Quote :

"Kind of like all the outrage over the patriot act but nothing over the NDAA...."

i was too emotionally weak to watch the debates in their entirety, but not one mention of indefinite detention, right?

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ...]

10/24/2012 9:08:30 PM

I didn't see all of them either but I never heard it mentioned. Amazing since it is one of the biggest violations of our rights in the history of the US.

10/24/2012 9:48:19 PM

From the President's swing state "48-hour-fly-around-marathon campaign extravaganza" tour:



[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2012 9:50:16 PM

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/richard-mourdock-john-mccain.php?ref=fpa

Quote :

"McCain Helps Push Romney’s Mourdock Headaches Into Day Two If Mitt Romney was hoping the Richard Mourdock story he’s deeply entwined in would go away fast, he apparently didn’t get the memo to one of his top surrogates."

10/25/2012 8:06:08 AM

My daily morning blog post.

For all this talk about the liberal MSM propping Obama up its been rather one sided the other way since Denver. I'm not sure why I'm seeing Mittmentum (which is a phrase, by the way, that makes me want to strangle puppies) still all over the place.

He got a huge bounc from Denver but since then it's been very flat and recely even a slight uptick to Obama.

Also, I see a AP article on the wire this morning about the gender gap with women being GONE. But in that same article it says Obama is virtually level with men. All this based on one poll and both I find very hard to believe.

10/25/2012 8:13:35 AM

^Denver was a huge deal for this election. There are a ton of voters out there that were waiting for the debates to make a decision. With the impact that Denver had on people for Mitt Romney, the other debates just didn't matter as long as he maintained his composure and presidential demeanor. There are so many people on the fence about Obama that one debate can make such a huge difference.

Obama spent most of his time in the debates attacking...i think most people that watch debates are knowledgeable enough to see right through that...he looked less presidential than Romney did for the entire 4.5 hrs of debates.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM. Reason : d]

10/25/2012 9:28:29 AM

I clearly said he got a bounce from Denver.

Anyway, for the record, my post came before 538's last blog entry which is basically exactly what I said. The media part even is reflected in the last part of his entry.

10/25/2012 11:06:21 AM

"Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney’s Momentum Seems to Have Stopped"
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/

Quote :

"Mr. Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate, putting himself in a much stronger overall position in the race. However, it seems that he is no longer doing so. Take Wednesday’s national tracking polls, for instance. (There are now eight of them published each day.) Mr. Romney gained ground in just one of the polls, an online poll conducted for Reuters by the polling organization Ipsos. He lost ground in five others, with President Obama improving his standing instead in those surveys."

Momentum over and behind in the swing states polls, and way behind in the early vote turnout.

"Obama up 1 in national tracking"
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-up-1-in-national-tracking.html

Quote :

"Barack Obama moved slightly ahead in the rolling three day average of PPP's national tracking tonight, 49-48. He was down 49-47 in Monday night's release but has gained a net 3 points as interviews from Tuesday and Wednesday have replaced those conducted on Saturday and Sunday. The key for Obama is that he's reduced Romney's lead with independents in the wake of his debate win on Monday night."

10/25/2012 11:14:25 AM

Quote :

"i think most people that watch debates are knowledgeable enough to see right through that...he looked less presidential than Romney did for the entire 4.5 hrs of debates."

Because when I think "Presidential" I think flushed, angry, sweating, whining, and completely unable to think on his feet or answer a question he hadn't prepared for.

10/25/2012 11:23:35 AM

I also think of "lying incessantly" so again Romney's perfect

10/25/2012 11:46:00 AM

Quote :

"Obama spent most of his time in the debates attacking...i think most people that watch debates are knowledgeable enough to see right through that...he looked less presidential than Romney did for the entire 4.5 hrs of debates."

This is some straight up horse shit.

People take away what they want from the debates. When Romney attacked, people like you probably thought he looked strong, assertive, and sincere. When Obama does it, you think he looks petty and aggressive.

The polls show that Romney won the first debate, and that Obama won the second two debates in the eyes of the majority of Americans. Period. Trying to rationalize and paint a monolithic picture on the whole thing just makes you look simple.

