Obama: Drone killing is terrible...when Mitt Romney does it
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Obama: Drone killing is terrible...when Mitt Romney does it
Let's face it: Drone killings have become the Staples' "Easy Button" of what we used to call foreign policy.
The lesson that the French supposedly learned in Algiers and that America supposedly learned -- big-time -- in Vietnam and then all over again in Iraq was that insurgencies and terrorists are hard to defeat when the hearts and minds of the local population have turned stone cold against you.
But we all know that winning hearts and minds halfway around the world is impossibly hard work: It requires time and money and patience...the kind of things that are in short supply in America in 2012. In Afghanistan, building roads or new schools isn't easy in the face of centuries of virtually non-stop warfare and hatred.
But then there's drones. Surgically removing the bad guys in Afghanistan -- and, what the hey, Pakistan and Yemen, etc., etc. -- while leaving the good guys intact to breathe in the smell of freedom. What could possibly go wrong? Especially when the Obama administration came up with the way of listing civilians who are killed in the drone strikes as terrorists and when the basic details of the program are kept from Congress and the general public...except for the self-serving details that are leaked to the New York Times.
It seems so...easy. Just think if LBJ had had drones in Vietnam or Jimmy Carter during the Iranian hostage crisis, and how different things might have been! Right? Anyway, I thought I'd lost my capacity to be shocked by anything I read about the drone program until I read this (in the New York Times, of course) this morning:
WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the administration is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about exactly when lethal action is justified.
Huh?
The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency.
“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.
Simply put, what Team Obama is saying here is that killing people with drone strikes (but without judicial reviews or public scrunity) is good and virtuous when Barack Obama is the one with his finger on the "Easy" button, but it might be wrong if anyone else does, especially someone we already don't like, such as Mitt Romney. Or. let me put it even simpler: When it comes to drones, Obama now actually believes his own righteous baloney.
The truth is that Mitt Romney -- as we learned during the debates -- would not have operated the drone-killing program any different from Barack Obama. The flying death robots would be used a lot, and some bad guys would die and some innocent women and children would die -- just as happens today. And another truth is this: This is exactly what some civil libertarians warned -- but not loud enough -- when presidential powers were unconstitutionally expanded under George W. Bush, that a Democratic president would not give these powers back. And the biggest truth is this: That the corrupting power of drone killings -- to make things happen with the push of a button rather than the messy process of dealing with judges and Congress and a free press asking questions -- is all but absolute. Look how it has sucked in President Obama -- lock, stock, and barrel.
Today's New York Times article does a very good job of reminding us of some of the reasons why this is such a bad idea. It quotes author Gregory Johnsen who has found that the drone program has completely backfired in Yemen, strengthening al-Qaeda there instead of destroying it. Also, America -- which once opposed targeted assassinations by other nations, as happened earlier this month by the Israelis in Gaza -- has now lost the moral high ground on this issue.
There is also faint hope in the Times article, that a faction within the Obama administration that wants limits on drone strikes may ultimately rule the day. (That faction includes counter-terrorism czar John O. Brennan who -- significantly for this issue -- could end up running the CIA.)
Let's hope so. Targeted assassinations are the moral issue of Obama's second term. He now has a little extra time...to still do the right thing. But morality deferred is still morality denied.
Obama quadrupled the use of Drone strikes and has definitely fomented more anti-USA hatred worldwide because of it. Much worse than the Guantanamo symbolism concern. And Obama has more intensively used and expanded the Patriot Act. Yet more passivity among the same press who regularly railed against Bush-Cheyney for their evilness in employing the same tools ostensibly for national security— zen- "Can't wait to see what happens as the ramp up the domestic drone surveillance."
Nothing. We'll all be in FEMA camps being forced to watch Obama socialism-rap indoctrination videos (probably featuring Common), so no one will be able to do anything.— Hamlet - "sure ham. of course the state dept had plenty of money to buy chevy volts and their charging stations. google is your friend"
Okay, I have been with my family for the holidays (and I don't live in right wing nut-blog-land), but is this really the new meme of the looney right? The embassies and diplomatic stations are vulnerable to attack because they spent all their money on Chevy Volts???
