The Case for Drone Strikes

Oliver Willis wrote a sensible defense for liberal support for the use of predator drones.

I don't mind saying that I also support the careful use of drones for all the reasons Oliver wrote about, but -- and this is a very big qualifier -- I obviously don't approve of civilian casualties. I'm reasonably certain that the president doesn't either. Nobody is out to kill civilians. So clearly the drones need to be used with more caution to prevent the heinous collateral damage we've been hearing about. There's a way to achieve this through more selective targeting and advancements in technology.

Likewise, no one relished the idea of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians during World War II and, to take the point further, I don't know of any liberals who have taken FDR to task for civilian casualties in Japan and German-occupied Europe. (Truman, on the other hand, is often castigated for his use of the bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.)

Oliver made the following point as a parenthetical, but it was an important note on this civilian issue:

It’s worth pointing out that the usually deceptive Glenn Greenwald writes about drone strikes saying, “Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds.” I don’t deny that innocent people have been killed by drone strikes, but Greenwald writes it like these people are intentional targets. They aren’t. Those of us who support the drone strikes shouldn’t pretend as if they are clean weapons, but those opposed should be honest as well.

There's quite a bit of hyperbole being tossed around -- not to mention way too many dead civilian photographs, which is a tactic best reserved for the disgusting anti-choice wackaloons.

UPDATE: I'm suggesting that we use drones in a way that won't kill civilians in the process. There has to be a way to get the job done without creating more terrorists. So instead of screaming and whining -- exploiting the bloodied corpses of drone victims to prove a point on a goddamn blog -- while calling the president a baby-killer, I'm making a case here for drone strikes that don't risk civilian lives. I'm urging the president to be more selective. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either kneejerking to conclusions or they haven't read what I wrote here.

  • ranger11

    Wow, a lot of comments. Greenwald the Great, I guess.

    • MarshallLucky

      Never fails.

  • RJ

    This is just like the ‘war on drugs’. It’s never ending unless we take a new path. We continue to do the same things over and over yet we expect a different result.

    • ranger11

      Ron Paul? Yippeee!

    • I don’t recall drug pushers indiscriminately targeting civilians like terrorists. They usually kill themselves, since I assume you want to legalize drugs so the addicts would die anyway.

      • RJ

        You know the man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
        Tell me, what would you do if your country was taken over by a foreign military? Would you fight back using any means available or would you roll over?
        Like it or not the foot soldiers of terror look at american civilians as willing participants in the destruction of their countries. The leaders of al-quaida are impotent without foot soldiers to do their evil work. All we are doing by continuing a reckless foreign policy is recruiting more foot soldiers for them.

        • Here we go with the tired cliched arguments. I’ve heard every simplistic quote before.

          I take ever situation as different. We ‘occupied’ Germany and Japan after WWII and they are better for it. I never agreed with the war in Iraq but Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban government supported terrorists and they operated with impunity. Not some hypothetical terrorists or you would imply are ‘freedom fighters’, real terrorists that killed thousands of Americans. So you can call them all the platitudes you want but their reorganization is a threat.

          The underlying causes for their attacks are complex. It’s not as simply as either side claims. For us it is about securing the country and our interests which is mostly stabilizing geopolitical resources that are one of the main things wars are about. For them it’s a religious war which is not going to end soon so they will have foot soldiers either way for a while. But you are factually wrong foot soldiers are not big threats without command and control that has been decimated by this president. Their attacks recently have been feckless attempts at best for this reason. When they had an untouched sanctuary in Afghanistan they were much more potent killers. There is a reason we have not even come close to any new attempts at attacks in about two years since the president’s policies have taken full effect.

          • RJ

            ah yes… the good old “There is a reason we have not even come close to any new attempts at attacks in about two years since the president’s policies have taken full effect”

            quite simply there is ZERO reason for them to attack us here now. like it or not these folks may indeed be evil but they are also quite smart. they realize their only option to truly defeat the US is to slowly bleed us dry and to battle us on their terms which is exactly what we are doing.
            If we don’t understand the enemy we have no chance of defeating them.

