drill SGT, that quote still works for Obama. It just has a different context now. He has a separate power from Congress that he claims derives from the Constitution to set examples for the world on how the US sees their sovereign territory. Justice isn't arbitrary; it's just done by an unaccountable panel that decides if the US can attack on foreign soil, so long as unnammed DoJ official believes a person on that soil threatens Americans.
Apropos of nothing:
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Panetta said that, save their 5 o'clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
Who has to make calls?
We're broke. They know it.
Especially the state of IL.
Idiot Quinn wants to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr.
Illinois residential RE is stagnant, Rahm, gonna dump the tail-end city union boomers into the exchanges to save money......
And the downstaters were smart to vote down the pension squeeze.
BTW - police & fire are usually the 1st to be cut along with teachers.
The BIL snow removal contract, the library, etc. not so much.
-- it's just done by an unaccountable panel---
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Get in line. Obamacare has it, too.
Leland, GM is a compassionate liberal, can't you tell?
Well, defense of the homeland and its citizenry is, a core duty of any government.
On the contrary. The Constitution makes it clear that the President’s responsibility is to "…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There is no mention of public safety. The President is sworn to protect this order, even if doing so risks the safety and security of the American people.
Can they waterboard and detain without geographically limitations as well?
We are spending more than the next 13 countries COMBINED.
Absolutely incorrect. It's the next 14. We're the top out of the top 15. A good deal of those nations, however, are members of NATO. As such, they existed under an umbrella of protection that we provided for decade upon decade and, as such, never had to provide complete sovereign security for themselves.
As C.A. mentions, look at the relative populations and spending and this oft-tossed trope quickly sinks.
"giving US" what "WE" want? WE WHO white man? You got a frog in your pocket?
Oh I see the compassion. It's a shame though he confuses defense of the homeland with public safety. "Provide for the common defense" is a lot different than having a police force that issues traffic tickets and responds to domestic complaints.
In swearing to defend the Constitution, it includes protecting the provisions in Article I, which if followed, preclude the President from defunding the military (it's not his job Garage).
For Garage: We ought to defund the military entirely.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Do you think there might be a couple things the Federal government does that are a tiny bit less important than providing for the common defense as found in the Constitution?
I think we need to remember Condoleeza Rice's words:
"... I know too there is a weariness. I know that it feels as if we have carried these burdens long enough. But we can only know that there is no choice, because
one of two things will happen if we don't lead. Either no one
will lead and there will be chaos, or someone will fill the
vacuum who does not share our values.
My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be
reluctant to lead and you cannot lead from behind."
"Can they waterboard and detain without geographically limitations as well?"
If they claim the right to kill anyone anywhere--as they do claim--they sure as fuck claim the authority to do any fucking thing to any fucking body any fucking where.
Luckily we'll never have to worry about drones being used against anyone in America...
I'm all for American superiority, But I refuse to believe it must come at this price.
And by the way the Iranians really do have one of our drones, and they've hacked it, and released some of it's video footage.
If they claim the right to kill anyone anywhere--as they do claim--they sure as fuck claim the authority to do any fucking thing to any fucking body any fucking where.
Nah...killing with a drone is clean and quick...get in-get out, home for dinner and hot shower. Waterboarding and detainment is messy.
Agree that Iran really does have a US drone. Whether they actually hacked it is a rather dubious claim. The video could be from the drone or from an Iranian aircraft. Without specific knowledge of the drones sensors, how would you know the difference? More to the point, how would the Iranian people or other Arab states know the difference?
"...someone will fill the
vacuum who does not share our values."
Well, fuck.
As "our values" include the presumption that we have the right to attack any nation and kill, imprison or torture anyone we want for any reason or no reason, I think we'd be better off is "someone fill(ed) the vaccum" who does not share our values.
The drone strikes do have the benfit of targeting -- and the risk oif collateral damage which we are freaky about when the troops are on the ground, but seemingly less so when the "sniper" is in Iowa.
I am wondering what else is behind the drone strike on the 16 year old American last year.
I have mixed feelings about the 2 adult Americans who have been killed. I think they were traitors -- (and indeed only Americans by accident of birth?) but am unclear about the evidence.
