Al Qaeda leader Ahmed Farouq, who was an American citizen, was also killed in the operation that killed the two innocent hostages....
American officials at the time had "no reason to believe either hostage was present" when the operation was launched on a compound in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. U.S. officials also did not know that Farouq or Gadahn were present at the targeted sites and "neither was specifically targeted," Earnest said.
April 23, 2015
"As president and as Commander-in-Chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations including the one that inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni."
Said President Obama this morning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
104 comments:
Obomba is just showing off his power to personally slaughter people.
War sucks. I give him credit for taking responsibility.
Al Qaeda leader Ahmed Farouq, who was an American citizen
Tells you all you need to know, right there.
"My bad."
What does "I take full responsibility" mean here?
Try taking responsibility for the thousand disasters in everything you've touched in foreign and domestic policy.
You mean when the CIA decides to shoot missiles from robot planes, innocent people get killed?
"What does "I take full responsibility" mean here?"
It's Reno Responsibility, as in Janet "I take full responsibility for Waco" Reno.
Collateral damage and all, his killing bad guys is the only fringe benefit of having a President without a conscience.
But I'll bet you some informant that the United States relied on knew who was there.
In general, I think Obama is a terrible president, but taking these types of actions are appropriate.
MadisonMan said...
What does "I take full responsibility" mean here?
He missed his tee time.
As a Usurper, Hussein Obama is an illegal Commander In Chief. It is a great shame that the "law prof" will not, and did not 7 years ago, inform the public about the Usurper and killer of the Republic, who has now polluted the World with his (and his handlers) warped visions, and using our troops and the machinery of the Republic
illegally in doing so.
Where are all the "Cheney frog-marched for war crimes" people hiding out?
Why, its almost as if they don't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about...
Wait a second. I have it on good authority from a bevy of Althouse commenters that we are in an existential struggle for civilization, that military action is necessary, and that innocent deaths (while tragic, of course) are nonetheless an acceptable price to pay for the kind of battle we find ourselves in. I think most of that is nonsense, mind you, but it's not my argument. Why, it's as if criticism of Obama has more to do with tribal identification than principles. I'm truly shocked.
Once you brag about being the guy who personally picks the drone targets, you have no choice but to accept responsibility.
"Diligence is the mother of good luck"
-- Ben Franklin
And I'd say that lack of due diligence is the parent of the bad luck to kill hostages inadvertently.
But I still have faith. Any moment now, Garage or Robert Cook or Rythym & Balls will swing by with a petition to sign and deliver to the UN.
Any moment now...
No really. Because they have "principles" that transcend their partisan hackery...
Just give em a few more mins... the'll be right along.
Well in military operations--heck even in military training, "stuff" happens.
And putting my tribal hat on, I don't give a hoot or a holler if Obama says, "I take responsibility". Responsibility is what happens when you get your mitt in a wringer when you screwed up. And delicate little flower that Obama is, he's never had his mitt in a wringer.
In contemporary usage, "I take full responsibility for ...." means no such thing.
J Farmer, I can't stand Obama but I support him when he uses drones or the military to legitimately take out America's enemies.
This seems to be one of those times. If it comes out that he could have done more to prevent collateral damage and decided not to, there'd better be a good reason he decided not to. Otherwise, I'm still cool with it.
But that's where it ends. The rest of his actions in office have been mostly abhorrent.
And Mick, I consider myself a "Birther", and agree that Obama is a Usurper. I don't really believe we've seen the true birth certificate, and I don't think we ever will. Maybe he was born in Hawai'i, but I am not 100% satisfied that was the case.
Just give em a few more mins... the'll be right along.
Maybe they are still in bed?
Hey you guys! Its almost noon here! Soros isn't paying you to sleep all afternoon!
OBomba is auditioning for the job of Caliph. But the death toll seems small. Maybe next time.
Obama's calling the victims by their first names sounds really odd to me.
@Kyzernick:
"This seems to be one of those times."
I agree that if you take that position, you would not find much to criticize Obama for in this particular case. Which is exactly why I knew reading the comments would be so entertaining ;)
"OBomba is auditioning for the job of Caliph. But the death toll seems small. Maybe next time."