            We will have to deal with a taliban that is ruling both afghan and paki fairly soon. That is what we are enabling with our policies.

          • mrbrink

            Couple counter points.

            “quite simply there is ZERO reason for them to attack us here now.”

            Since president Obama was sworn in, there’s been at least a dozen plots thwarted or plots where we’ve just gotten lucky. We’re dodging and ducking, sticking and moving. The FBI keeps coming up with guys willing to blow landmarks up in broad daylight. Yeah, we’ve got our nuts who just shoot up daycare centers, but we’ve also got crusaders.

            *And on a side note, despite everyone complaining about the rise of the TSA, they’re catching a ton of guns, knives, and explosive materials. In other words, they’re still losing!

            “they realize their only option to truly defeat the US is to slowly bleed us dry and to battle us on their terms which is exactly what we are doing.”

            It’s a good thing Drones are inexpensive when you’re fighting an enemy that thinks they can bleed all this awesome I-Phone technology dry.

            Goooooood luck, terrorists. It could be a nickel a head soon. Then what?

  • KXA

    Will someone please explain antipathy against Greenwald at this site. Is he a liar or is it heresy.

    Wouldn’t any reasonable person be concerned that the President is able to target accused terrorists for killing, including US citizens, without having to supply a legal argument?

    The problem isn’t with too many photos of dead civilians, the problem is with too many dead civilians.

    • ranger11

      He’s an asshole?

      • KXA

        Thanks, your answer really clarifies the situation.

        • ranger11

          Okay, then a sanctimonious self-righteous asshole.

          • KXA

            Thanks again, even clearer now.

          • villemar

            How about, a Loonytarian/Randroid anarcho-nihilist sanctimonious self-righteous asshole who wants to destroy the United States Government and let the country burn right to the ground because it does not conform exactly 100.0000% to several points of ideological purity that he dictates as exclusionary and infinitely superior to any possible other issue that would affect 310 million citizens?


          • KXA

            Thanks again for the reasoned reply.

            Really, all you offer is a rant with extra zeros?

    • People rightly pick out Greenwald’s utter hypocrisy. He decries drone attacks while he supported the Iraq War.

      People arguing that drone attacks kill far fewer citizens is factually correct no matter how you spin it. Nobody wishes any civilians would be killed at all in war but always the fewer the better.

      FDR was a great president. He made mistakes but he had the courage to make tough tough decisions. I guess you would call him a war criminal because in comparison he killed several orders of magnitude more civilians that drone warfare ever will.

  • KXA

    Will someone please clarify the antipathy against Greenwald. Is he a liar or is it Heresy?

    Anyone want to disagree that the US is targeting funerals and rescuers after drone strikes?

    Are you serious about no liberals taking FDR to task for his bombing of civilians?

    Too many photos of dead civilians isn’t the problem. The problem is we are killing to many civilians.

    • JMAshby

      Greenwald is a serial liar, misrepresenting reality on a weekly basis.

      I’d like proof that funerals and “rescuers” are the intended target. The way you phrase it is as if that’s the intended target. To me it sounds like you’re just quoting Greenwald.

      • KXA

        So exactly what were the lies in his post “Repulsive “Progressive Hypocrisy”?

        Are you challenging the report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism?

        • villemar

          This is exactly why all traitorous “Progressives” and Democrats must be purged from the body politic. Ron Paul 2012!!!! Hoo hah cherry soda!!

      • They don’t have to the almighty Greenwald has spoken.

  • mrbrink

    I’ll option for drone-strike push-back over the Taliban and Al Qaeda with full control over trillions of dollars in global power-shifting minerals, natural gas, oil, and the world’s heroin supply.

    No? Let them have it? It’s theirs? You want to negotiate with terrorists once they bring in Russia and China as buyers/protectorates as they obstruct UN sanctions over and over? Last question. Are you now, or have you ever been out of your fucking mind?

