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

[Synthaholic]

I'll stick up for poor old Bush on that one.http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html

What she did has nothing to do with what Bush did.

It's inexcusable for a sitting Governor to smirk and joke and mock a condemned prisoner whose life is solely in his hands.

Fer ****'s sake, even Tucker Carlson was shocked and taken aback.

What Bush did was nothing compared to what Karla did to that poor girl cowering under a blanket pleading for her life. The real injustice is that Texas allow Karla to live for so long after her gruesome crime.

They are not equals. She was a murderer. He was the Governor, with the solemn duty to carry out an execution (or not).

Mocking a condemned prisoner is immature and beneath the office. Even the office of Texas Governor.

 

[KevinWestern]

There you go, Kevin!

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

Words mean things.

Bush lied when he said all diplomatic and peaceful means of resolution would not resolve the issue

Hans Blix had asked him to hold up his attack till he had more time to investigate. Bush pushed the attack because he knew his excuse for attacking would disappear if Blix could investigate more

Again, though Synth and Rightwinger, let's break it down.

What was the point of this bill? The main purpose of the bill was to give George Bush authorization to go to war if he deemed it necessary (am I not correct?)... at a time when there was not enough sufficient evidence or reason to go to war.

I have a very simple question, logical question: why didn't the Democrats just say, "let's wait until we've exhausted all options, and THEN we'll authorize you to use force"? Again, a good deal of Senators/reps like Dennis Kucinich asked this very question, yet was seemingly met with deaf ears.

The Democrats at the very least were extremely thick-headed and moronic for voting "yes" on this, and will always be partially to blame. Why moronic? Because you don't give a guy who has a family history of war mongering, and who's spewing aggressive rhetoric the "authorization to go to war" before there is solid evidence or need to do so. I can't believe you guys are trying to defend their actions like they're stupid little children who don't know any better.

The Dems failed us here, I hate to say it (and obviously the Republicans, too).

 

[Synthaholic]

That's false. Bush framed it as a last resort, and not wanting his hands tied. He also framed it as his stick in case Saddam didn't give up his WMDs.

The inspectors concluded there were no WMDs, but Bush invaded anyway.

Sorry - gotta run - Rachel's re-broadcast is on, and I have to go see her make fun of little Rand Paul wanting to challenge her to a duel!

Whether or not Bush framed it as a last resort is completely and utterly irrelevant, the point is that Democrats explicitly gave Bush the authorization to use force (aka start a war) in Iraq if he determines to do so.

Why wouldn't the Democrats - if they were sane - just demand that they vote on war when the time comes, lol? Why would they proactively give Bush - who's spouting aggressive rhetoric & has a family history of starting wars and aiding Nazis - the power to use military force if he finds it necessary? What do you think is going to happen?

I mean, are the Democrats complete morons?

How come Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and others all had the wisdom to vote 'no', demanding more evidence?

Addressing the red:

What short memories you all have. Bush said he needed this authority in advance because 'Saddam had mobile WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes'.

You don't remember this, or were you too young at the time?

 

[Synthaholic]

There you go, Kevin!

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

Words mean things.

Bush lied when he said all diplomatic and peaceful means of resolution would not resolve the issue

Hans Blix had asked him to hold up his attack till he had more time to investigate. Bush pushed the attack because he knew his excuse for attacking would disappear if Blix could investigate more

Exactly! And Blix wasn't the only emerging pressure against war. Saudi officials were also saying definitively that Saddam had no WMDs. And the Saudis were no friend of Saddam, obviously.

 

[KevinWestern]

Addressing the red:

What short memories you all have. Bush said he needed this authority in advance because 'Saddam had mobile WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes'.

You don't remember this, or were you too young at the time?

Ahhhhh, you're saying the Democrats were not responsible because George Bush told them something that was heard second hand from AN IRAQI TAXI DRIVER?! So really? That's all the evidence a Democrat needs to give a war mongerer the authorization to use military force against a country that never preemptively attacked the US, nor had any reasonable capability to do so at the time? The intelligence wasn't even gathered by the US!

Again, this is why so many Reps/Senators said "NO WAY", and I applaud them for it...

Sorry, but your defense is weeeaaaak my friend.

 

[Synthaholic]

Addressing the red:

What short memories you all have. Bush said he needed this authority in advance because 'Saddam had mobile WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes'.

You don't remember this, or were you too young at the time?

Ahhhhh, you're saying the Democrats were not responsible because George Bush told them something that was heard second hand from AN IRAQI TAXI DRIVER?! So really? That's all the evidence a Democrat needs to give a war mongerer the authorization to use military force against a country that never preemptively attacked the US, nor had any reasonable capability to do so at the time? The intelligence wasn't even gathered by the US!