Ahh, so it was really the Al Qaeda members who were the collateral damage, and the American and Eye-talian were the real targets. Sinister and clever from our Indonesian communist-atheist-Islamist leader.
I fully support our President in this operation and wish that he would do more like this.
I loath Obama but for as long as he has the job he should get no flack for defending the constitution against all enemies.
J Farmer—Screw you and your lying pussy-ified mouth.
@Jim in St. Louis:
"J Farmer—Screw you and your lying pussy-ified mouth."
Kisses to you, too, sweetheart. But just out of curiosity, what have I lied about?
J Farmer: "criticism of Obama has more to do with tribal identification than principles"
That statement is a lie.
@Jim:
You clipped "as if" from the beginning of that sentence. And you may wish to add more dark green leafy vegetables to your diet. I'm worried about an irony deficiency.
What I'm in love with is the idea that we didn't know who the AlQaeda guys were, because we would have had to go through legal hoops to target them and we didn't do that. Because we didn't know.
I suspect. We didn't go through the hoops and then said we didn't know. Because that's easier.
Obama's drone assassination program has also gotten a few hundred innocent kids killed, too. But they were mostly Pakistani, so no need to worry too much about it or for the president to take any "responsibility."
I think a far better statement would be to have Obama say he regretted the loss of innocent life, the people who were being held hostage by Islamic Terrorists did not deserve their fate, unlike their captors.
So President 'drone killer' who's whole foreign policy is based on assassination, snuffs out innocent lives and says, "ops, my bad" and he will take 'full responsibility'.
So what will he do? Resign? No?
Dock his own pay? No?
Live with it? Obama? Hahahahaha... I doubt it.
Obama is a slacker, but here I cut the slacker some slack.
War sucks, and I do believe he is sincere about the loss of innocent life, just as W was.
Farmer: "But just out of curiosity, what have I lied about?"
You're distorting the reaction to the article. Most commenters here have held that America doesn't deliberately target innocents, and that we often go out of our way (at considerable risk to ourselves) to avoid that.
These same people have stated that Obama shouldn't be brought up for War Crimes because he ordered the attack.
They aren't the hypocrites here. The hypocrites are the Lefties here who have always demanded Bush/Cheney be brought up on War Crimes for doing the same thing.
But now that Obama is doing it, they are silent.
Which means they never cared about human rights to begin with. All that talk was just a convenient prop for something else.
It's very easy for this president to take responsibility. He knows that the MSM will not have headlines in all the major papers and television talking heads lambasting him for the poor intelligence and killing innocents. If the opposition criticizes him, knows that the MSM will describe the criticism as partisan. Finally, he knows that the left, promoted by massive media coverage, won't be marching in the streets claiming war crimes.
I appreciate the gesture but it's an easy thing to do when he knows there will be little to no consequences for him.
Taking responsibility in war, is redundant.
The object is to destroy the enemy. Anyone who gets in the way, is on their own.
The comments here are ... mostly dispiriting.
(I'm with Kyzermick.
I don't like President Obama's policies or actions in general, but in this particular case he was doing exactly what I expect a proper President to do.
This same thing would have/could have happened under Bush's watch - and while I equally disliked many of Bush's domestic policies, I was pretty well on-board with his foreign policy stance, and never once thought he approached the use of American military power irresponsibly.
But then I'm a comparative hawk, especially for a libertarian.)
"I think most of that is nonsense, mind you, but it's not my argument. Why, it's as if criticism of Obama has more to do with tribal identification than principles. I'm truly shocked."
I'm sure you are. When a Muslim cuts your head off in spite of your plea that you voted for Obama, maybe something will come to you. I know you don't believe this will happen.
Reality is not a big leftist principle.
Unknown @ 11:41,
One minor quibble I would have left out the "little to" in your last sentence.
Taking responsibility in war, is redundant.
Good point.
Its like a CEO coming forward and "taking responsibility" for making some bad decisions.
Dude. You already *are* the guy that's responsible. Why do you feel a need to remind us?
Maybe that's what this is.
