Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The administration did comment....they said he wasn't the target and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.....that they didn't know he was present.
Of course they said that.
Well, there you go. You don't believe it....can't and don't care to change your mind....it's your right......but then again, over the past four years.....people like you have made the "truthers".....people who believe GWB was behind the WTC attacks on 9/11....look rational.
Face it.....you're no better.
what's it say when we swear in a president? or even when we join the military? "all enemies....foreign or domestic"
The boy was with legitimate terriorist targets, I'm as conservative as they come, but I have no problem wiith his being killed. His father brought him into the terriorist world and he stayed after his father was killed. There should be no place in the world these people can hide, if we find them and have the capability we should take them out. There should be absolutely no, no fire zones.
His cousin having a barbecue amounts to "legitimate terrorist targets?" Now I'm sure that's the U.S. government's story, so far as they're even willing to comment, which is not far, but we have to remember that their definition of combatant, or terrorist, is any military-age male who happens to be in a strike-zone. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't give much credence to the label "terrorist" when it's used by the administration.
Of course they said that.
Well, there you go. You don't believe it....can't and don't care to change your mind....it's your right......but then again, over the past four years.....people like you have made the "truthers".....people who believe GWB was behind the WTC attacks on 9/11....look rational.
Face it.....you're no better.
I don't believe them when they say that he wasn't the target on one hand and say that he should have picked a different father on the other. Yet you, for some obscure reason that probably has to do with the fact that Obama is black, believe anything he says.
That does not make me a truther, it makes me wonder why they are telling two different stories.
Well, there you go. You don't believe it....can't and don't care to change your mind....it's your right......but then again, over the past four years.....people like you have made the "truthers".....people who believe GWB was behind the WTC attacks on 9/11....look rational.
Face it.....you're no better.
I don't believe them when they say that he wasn't the target on one hand and say that he should have picked a different father on the other. Yet you, for some obscure reason that probably has to do with the fact that Obama is black, believe anything he says.
That does not make me a truther, it makes me wonder why they are telling two different stories.
Yeah....he should have had a better father. He probably should have had a better grandfather too. When his son was killed, why didn't he bring his grandson back to the States? Instead of letting him run around with terrorists. That fact doesn't even come close to conflicting with the statement that he wasn't a target and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Of course, only a bigot would play the "****** lover" card.....and the fact that you still think it was all about the number of bayonets? Yeah....you're not only a "truther-type"....but one of the rabid ones.
Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
97% of Americans approve the drone list, KK.
What a silly blurb. No one cornered or badgered Gibbs. He was asked a question and gave basically "get the fuck out of my face and grow up if you don't get that we are at war" answer.
You don't like it? Tuff.
Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
97% of Americans approve the drone list, KK.
What a silly blurb. No one cornered or badgered Gibbs. He was asked a question and gave basically "get the fuck out of my face and grow up if you don't get that we are at war" answer.
You don't like it? Tuff.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wasn't aware they had polled the issue.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The AtlanticAsked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:
Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube
First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
what's it say when we swear in a president? or even when we join the military? "all enemies....foreign or domestic"
Bleeding-heart liberals suddenly don't care about killings.States Rights Crackers all of a sudden care about killings? If I were from the South I'd crawl under a rock when a discussion is about the morality of killing
97% of Americans approve the drone list, KK.
What a silly blurb. No one cornered or badgered Gibbs. He was asked a question and gave basically "get the fuck out of my face and grow up if you don't get that we are at war" answer.
You don't like it? Tuff.
I wasn't aware they had polled the issue.
Fakey makes facts up all the time.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.
I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.
Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.
Would you care to be the first one?
defensive are we???????? ARe you saying it's unfair to bring up civilian deaths during war? Welcome to the club, we know lierals change their tune once their guys get in office....now it;s ok
Cons and libs will approve death by drone when their guy is in office.
Such a specious discussion.
You just lied again, QWB.
You are so easy to bat around.
Watch out! There is a drone over you!!!
I wasn't aware they had polled the issue.
Fakey makes facts up all the time.
Cons and libs will approve death by drone when their guy is in office.
Such a specious discussion.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that those of us who consistently oppose Presidential power grabs can't have a real discussion. It's only specious when you have partisans from both sides calling the other hypocrites.
