Obama's Secret "Kill List"

[Mikeg]

Here's an example of President Obama's promised "change we can believe in":

A Measure of Change - Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE
New York Times
Published: May 29, 2012

WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.
President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces..........

The NYT has confirmed that President Obama has repudiated his former view that the so-called "war on terror" should be waged in the courts and has come around to embrace George W. Bush's policy that is should be waged militarily.

Furthermore - and shades of Lyndon Baines Johnson - he is picking the "targets" himself! Only now 45 years later, he's authorizing drone strikes instead of B-52 carpet-bombing strikes. After consulting his "baseball cards" at his weekly nomination meetings in the WH Situation Room, Obama adds his new "targets" to an ever-expanding list, with the bonus that he doesn't have to worry about putting the lives of our military personnel at risk while eliminating those "targets".

What's a little collateral damage, when you no longer have to worry about "inhumane" interrogation techniques or expanding the "enemy combatant" population within that detention center that somehow withstood the stroke of his "Executive Order" pen.

Discuss among yourselves - what happens to Obama's "kill list" policy after:
a) there is no longer any fresh intel available from newly-captured terrorists?
b) drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for a seemingly endless supply of "militants"?
c) November 6, 2012?

[rb336]

The NYT has confirmed that President Obama has repudiated his former view that the so-called "war on terror" should be waged in the courts and has come around to embrace George W. Bush's policy that is should be waged militarily.

Where, exactly, does it say that? It sounds like it is pointing out that the President has kept all options open all along. I personally can not recall any instance when Obama said everything in the war on terror would only go through the courts. He always said terrorists would be tried in the courts "when feasible" as the article points out

[Mikeg]

Where, exactly, does it say that? It sounds like it is pointing out that the President has kept all options open all along. I personally can not recall any instance when Obama said everything in the war on terror would only go through the courts. He always said terrorists would be tried in the courts "when feasible" as the article points out

Where does it say that he is actually using any of those carefully-crafted, non-military, open options when it comes to the Taliban and al-Qaeda "militants" on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Yemen? The only difference between the policies of Obama and Dubya is that those on the left are now silent about Obama's.

[ejames01]

Where does it say that he is actually using any of those carefully-crafted, non-military, open options when it comes to the Taliban and al-Qaeda "militants" on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Yemen? The only difference between the policies of Obama and Dubya is that those on the left are now silent about Obama's.

So the real problem is that you just don't like "The Left"?

[coracle]

From lucianne.com today;

[Zacha341]

Impressive list -- -- yet while we're in this election cycle all such 'lists', legitimate or spurious, including some listed specifics will be dismissed as right-wing 'talking points'!

If the present POTUS is criticized for a policy, it's rolled off as just mud-slinging - not legitimate. Just a means for the other party to win! Sadly that is the way of it...

Once the president elect wins then we can 'maybe' challenge policies going forth and incoming. Such is the case also if Romney gets in, in certain areas.

From lucianne.com today;

[Papasito]

From lucianne.com today;

This is Epic.

[Mikeg]

So the real problem is that you just don't like "The Left"?

Typical. Change the subject. Hang a negative characterization on the original poster. Another accusation dressed up as a question, like Patrick's shopworn smear of those who dare criticize Obama's perfomance: "Are you still having trouble coming to terms that there is a black guy in the White House?"

I can respond with questions, too - but these won't be personal or off-topic.

Would you agree with those who say that despite the naivety and lack of executive experience he brought to the job of the Presidency, Obama was smart enough to realize and accept the fact that some of the decisions made by his predecessor [[and which he had attacked during his campaign) were actually made in the best interests of our national security?

Do you think it is the best use of a President's time to become personally involved in the selection of individuals who will become drone strike targets?

Do you agree that there will be some negative, long-term impacts from a "take no prisoners" drone strategy?

Are you comfortable with the Obama Administration's creative accounting method that reduces the number of officially-recorded civilian casualties from drone strikes? You know, that new policy that automatically considers all males in the vicinity of a drone strike to be "militants" so that if they are also killed along with the "target" they are not considered civilians or collateral damage.

Do you have anything at all to say about the topic of this thread?

