New Obama Book: "Drones Make Me Real Good at Killing People."

[rightwinger]

Killing U.S. Citizen without due process = Very bad.

Not the case here. Citizens as combatants or non-combatants working for the enemy and out of reach of LEO have no rights as such to avoid be droned.

This is technology, not civil rights.

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Where did he say anything close to that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Killing U.S. Citizen without due process = Very bad.

Not the case here. Citizens as combatants or non-combatants working for the enemy and out of reach of LEO have no rights as such to avoid be droned.

This is technology, not civil rights.

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Yup, it is the case (your numbers are suspect, by the by) that the enemy put the civilians at risk. Civilian collateral damage is a fact of war, and that will never change.

The French provisional government approved the Allied bombing offensive against the infrastructure, particularly rail lines, prior to the Normandy invasion. Ten thousand French civilians died.

War is hell.

 

[BlindBoo]

I am going to laugh when Obama pulls 50 of the 60 thousand troops within the republican war next year. Obama has done more to kill terrorist then Bush ever did. This pisses you off!

He will likely leave a couple of drones to keep the hunt up

That would be rather amusing if it wasn't so tragic. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan shortly after taking office 5 years ago and a dipshit like you call it a Republican war.

Obama has had more US troops killed on his watch than Bush did in case you missed it, and I am sure you did.

In the two wars President Bush started? Bush still doubles Obama in the number of troops KIA.

 

[KevinWestern]

Not the case here. Citizens as combatants or non-combatants working for the enemy and out of reach of LEO have no rights as such to avoid be droned.

This is technology, not civil rights.

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Where did he say anything close to that?

He did, though (as he admitted it in his reply). Reasoning is that casualties of war are just something we can't avoid.

The original argument was that killing innocents was bad, but Jake said that folks aiding combatants "have no rights". My reply was what about the civilians not aiding the combatants. Don't think it's the case, but did I misunderstand something here?

 

[KevinWestern]

Not the case here. Citizens as combatants or non-combatants working for the enemy and out of reach of LEO have no rights as such to avoid be droned.

This is technology, not civil rights.

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Yup, it is the case (your numbers are suspect, by the by) that the enemy put the civilians at risk. Civilian collateral damage is a fact of war, and that will never change.

The French provisional government approved the Allied bombing offensive against the infrastructure, particularly rail lines, prior to the Normandy invasion. Ten thousand French civilians died.

War is hell.

Not sure you can compare the circumstances with WWII to now, as Hitler was actively on the move, tearing up countries and incinerating 6 million innocent Jews in the process. It's time to make some hard calls/sacrifices then (I agree) when literally millions of lives are at risk.

The "war" we are fighting now is all propaganda (I believe), and an excuse to keep on spending a half a trillion dollars every year on new toys and weapons. We have no active enemy "on the move" that justifies the extent that we are killing innocent civilians abroad.

For pete's sake, if we bow down and eat up everything our gov't tells us I guarantee (in that scenario) that we'll be fighting this war indefinitely without any resolution.

Remember when Obama wanted to attack Syria and the American people spoke up and shut that plan down? We need more of that.

 

[KevinWestern]

In the two wars President Bush started? Bush still doubles Obama in the number of troops KIA.

Again (Blindboo, I'd like to hear your answer) can you really say that with a straight face when a majority of Democrats in the Senate and 40% in the House voted in favor of starting a war with Iraq?

If the Dems voted "no", there would be no war. It's a shared responsibility.

 

[BlindBoo]

In the two wars President Bush started? Bush still doubles Obama in the number of troops KIA.

Again (Blindboo, I'd like to hear your answer) can you really say that with a straight face when a majority of Democrats in the Senate and 40% in the House voted in favor of starting a war with Iraq?

If the Dems voted "no", there would be no war. It's a shared responsibility.

Who was the commander in Chief? Who gave the order? I'll grant you they gave him the ability to decide with their vote(although a majority of Democrats in Congress did vote no). They abdicated their Constitutional responsibility and should have resigned in disgrace when nearly every allegation leveled by the Bush Administration turned out to be false.

 

[KevinWestern]

Who was the commander in Chief? Who gave the order? I'll grant you they gave him the ability to decide with their vote(although a majority of Democrats in Congress did vote no). They abdicated their Constitutional responsibility and should have resigned in disgrace when nearly every allegation leveled by the Bush Administration turned out to be false.

Hey, Bush and co absorb a great portion of the blame. Obviously the Republican Party has much responsibility to account for. However..

My point is that the Democrats are responsible as well. Way too often I hear people saying that the Republicans are completely to blame. Not true.

I think the sooner someone realizes that the Republicans AND Democrats are all funded by the same sources, and have many of the same "behind the scenes" controllers, the better.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's not the fact that we battle and kill our enemies.. it is the fact that this does not sit with the image Obamalama tries to portray, and the fact that even my military brothers and sisters did not brag in such a way

 

[rightwinger]

In the two wars President Bush started? Bush still doubles Obama in the number of troops KIA.

Again (Blindboo, I'd like to hear your answer) can you really say that with a straight face when a majority of Democrats in the Senate and 40% in the House voted in favor of starting a war with Iraq?

If the Dems voted "no", there would be no war. It's a shared responsibility.

There was no sharing in the decision to go to war........it was all Bush

 

[JimH52]

When Bush was killing Muslims and spying on us, the Right was cheering him on.