Killing American citizens without presenting the information to another authority for review or perhaps trial in absentia (is that possible, lawyers?)is unsettling.
The irony is the guys who get taken out by drones make life so much more convenient for Obama to keep his image up with the lefties who hated George Bush for capturing and holding enemy combatants.
Everything to make the boss daddy happy and unperturbed.
Too bad he couldn't be botheresd to send an armed drone over Benghazi and take out that mortar that Tyrone Woods had painted.
Obama and Panetta have blood on their hands, and it's not just that of Islamic terrorists.
Robert Cook said...
"Can they waterboard and detain without geographically limitations as well?"
If they claim the right to kill anyone anywhere--as they do claim--they sure as fuck claim the authority to do any fucking thing to any fucking body any fucking where.
...and therefore government should replace the important voluntary commerce we now engage in with government supplied services. What's the worst that could happen?
therefore government should replace the important voluntary commerce we now engage in with government supplied services.
Are you complaining drones will put mercenaries and hitmen out of business? Our lord and savior, Obama, has power over life and death. Get used to it.
A modern drone can kill the one we want to kill like a sniper does. Obama is our sniper.
Well he's not a very accurate sniper. Only about 2% of casualties are "high value targets" and only a little over 50% are even tentatively legitimate targets. The rest of the of casualties are definitely civilian, with 176 children confirmed dead (that's about 7 Newtown-sized "national tragedies" we've inflicted on Pakistan in the past couple years).
The military is mostly a welfare program anyways, let's defund it.
Cook likes to use lots of swear words, he thinks that will score him some hot pierced chicks.
On the contrary. The Constitution makes it clear that the President’s responsibility is to "…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There is no mention of public safety. The President is sworn to protect this order, even if doing so risks the safety and security of the American people.
I was referring to the core function of the government, not the President. I suggest you read the preamble of the Constitution. The part about providing for a common defense should give you a hint.
Drone warfare used to kill people, any people, is better than waterboarding those same people for information. Dead men tell no tales. Besides, these are brown people, or something like that, right? They have weird sounding last names that for sure.
Brennan isn't sure if waterboarding is torture. [he's not lawyer ya know] But, he's quite sure killing Americans abroad is legal.
DADvocate said...
Are you complaining drones will put mercenaries and hitmen out of business?
No. While Cook recognizes government does what it wants to do regardless of what political parties say publicly he somehow convinces himself that government delivered healthcare will miraculously not include this drawback.
Consequently, we apply rigorous standards and a rigorous process of review
Obama's got Top Men working on it.
Hey, Hey,
It's the Obama way,
How many Americans,
Did you drone kill today?
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
Remember when the left went absolutely wild about warrantless wiretapping?
You've come a long way, baby!
garage mahal said...
On the contrary. The Constitution makes it clear that the President’s responsibility is to "…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There is no mention of public safety
The preamble to the constitution makes clear one of the purposes of the federal government is to provide for the common defense.
You wouldn't know what the constitution says or does, anyway.
"Preserve, protect and defend The Constitution."
Pray tell, what the hell is in Article II of the Constitution?
A clue Cookie, and I could care less what you think, perhaps...
The American people really didn't have a problem burning a 1/3rd of the South, or starving 1 million Germans to death at the end of WWI, or killing 4 million Japanese and Axis citizens ......war is ugly.
None of that put us on a road to tyranny. Just victory. And we perhaps have become too reticent in the use of true max lethality to the point where we no longer have victories - just endless wars and endless pleading by a small fraction of Americans for "more precious enemy rights!".
"Iam wondering what else is behind the drone strike on the 16 year old American last year."
Most likely, nothing.
But, we shouldn't have to wonder, and the President does not have the rightful authority to make himself the judge, jury and executioner.
He is simply another cheap mass murderer covering himself (and wiping his ass) with legalisms.
Cedarford,
What you show is that you couldn't care less about language.
Or about the tyrannical power the President has claimed for himself, and exercises.
"While Cook recognizes government does what it wants to do regardless of what political parties say publicly he somehow convinces himself that government delivered healthcare will miraculously not include this drawback."
No. I recognize that, while our government in its present debased stated is unresponsive to the needs of the people, and operates unburdened by the shackles of Constitutional authority, government is still necessary and does have legitimate functions, and, when responsive to the people, can perform those functions well.