"Hey grab Teh Bear for a PR stunt. We have more dead bodies as props to remind people that he's a leader that makes Big Important Decisions... dammit! Someone get me the number for the Pro Shop at Andrews!"
MadisonMan @11:26,
I agree.
@Fern:
"You're distorting the reaction to the article."
Oh, I thought I was having fun with some of the ridiculousness...
traditionalguy: "Obomba is just showing off his power to personally slaughter people."
Eric the Fruit Bat: "'My bad.'"
Sebastian: "Collateral damage and all, his killing bad guys is the only fringe benefit of having a President without a conscience."
Mick: "As a Usurper, Hussein Obama is an illegal Commander In Chief."
@Michael K:
"Reality is not a big leftist principle."
Thank you for perfectly illustrating the tribal mentality and how it so often leads to incoherence.
You're right about one thing. I do not worry too much about being beheaded by a Muslim. It is a fear that appears to preoccupy you, and I feel badly about that. But you know, if we want to call ourselves "the home of the brave," we should probably act like it.
I think when you're fighting terrorists then stuff like this is going to happen.
But I'd also consider the alternative: had the hostages not been killed by the drone (and even if ransom had been paid) they probably would have had their heads cut off, or perhaps been burned to death, in a snuff video.
Fen: "You're distorting the reaction to the article."
Farmer: "Oh, I thought I was having fun with some of the ridiculousness..."
Fen: "Nope, you weren't doing that at all. And now you are pretending you were joshing around only because you got busted for lying about it."
@Fen:
"And now you are pretending you were joshing around only because you got busted for lying about it."
So when commenter Kyzernick says that he finds the comments "mostly dispiriting," is he also lying? You seem to be supportive of the president in this one particular case, so I take it that you do not agree with the other commenters who say that Obama was "just showing off his power to personally slaughter people." Or some of the others I quoted.
American officials at the time had "no reason to believe either hostage was present" when the operation was launched on a compound in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.
@Farmer, the fact that there are people who are thoroughly disgusted with Barack Obama does not let him off the hook when he screws up. Read the sentence above and ask yourself to what extent the officials of his administration bothered to look? One has to go back to Carter's administration to recall anything nearly this half-assed.
Wait a second. I have it on good authority from a bevy of Althouse commenters that we are in an existential struggle for civilization, that military action is necessary, and that innocent deaths (while tragic, of course) are nonetheless an acceptable price to pay for the kind of battle we find ourselves in
All of this is true. The attacks on Obama for his drone policy either come from the Left, or are really comments about Leftwing hypocrisy.
Kyzermick said,
"And Mick, I consider myself a "Birther", and agree that Obama is a Usurper. I don't really believe we've seen the true birth certificate, and I don't think we ever will. Maybe he was born in Hawai'i, but I am not 100% satisfied that was the case".
No he hasn't "shown" any Birth Certificate. A pic on a website is proof of nothing. And just by coincidence (I'm sure) Ms. Fuddy, the Director of Health in Hi. that defended and "vouched" for Obama's "Birth Certificate" was killed in an "emergency plane water landing" recently.
Not that PLACE of birth matters. As the son of a foreigner, and birth as a British subject (which likely continues today), he would not be a natural born Citizen if he was born in the Oval Office.
That goes for Cruz and Rubio also (and Jindal). Do you think it is a coincidence that so many in the race are not eligible natural born Citizens?
If it is not important to you it IS important to somebody. And that is because there is no law and no Constitution when the executor of the laws is an illegal entity. Rubio and Cruz are HELPING cement the Usurpation as legality. They are traitors.
Hussein Obama is not protecting and defending the Constitution, he has already rendered it null and void, and sadly our troops fight under an illegal Commander In Chief.
Hussein Obama was the death of America.
There was an Italian hostage too, so that may be part of his taking responsibility. But all in all I can't fault the President. I fault Al Qaeda for holding the prisoners to begin with.
Something new?
Harry said it better
@Gahrie:
"The attacks on Obama for his drone policy either come from the Left, or are really comments about Leftwing hypocrisy."
I was talking about comments to this post, not to arguments against his drone policy writ large. And you're wrong on one small point. Criticisms of the drone policy do not come strictly from the left.
