Time to consider "Worst Administration Ever"?

[Sardondi]

Jesus God, I just don't have the words - Obama throws support behind the Muslim Brotherhood, says they should be included in any Egyptian government: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/obama-call-for-muslim-brotherhood-role-overtaken-in-egypt.html I love the bit about Obama calling for "a transparent political process that is inclusive of all parties and groups". That is some kind of irony coming from President IRS, made all the sweeter by his apparent total ignorance of the full import of his words, as well as the self-righteous tone of his imperial diktat.

Let's try to put this in historical perspective...

1932 - "President Paul von Hindenburg issued a sharply worded scolding to the floundering Weimar Republic today, saying that all voices in Germany should be heard, and that the National Socialist Party should be represented in the Reichstag. 'Herr A. Hitler has said that all he wants is a little peace in the world. At least I think he meant 'peace' and 'in'. Anyway, he was a corporal, and I believe for one believe it will be good for Germany for his party to be a part of our government.' "

1916 - "Today Czar Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, issued an imperial edict to say that God had opened the imperial eyes and made him to understand that much greater openness in Russia's government was needed. 'It is clear that the Bolshevist Party of Mr. V.I. Ulyanov should be a part of our new government. After all, he said only wants peace', opined the last emperor of the Rus."

1788 - "His Majesty Louis XVI, King of France and Navarre, called on the Estates-General to meet and reorganize their membership in such a way that it 'fully reflect the whole population'; and that to achieve  broader participation in government that the membership include Messrs. Maximilien Robespierre, Georges Danton and Jean-Paul Marat..."

1641 - "His Majesty Charles I, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, King of Scots, Defender of the Faith, did proclaim today his royal desire that government be 'more open and reflective of the community at large', and so commanded that a place be made in his government for The Honorable Oliver Cromwell, member for  MP for Cambridge..."

Perhaps the most apt...

475 C.E. - "His Most Exalted Highness, Imperator Romulus Augustulus of the Western Roman Empire, proclaimed today that the ruling power of the Western Roman Empire would be broadened to include Odoacer, King of the Goths across the Rhine. 'He's a good man, I'm sure; and even though he's frightening to us because he is a pagan and a barbarian and murders babies for breakfast, he's still just a man, and I'm sure he wants the very same things for Rome that I do,' said the last emperor in the West."

[ItsOver]

And to add on:

On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich, Germany after having agreed to the so-called Munich Pact the day before with Adolf Hitler. He arrived home a hero, as most of the nation believed that he had singlehandedly averted a European war with his deft diplomacy; in fact, Chamberlain got off the plane at Heathrow Airport waving a piece of paper containing the text of the pact and the crowd responded with massive cheering.
Later that day, standing before the Prime Minister's house at 10 Downing Street in London, Neville Chamberlain read the agreement and made a short remark in a speech that would go down in history. Here is what Chamberlain said on that day:
(reading from the paper) "We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
(looking up at the assembled crowd) My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.



When will we ever learn. Nothing like that good 'ol "inclusion."  It's worked so well in the past.  You can't have inclusion with evil. 

[Juan]

Ruby Ridge occurred in the summer of 1992 - during the regime of George H.W. Bush.

[Yorkshire pud]

To add: John Major and later Tony Blair pushed forward (With unbelievable courage and fortitude of the wonderful but now sadly dead Mo Mowlem-read her story, I guarantee you will be reduced to tears) the good friday agreement in Northern Ireland. The integration of the once outlawed Sinn Féin into the political arena, and the tenuous peace agreement. It is by no means perfect and there is a long long way to go. But we would still be looking at bombings, shootings and vile hideous punishments inflicted if things hadn't been taken in hand and both sides prepared to give ground..it is possible..It needs the will and motivation.


Having said that, Hitler wasn't the person to do deals with, and no amount of compromise would have stopped his ambitions.

[PB the Deplorable]

... And in this breaking news, Obama once again sets a record: first President under which the Third Amendment is violated (the one prohibiting Quartering Of Troops)  as police in Henderson, NV "arrested a family" for refusing to allow police to use their home as a lookout spot from which to perform domestic violence surveillance on the next door neighbors:...