Again, this is why so many Reps/Senators said "NO WAY", and I applaud them for it...

Sorry, but your defense is weeeaaaak my friend.

The Senate wasn't privy to all the intel before the war. Bush kept it from them because - he said - of national security concerns.

Do you not remember that, either?

(Iraqi taxi driver???)

 

[KevinWestern]

The Senate wasn't privy to all the intel before the war. Bush kept it from them because - he said - of national security concerns.

Do you not remember that, either?

(Iraqi taxi driver???)

Regarding the Taxi Driver.

Perhaps if the vote was on whether or not you should put a new row of trees in front of the capital you can base your final decision on a lack of solid evidence, but when we're talking about engaging in a war with a country and trillions of $'s you better make sure the deal is for real. You owe it to your constituents.

Here are three things the Congresspeople did know in 2002:
1.) Iraq never attacked the United States.
2.) Iraq did not have a reasonable capability to launch a deadly attack within the US (using common sense).
3.) Iraq was not involved in 9/11 or a key harboring point of terrorists. No evidence ever suggested Saddam is "aiding terrorists".

Given those three criteria and a LACK of solid evidence regarding the WMDs (word of mouth quotes from Taxi Drivers), it was every Congressperson's responsibility to vote "NO". If Congress doesn't question the President, who will? That's called checks and balances...

I'm simply looking for you to admit that the Democrats were partially to blame for the Iraq War. That's all.


.

 

[KevinWestern]

If it wasn't for the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dead human beings, the fact that we voted to go to war largely due to a second hand quote from a foreign gov't, who interviewed a foreign taxi cab driver who "overheard" something would be somewhat humorous.

 

[rightwinger]

The Senate wasn't privy to all the intel before the war. Bush kept it from them because - he said - of national security concerns.

Do you not remember that, either?

(Iraqi taxi driver???)

Regarding the Taxi Driver.

Perhaps if the vote was on whether or not you should put a new row of trees in front of the capital you can base your final decision on a lack of solid evidence, but when we're talking about engaging in a war with a country and trillions of $'s you better make sure the deal is for real. You owe it to your constituents.

Here are three things the Congresspeople did know in 2002:
1.) Iraq never attacked the United States.
2.) Iraq did not have a reasonable capability to launch a deadly attack within the US (using common sense).
3.) Iraq was not involved in 9/11 or a key harboring point of terrorists. No evidence ever suggested Saddam is "aiding terrorists".

Given those three criteria and a LACK of solid evidence regarding the WMDs (word of mouth quotes from Taxi Drivers), it was every Congressperson's responsibility to vote "NO". If Congress doesn't question the President, who will? That's called checks and balances...

I'm simply looking for you to admit that the Democrats were partially to blame for the Iraq War. That's all.


.

Congress failed. Republicans voted 100% to invade and some Democrats let themselves be bullied into supporting the invasion. It was a combination of post 9-11, let Bush do what he thinks he needs to do and fear of being labled "Soft on Terrorism"

The Media failed. We expect them to be our honest brokers and look beyond the patriotic rhetoric coming out of the Bush White House. For something as important as a war, I expect more than superficial evaluation of some pretty shaky evidence

Bush failed. In the end, it was a Bush initiative to find a reason to invade Iraq. He thought it would make him a great president....instead, it made him the worst in modern history

 

[KevinWestern]

Congress failed. Republicans voted 100% to invade and some Democrats let themselves be bullied into supporting the invasion. It was a combination of post 9-11, let Bush do what he thinks he needs to do and fear of being labled "Soft on Terrorism"

The Media failed. We expect them to be our honest brokers and look beyond the patriotic rhetoric coming out of the Bush White House. For something as important as a war, I expect more than superficial evaluation of some pretty shaky evidence

Bush failed. In the end, it was a Bush initiative to find a reason to invade Iraq. He thought it would make him a great president....instead, it made him the worst in modern history

Agree, however I would replace "some Democrats" with "a majority of Democrats in the Senate and 40% in the House". It's a significant enough number that we shouldn't be downplaying it.

But definitely good points (although I'd argue that Obama is giving Bush a run for his money, but that's just me ).

 

[rightwinger]

In the end, Bush got what he wanted........to be a Wartime President

He wasn't very good at it

 

[TooTall]

There you go, Kevin!

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

Words mean things.

Bush lied when he said all diplomatic and peaceful means of resolution would not resolve the issue

Hans Blix had asked him to hold up his attack till he had more time to investigate. Bush pushed the attack because he knew his excuse for attacking would disappear if Blix could investigate more

Here are a few things that Hans Blix said.