    • JMAshby

      Good points.

      • mrbrink

        Militarily, we’re talking about withdrawal ahead of schedule, as well. The careful setting of the parameters for the logistics for getting the hell out of there anyway. This president has a history of bringing troops home.

        And I think it’s also worth noting as a contrast in style and substance, President Obama didn’t have to use Pat Tillman, or hide him in any one of the 4000+ American caskets returning to Dover not named Jessica Lynch. And, if you want a more sanitized version of the ugliness of war than an American coffin returning home, I suppose you could whip out a photo of a dead Afghani.

        • JMAshby

          Or video of dead Afghan’s being pissed on which, if it weren’t for drones, may feature Pakistanis being pissed on.

  • The CIA drone strikes in Pakistan are already the most precise precision bombing campaign EVER. Civilian casualties are a normal part of an ugly business, and more’s the shame for those who invite the drone strike by their militant behavior and then bring it on the innocent by sharing their space.

    Not one of these Talibanis gives a flip for the Afghans and NATO soldiers they kill. None of them cares how many civilians die in their suicide bombings. Yes, more Afghans died of their violence last year than Pakistanis have died of drone strikes since 2004.

    The drone strikes are already being conducted in the most careful possible way against an enemy who is nowhere near so careful with the lives of the innocent.

  • FlipYrWhig

    A reasonable view. Also one that should be rightfully applied to every armament ever conceived. What I don’t get in this whole debate is why there’s a special category for DRONES!!1 Aren’t all the concerns about drones also germane to guns, cannons, bombs, missiles, and Zeppelins? Use it against a target that’s a threat, aim well, and don’t get trigger-happy. The end.

    • True remember in the 90’s cruise missiles were the evil weapon.

  • Bob you stepped in this one. You challenged one of the progressive saints, Glenn Greenwald. Even though Greenwald is an idiot and hypocrite who was for the war in Iraq, he’s been reborn because he is Obama’s main foil.

  • Tough choices are about picking the the least harmful alternative in most cases.

    Choice 1) The US conducts no drone strikes or any SpecOps missions. That means the 22 top Al Qaeda leaders Obama has taken out are still alive and well to plot and conduct strikes against America and our interests abroad.

    Choice 2) Conduct only SpecOps missions. While there will be less civilian casualties, there will by more US casualties and likely American prisoners used by the other side as political fodder or dragged through the streets like in Somalia.

    Choice 3) Limited drone attacks (I think at one point the president needed to reign them in and he has) that are effective at killing the target and cause much less civilian loss of life than the old cruise missile attacks, remember them?

    Face it people like GG live in this Pollyanna world were everyone would just love the US because we’re so beautiful and free if we just disengage around the world. That is naive nonsense.

    Put is this way with all of our faults and missteps the US has been damn good at being a responsible superpower and keeping the world secure. It’s a terrible and thankless job most Americans don’t like but would we rather have Russia or China be the world’s super cop? A big reason country’s like France and the UK get a big peace dividend is that they outsourse their security to US power. But Obama has even started to change that paradigm by demanding they pitch in if they want a secure world. I know we can disengage more than we are now and still be safe but thanks to the US if you look at all war deaths for over 100 years, the world is safer than it has ever been. Frankly I’m tired of apologizing to a feckless world that has done little in comparison to keep the world safe.

    • i_a_c

      I believe the president has expanded drone attacks. But even then, it is preferable to either of the alternatives you presented.

      • Not to be argumentative but after the attack on the Pakistani military (which was not a drone attack) but nevertheless there was a moratorium to review the whole drone attack policy. Since then there has been fewer attacks authorized.

        • i_a_c

          No, not argumentative at all, I’m interested in this discussion. The number I frequently see is that Obama has authorized four times as many drone attacks as Bush. Supposedly that number comes from this page.

          Which attack on the Pakistani military are you talking about? I’m not sure I’m aware of it.