10/25/2012 11:47:56 AM

when you're running against a man that has no solid platform to speak of, you really have no choice but to point out the fact that he has no solid platform to speak of. you certainly can't argue on policy b/c, as romney has demonstrated for the entirety of all three debates, he's more than willing to flat out deny saying things that he said, on camera, in the past week.

10/25/2012 12:02:35 PM

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-lead-in-virginia-up-to-5-points.html

Quote :

"A new Public Policy Polling survey in Virginia, conducted on behalf of Health Care for America Now, finds Barack Obama expanding his lead in the aftermath of his debate victory Monday night. He now has 51% to 46% for Mitt Romney, up from a 49/47 advantage last weekend."

"Dead heat."

10/25/2012 12:13:48 PM

One more debate comment, when romney came out and said that he likes government regulation, i thought that it waa as shocking as obama saying repeal roe v wade. And none of the repyvlicans cared.

10/25/2012 12:37:08 PM

My take on the last debate was that Romney knew he'd lose one way or another so he acted like a wounded animal on stage to essentially garner pity and make Obama look like a big meanie-pants.

10/25/2012 12:56:03 PM

Attacking me is not a strategy




Cry baby, way to act like a man

10/25/2012 1:17:37 PM

To Shrike:







http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

Quote :

"1. Terrorist attacks in Pakistan have gone down as drone strikes have gone up. The attacks have been demoralizing to terrorist groups, as confirmed by notes found in OBL's safe house. What blowback? "

This blowback:

Quote :

""'Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims' . . . . "'I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.'""

-- Faisal Shahzad (failed Times Square bomber):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062102468.html?hpid=moreheadlines

You seriously think the Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with our aggressive, imperialist foreign policy? There's a reason why they're attacking US embassies, and not Brazilian embassies. It's because we're there. This is not a radical idea. When you wage a war on people, they swing back. Even Donald Rumsfeld acknowledges that:



http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Quote :

"2. The number of civilians killed by drone strikes have gone down significantly starting in 2010, compared to the period of 2004-2009, based on interviews with actual people on the ground, not government reports. What moral bankruptcy? As long as you concede that lethal force is sometimes necessary, drones appear to be the most moral way to go about it."

Nope:

Quote :

"Far more civilians have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas than U.S. counter-terrorism officials have acknowledged, a new study by human rights researchers at Stanford University and New York University contends. The report, "Living Under Drones," also concludes that the classified CIA program has not made America any safer and instead has turned the Pakistani public against U.S. policy in the volatile region. It recommends that the Obama administration reevaluate the program to make it more transparent and accountable, and to prove compliance with international law."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-drone-study-20120925,0,5793737.story


You have to be a fucking idiot to believe in all sincerity that a robot in the sky can strike only the bad guys with pinpoint precision. The far more likely scenario, is that numbers are being cooked right along the charred remains of Pakistani children:

Quote :

"While western media outlets are generally quick to report official US accounts of drone strikes and their attendant casualties, those government sources have proved to be unreliable. Civilian death toll figures cited by the Obama administration during the last few years have been so low[155] that even the most conservative nongovernmental civilian casualty estimates—including those released by think tanks such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies[156] and the Jamestown Foundation[157]—contradict the administration’s claims.[158] Most recently, officials in the Obama administration asserted that civilian casualties in Pakistan have been “exceedingly rare,”[159] perhaps even in the “single digits” since Obama took office.[160] These estimates are far lower than media reports, eyewitness accounts, and the US government’s own anonymous leaks suggest.[161] A recent exposé in the New York Times partially helped to explain the White House’s astonishingly low estimates by revealing that the Obama administration considers “all military-age males [killed] in a strike zone” to be “combatants . . . unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”[162] How the US would go about gathering such posthumous evidence is unclear, in part because drone victims’ bodies are frequently dismembered, mutilated, and burned beyond recognition.[163] And importantly, there is little evidence that US authorities have engaged in any effort to visit drone strike sites or to investigate the backgrounds of those killed.[164] Indeed, there is little to suggest that the US regularly takes steps even to identify all of those killed or wounded."

http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

Quote :

"3. A congressional oversight committee has been reviewing drone strikes for more than 2 years. What lack of accountability?"