In his speech to the UN Security Council on 27 January 2003, Blix asked
awkward 'questions that need to be answered'. On chemical weapons he raised
the problem that: 'Some 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tons of
chemical agents and "several thousand" chemical rocket warheads are
unaccounted for.... Inspectors found a "laboratory quantity" of
thiodiglycol, a precursor of mustard gas.... Iraq has prepared equipment at
a chemical plant previously destroyed by the UN....' On biological weapons
he said: 'Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of
[anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
But Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing
evidence for its destruction.' He also warned, ominously, that Iraq's
anthrax 'might still exist' .

Indeed, Blix approached the inspections with the attitude that if he and his
team didn't find WMD that still wouldn't be evidence that said WMD did not
exist. Before setting off to inspect Iraq, he told a reporter that 'not
seeing something, not seeing an indication of something, does not lead
automatically to the conclusion that there is nothing'. He put Iraqis
in a no-win situation - if he found weapons there would be war, and if he
didn't find weapons, well, there might still be war. When he finally
delivered his report to the UN he tried to play to both camps, raising
suspicions about Saddam's wicked intentions while also calling for further
inspections to establish the truth. The pro-war lobby saw what they wanted
to see, with one reporter claiming that Blix's report 'greatly strengthened
the American and British case for war'.

 

[rightwinger]

What Blix concluded:


"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today.

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.







U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'd be more apt to support drone strikes if 1/4 of the victims weren't innocent bystanders and little kids. How is that supposed to help in a war against people who are "mad at us", lol?

Don't you see? This "war" is designed to last forever, and it will as long as you continue to buy into it.

Let's see...

Terrorists killed 3k in US and we retaliate by sending 6k (equivalent to two 9/11s) Americans to their deaths plus an additional couple hundred thousand middle easterners?

Who is the real monster here? (Hint, look at the stats)

But that was because we invaded the wrong country and took our eye off the ball... not that killing the terrorists wasn't a great idea.

 

[TooTall]

What Blix concluded:


"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today.

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.







U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq

Blix was the darling of the 'I love Saddam Hussein' anti-war, hate Bush, hate America crowd. Can you imagine poor old Saddam having to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces? We should be ashamed for showing disrespect for this wonderful person. I am sure you agree!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Even though we never found WMD in Iraq, we will EVENTUALLY find them online.

Stick a fork in WMD - it's a dead subject. WE INVADED THE DAMN COUNTRY WITH GROUND TROPPS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!!

Time to let that one go.

 

[rightwinger]

What Blix concluded:


"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today.

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.







U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq

Blix was the darling of the 'I love Saddam Hussein' anti-war, hate Bush, hate America crowd. Can you imagine poor old Saddam having to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces? We should be ashamed for showing disrespect for this wonderful person. I am sure you agree!

Blix was correct in his pre-war assessment. Bush was not

5000 American dead, tens of thousands wounded, 100,000 dead Iraqis

 

[Wildman]

Poor Obummer,


Just when you think things can't get any worse....a new book comes out detailing Obama's use of drones and his "God like, life-and-death power in the Oval Office."

And of course, we all know he has used these drones to kill U.S. Citizens without a trial or any form of due process.

Oh well, I guess it's better than putting them in Gitmo, right?


Here's a link to the full story. New book: Obama told aides that drones make him 'really good at killing people'

Why so obtuse? The point is not about killing the enemy. The point is bragging about, and taking pleasure in, killing other human beings. Only a brute or a psychopath takes pleasure in killing.

Do we need to fight radical Islam? Yes. Do I want my President to take glee and joy at killing people? No.

I think you clearly get the point. Nice try to play clueless.

Nice try moving the goal posts.....

.

More babbling incoherence. Is every Leftard an idiot?

actually, being an idiot is a basic requirement for being a demoncRAT/liarberal/progressive POS

 

[Sunshine]

More proof that Hussein is willing to put the constitution into the shredder.

WTF are you talking about? We're at war with the Taliban.

What part of that can't you understand?

He brings foreigners here for trials, but an American citizen is murdered without due process of law.

Real Nobel Peace Prize winner we have here. I wish they would take it back.

 

[Sunshine]

People can read the story and make up their own minds. I would never have made such a statement under any context. I doubt you would have made such a statement as well.

The quote is a mirror into Obama's mind. In my opinion, it is not a pretty picture.

When I was teaching my students, I taught them that there are many things they should NEVER make jokes about. Ever. It's OK for a nurse to make a joke about being able to wipe shit with one hand and eat with the other, but you never jokingly ask if a patient who has a lot of money is on a puffer.

Obama is a shit head. He has no boundaries and no common sense.