I get it! Volts are green, and greenies hate violence and guns so...wait, I still don't get it - if only I hadn't gone to college. If I was ten kinds of stupid I might get what you are saying.— Hamlet - Willy as usual puts the blame on Bush. However, bush authorized very very limited use of the drone strikes and few civilians were killed. Most of the strikes were also in Iraq and Afghanistan. A couple were used in the no-mans land of the tribal lands of NW Pakistan. Bush ordered about 48 strikes in pakistan. Obama has ordered 262 and with a huge increase of strikes into village compounds resulting in almost a 20 fold increase in civilian deaths. Willy claims obama was sucked in, but the truth is he embrassed the role of target selection and strike authorization. No US president has personnally ordered the killing of people before. There was always a layer between the president and the kill order. From the killing of the pirates back in 2009 to the hundreds of drone strikes, Obama has been personnally order the kills. It is a very disturbing first that he is dealing with these issues at a time we are facing economic disaster and it is clear it does not bother him. He may even enjoy it from the way he talks about it. And that is not a good thing.
Think about it Willy, YOUR GUY likes to push the kill button and does not care who goes down at the other end. At what point does obama cross the line between Commander in Chief and serial killer? He already is a baby killer.
— Dutch-wayne - Can't wait to see what happens as the ramp up the domestic drone surveillance.— General Turgidson
- won't be so much fun now that China's got drones. Obama should be writing legislation curtailing the liberties that Bush took, not enhance them. but everyone knows republicans under Romney would have abused these new liberties, seeing how republicans have shown absolutely no restraint on anything in the past 12 years.
I don't understand what all the hoopla is about. This is war. Snap out of it.— TopCat#1- The hypocrisy of this administration and the electorate utterly staggers the imagination. It is fine and moral if we remotely kill thousands because we are the righteous and every one else be damned, especially if they are Republicans. One of these days this cowardly strategy may comeback to haunt us when someone else decides we have threats to their welfare within our borders, what then? I guess we will just protest to the UN. How's that gonna work for ya.— rfitz
- "It's about the total lack of any semblance of objective journalism from the MSM, stupid!"
Yeah! Like all those weighted polls saying Obama was favored to win, and not telling the Real Story behind the Great Benghazi Conspiracy (no, not the part where Republicans refused the president's request for more funding for our diplomatic missions' security!).
dadsgirl, the truth is distorting your political outlook. You should join "Traditional America" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).— Hamlet - sure ham. of course the state dept had plenty of money to buy chevy volts and their charging stations. google is your friend — rysagr
- I voted for Obama, but I also criticized him for these drone strikes and for basically using the same tactics as the Bush administration, which aren't lawful. That said, Romney still was the lesser candidate. To the republicans on this board, if you want someone like me to vote for your candidate, you need to do a whole lot better than Mitt Romney. And the country agreed with me. Sorry, you don't get votes simply because the incumbent hasn't been FDR or Lincoln. You get votes if your candidate is better than the incumbent, and he wasn't, so move on and try to find someone in that loony bin of a party who could actually make sense to the sensible voter. Christie may be that guy. Not great, but a much better possibility than Mittbot.— Hemingway
- It's no surprise that "dadsgirl" missed the point. Let me spell it out for you s-l-o-w-l-y: It's about the total lack of any semblance of objective journalism from the MSM, stupid!— DaveCicc
- Really? Guess you haven't been reading anything other than the "news" sources in your right wing bubble...
— wokmaster - "What's that do?"
"thats a drone sir it's a remote controlled weapon"
"and what's that's that do?"