"The American people really didn't have a problem burning a 1/3rd of the South, or starving 1 million Germans to death at the end of WWI, or killing 4 million Japanese and Axis citizens ......war is ugly.
"None of that put us on a road to tyranny."
Actually, it did.
Garbage - "On the contrary. The Constitution makes it clear that the President’s responsibility is to "…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There is no mention of public safety. The President is sworn to protect this order, even if doing so risks the safety and security of the American people."
Guy is clueless on the Constitution. Likely only bothered to read the Amendments, thinking the "Sacred Parchment" began and ended with them.
Here's a refresher:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Safety by goverment is a core part of our social contract. Without security and common defense there IS NO domestic tranquility, no justice, no blessings of liberty achievable. And indeed, no justice, as even the Left talks about bringing our enemies to justice by force. They just see it done by lawyers in a civilian courtroom dealing with these enemies magically captured by un-named law enforcement people or enemy showing up when they hear a Judge signed a warrant to do so!
So we provide for a common defense.
The Preamble is the GOALS of the Constitution.
The rest of it is a blend of excess verbiage and the nuts and bolts of a national operating manual. With Amendments all purporting to be needed to exist when they were pushed to be accepted - to support the Preamble...
"promote the general welfare", "form a more perfect union", "insure domestic tranquility"?
What kind of leftist craptrap is that shit? Did you grab this off Daily Kos or something?
Robert Cook said...
government is still necessary and does have legitimate functions,
No one disputes this.
and, when responsive to the people, can perform those functions well.
I think I've heard this summarized as "If only the right people" were in charge. Funny how it never works out that way. Ever. It's almost like the system itself prevents that from hapenning.
JAL said...
"For Garage: We ought to defund the military entirely.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
@JAL,
Yes, of course.
Your mistake is presuming the stupid and the dishonest would ever concede the point. Bad faith requires ignoring the obvious.
I know I'm late for the party, but this drone assassination cartoon is hilarious.
http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2012/03/tom-the-dancing-bug-hello-youve-been-targeted-for-a-drone-assassination-helpful-info-from-your-u-s-government/
No, Marshal our government can and has performed some of its functions well.
It's now about getting "the right people" in place but insuring that government is working for and is answerable to "the people."
Our post office still works pretty well as far as I'm concerned, and, were it not burdened by onerous and punitive requirements imposed by Congress, would not be in the hole it's in now. We will all be sorry if the Post Office finally collapses.
I'm not in the cohort served by Medicare, but, by all accounts, it is well-run program and popular with its beneficiaries.
Our public schools were once exemplars to the world.
Our government has been perverted by money, and appears to us to be dysfunctional because it presently is not intended to function for us, but for its paymasters, the financial elites who have bought their way into ownership of the country.
"promote the general welfare", "form a more perfect union", "insure domestic tranquility"?
What kind of leftist craptrap is that shit? Did you grab this off Daily Kos or something?
Outside the George Bush/Al Gore house debacle, I've never once seen you actually admit you were wrong about something.
I've never once seen you actually admit you were wrong about something.
Start with telling me where I'm wrong?
Robert Cook said...
our government can and has performed some of its functions well.
Only in special circumstances or on a small scale. Monopolies work great over short periods also.
Our post office still works pretty well as far as I'm concerned, and, were it not burdened by onerous and punitive requirements imposed by Congress, would not be in the hole it's in now
Red Herring. The post office was struggling a decade before the pension requirement. You should be embarassed stooping to garage's level.
by all accounts, it is well-run program and popular with its beneficiaries.
Apparently you don't read much, problems finding medicare services are widespread. It's hardly surprising people getting others to pay for their service like it. It's less clear this support will continue when people have to pay more than they get in service.
Our public schools were once exemplars to the world.
And you see what happens over time. The more government is involved, the less control the students and parents have. Over time the agents and intermediaries turn the system to their own benefit. Thus we no longer have a public education system, we have a national jobs program that funds politics.
Our government has been perverted by money
Government has always been susceptible to perversion by money and power, and redesigning it to your liking will make it even more so.
The prescription part seems to be well-liked and under budget.
OTOH, try finding a doctor.
