JBTaylor Loc: In hiding again

Interesting article at Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/targeted_killings_ok_if_obama_does_it/

Illustrates how many of us can't seem to judge an issue solely on its merits.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

First let me say that I have no issue using drones to kill these dirtbags. Second, I think the argument that we shouldn't do it is disingenuous or at the very least lacking thought.
So let's take the typical case. We know that John Doe is meeting with Al Qaeda and planning an attack on the USA. What should we do?
1. Do nothing at all and let him continue his planning.
2. Send in a special ops group and capture him, even though that may result in American deaths?
3. Invade the country where he is hiding and start a full blown war, possibly killing numerous civilians and American soldiers.
4. Turn him into a fine red mist with a Hellfire Missile from an unmanned drone.
I vote for number 4 and I think the only reason the right is opposing these actions is because they didn't do it.

Mattie

Yeah... and apparently Obama didnt have an issue when those 4 men in Benghazi were killed either.... cause he was AWOL.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Mattie, How do you feel about 4,486 Americans killed in Iraq in a war that was based upon the lies of Cheney and Bush?
That's what you should be outraged about.

JBTaylor Loc: In hiding again

Opposition could be disingenuous as you say but was it also disingenuous coming from the left when Bush was president? It's hard to judge unless somebody opposes "their guy" in the Whitehouse. There's different pros and cons to your #2 and #4.

Mattie

What hurts me the most... is that no President since Eisenhower has served in the Military... I think. Unless one has served in a war... none realize what this can do to a person's mind when retired from the Service. Daddy Bush did I believe did too.. not sure... but when I see these men coming back with legs gone, mind almost gone too.. arms shot off, I have often wondered if they regret serving. This is the saddest thing that ever was.. and I've often wondered if such a handicapped man coming home to a wife and kids.. how long will the wife stay with him...? This part bothers me the most... The thoughts of a wife/husband leaving him or her after a few years to find life elsewhere is too mind boggling to think about. When you love someone, it should be for life.. not when they get disabled or sick. I think about this when I see all these men who are so physically disabled and wonder how long that marriage will last... If a man is single.. and he has his parents only... they will be devoted to him for life...

There was a guy who lived next door to my Mother .. they were very rich people but had a son who was so physically disabled, it hurt to watch him walk.... but they made sure before they died his sister would take care of him.... but there are a lot of people who dont have money... what's to happen to them...

Are these Military hospitals good enough for those who are mentally broken and physically down.

So yes.. it bothers me that we dont elect a man as President who has served in the Military... only those will know the true dangers these men and women go through for their country... So when I see Clinton, dont know about Nixon... and Bush now Obama not caring about those disabled men or those who have died.... it makes me sick to my stomach.. So, yes... it bothers me tremendously.

My son tried to get in the Military but no branch of the services would take him cause his blood pressure was too high... It's nice to be able to serve when there is not a war...but it's certainly not any worse than when Hitler gassed all the Jews cause of his hatred of them...

Then you see all these men running the streets all over this country only serve what pleases them... they kill in the streets and rape without a thought in the world. What kind of mindset or upbringing did those kids have... But one thing for sure... Obama nor Clinton would have served in the Military even in Peace time...

Look at General David Patreous.... he's the one I felt the most sorry for.... Nothing was ever done to Eisenhour for shacking around... but although Patreous was the one who supposedly resigned his position as head of the CIA... If Obama had of been half the man this man was... he would have not accepted his resignation... Look what he did to General Stanley McChrystal. Obama's ego got the best of him... and I resented what he did to that man and to Patreous too... It wasn't fair... Obama acts like he was so innocent of all bad.... then to dismiss these two men for something far less than what he does and did..

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Frank, I have repeatedly seen it stated on this forum that the war in Iraq was precipitated by Bush and Cheney lying. Do you mean lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Which, by the way, was not the sole reason for the invasion. 8-)

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Bmac,
Why not start with these:
1) There were no weapons of mass destruction.
2) The Bush administration fabricated a relationship between Saddam Husein and Osama Bin Laden even though Bin Laden hated Saddam and considered him an infidel.
3) The Iraqi war will not cost the US taxpayers anything because it will be paid for with Iraqi oil
4) The war will take only 18 months.
5) VP Cheney,"We'll be greeted as liberators".
6) Cheney, who originally stated he did not support 'regime change' in Iraq changed his mind when elected Vice President.
7) A line drawn from Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, but that line nor any other connection actually existed.
Thanks for asking.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

There were no weapons of mass destruction found, and they could have been rather easily moved. But okay, let's not guess, they weren't found. How does that equate to Bush or Cheney lying?

Didn't Pelosi, both Clinton's, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Madeline Albright, Bob Graham, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, etc. etc. all think Iraq had or was developing WMD's. Were all these icons of the Democratic Party lying also?

The War in Iraq was a bi-partisan affair with overwhelming support from both parties who overwhelmingly believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or was developing.

By the way, do you honestly believe that had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would not have developed WMD's thus becoming a future threat and making it more difficult to contain him? 8-)

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

The Bush Administration, including Colin Powell, believed there was a relationship between Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein. Whether there was or not will probably never be known with complete certainty. Most experts believe it was not an operational relationship, if one existed at all.

I have seen no evidence that Bush fabricated or lied about this. It may be your opinion he did. 8-)

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

I agree that Colin Powell thought there were. But, he thought there were because he was given bad information by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. Bush on the other hand new that there was no yellow cake uranium deal in Africa and new that they were lying. He knew that the aluminum tubes couldn't be used for a centrifuge because he was told so by the top people in the field. It's not my "opinion" that they lied, it's fact.
I know that your conservative skin will crawl when I say this, but you need to read, "Hubris" and if not read it at least check out the TV version and hear what Powell has to say along with the FBI and the CIA.
Yes, the democrats also voted to go to war but that too was based upon false information.
Whether or not Saddam would have ever developed nuclear weapons is just pure speculation and makes no difference in the big scheme of things as we could have always gone to war with him if he tried to reinvigorate his nuclear program.
What was the rush to go to war? Just give me one good reason that was worth more than 4,000 American lives.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Bush and administrations officials believed that the bulk of the reconstruction of Iraq would be funded by Iraq's natural resources. This was optimistic opinion which is practiced by all government officials regarding anything financial. We both know things always cost more than estimated. As for Bush or Cheney stating the taxpayers would not pay "anything" this I have not seen.

In any event, there is no evidence anyone "lied" regarding this. 8-)

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Notice how the subject of the thread has been changed? Accident? Barry is accuser, judge and executioner. Sounds like other despots in history.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

#4 If that was said by either Bush or Cheney it was simply their opinion or estimate as to how long the war would take. Such things are rarely known for certain, certainly a wrong estimate is not a lie, unless evidence is offered that they knew the estimate would be incorrect.

#5 Again, this is an opinion or guess, and actually was initially so in some areas of the country.

#6 Whether your contentions are so or not really make no difference relative to the issue of lying. You state he changed his mind, this is not a lie.

#7 Where is there evidence of any lying?

It is disingenuous and easy to simply toss out allegations that someone has lied, or was lying, about this or that, and promoting this as fact without any evidence, nor does it strengthen your argument.

Your opinion may be that Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Kerry or Gore lied concerning the Iraq War, but it hardly is a provable fact. 8-)

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Bmac, Sorry but you are entitled to your own opinion, however, you are not entitled to your own facts.
They lied, plain and simple.
Read the book. I didn't mention Clinton, Kerry or Gore. This was a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush. The facts are all there for you to see. Read the book and if you don't want to do that then, watch the tapes: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/18/rachel_maddow_special_hubris.html