Their attorney has quite the list of infractions he is accusing the police and the city of and suing them on.  This specific charge is going to come down to whether the cops are 'troops'.

Oh, I remember the Good Old Days. Yes, back in January of 2009, when a certain black man who was destined to win a Nobel Peace Prize for...for...uh, using Imperial Assassination Drones at an exponential rate, stood behind a podium in Washington, D.C., and proclaimed that day as the day the seas would recede as he stretched forth his hand. I especially enjoy the memory of how he said he would bring Smart Diplomacyâ,,¢ to us, so that the nations would once again love us, because we had chosen Him to lead us. Yes, I remember those heady, halcyon days, when all things seemed possible because of The Coming of The One....



...So I like to think back to the good old days, when so many of our pundits felt tingles up their legs and shouted hosannas that a god had come down to lead us. And the arrogant little shit they were talking about did nothing to correct them. Because he believed it too... 

"We are the ones we've been waiting for"

[Juan]

Now one of the Fast and Furious guns has been used to kill a Mexican police chief.

[onan]

Now one of the Fast and Furious guns has been used to kill a Mexican police chief.

So... a win win?

[Sardondi]

Obama's "Insider Threat Program":essentially indistinguishable from similar programs by the PRNK, PRC, USSR and Nazi Germany.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/president-obamas-insider-threat-program-a-parody-of-liberal-faith-in-bureaucrats/277653/

Note that the aim of the spying on co-workers initiative isn't "spying" or "espionage" but "leakers". (Note as well that the article is from The Atlantic, a rock-solid liberal periodical for over 150 years. The base is shattering.)

Yep, a national security apparatus program to catch identify "leakers"...before they leak. It's not about America; it's about The One.

[West of the Rockies]

Sardondi, I don't know a single liberal who refers to Obama as "The One" or "the Messiah".  I think you're listening to a little too much Rush.  (Maybe you don't listen to Rush at all -- my point is that you're overstating the so-called "progressive" perspective on Obama's place in history.)  Honestly, I know lots of Dems who are very disappointed in Obama on many fronts.  I expected much more from him in terms of environmental protection.  I expected more of him in terms of getting us out of the Middle East (here I am a little Randian and wish our nation was less likely to play world's policeman).  I think a lot of homosexual people expected more support from his administration.  I think the weed smokers of the nation expected a more lax attitude towards pot use.  I KNOW a lot of progressives who thought Obama would reduce the use of domestic surveillance.  We expected a much more "transparent government" because that was what he said he was about. 

Yeah, I think some of his efforts have been thwarted by the do-nothing-but-block Republicans in Congress.

His second term is not over, but at this point, if I were to try to play future historian, I'd say that his administration was notable mostly for its Jackie Robinson quality.  To further the baseball analogy, I'd say that Obama's final "career stats" won't resemble the aforementioned Jackie Robinson.  I think they may represent something more along the lines of those compiled by Steve Sax -- adequate in some ways, under-impressive in others, a career most noted for its failure to deliver the goods (and throw the friggin' ball from second to first).

The Republicans in Congress during Obama's adminstration?  Hmmm... I think I'd liken their career statistics to Eddie Gaedel -- a one-trick pony who contributed nothing meaningful and who instead cheated (in terms of the spirit of the game).

[Sardondi]

Sardondi, I don't know a single liberal who refers to Obama as "The One" or "the Messiah".  I think you're listening to a little too much Rush.  (Maybe you don't listen to Rush at all -- my point is that you're overstating the so-called "progressive" perspective on Obama's place in history.)  Honestly, I know lots of Dems who are very disappointed in Obama on many fronts.  I expected much more from him in terms of environmental protection.  I expected more of him in terms of getting us out of the Middle East (here I am a little Randian and wish our nation was less likely to play world's policeman).  I think a lot of homosexual people expected more support from his administration.  I think the weed smokers of the nation expected a more lax attitude towards pot use.  I KNOW a lot of progressives who thought Obama would reduce the use of domestic surveillance.  We expected a much more "transparent government" because that was what he said he was about. 

Yeah, I think some of his efforts have been thwarted by the do-nothing-but-block Republicans in Congress.