@Mick:
If you were to fly to Hawaii and see a copy of the original, would that convince you? Or would you just be convinced that it was a forgery or a fake?
"The attacks on Obama for his drone policy either come from the Left"
Some of us are criticizing it from the Right. Not the mere use of drones, but the lack of any oversight which is dangerous to allow in a commander in chief.
"Full responsibility" doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences. If you have an affair, then tell your wife you take "full responsibility" for it, should that be the end of the matter?
I'm not necessarily against our targeted attacks on suspected terrorists--if we can eliminate such threats we should do so--but I'm not aware of any oversight of the president's warmaking power (and this does fall under warmaking power) beyond his own perceived carefulness.
"I take full responsibility for ...." When a president says that, he means that no lower level subordinate should be punished for participating in the current screw up. However, for Pres. Obama, I'm not sure he means anything he says. I would be on the look out for a stab in the back, if I were in the chain of command.
As Jonah Goldberg noted, saying "I'm responsible" while having your flacks say that it REALLY wasn't your fault isn't exactly taking responsibility.
J. Farmer said...
@Mick:
"If you were to fly to Hawaii and see a copy of the original, would that convince you? Or would you just be convinced that it was a forgery or a fake?"
A typical argument of the Usurper's apologists and .gov trolls, that "you wouldn't believe the BC anyway, even if you saw it first hand, so I'm not going to show you."
It just proves what a child he and his apologists are. Congresspeople have said that since the document contains the Hi. State Seal it is legitimate, despite the fact that NOT ONE of them has seen the document in person, or touched the supposed "raised seal" (which by the way, in the SNOPES pictures of it, appears to be an INCISED seal, not the "raised seal" which the Hi. codes require.-- so if I did get to see it first hand I would note if the seal on the BACK of the document is raised or incised--- even the seal could be fake).
Can you go to the Post Office and get a passport by showing a pic of your BC on your laptop? Can you get a job and show a pic of your BC on your laptop?
OF COURSE you can't --- because a pic on a website is proof of NOTHING.
Unbelievably, some even claim that "there is no evidence that Obama was not born in Hi". Well yes there is, if anyone could personally examine the BC!!
Besides that though, regardless of where birth occurred, Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen, because he was born BRITISH of a British subject father. The BC could just prove that the Kenyan was indeed his birth father.
@Mick:
What evidence would convince you you were wrong?
Dems, remember: You are behind the woman who STARTED the Birther movement.
Always remember: Hillary was the one who started that ball rolling.
Good he took credit for it. And you know what? that's the cost of war. Sometimes our guys get killed.
Lets look into how it occurred and if there was reason to accept that it may have been an accident. If the action was negligent then lets hold the administration accountable. But if they were collateral damage for a righteous operation, then that's simply what happens sometimes.
Sometimes when you go to rescue the hostages the hostages die. Or sometimes when you bomb the terrorist he has hostages with him and they die.
If they DID know that Ahmed Farouq was there and DID target him, and he is/was an American citizen, I could give two shits. His citizenship shouldn't allow him to wage war against the US, and if he is there fighting for Al Qaeda he lost any privileges.
Glad he died.
Fen wrote:
They aren't the hypocrites here. The hypocrites are the Lefties here who have always demanded Bush/Cheney be brought up on War Crimes for doing the same thing.
But now that Obama is doing it, they are silent.
Not just lefties. Obama himself.
We all remember the "we need to stop air raiding villages comment" Obama made about Bush's drone strikes. When Obama is president he triples down on drone strikes.
I personallly had no problem with Bush's drone strikes, so by extension I have no problem with Obama's.
But I can't abide hypocrisy. I'll give Obama a pass for the action itself, but not the lefties that ignore his action for self serving reasons.
@jr565, go look at what I wrote at 12:42. American officials "had no reason to believe either hostage was present," but did they think to look? And if they didn't, then the deaths truly are on them, and on Barack Obama as Commander in Chief.
WHY does he even need to say it?
Does he think we are too stupid to know as much?
Or somehow ennobling to say it?
It is just more of his usual political schmatty.
