Skip to main content

View Diary: New York Times sues for access to Obama administration's legal guidance on drone use (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is the most important story of these times. (25+ / 0-)

    It's indescribably outrageous that there is not one single leader in Washington, Democrat or Republican, who is willing to speak out against this (except maybe Dennis Kucinich and a handful of others who never get covered in the national media).

    The U.S. drone bombing campaign in Pakistan is outrageously illegal under international law, U.S. law, and moral law, and it is outrageously stupid as a matter of policy.

    Obama is a war criminal over this policy. He should return his Nobel peace prize.

    I've been a Yellow Dog Democrat for 40 years. That means I always vote, and I ALWAYS vote for the D.

    I'm having a real hard time imagining another vote for Obama, however.  (Of course I'll show up to vote for all the other Democrats on the ballot.)

    He got the maximum contribution from me in 2008, but he's damn sure not getting a dime in this coming election.

    "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

    by Timaeus on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:24:28 PM PST

    •  This, and the NDAA, are the issues of (21+ / 0-)

      our time, although you would never know it from the media, and barely from this website.

      •  Both closely related, IMO. (5+ / 0-)

        "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

        by Timaeus on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:43:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Change you can believe in (16+ / 0-)

        Cheneyism w/o Big Dick has been far more prevalent on executive power and civil liberties issues than I would've ever dreamed 3 years ago.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 07:32:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, this is a partisan site meant for (0+ / 0-)

        electing democrats.

        •  Of course this is a site intended to elect (17+ / 0-)

          Democrats. What is your point?

          Do you think that means we cannot criticize a Democratic president on the facts?

          "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

          by Timaeus on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 08:09:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, my point is that a good number of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sb, Kickemout

            people here (I hesitate to use the word "most") are die-hard party-line partisans. They're Democratic Party Purists, if you will, who will vote "D" no matter what because that's what they do. They'll rationalize that behavior any way they can, predicated entirely in one way or another on the "D isn't as bad as R" argument.

            Look no further than Republicans' behavior during Bush's terms for a perfectly accurate analog.

            •  Yes. Obama is exactly the same as Bush. Biden's (0+ / 0-)

              just like Cheney, too.  Not to mention their policies....identical!  And the foolish sheep who vote for them?  Shameful.  Why can't they see?

              •  On some things, Obama is better than any (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pot, PhilJD, Lost Left Coaster

                of the current Republican candidates, and he has been a vast improvement over Bush. Some examples include portions of PPACA (at least, those that haven't been repealed) and (if one agrees to the notion that the costs have been worth it, which is still arguable in either direction in my mind) extensions of unemployment benefits.

                On others, such as the case with our foreign war and aggression and Free Trade, he has been at least as bad and arguably worse. His policies are definitely different from Bush's or the current slate of Republican candidates' but that doesn't make them better. That's a distinction you would do well to at least try to learn and understand.

                And this is more response than your strawman deserved.

                •  Merry Christmas to you, too. (0+ / 0-)
                  "That's a distinction you would do well to at least try to learn and understand."  

                  Condescending much?

                  Sorry, but there's really no comparison.  Anything's arguable if you argue it, but that doesn't stop dumb arguments from being dumb.  

                  I remember these same arguments being put forth by Michael Moore, etc (and me, back then!) against Gore.  There wasn't much difference, it was said.

                  Somewhere around a million people died as an inadvertant result of such sloppy thinking.  

                  Will we learn?

                  •  Some people here say Obama = Bush... (3+ / 0-)

                    ...but most who criticize Obama do not. Lumping them altogether is sloppy thinking and condescending.

                    Your original interjection implies that because the mission here is to elect better Democrats, there is no space for criticizing Democrats over matters such the legal guidance for targeted killings and certain matters contained in NDAA. If not, then what may they be criticized about?

                    On the matter of state secrets, there most certainly is an unfortunate parallel that can be drawn between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, and it started during the president's first 30 days in office. The administration's stands in this regard have not improved since.

                    The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

                    by Meteor Blades on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 10:31:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Strawman, he never said such thing. (0+ / 0-)

                He was comparing the behavior of Bush boosters who defended Bush at all costs to the must defend Obamas honor from those evil dirty hippies crowd.

                "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." - The Matrix

                by pot on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 08:36:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Haiku (0+ / 0-)

                Another strawman
                Guarding the empty spaces
                You call ideas.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 10:21:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Justin, you are behaving like a "troll", imho. n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  The point isn't to elect people; (10+ / 0-)

          it's to change policy.

          That's supposedly why we elect people.

        •  Part of electing democrats is demanding that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JustinBinFL

          they be effective so that they can get re-elected and bring more democrats in with them. When you create unnecessary enemies, by say killing their innocent children, that reduces your efficacy as world leader which then can have permutations on the domestic stage. The book, "Why They Hate Us," was a bestseller after 9/11, as I remember it.

      •  The President as Murderer in Chief (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryabein, Rizzo

        Is something this administration has obviously decided is "good politics" and helps with getting "Independents" to vote for Obama in the next election.  

        It's that cynical.  

        In addition to being immoral, illegal, unconstitutional and worst of all UN American.

        Yes, that's right, it's unpatriotic to go around the world killing people without trials and making a mockery of our 200 year attempt to build a society based on Law, and the equal application of it to all people.  

        Sometimes called Justice and Democracy.

        That's WAY too "left wing" for Mr. Obama apparently.

        This stuff is far more shocking than anything McCarthy, Nixon, or Reagan or did.  Bush may be a "tie."

        The fact that Obama at least KNOWS better than Bushco's War Criminal lot, and was elected by people who REPUDIATED this shit, makes this President's behavior that much more shocking and depressing.

        Thank goodness for the NY Times.

    •  And Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)
      It's indescribably outrageous that there is not one single leader in Washington, Democrat or Republican, who is willing to speak out against this (except maybe Dennis Kucinich and a handful of others who never get covered in the national media).

      Here's a headline from Wonkette: "Lonely Ron Paul Points Out Al-Awlaki Killing Was Super Illegal, Alone", wherein he says
         

      “He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.

          “I think what would people … have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn’t assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this.”

      I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

      by tle on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 10:37:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site