His second term is not over, but at this point, if I were to try to play future historian, I'd say that his administration was notable mostly for its Jackie Robinson quality.  To further the baseball analogy, I'd say that Obama's final "career stats" won't resemble the aforementioned Jackie Robinson.  I think they may represent something more along the lines of those compiled by Steve Sax -- adequate in some ways, under-impressive in others, a career most noted for its failure to deliver the goods (and throw the friggin' ball from second to first).

The Republicans in Congress during Obama's adminstration?  Hmmm... I think I'd liken their career statistics to Eddie Gaedel -- a one-trick pony who contributed nothing meaningful and who instead cheated (in terms of the spirit of the game).

Uh, no I don't listen to Rush or any talk radio, Nor do I think anyone with half a brain would actually refer to Obama as "The One", "The Messiah", "Neo", "The Chosen", etc. They only think he is. I do realize many liberals are disappointed in Obama, but most for his failure to be far more proactive in transforming America in the permanent Democrat Gulag, as you allude.

As for how notable his presidency was for its "Jackie Robinson quality": that is no fucking reason to elect someone president. The man has almost destroyed our economy, and may have permanently changed how we work: the unemployment figures are totally meaningless, because Labor stats treat a worker who goes from 40-hour full benefit employment to no-benefit 30-hour temp worker as the very same thing. Plus they don't count the tens of millions of mostly men who simply quit trying to get a job and dropped out. And they say "unemployment" is only 7.9%. What a joke.

It's a fucking lie. But then Obama's government is built on lies. Everything he does and says is a lie. Jesus, he even goes so far as to lie about his favorite fucking food to buy some peace from his harridan of a wife.

I understand the Steve Sax analogy, because it seems Obama can do nothing. The difference is, it killed Sax because he loved his team, and it hurt him. Obama is just pissed off at the ball for not going where he wills it.

[The Neverender]

It's a fucking lie. But then Obama's government is built on lies. Everything he does and says is a lie. Jesus, he even goes so far as to lie about his favorite fucking food to buy some peace from his harridan of a wife.

I think the government in general is built on lies, or at least has been since they realized that they could build a nuclear weapons program from scratch, and no one would even get the slightest whiff of it, because all the tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of workers would gladly do their work and keep their mouth shut for national security. They feel free to lie at will ever sense, and each administration seems to be worst than the last... 

[NowhereInTime]

Uh, no I don't listen to Rush or any talk radio, Nor do I think anyone with half a brain would actually refer to Obama as "The One", "The Messiah", "Neo", "The Chosen", etc. They only think he is. I do realize many liberals are disappointed in Obama, but most for his failure to be far more proactive in transforming America in the permanent Democrat Gulag, as you allude.

As for how notable his presidency was for its "Jackie Robinson quality": that is no fucking reason to elect someone president. The man has almost destroyed our economy, and may have permanently changed how we work: the unemployment figures are totally meaningless, because Labor stats treat a worker who goes from 40-hour full benefit employment to no-benefit 30-hour temp worker as the very same thing. Plus they don't count the tens of millions of mostly men who simply quit trying to get a job and dropped out. And they say "unemployment" is only 7.9%. What a joke.

It's a fucking lie. But then Obama's government is built on lies. ...

I am a liberal who is disappointed in Obama's presidency, too.  I knocked doors, worked rallies, phone banked, and was one of a group that helped him beat Hillary on Super Tuesday '08 in CT.  I supported him again in 2012, even though he hadn't done nearly enough to unwind the laissez faire mess your side made of our economy through your credit default swaps, mortgage bond tranching, and grossly misaligned compensation rates for non-productive activities like writing CDO's.
But who's better?  There was no one on my side who wasn't someone who's been part of the mess for decades and absolutely not one sane, rational, or responsible person on your side.  Bachmann?  Perry?  Paul?  These people live in fucking fantasy land where, if we just cut poor people loose, by God they'll go to their parents for loans, start businesses and SUCCEED! (Romney)
I find Barack Obama disappointing but still the best of a particularly bad lot.

[b_dubb]

the economy seems to be on the rebound.  but i'm pretty disappointed by how Obama comes out swinging for the head when whistle blowers act their conscious.  very un-democratic

[Sardondi]

the economy seems to be on the rebound.