The drone war may be the single most outrageous an appalling action ever by the U.S. This is the kind of shit-stinking crow that lives in memory until it comes home to roost. And when it does who will say that we haven't asked for it? You BO haters who figure this is the only thing he's gotten right deserve every single cut and bruise this mini Mussolini can inflict.
I've never once seen you actually admit you were wrong about something.
Start with telling me where I'm wrong?
For starters I showed you in the preamble of the Constitution, one of the core functions of the Constitution and you responded with your typical snark.
You just aren't interested or capable of an honest discussion.
Sending robotic killing machine to execute US citizens without due legal process is tyrannical. We need guns to be able to fight tyrannical government.
Our public schools were once exemplars to the world.
Indeed. That was before the teachers union made teachers the priority over the education of the kids.
For starters I showed you in the preamble of the Constitution, one of the core functions of the Constitution and you responded with your typical snark.
Fine, although I was referring to the Presidents Oath, I'll concede the point to you.
Of course assassinating American citizens without due process would horrify our Founders. As well as the bloated and unaccountable behemoth "defence" budget we need to feed for our adventurism abroad.
Of course assassinating American citizens without due process would horrify our Founders.
As it should.
As well as the bloated and unaccountable behemoth "defence" budget we need to feed for our adventurism abroad.
I would argue our whole budget is bloated. We are spending over a trillion dollars more than we were in 2008 and the mere prospect of a $100 billion cut in spending is unthinkable to the political class.
Not all that many choices:
1) Leave them do what they want.
2) Capture and hold
3) Capture, interrogate, hold
4) Kill on sight.
Pick one
I'll take a wild guess and say we spend more than the next 13 countries combined in everything.
Total yearly spending:
United States: $3.6 trillion
Next 13 countries: $13.6 trillion
They spend rather a lot more than we do "in everything".
Of course assassinating American citizens without due process would horrify our Founders.
Not necessarily. As others have noted, "due process" in war is "try to kill them until they give up". That applies to irregular enemy troops (e.g., "terrorists") as well as regulars.
The real problem here is that the executive branch flatly refuses to offer up ANY evidence that the people they're killing are enemy troops. Congress authorized President to kill members of al Qaeda -- not "people the President claims are members of al Qaeda". This problem is made more serious by the fact that American citizens are among those being killed.
Simply put, while the President is authorized to conduct drone strikes against enemies, he is not authorized to declare people enemies based on secret evidence. There is nothing more important in war than being transparent about who the enemy is.
garage mahal said...
Of course assassinating American citizens without due process would horrify our Founders
Considering you voted for this, twice no less, you care not one bit about what the Founders of America think.
Enjoy the hopey-changey bullshit you voted for, idiot.
Paul said...
All the drone war does is incite more Arabs to join Al-Qaeda.
Add to that the power vacuum left in Libya (thanks to Obama's drone and air war but no boots on the ground) that has now made Al-Qaeda the top dog not only there, but has brought inroads for them in Algeria and Egypt.
The drone war will, in time, just make the terrorist stronger for Obama fails to find the ROOT CAUSE and fix it.
There is no doubt in a few years Al-Qaeda will be quite powerful in Libya, Algeria, Egypt, and yes, back in Afghanistan. All thanks to Obama's 'drone strategy failure.
Absolutely spot on. There is strong evidence that shows a resurgence in AQ recruiting since the drone wars began. Nothing would piss me off more and make me more dedicated to the cause than the sheer soulless nature of drone targeting.
The constitution does not give the the president the unilateral right to kill Americans here at home. Because you know as soon as things it get a little hairy, Obama won't be using drones only on targets in Afghanistan and Packistan. He'll be firing Hellfires at Tea Party rallies in Ohio and Pennsylvania on grounds those guys are clinging too much to their shabby religion and scary guns.
Obama won the Nobel Peach Prize before he even found the restroom in the White House. Now he's firing drones like there's no tomorrow. The guy is too high strung to be shooting off all these drones like this. Michelle ought to get her butt in gear, declare an all-night booty call and calm that man down a bit.
Jose Padillia needed his constitutional protections when Bush was in office.
Some 16 year old American kid in Yemen?
Fuck him.
Post a Comment