What's most absurd about this whole affair is the notion that calling somebody a member of Al Qaeda actually means anything today. It's as insignificant as calling somebody an "Islamist" or a "jihadist." This is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Thinking that we need to pick through ant hills and find little ants to step on to secure ourselves is absolutely absurd.
and by giving him a pass I mean on drone strikes in general. We do need to look into whether there was some negligence involved with this particular strike.
J Farmer wrote:
What's most absurd about this whole affair is the notion that calling somebody a member of Al Qaeda actually means anything today. It's as insignificant as calling somebody an "Islamist" or a "jihadist." This is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Thinking that we need to pick through ant hills and find little ants to step on to secure ourselves is absolutely absurd.
What's absurd is your idea that we should just pretend like they don't exist.
Al queda member may have been born here, but in no way was he a citizen.
@jr565:
Get real. It has nothing to do with pretending that they don't exist. They existed before 9/11 and will exist afterwards. They are a tiny threat that managed to exploit various security weak spots and pull off a relatively big assault. So sure, I'm all for bombing camps. Sending in special forces to the Afghan hinterlands to kill them. I'm sold on the whole military vs. police argument. You do that and patch up your security and your immigration, and you carry on with business as usual.
What I think you most certainly DON'T do is get involved in 19th-century style nation-building in two regions of the middle east with some of the longest histories of sectarianism and tribalism. That's a ridiculous squandering of resources, in both human life and money. These backwards people are a tiny threat to us, and we are being suckered into an absurd overreaction.
The intel folk say X is true. The President takes action on that intel (or lack thereof). The intel is wrong and deaths result.
Can I say OBAMA LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!
Yep, I could. But it would be both wrong and stupid. Just like with that other guy who was President.
J. Farmer said...
@Mick:
"What evidence would convince you you were wrong?"
Wrong about what? There is no "evidence" of any birth thus far, only the story told by the Usurper's own mouth--- that his father was Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan British subject, who SNOPES even admits, "passed his British subjectship to his children".
Now the question is, is Bo Sr. Hussein Obama's father? The BC would prove that, but thus far there is no BC evidence present (a pic on a website is proof of nothing).
Until then Obama's story of BO Sr. being his father itself makes Hussein Obama ineligible, no matter where birth occurred.
@Mick:
"There is no 'evidence' of any birth thus far"
Well, except the existence of a human being. Do you think he came to this world by means other than a birth?
"Until then Obama's story of BO Sr. being his father itself makes Hussein Obama ineligible, no matter where birth occurred."
Are you saying birthright citizenship is invalid?
Questions:
1. How do we know for sure that the hostages are dead, and what killed them?
2. Why was the fanily only notified three months later, and much longer was that after the United States concluded he was dead?
Blogger who knew Dr. Warren Weinstein, who was his college adviser during his freshman year and the faculty adviser for the Jewish Student Union (Hillel)
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2015/04/oh-no-dr-warren-weinstein-my-college.html
"I remember when he encouraged me to stand up for what I believed which is why he gave me advice when a Palestinian professor, Dr. Faiz Abu-Jabbar verbally attacked me in class because I didn't accept his anti-Israel rhetoric as truth."
Think, people:
Is there really any more reason to believe that the hostages were killed by a drone strike, than to believe Kayla Mueller was killed a Jordanian air strike on ISIS in Syria?
I mean, is anyone really sure Obama got this right??
Because I would think this would be something the terrorist groups would want the U.S. to believe.
Re: Obama's birth certificate.
It's not an original document anyway. It says right on it that it was created April 25, 2011. Look at it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
See the date that is rubber stamped on the bottom left?
It also bears all the marks of truth, including the curve of the paper that was photographed. (notice the page is bent a little bit to the left, because this is bound in some book)
Somebody worked with the it a little, including giving the new photo a green background of the sort that could appear on a check where also you want to prevent forgeries.
The document itself, screams – SCREAMS – that it is authentic.
It goes beyond what anyone would think to imagine.
For instance: Barack Obama’s mother first signed her name Ann Dunham Obama. Apparently somebody found fault with that and she squeezed in a “Stanley” above the “Ann” Everybody knows she didn’t like that male sounding name “Stanley.”