I'm not sure under what theory, unless you're referring to stock market figures, which I am at a loss to even synopsize, much less explain the reason for. All I know is for the first time in my personal knowledge the stock market's gains seem absolutely unconnected to the economy. I'd like an economist out there to explain some of this, but my recollection is there has never been a time when the stock market's success has seemed as if it was taking place on Uranus, without any connection to the rest of the economy which is performing dismally. To me this market craziness seems far beyond that of the "irrational exuberance" of the 1996 dot.com runaway market which at least dragged the rest of the economy along with it before it collapsed.

But this stock market is in an absolute vacuum, since real unemployment is in double figures, less than half of working Americans have a full time job, and actual inflation, of groceries in particular, is, IIRC, at something above 25%. Very strange. Makes me wonder if it was like this in '29.

But I see nothing else besides market figures with even arguably positive results. Besides, when Democrats start pointing out how wonderful the stock market numbers are, it is indeed a sign of the coming of the apocalypse.

[onan]

I'm not sure under what theory, unless you're referring to stock market figures, which I am at a loss to even synopsize, much less explain the reason for. All I know is for the first time in my personal knowledge the stock market's gains seem absolutely unconnected to the economy. I'd like an economist out there to explain some of this, but my recollection is there has never been a time when the stock market's success has seemed as if it was taking place on Uranus, without any connection to the rest of the economy which is performing dismally. To me this market craziness seems far beyond that of the "irrational exuberance" of the 1996 dot.com runaway market which at least dragged the rest of the economy along with it before it collapsed.

But this stock market is in an absolute vacuum, since real unemployment is in double figures, less than half of working Americans have a full time job, and actual inflation, of groceries in particular, is, IIRC, at something above 25%. Very strange. Makes me wonder if it was like this in '29.

But I see nothing else besides market figures with even arguably positive results. Besides, when Democrats start pointing out how wonderful the stock market numbers are, it is indeed a sign of the coming of the apocalypse.

Here is the simple evaluation of the state of our economy, it sucks. But I do have to (once again) scratch my head. Why is it that when one side uses a marker over and over again for credibility, when the other side does so it somehow has less relevance? I have seen posters here say the president is at fault for the economy and then at some point say the economy is much too complicated to be affected by the president.


so simply put our economy sucks. and it sucks because our jobs have been outsourced. And our tax rates have been at a very low rate for more than 30 years... but still not low enough. Personally I am amazed that the hatred is for the government more so than the companies that continually ship jobs overseas for the betterment of some very rich mother fuckers.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm not sure under what theory, unless you're referring to stock market figures, which I am at a loss to even synopsize, much less explain the reason for...

Corporate profits are up - the Fortune 500 have clout (business and political) and their goods and services have pricing power.  They also have cash - tons of it - because of uncertainty (for example how much is employee healthcare going to cost, what is Obama going to say or do next to damage business), they aren't hiring, stocking up on inventory, building stores or factories or warehouses - just hoarding cash.  And paying dividends - dividend payouts are up too.

That's part of the rise in the stock market (profits, cash, dividends).  Another reason is the Quantitive Easing funds (Fed printing money) have to go somewhere - where else are those monies going to go.  And the money that has been in the economy all along - money market funds have been paying nothing for years now (a new way for our govt to steal from savers), bonds are going to be destroyed when interest rates start rising, the stock market is about the only place left to park cash to get any kind of return.


As far as the government or a president being responsible / not responsible for the economy - the government can't really do anything much more than restrict the economy or remove those restrictions.  It can't, for example, decide to go out and lower interest rates or the unemployment rate or increase GDP - it can only make the environment better for businesses that will. 

So a Reagan removes barriers (lowers certain tax rates, business killing regulations, signals an overall friendliness to business) and ultimately the economy booms.  Or a President creates uncertainty by constantly demonstrating scorn for the private sector, or by raising or trying to raise taxes, or issuing a drumbeat of new business killing regulations, and the economy is stifled. 

It's not an exact science, which is why the professional liars have been able to muddy things.  The business cycle is powerful, sometimes there isn't much that can be done to get in the way of it, other times it's on such a downswing that not much can be immediately helpful.  In our mostly free system, the downturns are usually short - if it's been 5 years of this (or even 2 or 3) something is wrong on the political end of things.