"thats the presidents office...where your supposed to know what to do"— DaIBelieveU - Now that the water carrying is over the press will feed on the Dullard-in-Chief.— 2ndNlong
Comment removed.- *birther alert* — wokmaster
- Targeted killing of American citizens without due process is called murder and Obama should stand trial for that action, no matter how bad the person is.— Taxpaying Voter
- "Sorry, your article is tardy by about a month and irrelevant." . . . . Any reminder of what might have been is certainly a comfort now. Anyway, we had this discussion before the election, so where were you Jabey? More to the point, where was the concern from the so-called conservative movement? Unfortunately, fascists never rise to power complaining that government is too fascist.— montani semper liberi
- How many American soldiers lives have been saved by the drones? Likely Hundreds. So the Pakistanis don't like us? So what. It is more important to protect American lives and kill our enemies than be liked.— zeke128
- WWMD? Sorry, your article is tardy by about a month and irrelevant. If enough people cared what Romney would have done as President, he wouldn't have lost in an electoral landslide.— Jabey
- WWMD? Sorry, your article is tardy by about a month and irrelevant. If enough people cared what Romney would have done as President, he wouldn't have lost in an electoral landslide.— Jabey
- Hey Hey LBJ, How many kids have you killed today.— Captain Terrific
- "...Obama now actually believes his own righteous baloney."
Ummm, and you voted for him...twice.
Was this article really a critique of the practices you once bemoaned under another president, or just simply a hedge so that you can try and salvage some bit of credibility?
Either way, it didn't work. You've already been exposed for the total boot-licker that you are.— bp*philly - We could be arguing about this war on terror 10 years from now. I am sick of America's young people being killed in this war. Better to bring them home and let them guard our own porous borders where terrorists have found ways to get thru.— Jim Morris
- To agree with Obama on drones one must have amnesia. Of course, that the Emperor has no clothes is not relevant.— joedog
- All of you obama lovers starting to see the guy you elected? A potential dictator with a smiling face.— billy goat
So, bush and President Obama used the same force and romney would have done the same. So your point?- Obama is garbage— pr0f3ss0r
- Kind of surprised to even see this story in this paper.— elbrewador
- Too late....your credibility to vet this president expired about four years ago...I don't want to hear it now.— bannedrepublican
- LOL! I guess your still in 1950 Fishtown, take your foil helment off! LOL!!!!!!— gibby58
- If we waited for judges and Congress to make a decision against terrorism, we'd still be debating if 911 was a conspiracy.— Could.It.Really.Be...ColonelAngus
- Mr Obama campaigned against the people in power using drone attacks in '08. He talked eloquently about how the Bush people did not respect national sovereignty of countries where the drones were being used. Then, after he got the votes of people who do not want drones to be used he did what he wanted to do and ordered the attacks to continue and be increased. I believe we need to do anything in our power to protect our country. Just don't lie to us first.— sandiego1969
- I think it's hilarious that Will wrote this after the election. Yes, the second NYT article just came out, but the first one was well before the election.
"...Obama now actually believes his own righteous baloney." There is no need to qualify this statement, or for the word "now". He has always believed his own righteous baloney. If he didn't, he would have turned down a Nobel Peace Prize that was given to him for just getting elected.— The_Z_Man_97 - Imagine if Bush was using drones on the same scale as Obama. Bet the Inky would have been screaming about the injustice BEFORE the election. Inky editors must be feeling real tough - they finally got the nerve to say something bad about the messiah. Aren't they brave little boys!— Beethoven987
- //// ...and a free press asking questions...////
really?
what questions?
— michael_b - These wingnut posts are humorous. As if we'd hear a peep out of any of you guys about the Drone Program if it was your guy were in office.
Will Bunch, not that I've ever been a fan of yours, but your whining about drone attacks is beyond old. Call it droning on about drones. I read this article in the Times today and knew you'd just have to waste more space with it. Come up with an alternative or shut the **** up already.— wokmaster - Remember all of us who did yell during bush and then under obama were called right wing nuts, conspiricy fringe terrorist. Good job Will Bunch— Iknowyourider
- Where are all the principled Anti-War protestors from the Bush years to protest the Drone policy? That's right, there werent any, they were just really Anti-Bush protestors back then...— Frito1
- We get it-Obama sucks but just not as bad as the Romney and Bush strawmen that you've created. It's going to be a long 4 years of strawman building to somehow sugar coat Obama as much as possible.— Phillies2008WSChamps
- What would you prefer more troops on the ground or drones?