And, if you notice, the date the attendant (doctor) signed it, and date it is stamped – Aug 8, 1961 – is one day later than the date next to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama’s signature, which is 8-7-61.
Clearly her original signature was rejected, and she had to put down Stanley, and that caused a delay of one day in the issuance of the birth certificate.
There is also the fact that the race of the father is “African” or the curious naming of Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama II instead of Jr.
And if you want to say a brilliant forger thought of these touches shortly before April 25, 2011 (the date on the certified copy) why didn’t anybody call attention to it?
President Obama’s press office didn’t even have to point that out – they could have mentioned it to some friendly reporter or blogger. Why add this brilliant authentic note, if you weren’t going to use it?
But no, they didn’t realize these little points of proof of genuiness themselves. If something is really genuine, there can be all kinds of arguments you don’t realize. And others may not pick up on.
But if you work in a fake proof of authenticity, you surely are going to want somebody to notice it, aren’t you?
But nobody important did.
President Obama's family probably lost any original birth certificates dating from 1961.
They have been of no legal value since probably the 1980s.
While the FBI lab (when it is being honest) could verify the age and authenticity of the document, no person in normal use would know what an original borth certificate from Hawaii, or most other places is suppposed to look like, let alone test it for forgery.
Only more recently issued certified copies are of any legal use.
By the way, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii would periodically print an advertisement listing all births in the state.
There s no reason for him to have bene born any where else.
On the other hand, he had two half brothers, born in Kenya somewhat later, to a different white American mother than Stanley Ann Dunham.
J. Farmer said,
"Well, except the existence of a human being. Do you think he came to this world by means other than a birth?"
and
"Are you saying birthright citizenship is invalid?"
Of course the existence of Hussein Obama is not the point. The question is where birth occurred and who the parents are. That and many other questions are hidden. No BC has confirmed that story.
Yes birthright citizenship is invalid. Many point to Wong Kim Ark as the holding that held that anyone born in the US is a US Citizen, however that is not what it held--- It held that children born to legal resident alien parents are US Citizens, since the temporary allegiance gained through legal residence of the parents made the children "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" w/in the meaning of the 14th Amendment (See WKA @693).
There is a proviso in the 14th Amendment--- "and subject to the jurisdiction of the US".
No SCOTUS has HELD that simple birth in the US is tantamount to citizenship-- it causes all sorts of ills such as Birth tourism, and the circumstance of children being called citizens while their illegal immigrant parents are not -- it is basically kidnapping.
But then the question is not whether Hussein Obama is a "citizen" (if his story of birth to Ann Dunham is true), it is whether he is a natural born Citizen-- that is the requirement and is defined by SCOTUS and Original Common Law (law of nations) thusly:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874).
@ Sammy Finkelman
A picture on a website is proof of nothing. All of what you said is pure BS, and conjecture.
I am speaking of internal evidence.
Its good he took responsibility, but if I were his underling in this situation, I'd still be worried. I wouldn't trust his word.
This is one area I've been glad for an Obama Presidency. Democrat Presidents are able to go to war better than Republican Presidents.
Democrat Presidents get criticism from the right, but they don't get sustained objection to the war. For example, most of us agree that he is bombing jihadists, where we might disagree is in the way he goes about it.
On the other hand, when Republicans wage war, you get code pink on tv 24/7. You get prominent Democrat congress critters and Senators on the news that were once pro war all suddenly realizing how much better peace is. We get treated to constant news stories about our standing in the world and how its eroding.
Obama is fortunate not to have to suffer such nonsense. He can keep golfing.
Sammy Finkelman said...
"I am speaking of internal evidence."
There is no "internal evidence". There is a story and a picture on a website which would not be admissible in any court of law as proof of that story.
J Farmer wrote:
Get real. It has nothing to do with pretending that they don't exist. They existed before 9/11 and will exist afterwards. They are a tiny threat that managed to exploit various security weak spots and pull off a relatively big assault.