[PB the Deplorable]

... so simply put our economy sucks. and it sucks because our jobs have been outsourced. And our tax rates have been at a very low rate for more than 30 years... but still not low enough. Personally I am amazed that the hatred is for the government more so than the companies that continually ship jobs overseas for the betterment of some very rich mother fuckers.

Corp outsourcing is somewhat complicated.  Sometimes tax rates and regulations and political uncertainty drive businesses to say the hell with it and move.  Sure, paying less in payroll, payroll taxes, and benefits is part of the equation, but it costs a lot to ship good back to the US, and to send managers overseas for meetings, plus time spent managing from afar, etc.  Most companies would prefer to hire Americans due to higher education levels, the language barrier, the fact that we are more productive, etc.

The lowest level factory type jobs are going to be exported, but for the rest the answer is a better business environment here.



As far as taxes being low -- maybe the top end rates for the highest earners are lower, but for average families they are not historically low.  Especially not when everything is considered - Fed and State incomes taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, all the other nuisance fees and taxes, it's not even close.  Think about all the taxes built into the cost of every product or service we buy - businesses pass all of it along in the price, we don't even really realize it's there.

One way to see how high taxes are is to look at how much government spends - they take up a much greater part of the economy now than ever before (excluding wartime), and it's more every year - that mostly comes from taxes.  Thus taxes have to be high to fund all this.

[Juan]

I supported him again in 2012, even though he hadn't done nearly enough to unwind the laissez faire mess your side made of our economy through your credit default swaps, mortgage bond tranching, and grossly misaligned compensation rates for non-productive activities like writing CDO's.

If you really want to know about this, read the book Reckless Endangerment - it's by an award winning New York Times business writer.  It's been about three years, so it should be available used.  It spreads the blame around among all and really proves a level of corruption that surprised even a cynic like me.  It shows corporate cronyism, not laissez faire, was involved.

[b_dubb]

Economy seems to be on the rebound in that it seems to be generating jobs and not incinerating them. If jobs creAted > 150k then rebound

Still Obama is Bush-esque crypto-fascist. He's barely discernible from W

[NowhereInTime]

If you really want to know about this, read the book Reckless Endangerment - it's by an award winning New York Times business writer.  It's been about three years, so it should be available used.  It spreads the blame around among all and really proves a level of corruption that surprised even a cynic like me.  It shows corporate cronyism, not laissez faire, was involved.

OK, but I would recommend highly reading "House of Cards" by William Cohan about the collapse of Bear Stearns, "Too Big to Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times Dealbook editor) about the collapse of Lehmann Bros. and the efforts to stop the finance sector from bleeding out and "The Big Short" from Michael Lewis (best known as the author of "The Blind Side" but also "Liars Poker" about Solomon Bros.)  The laissez faire was in Christopher Cox (R-CA) who was the Bush appointee to chair the SEC who had no grasp of the collateralized debt obligations, mortgage tranching, or the leveraging involved in trying cover these positions.  Absolutely no regulatory control. Lewis in particular goes into great detail about how many fly-by-night mortage outfits wrote bad paper and covered themselves by  immediately packaging and selling these mortgages into the bond market where outfits like Lehmann and Goldman Sachs would cut them into "tranches" to make them palatable to investors.  (With help from Moody's, Fitch's and Standard & Poor's who also no due diligence in rating these bad mortagages as investment grade.) 

[Juan]

great detail about how many fly-by-night mortage outfits wrote bad paper and covered themselves by  immediately packaging and selling these mortgages into the bond market where outfits like Lehmann and Goldman Sachs would cut them into "tranches" to make them palatable to investors.  (With help from Moody's, Fitch's and Standard & Poor's who also no due diligence in rating these bad mortagages as investment grade.)

That's exactly what Reckless Endangerment is about.  It names names - both Democrats and Republicans.