"We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Remember?

They would point out no terror attacks had taken place in the US since Bush started spying on us and began the two wars.

Let's not be all hypocritical now.

Did you expect anything but a double standard with some of these people?

 

[DiamondDave]

In the two wars President Bush started? Bush still doubles Obama in the number of troops KIA.

Again (Blindboo, I'd like to hear your answer) can you really say that with a straight face when a majority of Democrats in the Senate and 40% in the House voted in favor of starting a war with Iraq?

If the Dems voted "no", there would be no war. It's a shared responsibility.

There was no sharing in the decision to go to war........it was all Bush

DEMs could have stopped it... a bi-partisan vote in congress could have stopped it

It is a shared responsibility

 

[rightwinger]

Again (Blindboo, I'd like to hear your answer) can you really say that with a straight face when a majority of Democrats in the Senate and 40% in the House voted in favor of starting a war with Iraq?

If the Dems voted "no", there would be no war. It's a shared responsibility.

There was no sharing in the decision to go to war........it was all Bush

DEMs could have stopped it... a bi-partisan vote in congress could have stopped it

It is a shared responsibility

Diamond Dave.....I am going to let you decide to go to war or not

You decided to go, it is your responsibility

 

[DiamondDave]

I volunteered for service during my time... went freely to do my duty

The DEMs voted freely to support the 'war' when it could have been stopped by them and/or a bi-partisan congress...

They just don't want to own it now.. hence why we have their puppets (such as yourself) who spew this crap, and the 'Bush LIEEEEEDDDDDD' slogans

 

[rightwinger]

I volunteered for service during my time... went freely to do my duty

The DEMs voted freely to support the 'war' when it could have been stopped by them and/or a bi-partisan congress...

They just don't want to own it now.. hence why we have their puppets (such as yourself) who spew this crap, and the 'Bush LIEEEEEDDDDDD' slogans

Why?

Because Bush did lie. Bush looked for an excuse to attack Iraq as soon as he took office, Bush looked for an excuse right after 9-11. When nobody could give him an excuse......he made one up.........WMDs, Iraqi freedom, UN Resolutions

Congress authorized him to attack Iraq if HE found it necessary. He waited three months after the authorization until the UN weapons inspector started to say Bush didn't have an excuse to attack. Bush attacked immediately to prevent the UN from proving there was no threat

5000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis died because of it

 

[KevinWestern]

I volunteered for service during my time... went freely to do my duty

The DEMs voted freely to support the 'war' when it could have been stopped by them and/or a bi-partisan congress...

They just don't want to own it now.. hence why we have their puppets (such as yourself) who spew this crap, and the 'Bush LIEEEEEDDDDDD' slogans

Why?

Because Bush did lie. Bush looked for an excuse to attack Iraq as soon as he took office, Bush looked for an excuse right after 9-11. When nobody could give him an excuse......he made one up.........WMDs, Iraqi freedom, UN Resolutions

Congress authorized him to attack Iraq if HE found it necessary. He waited three months after the authorization until the UN weapons inspector started to say Bush didn't have an excuse to attack. Bush attacked immediately to prevent the UN from proving there was no threat

5000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis died because of it

Again many to blame, and Bush obviously absorbs more of it than a freshman Representative. However, the Democrats were present and voted "yes", and if they hadn't those 6k Americans and 100k+ Iraqis would be alive today. That's key; they vote no, and the war doesn't happen (and is why they share in the responsibility).

I mean, and how hard is it to vote "no"? Why would a Democrat vote "yes" to attack a country that never attacked us, lol? I mean, think about that. How about you just say "no, this makes no sense"??

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Iraq was not a threat to the United States and did not participate in the 9-11 attacks. Two conditions the Bill required for use of military force

Link? because according to my understanding, that's just more talking point BS.

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Your Search Has Timed Out


Search results in THOMAS are temporary and are deleted 30 minutes after creation.Please try your search again.


So you can't provide the text of the bill?

 

[TooTall]

The majority of Democrats did vote no.

You pukes just do not understand the truth no matter what. you've got your talking points, and you're sticking to them.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States House of Representatives

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

On the aggregate, you still have a large chunk of democrats who voted favorably on the Iraq resolution.

That vote authorized Bush to make the decision if he thought it was necessary

The decision to invade belonged to Bush and Bush alone

It is his legacy.....5000 Americans dead, tens of thousand wounded, 100,000 Iraqis killed

Just to refresh your rather faulty memory, read this paragraph:

The Bush administration briefly used the term "Coalition of the Willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq. The original list released in March 2003 included 46 members. In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations.

 

[TooTall]

Evidence you are believing what you want to believe: Obama did not say, "Drones make me real good at killing people."

You read half a quote, and made up your own.

A quote from a new book on the 2012 presidential campaign, “Double Down: Game Change 2012,” will surely stoke that interest. As first reported in a book review by the Washington Post’s Peter Hamby, Obama told aides in connection with the CIA's drone program that he is “really good at killing people.”

These little thingees " are quotation marks and indicate that these are exactly the words someone used in a sentence.

“really good at killing people.” says it all.

It fails to provide the full context of the quote and the circumstances it was given

Lets see it

Obama said he is “really good at killing people.” The context was a discussion about the CIA's drone program where Obama personally picked the names of who on the list he would enjoy killing next.

 

[Geaux4it]