Yes,and not addressing them sufficiently led to a USS Cole, and then to 9/11. I don't want me or my family to be caught in the blast because govt who's main primary function is to protect the homeland sitting on their thumb implanted up their ass because they couldn't be bothered. I wouldn't want you within 1000 miles of any decision making processes, and if there were an attack, my family members were hurt and you had to go before congress and uttered the crap you are uttering here as to why you didn't think they were anything to worry about I'd seek you out and murder you.
There's been a slight walk-back on this. Both "senior Obama administraton officials" and Josh Earnest later said that it was the CIA that did the strike under existing protocols and that "Obama didn’t directly sign off on the strike beforehand."
Regarding "Al Qaeda leader Ahmed Farouq, who was an American citizen...," Rob MacLean wrote Tells you all you need to know, right there.
Perhaps, assuming one realizes that an Al Qaeda leader who is also an American citizen is also, ipso facto, a traitor. In war treasonous bastards always get the chop, the only question is whether it is practical, or even moral, to risk the lives of soldiers just to capture a traitor when killing him outright is an option. In my estimation only vital intelligence needs, e.g. an Al Qaeda leader who is also an American citizen has detailed knowledge of an imminent attack and will trade that knowledge to save his skin, warrants capture and trial. Similarly an Al Qaeda leader who is also an American citizen, who becomes a reliable and effective double agent in place for the CIA also merits consideration. Otherwise drill the creep by any means necessary.
Too bad about Warren and Giovanni, but such are the fortunes of war. The problem here is more political than moral. Obama has already set the extremely foolish precedent that America will make incredibly disproportionate bargains in exchange for our citizenry. When Obama traded five high-profile enemy commanders for one lousy deserter anybody with more than few cerebral neurons could see the monumental unforced error. If Obama had only shown some ruthless sangfroid in the Bergdahl matter, one minor talib for one minor deserter, for example, then this situation would only be regrettable, however because of his fecklessness Obama has made sure that the deaths of Warren and Giovanni will only encourage more hostage taking.
Obama’s high-minded foolishness reminds me of “Jews for trucks” affair. In April 1944 SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann sought to broker a deal between the SS and the United States or Britain, in which the Nazis would exchange one million Jews for 10,000 trucks for the Eastern front. Eichmann called it ”Blut gegen Waren" ("blood for goods"). If our glorious Lord Zero had been in FDR’s shoes he would have gone for it, he’s that stupid.
You know who also died? Adam Gaddan. And all I can say is America, Fuck Yeah. Rot in hell traitor.
Lydia reports: "Obama didn’t directly sign off on the strike beforehand."
I was inclined to give Obama a dollop of respect for taking "full responsibility" for the regrettable deaths of Warren and Giovanni. Now his minions are pointing fingers at the CIA... Gawd, the man is beneath contempt.
MadisonMan wrote: What does "I take full responsibility" mean here?
I take full responsibility is ObamaSpeak for "Ahmed Farouq? Never heard of him."
It's unfortunate, but war is war. During Vietnam, didn't Adm. John McCain order bombardments on positions where his own son was being held captive? During WW2 we torpedoed ships full of our own prisoners and vaporised American POWs who were being held in Hiroshima.
The incident is regrettable. I can understand expressing sorrow, but an apology? War making kills foe and friend alike. It's unavoidable, and often even deliberate.
In WW II American submarines torpedoed all Japanese ships they could find running from the Philippines, the East Indies and other locations to Japan. We knew that many of these ships might have American and other allied prisoners of war aboard. Most accounts state that over 20,000 allied prisoners, including thousands of Americans, died on the Japanese Hell Ships that were torpedoed by US subs.
Mick - what a fuckwad you are. The first four or so U.S. presidents were ALSO born as British subjects. You are a retard of the highest order.
Fen - I have no problem with using drones to kill al Qaeda combatants regardless of collateral damage. Neither did I have a problem if it was Bush doing this, or contributing to collateral damage in the previous war.
Most accounts state that over 20,000 allied prisoners, including thousands of Americans, died on the Japanese Hell Ships that were torpedoed by US subs.