          • Understood we were just looking at two different time frames so we both are factually correct.

  • Benjamin Summerour

    I totally disagree. Cenk summed it up for me pretty beautifully the other day.

    • i_a_c

      As disturbing as civilian deaths are, between 282 and 535 deaths from drones (that’s from the video) is a whole hell of a lot fewer than the tens of thousands (some count over 100,000) dead in Iraq. I’d love that number to be zero, but to me, two orders of magnitude fewer deaths is preferable. I’ll take “less death” over “more death” every time if “no death” is not an option.

      • Hence the reason that the Uygur types love to use the logic of false equivalencies. From a human perspective of course one civilian casualty is two much. But numbers are facts, actually more reliable facts than most. 535 does not equal 100,000+ in any ledger.

    • Do you outsource you brain much? Just Saying.

  • It is absurd to call for “selective” drone strikes !

    We were first told of “pinpoint bombing” 20 years ago! in the first war on Iraq !

    Have you forgotten ?

    Months later, it was revealed that the concept of “pinpoint bombing” is a fiction.

    How ‘bout when Clinton “pinpoint” bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade ?

    Forget that too ?

    There is no technology that exists to be more “selective” in the drone targeting.

    It is a shotgun….any other concept of this is a convenient fiction.

    Check it out.

    • i_a_c

      What’s your alternative? Drones are far more precise than an air strike, for example.

    • JMAshby

      “20 years ago”

      Do you realize your cellphone has more power than the DoD had 20 years ago?

  • D_C_Wilson

    Also, FDR allowed the military to bomb the shit out of Dresden, even though it was not a legitimate military target. Drone strikes are far more precise than the kinds of bombings done during WW II and do in fact lead to far fewer civilian casualties. But it’s virtually impossible to bring that number down to zero.

    Civilian casualties, whether intentional or not, are an inevitable consequence of war. It’s one of the reasons why war should always be the solution of last result, not the first as the previous administration used in Iraq and how many republican candidates want it to be for Iran.

    • i_a_c

      Drone strikes are far more precise than the kinds of bombings done during WW II and do in fact lead to far fewer civilian casualties.

      My thoughts exactly.

      For all those in this thread who are convinced we shouldn’t be using drones, here are a couple questions:
      1. Do you think combating al Qaeda is in our interest?
      2. If so, what is your alternative to drones?

      • Deborah Newell Tornello

        1. There will always be an AQ, and we will always be at war with it/them, as long as we occupy or otherwise control the various countries in which American and British oil companies “do business”.

        2. Alternatives? If we want to no longer be at war with AQ, and anyone else in the Middle East for that matter, we must get out of their land, stop acting as personal security goons for Big Oil, and stop pretending we are not party to the shameful apartheid and poverty that exist in the Palestinian territory.

        Until the US takes a good, hard look at itself and what it is supporting over in the Middle East, the non-war-war will continue, and these unconscionable (yes, UNCONSCIONABLE) drone attacks will continue, because they’re nice and precise, right? Robot planes fly over and blow up terrorists, no muss, no fuss. No-one need ever have his football or basketball game disturbed by breaking news about US troops being captured or hurt in that horrible desert because these babies can bomb those terrorist bastards ALL BY THEMSELVES, no pilots necessary, win-win!

        And no American need ever cast his baby-blue eyes on some photograph showing rows of the latest Afghan children whose misfortune it was to be in the vicinity when the bombs struck (they look unsettlingly like our own children when they’re asleep, actually, as long as you don’t focus too long on the sooty little faces and missing bits of skull). Because American newspapers won’t show those photographs, and as Mr. Cesca says, it’s such bad form to upset and disgust people that way.

        • i_a_c

          As long as there’s an al Qaeda, and I have no idea how long they’ll be around, I’d much prefer that they’re incapacitated and unable to conduct attacks on the U.S. or any other country. That’s my position.

          • Exactly one of the big reasons that 911 happened is that Clinton did not have drone technology or he would have probably killed OBL.