[firstandten]

Typical. Change the subject. Hang a negative characterization on the original poster. Another accusation dressed up as a question, like Patrick's shopworn smear of those who dare criticize Obama's perfomance: "Are you still having trouble coming to terms that there is a black guy in the White House?"

I can respond with questions, too - but these won't be personal or off-topic.

Would you agree with those who say that despite the naivety and lack of executive experience he brought to the job of the Presidency, Obama was smart enough to realize and accept the fact that some of the decisions made by his predecessor [[and which he had attacked during his campaign) were actually made in the best interests of our national security?

Do you think it is the best use of a President's time to become personally involved in the selection of individuals who will become drone strike targets?

Do you agree that there will be some negative, long-term impacts from a "take no prisoners" drone strategy?

Are you comfortable with the Obama Administration's creative accounting method that reduces the number of officially-recorded civilian casualties from drone strikes? You know, that new policy that automatically considers all males in the vicinity of a drone strike to be "militants" so that if they are also killed along with the "target" they are not considered civilians or collateral damage.

Do you have anything at all to say about the topic of this thread?

Good questions ! Let me chime in on a couple. First of all President Obama did lack executive experience when he first got into office, however he is anything but naive. To think that is to seriously underestimate him. As a political opponent you do that at the risk of you being out maneuvered by him.

All presidents build on some of the policies of their predecessors regardless of the party. Bush had a lot of crappy policies in place but he had some good ones as well. Those are the ones you take, build on and sometimes don't even mess with. Thats the difference between a partisan stupid president and one with the best interest of the American people at heart.

There will be some negative impact from this policy no doubt, but he weighing that against being perceived as being weak in foreign policy and especially weak on terrorism. He has probably made the decision its better to take the hit on the former rather than the latter.

Sure its an appropriate use of his time to become involved. Just like he was involved in the other operations of the military that could have an effect on his presidency. Look he's meeting with those people anyway, probably on a daily schedule. So its not like its taking from all the other things he must do. Besides he's smart enough to know that even while praising his military leaders he knows they have an agenda that doesn't necessarily mesh cleanly with his, and its his presidency at stake.


Don't really have any thoughts on this other than what my parents used to tell me growing up. They said you may not like this but you are who you associate with. Its unfair but a fact of life.

[Patrick]

Typical. Change the subject. Hang a negative characterization on the original poster. Another accusation dressed up as a question, like Patrick's shopworn smear of those who dare criticize Obama's perfomance: "Are you still having trouble coming to terms that there is a black guy in the White House?"

I can respond with questions, too - but these won't be personal or off-topic.

Would you agree with those who say that despite the naivety and lack of executive experience he brought to the job of the Presidency, Obama was smart enough to realize and accept the fact that some of the decisions made by his predecessor [[and which he had attacked during his campaign) were actually made in the best interests of our national security?

Do you think it is the best use of a President's time to become personally involved in the selection of individuals who will become drone strike targets?

Do you agree that there will be some negative, long-term impacts from a "take no prisoners" drone strategy?

Are you comfortable with the Obama Administration's creative accounting method that reduces the number of officially-recorded civilian casualties from drone strikes? You know, that new policy that automatically considers all males in the vicinity of a drone strike to be "militants" so that if they are also killed along with the "target" they are not considered civilians or collateral damage.

Do you have anything at all to say about the topic of this thread?

But you still have not come to terms with Obama being in the White House and it has made you and your ilk paranoid.

[Zacha341]

There are some difference but I see your larger point... The silence in many areas is deafening and yet not a surprise.

Partisan loyalty is why this tendency continues.

The only difference between the policies of Obama and Dubya is that those on the left are now silent about Obama's.

[firstandten]

There are some difference but I see your larger point... The silence in many areas is deafening and yet not a surprise.

Partisan loyalty is why this tendency continues.

Not really, Obama's getting it from the far left At least those folks are consistant with not killing folks in the name of national security.

[Zacha341]

I can see that. He would be getting a level of push-back indeed. After all he is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...aureates/2009/

Not really, Obama's getting it from the far left At least those folks are consistant with not killing folks in the name of national security.