This is the saddest insight into your thinking. Does this congressional oversight committee contact US citizens who have been targeted for assassination? Do they put them on trial and give them a chance to prove their innocence? How many of those congressional oversight committee members are present in the kill-list meetings? How many of them sign off on these extrajudicial killings? You know the fucking answer to these questions.

Quote :

"5. After going up in 2010 and 2011, the number of total strikes are down significantly in 2012. What mission creep?"

It's a shame I don't have enough money to buy stock. Because if I did, I would invest in Vanguard industries, Aerovironment, and Alliant Techsystems -- the companies who makes drones. I promise you, that by the end of the decade, you will be paying a speeding ticket from a picture taken by one of these fucking things.

Quote :

"I understand where you're coming from, I really do. The problem is your ranting has absolutely no basis in reality."

Riddle me this, then: Why are you all of a sudden so much more tolerant of wars of aggression now that a Democrat is in office? Do you not realize that increased foreign aggression ALWAYS leads to a power grab that ends up in less civil liberties for you, as an individual? I bet you were outraged at the idea that Bush was able to wiretap your phone without a warrant. Yet here you are, in 2012, with an authoritarian mindset cheerleading the cause; not saying a goddamn word when the president of the United States has granted himself, AND EVERY PRESIDENT THAT FOLLOWS, the authority to KILL U.S. citizens without trial. Are you ready to let Mitt Romney have that same authority?

Honestly, you can't intellectualize it. The only thing different than the Bush wars vs the Obama wars is the method of implementation. The response and hostility that we are met with is still the same, which should be the most obvious fucking thing in the world, because people living in occupation don't care if they're being terrorized by humans or by robots. You, as an American, are just as much at risk for a terrorist attack now as you were when we were actively occupying Iraq. And foreign citizens and civilians are dying needlessly just the same, fueling anti-American sentiment around the world.

So what's the fucking benefit? Apparently, the distinction between manned conflict vs unmanned conflict is enough for milquetoast Democrats like you to shed the veneer of progressivism and embrace endless military adventures.



Awesome. I'm sure you're pro-choice, though, so I guess you can go to bed tonight feeling better than those big bad Republicans.

10/25/2012 1:30:38 PM

Quote :

"Attacking me is not a strategy Cry baby, way to act like a man"

^ actually he said "attacking me is not an agenda"

which he is correct. BO chose to attack MR because he cant run on his previous 4 yrs of presidency. Should be pretty obvious.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2012 1:30:50 PM

i think he chose to attack romney, because he needed to be called out on not having a coherent platform and for lying, pretty obvious

10/25/2012 1:32:49 PM

In a world where the gop didnt bend and tarnish facts ro misrepresent them obama could run on his past for years. Profits and earnings are up since the recession.

10/25/2012 1:37:16 PM

^^^^shrike pwnt, stay the fuck home

don't count on him reading it, though. apparently, he spends most of his time these days jacking off to opinion polls.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2012 1:38:25 PM

^^^^Except he has been at the debates talking about the last 4 years.

"OBL", "auto industry", "healthcare", "unemployment", "we're not in the 2nd Great Depression".

You just don't want to listen. You'll plug your ears and scream "DEBT DEBT DEBT" like Republicans don't deficit spend or something.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2012 1:41:26 PM

Quote :

"which he is correct. BO chose to attack MR because he cant run on his previous 4 yrs of presidency. Should be pretty obvious."

Right...that's why Mitt ran on Obama's previous 4 years by essentially agreeing with him on everything foreign policy related. Yup. Should be pretty obvious.

10/25/2012 2:20:14 PM

that's not a surprise, seeing as obammy just continued all of bush's policies

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2012 2:26:58 PM

That explains why.we invaded iran.

10/25/2012 2:31:41 PM

JesusHChrist you have officially jumped the shark. Your post is nothing but a collection of confirmation bias and intentionally misleading drivel.

First of all, on the civilian deaths, you are just plain wrong.