        • The all caps don’t make your points any more poignant. They just show you have a propensity to hyperbole.

          • litbrit

            I write as I speak, which is in an impassioned way; absent any tools for italicizing or otherwise emphasizing a word–as with this commenting system– I’ll on rare occasion resort to capitalizing. This subject warrants it.

            Now, O brave anonymous commenter on the Internet, how about addressing the actual substance of my comment? Other than with platitudes about what a great World Cop the US is and how much worse it would be if Russia or China were keeping AQ in check instead of our nice, tidy drones.

            Deborah N. Tornello

          • You are fucking kidding me right. How much worse would Russia and China be? FAR FUCKING WORSE BASED ON WHAT THEY DID AND ARE DOING NOW.

            Lemme see the last time Russia held Afghanistan they KILLED TWO MILLION AFGHANS MOSTLY CIVILIANS. Wow are you ill informed. That’s the problem with the likes of you and Greenwald. You have ZERO historical perspective.

            Now let’s go to modern day Russian and China. Let’s see last time the Russians acted they took over part of Georgia and still hold onto Chechnya using oppressive tactics. China permanently occupies Tibet and holds hundreds of thousand of dissidents indefinitely. While the US got out of Iraq and is leaving Afghanistan with the rest of NATO and the coalition. You can play all your false equivalency games but I’ll still take the US’s foreign policy as long as we stick to the multinational and pragmatic approach Obama leads us towards.

            Yet you would blame America and imply Russian and China are morally equivalent.

            Leaving your real name on a blog shows how incredibly naive you are. So I’m not surprised you have such a naive view of national security.

          • ranger11

            The Right’s caricature of the Left is sadly correct. The U.S. is always at fault and is the worst of all possible worlds. If there is an angle that is found that we suck then it will be found.

          • ranger11 sad to say it’s true. I hate echo a right wing challenge, but I would love for some of these people to live in countries like Russian (Chechnya) and China (Tibet) and then bemoan our ‘authoritarian’ government. Then they would see why the Chechen ‘black widows (Shahidka)’ became real extremists.

          • Deborah Newell Tornello

            Reading is fundamental, O Brave Nameless Commenter on the Internet. I never said I wanted China or Russia to be the World’s Police (for one thing, “Fuck Yeah” doesn’t sound quite as awesome–and definitely not as Anglo-Saxon-furious–in Mandarin). I merely criticized *your* proclamations about what a great World Cop America was. Your having inferred something does not necessarily mean I implied it (I didn’t), and it certainly doesn’t mean I said it.

            Now, as for that whole World Police thing. You mention National Security, and “our interests” abroad. Those are not always (if ever) the interests of you, Brave Nameless Commenter on the Internet, or me. In the case of the ME, the vast majority of “our” interests are in fact the interests of those who control enormous multinational energy companies and the petrodollars flowing to and from them. They are “our” interests only tangentially, in that we have permitted so much power to accumulate in so few hands, and when one of those hands decides to spin the oil faucet this way or that, the effects on the spot market alone can be devastating. But as for the notion of World Cop being out there fighting a threat to our interests the way America helped fight the Axis powers in WWII, it’s a completely different matter.

            Setting aside the straw man argument of “well, would you prefer Russia or China to be World Police”–because the point at hand here is not “OMG THE RUSSIANS” or even “OMG THE CHINESE” (both of whom, if you really want to be historically accurate, lost their fair share of soldiers in Afghanistan, of which country my retired SEAL friend S likes to say “Afghanistan is where empires go to die”). The focus of this post, and, one would hope, the comments, are whether or not there is a case for drone strikes, specifically the ones in the Af-Pak region–the ones that are killing a number of families living in easily-collapsed mud-brick dwellings and radicalizing an unsettling number of survivors, it must be noted. A few of us are saying, No. The rest of the commenters are throwing around epithets about how naïve we are.