Even if the troops are strike teams its invasion.With invasion you need Congress approval.
Don't hear to many countries complaning about it.
— gibby58 - Did you ever stop to think that you don't hear to many countries complaining about it BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT BLOCKS THOSE STORIES FROM MAINSTREAM MEDIA????
- "Obama now actually believes his own righteous baloney." --- Obama has always been arrogant and self-serving. Now with a second term, thanks to the ill-informed masses who voted for him, he now believes that all of America is behind him in every decision he makes. Bunch, you and your ilk handed this guy a second term. You now must live with the consequences of your actions.— psyrus
- Like a dozen issues, if we had a free press this could be debated BEFORE elections.— tr88
- This thread reads like 'Revenge of the Clowns'. Looks like the new wingnut strategy is to paint George W. Bush as a visionary, compassionate and constitutional.
Sorry guys, but you can't detoxify the Bush brand in time for Jeb in 2016.— wokmaster - Delect, deflect, deflect and when all else fails blame Bush. I am tired of losers like you continue to see the President and his fellow democrats as saviors. All the while they are smiles and shaking your hand, they have the other in your pockets, stealing your wallet. Fools like you will just say "It is Bush's fault". How about you get a real and genuine idea for once. All I have seen for your comments are the talking points from the DNC and MSNBC.
- Please. You're late to the discussion. I've been for drone strikes from the Bush years. I support them now. I'm not gonna take the wingnuts on this site seriously who were for drones under Bush and now against them because Obama's in office. How about criticizing someone from the GOP for once, dbag. — wokmaster
- "By the way, exactly how do you win a war on "terror?" . . . . . Read the Gospels.— montani semper liberi
- Bush was a capture and interrogate guy. That's why 0bama was able to get Osama. Terrorists captured by Bush led us to Osama. 0bama is a kill on sight guy. No capture, no interrogation. He would have never gotten Osama using his own tactics. Thanks GW for getting Osama for us.— mephisto
- Osama? You mean the guy Bush didn't "even think about?" That Osama? The one Bush let get away in Tora Bora, instead sending our troops into a phony war in Iraq instead of going after the guy responsible for killing 3000 Americans? You mean that "capture and interrogate" guy? — mike l
- If W had used drones, Bunch and his lefty comrades would have been howling. I guess it's good to see him complaining about Obama using them, although it's probably a couple of years too late.
By the way, exactly how do you win a war on "terror?"— Moe_Syzlak - read much?
"the drone program, started under President George W. Bush"
details:
After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush signed a directive that authorized arming the drones, called Predators, with Hellfire missiles to try to take out terrorism suspects, according to military officials. He later widened the directive to allow strikes against anyone working inside terrorist camps, not just individual suspects.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php?page=all— grackle - To be fair, he's probably still shooting at Bush, but missed.— BlairW
- Hilarious.... the libs worship at the feet of Barry....too bad none of this was ever fact checked, or a talking point. Will I believe you are one of the worst offenders at this paper that bho can go wrong. (That says a lot with Pollman, Trudy Rubin , Smerconsish). We re-elected a guy whose whole strategy and plan for the country was... I am not Romney.. it will be a great 4 years.— stevejones
- In 2008 Obamaa- accused the Bush Administration of air-raiding villages. Then after he was elected he exponentially expanded the drone killing program. And millions of people voted for him a second time.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- The drone program is not a strategy of war, it is a tactic in a larger operation within the War on Terror. President Bush and anyone whoever served this country understands that. President Obama took a good tactic, used it as a strategy, wanted to curtail it for others. In general he took a good thing and made it worse and unacceptable.— Crazybrave1
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
