« QCCWQ |
| Blood on the tracks »
Feb 09, 2013 at 11:37 AM | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
No takers, Ed. For good reason too.
If anyone agrees, then they would have to denounce Obama, call him a war criminal, violator of international law, dumb Texas cowboy, trampler of the Constitution, and call for his impeachment or resignation.
If they disagree, then that is an admission that they are no more than partisans who suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome just as I said they were going on seven years ago now.
I know Fonzie can't admit he was wrong, but I think he is allowed to admit others were right.
Feb 09, 2013 at 03:24 PM
The self-check I use is to consider if a politician from another party made the same statement or assertion, how would I feel? In the case of Obama, his support of liberty-violating aspects of the so-called Patriot Act was enough to cause me to change my voter registration from Democrat to Unaffiliated. This bullshit his administration now asserts regarding drone strikes is sickening and would have caused me to change my registration had not done so earlier.
Patrick Eakes |
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:01 PM
Fun with history
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:21 PM
This policy needs to be walked back all the way to due process. We are supposed to be better than this.
Like digby and Patrick above, if you don't want "their" guy to do it, do not stand around with your finger up your nose when "your" guy does it.
"Your guy" , or future guys/gals of the current political persuasion, will eventually be replaced. Perhaps even by a W disciple (shudder) if Rove et al ever gets their shit together.
When that happens, it will be too late to take the streets. The time for outrage is now.
David Hoggard |
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:31 PM
I'm old enough to remember when Obama was a dove and our nation's first post-partisan president.
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:33 PM
The problem, Patrick, is that for far too many the primary concern is the amount of free stuff that comes their way.
Of course, that free stuff comes in many forms. It may be actual "free stuff" taken from the productive or it might come in the form of transfers of liberty from one group to another. Abortion, for example, is the loss of total liberty for the unborn but a gain of limited liberty for some of the voting born.
Unfortunately too many of us value personal gain from government over a functional government.
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:39 PM
Sam. You've made your point, ad nausuem. Scolding after the fact is rarely effective.
Just causes further entrenchment if only to deny the scolder the satisfaction he so desparately seeks.
You are a terrible student of human nature.
David Hoggard |
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Do any of you distinguish between the wartime use of drones from the police use of drones?
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:41 PM
What is the moral dilemma over the use of drones?
Is there some form of reduced morality due when attacks can be carried out without putting troops in harms way?
Is friendly fire somehow more devastating from a drone? More wrong?
How is it that Tomahawks are not subjected to the same moralizing?
(Judicial Review) Does the judiciary even figure into the war powers of the President?
How is the judiciary to be involved?
I'd love to attack Obama over this, but I can't. I don't see how drones differ from any other weapon of war.
Feb 09, 2013 at 06:23 PM
Really David? Where were you when I was being attacked as nauseum? Apparently I haven't made my point because nobody has come clean yet. I'm sure conceding to me after all of venom that was spewed in my direction over the years is a nauseating thought for many. Nobody likes to lose, and certainly not in such a spectacular fashion.
As for "shuddering" if someone like W gets in again, what do you fear? That they MIGHT do what Obama IS doing? Or conservative drones are more troublesome than liberal ones?
Your concern makes no sense outside of a partisan lens.
Feb 09, 2013 at 07:57 PM
PF, I actually tend to agree with you on drones. I would question how indiscriminately they might be used though.
Feb 09, 2013 at 08:00 PM
Where was I at the time? I was in agreement with the venom aimed at anyone who defended W's policies in regard to such matters.
You apparently take silence on an issue as support for it. I'll not make that leap.
Should anyone state their support for the policy here then the venom should and will come. I haven't sensed any such support. The silence I hear here is probably meant to deny YOU the satisfaction you long for more than anything else. Again, it how humans naturally behave within a community. All you are looking for is an "I told you so" win and the further you press, the further it recedes.
And... as for my shuddering... I thought Bush to be a doof and terrible president even though I voted for him the first term.
I believe the view from my lens to be far less partisan than you give me credit for above. And far less so than yours.
To your last question: As Obama is deploying drones under the policy under discussion, they are equally troubling whether the drones are marked with an "R" or a "D".
David Hoggard |
Feb 10, 2013 at 07:20 AM
deploying drones instead of nerve gas is a policy made by people who none of you know. that's the fun part of war. you get to kill people who you do not know for people who you do not know. using a word such as ethics makes you sound like a capo. you're a part of the human race but you mystically see the grand purpose and design of the camp policies that are made by people that you will never know and have no desire to know you. You do this for no extra portion of bread or a pea from the bottom of the pot.
Frankl described this human condition. He stands in line at a work camp and receives a rifle butt or baton to the head because the person in front of him is out of line, ignoring the guard's appreciation of symmetry. He cannot experience the pain until he recovers from what he calls the agony of injustice. Until one becomes familiar with that agony words like ethics and policy and partisan can be used to describe the chemical removal of a child's skin while they are conscious.
tk solomon |
Feb 10, 2013 at 08:31 AM
David, if their fear and consternation over admitting that I was right forces their moral outrage into silence then they are sick and obsessed individuals. Think about that simple truth for a minute.
The longer the silence, the more fun I'm having. Consider that part of human nature. I suspect that after a week or so of brainstorming to get out of the hypocrisy box, the worst offenders will emerge and offer up some kind of awkward justification or cat crap "false equivalence" argument. The rest will jump on the bandwagon, obfuscate with personal attacks, declare victory, and quickly move on as they exit the litter box.
Part of the comedy is in the length of time it is taking for any kind of response to come forward. Some have probably resorted to white boards and flow charts trying to solve the equation of "how can I get out of this without admitting I'm a complete partisan hypocrite?"
Otherwise, please re-read my first comment in this thread.
As for you, I never considered you one of the worst offenders. At least you are being consistent although I still don't understand your argument regarding "what if Bush had this power?" If Obama is using that power, then what more could Bush do with it? If that is the ultimate evil, then Obama is already doing it. This calls for even louder outcries from the now silent majority on this blog. Clearly Obama using that power makes him worse than Bush, so isn't it time to admit that he is the "Worst President Ever"?
Ah, the hits just keep on coming...
Feb 10, 2013 at 09:23 AM
I don't want either to have that much power.
As for the rest, I ended up despising Bush for many reasons/issues other than the one under discussion.
Obama, much less so... So far.
You are focused on the one issue for nomination as "worst president ever", I'm taking a wider view from my lens.
David Hoggard |
Feb 10, 2013 at 09:54 AM
So what are your chief criticisms of Bush?
Feb 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Frog, the question is less "How is one means of killing our enemies during wartime different from other means" than "How is it OK to carry out the targeted killing of American citizens via a secret policy that is not subject to external oversight?"
Your question is not irrelevant, and it raises difficult questions of policy and morality, but I don't think it's the central issue here.
Here's this morning's NYT front-pager on the topic and some of it's nuances (although not the one you raise).
I've written here before about my own inability to fully embrace pacificism, and I think there's wide-spread agreement that when someone is trying to kill you -- as AQ et al certainly are -- you are justified in responding with force, and, further, that the nature of this conflict makes it difficult to apply the familiar rules of war between states, and that American citizens are sometimes involved with the groups we're fighting. But the gulf between those realities and "So let's just allow one branch of government unchecked power to kill American citizens" is a wide one.
Ed Cone |
Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Principle is a lonely hill to claim, Ed.
Feb 10, 2013 at 01:30 PM
What are my main criticisms of the man?
No thanks. I've better ways to spend my time than to open that can of worms for dissection.
David Hoggard |
Feb 10, 2013 at 02:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.