            I haven’t lived in Chechnya or Tibet, it is true. I did grow up abroad, however, and I have lived in Central America, under a military dictatorship. I have further had a good deal of firsthand experience–considerably more than you, I’m certain–with living in a country still suffering from the fallout and collateral damage caused by this noble US practice of “protecting” (with whiz-bang weaponry and specially-trained, School-of-the Americas graduates) its “interests” (United Fruit, to name just one, as well as its own strategically-located air bases from which to launch other interest-protecting activities in Central and South America during the 70’s and 80’s). It isn’t pretty. I submit that if Mr. or Mrs. Average American knew what the well-muscled arm of the World Police had wrought in many countries around the globe–or had any idea how the citizens of those countries perceived it, and for that matter, *us*–they would be a whole lot less gung-ho about the flying robot killers too.

            Finally, a writer uses her name when she is not afraid to stand behind what she says and believes. Glenn Greenwald is clearly of the same mind, so is the owner of this blog–and bravo to him for that.

    • MarshallLucky

      And the war Obama has happily continued. Or do you honestly think the ridiculous “War on Terror” is ending any time soon? The only difference now is that they’ve found a way to keep raining down destruction without inconveniencing fat complacent Americans. Hence, nobody gives a shit anymore.

      • D_C_Wilson

        So, ending the war in Iraq and setting a date to end the war in Afghanistan is what you call “happily continued”? And now Obama is the one who invented drone strikes that don’t inconvenience “fat complacent Americans”? This was not at all a factor under Bush or Clinton?

        Wow. Must be nice to be able to blame all the evils of the past 20 years on Obama.

        • villemar

          Shut up! This country was a perfect, pristine Utopian paradise, replete with rainbows, cupcakes, unicorns, butterscotch waterfalls, lollipop trees, and gumdrops; until January 2009 when the black guy stepped into the White House and wrecked everything.

  • Woud you write this way, Cesca, if your wife and children were reduced to street pizza in your own front yard ?

    Of course not.

    I can’t believe the pure crap that I am reading here.

    • Way to undermine your argument by referring to civilian victims of drone strikes as “street pizza.” Classy.

      You obviously didn’t read what I wrote so here it is again.

      “…I obviously don’t approve of civilian casualties. I’m reasonably certain that the president doesn’t either. Nobody is out to kill civilians. So clearly the drones need to be used with more caution to prevent the heinous collateral damage we’ve been hearing about. There’s a way to achieve this through more selective targeting and advancements in technology.”

      • My reference to “street pizza” was (and you understood this !), was evocative, designed to give the odious lie to your smug and stupid and phony complacency !

        • villemar

          I know right? That’s why I throw dead fetuses at people every chance I get!

          • RJ

            if you don’t understand the difference between a fetus and a dead person then how the heck did you find your way onto these here interwebs?

        • JMAshby

          “smug and stupid and phony complacency”

          Yeah, that’ll really win people over. Nothing says complacency like taking time out of your day to present a well-rationed counter argument.

        • villemar

          Also, I like to throw red paint on people while screaming at the top of my lungs.

        • You used “street pizza” because you have no legitimate response to what I wrote: a case for drone strikes without civilian casualties.

    • missliberties

      False equivalency is your very best friend.

      • You transparently partisan Democrats, display the same transparent rationalizations, and lack of even a sense of justice, just the same as the rightwingers you make believe you disdain.

        You ARE them.

        • villemar

          Clearly the only solution is to burn the country right to the fucking ground. That’ll teach us for putting OBabykiller in the White House!!!11!

        • i_a_c

          You’re on a roll with the false equivalency stuff. We already know how Republicans conduct the battle against al-Qaeda, and our choice is between that, and drone strikes. I’ll take the drone strikes for a number of reasons. I suppose that makes me ineligible for membership in the Greenwald Left (darn it!) but far from some warmongering rightwinger.

        • LOL Just call us Obamabots and get over it.

    • If I was in the company of real terrorist. Yes I would expect to be attacked.