True. But I feel compelled to leap to the defense of American submariners. Geneva Article 46 forbids transport of POWs unless the utmost means for their safety is provided. Usually this means a ship or train registered and marked by the Protecting Power as a POW transport. The Germans were generally scrupulous in this regard. German trains loaded with US and British POWs had the Red Cross emblem painted on the cars, and they rarely abused the Articles by mixing war supplies and Allied prisoners on the same train. Japan did not observe any Geneva provision that might cause them inconvenience. By deliberately exposing their prisoners to attack Japan was guilty of their deaths, not the United States.
Fen - I have no problem with using drones to kill al Qaeda combatants regardless of collateral damage. Neither did I have a problem if it was Bush doing this, or contributing to collateral damage in the previous war.
-------------
Bet you're cool with the authorities here at home shooting an unarmed fleeing man 8 times in the back too...
"Of course lives were at stake! If I hadn't a shot him, there's just no telling what damage might have been done. I'm a hero taking out these people, you know. Doing the job the rest of you need done, but aren't willing to do..."
My question: are these men (mostly) so dull-witted that they really believe in these "missions"?
Do they really believe lives are at stake if they don't play judge/jury and evidence gatherer?
I trust military intelligence the same as I trust cops who shoot fleeing men in the back and claim they had no other choice to keep themselves and others safe.
Uh huh.
Shoot first, make up the evidence later. Thinkers need not apply, nor are they needed in this New Well-Armed and Angry society we are creating...
Glenn Reynolds: I'm looking at you.
During WW2 we torpedoed ships full of our own prisoners and vaporised American POWs who were being held in Hiroshima.
-------
USA! USA!
At least you have the balls to admit we're at war everywhere in the world these days.
Most people want to pretend this is not happening, that the wars are over, when they most definitely are not.
thanks Obama!
(for nothing really. Go home already and paint your toes in the bathtub...)
Too bad about Warren and Giovanni, but such are the fortunes of war.
---------
We can smell the insincerity from miles away...
"More Lives Lost... Eh"
(remember, for every "enemy combatant" we kill, they'll make more! =Loooooo-sing!)
You all really don't see it yet, do you??
"USA! USA! and on and on and on..."
It is good that he accepts responsibility for his decision. Some tactics don't work, but you have to pick one, and none of them are perfect. The true killers of these innocent people are the terrorists who took them, of course. I am glad Obama was trying to fight them.
I find a lot to criticize in Obama, but not for this, and I am tired of the tedious way Bush and Obama are treated by the other political sports team in matters like this.
President Obama: The buck stops with me. I take full responsibility. Even though I really had nothing to do with this. IF you have a problem call the CIA. I just read about it like the rest of you guys.
But, the buck does stop with me. Even though, no, it doesn't.
If you are at war Mary, how do you want us to treat people we are fighting. Seems like drone strikes are more limited strikes. But if you'd prefer them just carpet bomb, I guess it can be arranged.
Re: "As a Usurper, Hussein Obama is an illegal Commander In Chief...."
Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama's birth on US soil---in Hawaii---has been proven by: (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama's father's residence status and wrote: "They have one child, born in HONOLULU."
And, to repeat,EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
"You mean when the CIA decides to shoot missiles from robot planes, innocent people get killed?"
Yeah, can you beat that? Yet, it's only when innocent Americans get killed that the Prez "takes full responsibility" and issues apologies. Who's going to take the responsibility and apologize to the families of all the innocent Iraqis and Afghans and Yemenis and Pakistanis (and god knows what other people in the middle east) we're blowing up by "misadventure"?
(Heck, there was at least one other innocent American killed by drone, the 16 year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who had gone to the middle east looking for his father. About his death, Obama administration spokesman Robert "Yes, I'm a Shithead" Gibbs offered only the dismissive, "He should have had a more responsible father.")
"If you are at war Mary, how do you want us to treat people we are fighting. Seems like drone strikes are more limited strikes. But if you'd prefer them just carpet bomb, I guess it can be arranged."
Maybe the better alternative is not start belligerent, illegal, unnecessary wars of choice, but to fight only absolutely necessary wars of self-defense. If we followed that axiom, we'd almost never be at war. (I mean, how many necessary, wars did we fight in the whole of the 20th Century? One. This century? None, so far.)
Post a Comment