[PB the Deplorable]

... our tax rates have been at a very low rate for more than 30 years... but still not low enough...

the thing about taxes is, most people would be all for them if the infrastructure was being maintained, the schools were free or cost a moderate amount and were back to being excellent, catastrophic healthcare was free or cost a moderate amount, parks were well maintained and free, the elderly and disabled were taken care of, public transportation was cheap, safe, and convenient, and so forth.

At current levels of taxation, we are certainly paying to have all that.  But what is actually happening is so far from it.  Until that gap closes considerably, we should not give them another penny.

[The Neverender]

*Insert Politically Divisive Comment Here*

[Sardondi]

Obama Administration sets precedent, makes common use of what the FBI calls the terrorist tactic of a second or follow-on strike-by-drone. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drones-bomb-civilian-rescuers-2013-7 The claim is made in this article and by Reuters that it is common knowledge that the Obama Administration routinely drone bombs civilian rescuers.

In 2007 the FBI said that the "double tap" attack is is a common terrorist tactic, since its purpose is to kill and maim first responders to the casualties caused by the initial attack. And yet, under Obama, the US itself makes regular use of this tactic. Spencer Ackerman of The Guardian, ordinarily a paper beloved of Obamites around the world, reports that a study by "a US military adviser" found that, contrary to Obama's claims that his killing-by-drone initiative virtually eliminates civilian deaths, the truth was that "drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/us-drone-strikes-afghan-civilians

How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?

[onan]

How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?

Just about as well as "Bring em on." and "Mission Accomplished."


Since you asked.


It isn't that I don't think drone attacks are at the bare minimum criminal. It isn't that I think Obama needs a defender. But what bothers me is to suggest wanting to hope for something better and a change for a better US, and better world is in some way foolish.


And to add, I have no problem with anyone disliking even hating Obama. What I have a problem with is such a blind eye to the stepping stones that have led us here. Do I think we need that as a preamble to every criticism of Obama? no. But the hope and change thing is a noble goal, it is too bad it was just political blathering, because we as a nation used to strive for better, now we seem to be happy with blaming the other guy.

[Yorkshire pud]

Obama Administration sets precedent, makes common use of what the FBI calls the terrorist tactic of a second or follow-on strike-by-drone.

The whole UAV/ Drone thing has changed the whole conflict 'rules' dynamic. It's as if because there isn't a pilot in the cockpit it somehow takes out a tier of accountability when the wrong target/ controversial target is taken out. The strikes on Pakistan have been justified because they were going after al Qaeda personnel. In the 'old' rules, that would be tantamount to war on a sovereign state. But starting with Bush and perpetuated by Obama the mantra of 'You're with us or against us seems to prevail; mixed in with self granted permission to go pretty much as and where they want to get who and what they want, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong. The instances of war crimes on innocent civilians has run into scores, but they're batted off with a simple 'We regret the event, we'll look into it' crap. I just wish they'd be up front and honest and say they have little regard for any civilians in a far off country that few in the west could find on a map when, as Onan said, they have more pressing things to concern their simple little lives. Such as the Kardashians and other manufactured 'newsworthy' so called 'celebrities' being foisted on us when they change their lipstick, expose a thigh or other inane crap.
There is a school of though that says we get the politicians and government we deserve. I think there's grounds to say we get the government and politicians who we think will take the nasty outside world from our respective bubble and conscience. War is horrible; we're shielded by 99% of it on our news feeds, for moral, compassionate and frequently propaganda reasons. I just wish the people making the decisions stopped trying to take the moral high ground, when they can't. But conversely because the enemy might be filth and disgusting doesn't justify a race to the bottom of the same pit. 

[PB the Deplorable]

The whole UAV/ Drone thing has changed the whole conflict 'rules' dynamic. It's as if because there isn't a pilot in the cockpit it somehow takes out a tier of accountability when the wrong target/ controversial target is taken out. The strikes on Pakistan have been justified because they were going after al Qaeda personnel...

Pakistan tacitly approves of the drone strikes, at least 'our' friends in the government do.  We have the same enemies.  They mostly say as little as possible, and complain when they feel they need to for political reasons.  The areas like Waziristan are part of Pakistan in name only, they are really lawless no-mans lands run by warlords.  Even the Pakistani military does not go there (although they have gone in - dragging their feet - and attacked the private armies of the warlords and other combatants from time to time for various reasons at our urging).  These zones are in the area surrounding the Khyber Pass on the road to Kabul.  They harbor groups like 'The Taliban in Pakistan', al-Qaeda, and other groups fighting the governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. 