  • “There’s quite a bit of hyperbole being tossed around — not to mention way too many dead civilian photographs, which is a tactic best reserved for the disgusting anti-choice wackaloons.”

    Yeah, god forbid we should see the consequences of our actions. Pictures of dead bodies are so 20th century.

    • You can enlarge the photos and stand on the street next to the anti-choice zealots, waving them in the faces of passers by. Because we all know how effective a tactic that is… for annoying and repulsing people rather than convincing them.

  • missliberties

    Is Greenwald still writing?

  • RJ

    Ya know as tough as it sounds I do truly and sincerely believe that civilians are being targeted. I believe that the intent is to show the local populace that if you associate in any manner with someone the US disagrees with then we will kill you.
    We have been torturing and killing people in that part of the world since just after WW1, how much longer can it continue?

    • missliberties

      Ugly vile untruthful comment.

      • RJ

        Ugly…yes, war is indeed ugly.
        As for ‘untruthful’, I simply stated my belief as well as the fact that we have been dropping bombs and ammo in that part of the world for over 90 years now. Plus no one has yet described to the american people how we are defining who is a terrorist and who is someone who simply is outspoken against US policies.

        • i_a_c

          The AUMF defines who is a terrorist. If you’re al Qaeda or the Taliban or associates of those groups, or if you’re planning/attempting attacks against the United States, then you’re a terrorist subject to AUMF.

          • Yeah, and “associates” can mean anything, especially now with the passage of the NDAA. Chalk up another one for freedom and democracy by Mr. Transparency.

          • i_a_c

            No, associates does not mean “anything.”

          • missliberties

            The gubmint is coming to take you away. Ooga booga.

          • MarshallLucky

            For some innocent people, it already has. But what’s a decade or so of unjustified detention anyway? You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and it was probably their fault anyway for having foreign-sounding names. Nice little middle-class commenters safe in their homes have nothing to fear, so why even care?

          • villemar

            On what dating site might I find someone with your cheerful disposition?

          • JMAshby

            They’re coming for you Barbara.

          • mrbrink

            I’ll be at the Winchester waiting for all of this to blow over.

        • missliberties

          Your sanctimoniousness on this issue isn’t much different than that of the Catholic bishops who oppose birth control.

          If you want to ‘fight’ the establishment, you go. You will always find a cause celeb and you always will be able to go on the attack against the status quo.

          I would suggest that the work that George Clooney and Bono are doing to actually work to change things is more meaningful than your eternal meaningless attacks on the ‘we’ and your holier than thou platitudes.

          • RJ

            I think you need to look up the meaning of the word sanctimonious.
            If you believe that never ending war is a good thing then good for you. I happen to believe that a sane foreign policy would make us significantly safer in the short and long term. Yet on we go… creating more enemies by the day.

        • villemar

          I’m still mad about all of the Prussians and Austro-Hungarians we killed in WW1. Damn you OHitlermba!!!

    • Total nonsense your logic is totally antithetical.

  • eljefejeff

    That’s what Greenwald does. I don’t deny that some of Obama’s decisions have been reckless but they were clearly done for the purpose of national security and not because he’s some fascist dictator hell bent on eroding human rights.

    Likewise, the poll Greenwald mentions was misleading in the first place, asking questions such as “Do you approve of the president’s decision not to close Guantanamo?” He signed an executive order to do close it, and congress has denied him. It’s a misleading question which leads to misleading results.

    • mistinguette grandison

      Exactly. And it pisses me off that people cite him considering his hypocrisy of Trusting Bush and supporting the illegal Occupation of Iraq that was much worse than these drone strikes in my opinion and much more damaging to our national security.

    • The closing Gitmo attacks on Obama make me the most furious. It’s the congress stupid. Obama tried and tried to close Gitmo AND have civilian trials. On one side the GGs of the world decry Obama has too much power and then they fecklessly fail to understand the limits of his power.

    • Obama is also not as isolated as most think. He did review the drone policy and the attacks have been reigned in quite a bit.