Tina Brown: Bush would have been impeached by now over Obama drone policy

[Stephanie]

links and video at site

posted at 10:01 am on February 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

This isn’t the first time this sentiment has been expressed, but it’s certainly a new venue for it. Daily Beast/Newsweek editor-in-chief Tina Brown follows up on Bill Maher’s observation that the Democratic reaction to Barack Obama’s drone use is somewhat hypocritical by claiming that Democrats would have impeached George W. Bush by now over it (via RCP):

BILL MAHER, HOST OF “REAL TIME” ON HBO: The Obama administration has been heavily targeting whistleblowers — true — and information activists. What can we do to hold the government accountable for this harsh crackdown?

TINA BROWN, NEWSWEEK: I mean, he’d be impeached by now for drones, if he was George W. Bush.

MAHER: Impeached? No.

BROWN: Yeah, don’t you think?

MAHER: Impeached, by who? Who would –

BROWN: I think if this was a Republican president, the outcry about drones would be far greater.

That outcry would have started with the national media, and not just about the drone attacks themselves. Bloomberg’s Noah Feldman writes today about a deeper problem with Obama’s drone usage and rationalization for it — the redefining of due process downward to mean essentially nothing:

all of it here
Tina Brown: Bush would have been impeached by now over Obama drone policy « Hot Air

 

[TheOldSchool]

If Bush didn't get impeached, then Obama's going to have to do way worse than a drone program

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Impeach Obama for killing American citizens? Wow, that's not even a high crime -- or a misdemeanor even!

 

[BlindBoo]

I agree with Bill. Impeached? By who? Oh I'm sure you would hear an out cry from the partisans who absolutely hated President Bush, but I seriously doubt that the House would have brought it up in committee.

 

[jwoodie]

If Bush didn't get impeached, then Obama's going to have to do way worse than a drone program

I was going to ask you to explain yourself, but then I thought: What's the use?

 

[MarcATL]

Tina Brown is a sexy older woman.

 

[Clementine]

With too many people, their views on things change depending on who holds the power. The left didn't want Bush having powers, such as the ones granted him by the patriotic act, yet were okay when Obama expanded on those powers.

Maybe someday people will step back and look at things from a better perspective. Government should have limited powers and yet they've managed to convince people over the years that it's okay to cede some freedom for our own good. It's bullshit. Government should answer to the people, not act as if they are above the people and have a right to lie to us. It's one thing to keep certain things secret for national security, but quite another to simply lie about their agenda.

It won't be until both sides can see clearly that government is out of bounds that we can begin to put things back on track. What I fear is that some people like having the government act as their boss or daddy and are perfectly willing to obey them. Those that are willing to cede that power need something in return. Likely, promises to take care of them is enough. I think some people will tolerate damn near anything as long as government promises to provide for them.

The fact that Obama can kill American citizens at his discretion is outrageous. Even if he was as smart as some think he is, no man should ever have that power. The same people who acted appalled at enhanced interrogation are fine with people being murdered without a trial or due process. Hell of a leap, there, isn't it, libs? Don't put a terrorist's head in water to make him uncomfortable and break him down, but killing some Americans because Obama says it's warranted is a good thing? That is seriously fucked up! I know damn well if Bush was in office, the left would be screaming bloody murder and would be right in doing so. Yet now, there is a creepy silence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

links and video at site

posted at 10:01 am on February 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

This isn’t the first time this sentiment has been expressed, but it’s certainly a new venue for it. Daily Beast/Newsweek editor-in-chief Tina Brown follows up on Bill Maher’s observation that the Democratic reaction to Barack Obama’s drone use is somewhat hypocritical by claiming that Democrats would have impeached George W. Bush by now over it (via RCP):

BILL MAHER, HOST OF “REAL TIME” ON HBO: The Obama administration has been heavily targeting whistleblowers — true — and information activists. What can we do to hold the government accountable for this harsh crackdown?

TINA BROWN, NEWSWEEK: I mean, he’d be impeached by now for drones, if he was George W. Bush.

MAHER: Impeached? No.

BROWN: Yeah, don’t you think?

MAHER: Impeached, by who? Who would –

BROWN: I think if this was a Republican president, the outcry about drones would be far greater.

That outcry would have started with the national media, and not just about the drone attacks themselves. Bloomberg’s Noah Feldman writes today about a deeper problem with Obama’s drone usage and rationalization for it — the redefining of due process downward to mean essentially nothing:

all of it here
Tina Brown: Bush would have been impeached by now over Obama drone policy « Hot Air

And Tina Brown received her law degree…where?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am looking at the drone program and it's implementation sans politics.
I view covert weaponry as an invaluable tool in an age where wars are fought with people who are of cultures where cruelty and brutality are looked upon as normal behavior.
If our president believes the use of drones as a tool to make surgical strikes against people who seek our destruction, so be it.
If those individuals happen to have been born in the US but have left the US and taken up arms against us, they are in effect no longer patriotic Americans. They are enemy combatants.
These people made a conscious choice to try to hurt us.
What happens to them is THEIR fault.