[Ray1936]

Well, if we run out of terrorists to hit, we can change our attention to the Mexican drug cartels. Plenty to off there. Okay with me.

[firstandten]

Boy, you sure put our prez in a no-win situation. If he had followed the liberal model of foreign policy that you guys would like to see, which is a false model by the way then you would be talking about how soft he is on terrorist, because lets face it thats what you really want to say.

But this man doesn't mind killing enemies of the state its just he does it surgically and doesn't go around bombing the hell out of people which is what you folks get off on. So you got to find something wrong with that has well.

If you said killing is wrong period, end-of-story your comments would be more credible

[oladub]

But this man doesn't mind killing enemies of the state its just he does it surgically and doesn't go around bombing the hell out of people which is what you folks get off on.

Libya: Bombs away with no declaration of war, in violation of the war powers act, and without the consent of Congress.

Terrorist are like drug dealers, you kill one and ten are ready to take his place, until you change the conditions in those countries things will stay the same.

Sounds like mission impossible. We should change conditions in Detroit first.

[firstandten]

Libya: Bombs away with no declaration of war, in violation of the war powers act, and without the consent of Congress.

That is a NATO production so I don't count that. Anyway, thats not his style he has said many times he rather use a scalpel than an ax. That goes for the budget or national security. He's pretty consistant about that.

Sounds like mission impossible. We should change conditions in Detroit first.

Absolutely. Changing the conditions applies if you want to get rid of drug dealers or terrorist. The billion dollar question is how do you do it?

[oladub]

firstandten: That is a NATO production so I don't count that. Anyway, thats not his style he has said many times he rather use a scalpel than an ax. That goes for the budget or national security. He's pretty consistant about that.

The NATO convention only authorizes the use of force against countries if they have attacked a NATO country. Libya did no such thing. In fact, Libya had dismantled it's nuclear program to cooperate with western countries. It is his style if he did it.

Absolutely. Changing the conditions applies if you want to get rid of drug dealers or terrorist. The billion dollar question is how do you do it?

Agreed. Ron Paul suggest that we stop meddling in other countries' affairs, occupying their counties, and killing them. I would add that we should keep potential terrorists out of this country. The drug dealers will persist as long as we tolerate or support them.

[rb336]

The NATO convention only authorizes the use of force against countries if they have attacked a NATO country. Libya did no such thing. In fact, Libya had dismantled it's nuclear program to cooperate with western countries. It is his style if he did it.

the Libyan authorization was conducted under UNSC resolution 1973. NATO is authorized under treaty, although not the Washington Treaty, to act militarily under crisis management provisions of the strategic concepts of both 1991 and 1999. This includes acting in accordance with UNSC resolutions

[firstandten]

Discuss among yourselves - what happens to Obama's "kill list" policy after:
a) there is no longer any fresh intel available from newly-captured terrorists?
b) drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for a seemingly endless supply of "militants"?
c) November 6, 2012?

a) Terrorist are like drug dealers, you kill one and ten are ready to take his place, until you change the conditions in those countries things will stay the same

b) Again terrorist need something to rally around if its not drones, or Gitmo it would be something else.

c) On Nov 7 Obama will ask his national security advisors for an update on the ongoing kill list, in other words business as usual.

[firstandten]

One less on the kill list. This time the number two man in al-qaeda


http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-dron...205201954.html

[Detroitnerd]

It's downright sad to see people who would call themselves progressives hew to the Obama administration line. I had to put up with eight years of self-described conservatives derail real discussions by bleating, "But Clinton ...!" and now I have to abide by self-described lefties embrace lesser-evilism and defend a president who is essentially practicing continuity with the Bush administration ...

[firstandten]

It's downright sad to see people who would call themselves progressives hew to the Obama administration line. I had to put up with eight years of self-described conservatives derail real discussions by bleating, "But Clinton ...!" and now I have to abide by self-described lefties embrace lesser-evilism and defend a president who is essentially practicing continuity with the Bush administration ...

Some wars need to be fought and some threats need to be responded to.

What shouldn't happen is going to war over a lie or to take a countries resourses for our use and claim its in our national interest.

If someone wants to kill you and will do anything in their power to make sure that happens. It better be in your best interest to respond... aggressively