It seems so odd Obama would continue the drone attacks, let alone step them up.  It doesn't seem to fit what we expect from him. 

As far as striking the wrong targets, aren't the drone attacks mostly on terrorist training camps and vehicles with these leaders traveling along some dusty deserted desert road?  If the wrong targets are attacked as often as the Taliban would have us believe, then it's  truly disgusting and  these attacks should be scaled back until we have better intel and this is no longer the case.

[Sardondi]

The whole UAV/ Drone thing has changed the whole conflict 'rules' dynamic. It's as if because there isn't a pilot in the cockpit it somehow takes out a tier of accountability when the wrong target/ controversial target is taken out. The strikes on Pakistan have been justified because they were going after al Qaeda personnel. In the 'old' rules, that would be tantamount to war on a sovereign state. But starting with Bush and perpetuated by Obama the mantra of 'You're with us or against us seems to prevail; mixed in with self granted permission to go pretty much as and where they want to get who and what they want, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong. The instances of war crimes on innocent civilians has run into scores, but they're batted off with a simple 'We regret the event, we'll look into it' crap. I just wish they'd be up front and honest and say they have little regard for any civilians in a far off country that few in the west could find on a map when, as Onan said, they have more pressing things to concern their simple little lives. Such as the Kardashians and other manufactured 'newsworthy' so called 'celebrities' being foisted on us when they change their lipstick, expose a thigh or other inane crap.
There is a school of though that says we get the politicians and government we deserve. I think there's grounds to say we get the government and politicians who we think will take the nasty outside world from our respective bubble and conscience. War is horrible; we're shielded by 99% of it on our news feeds, for moral, compassionate and frequently propaganda reasons. I just wish the people making the decisions stopped trying to take the moral high ground, when they can't. But conversely because the enemy might be filth and disgusting doesn't justify a race to the bottom of the same pit. 

Stop the presses: I agree with more of this than any other post you've made.

...It isn't that I don't think drone attacks are at the bare minimum criminal. It isn't that I think Obama needs a defender. But what bothers me is to suggest wanting to hope for something better and a change for a better US, and better world is in some way foolish....

But wanting change, and then voting for a complete cipher, whose literally unbelievably paltry official personal history read like a textbook "legend" concocted by spymasters, was beyond foolish - it was suicidal. Obama's supporters were willfully blind to what were at a minimum screaming question marks about the man. They (and the press, which was gleefully allied to both campaigns) savagely attacked as racists anyone who would have applied standard presidential vetting to Obama. The symbolism of electing a black man was so much more important to Obama's voters than a reasoned examination of what the man would really do. You guys own him, lock, stock and Fast and Furious gun barrel.

...And to add, I have no problem with anyone disliking even hating Obama. What I have a problem with is such a blind eye to the stepping stones that have led us here. Do I think we need that as a preamble to every criticism of Obama? no. But the hope and change thing is a noble goal, it is too bad it was just political blathering, because we as a nation used to strive for better, now we seem to be happy with blaming the other guy.

Damn, but that George Bush is powerful. What a genius he was. Or maybe it's it's his massive Charles Xavier brain, commanding Obama by thought alone.

[Juan]

I just don't understand how George W. "Chimpy" "Haliburton" BusHitler could be so stupid and be such a genius at the same time.  Not that's I'm defending him - just amazed at what appears to me to be contradictions in how he is perceived by his opponents. Perhaps someone can explain how he can be an idiot and a genius.

[West of the Rockies]

In regards to the "how we got to this point" question (do we blame Obama?  do we blame Bush?), I'd suggest there is no clear and simple answer.  Thousands of politicians, tens of thousands of decisions by those in power, the gyrations of corporations, an ill-informed public, and much, much more explains "how we got here".  Did Obama inherit some crap from 'W'?  Of course (as will whoever follows Obama inherit some of his crap).  'W' inherited some Clinton garbabe as Clinton inherited GHWB & Reagan garbage. 

Beware the easy answer, folks.