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Quote :

"According to data compiled by the New America Foundation from reliable news reports, 337 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan have killed an estimated 1,908 to 3,225 people since 2004, of which 1,618 - 2,769 were reported to be militants. This means the average non-militant casualty rate over the life of the program is 15-16 percent. In 2012 it has been 1-2 percent, down sharply from its peak in 2006 of over 60 percent."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

Quote :

"Since 2006, there have been 2,431 leaders and operatives from Taliban, Al Qaeda, and allied extremist groups killed and 139 civilians killed. Data for 2004 and 2005 are not available at this time."

[link]http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37165[/link]

Quote :

"According to our database, as of June 19, 2010, there have been a total of 144 confirmed CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, killing a total of 1,372 people. Of those killed, only 68 (or 4.95%) could be clearly identified as civilians, while 1,098 (or 80%) were reported to be “militants” or “suspected militants” (see Figure 4). "

Multiple reports, multiple data sources, all pointing to the same conclusion: civilian casualties from drone strikes are low and have gotten lower since Obama took office, approaching almost 0% in 2012. Show me some data, any data, that refutes this point. I don't care what some biased report by people who clearly have an agenda, like yourself, have to say. The actual evidence is pretty damn one sided. I take specific issue with this retarded comment,

Quote :

"You have to be a fucking idiot to believe in all sincerity that a robot in the sky can strike only the bad guys with pinpoint precision. "

Dude, you do realize we live in 2012, right? I can pick up my smart phone and chat in HD with a family member in Egypt while hiking through a snowstorm in the middle of Utah. Hell, we've had cameras on cruise missles for two decades, and you're acting like it's impossible for a pilot to remotely pinpoint targets from a few hundred feet up. Not to mention calling them "robots" (or even drones, they are really UAVs) is a misnomer. They are not autonomous. Who's the idiot? Educate yourself,

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/whats_not_wrong_with_drones

Quote :

"Journalist Daniel Klaidman reports the words of one CIA drone operator, a former Air Force pilot: "I used to fly my own air missions.... I dropped bombs, hit my target load, but had no idea who I hit. [With drones], I can look at their faces... see these guys playing with their kids and wives.... After the strike, I see the bodies being carried out of the house. I see the women weeping and in positions of mourning. That's not PlayStation; that's real.""

So again, you're completely wrong.

..

On blowback, you're quoting a terrorist. Hardly a reliable source. The truth is, yes, Pakistani's and Yemeni's as a whole oppose drone strikes. Of course, they also opposed the raid on OBL and generally have adverse reactions to anything we do in their country, as any country probably world. However, when you start talking to people close to the problem, the narrative changes just a bit.

http://theriskyshift.com/2012/07/a-milder-war-drones-pastun-public-opinion/

Quote :

"Brian Glyn Williams, writing in the journal Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, points to evidence that in some sections of Pashtun society, support from drone strikes on Taliban targets is high. His sources include three separate polls that showed either direct support for the strikes, or support for the Pakistani state versus the Taliban insurgency. One such poll – the first of its kind in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, according to Williams – was conducted in 2009 by Pakistani think-tank the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. It found that people actually living in areas that had come under Taliban rule – where they have closed girls’ schools and executed locals – are more inclined to support the American drone strikes. A few of the “unexpected results”: only 45 percent of Pashtuns questioned felt that drone strikes brought “fear and terror to the common people,” 60 percent said the militants were damaged by the strikes, 70 percent said that the Pakistanis should carry out their own strikes against the militants."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/drone-strikes-sideshow-pakistan-yemen

Quote :

"A strikingly similar point is made by Christopher Swift, a lawyer and political scientist who conducted 40 interviews with Yemeni tribal leaders and Islamist politicians across the country in June. In Yemen, "drones aren't the primary driver of al-Qaida recruiting," Swift says. "Economic desperation, corruption, breakdown of traditional culture, they are driving recruitment." Swift's research echoes Williams' fieldwork among Pakistani tribal leaders. "The closer I got to people who are actively fighting al-Qaida in Yemen, the more they wanted the US to maintain its drone programme," Swift, an adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown University, says. Away from the battleground, in cities and in educated circles, people were militantly opposed to drones and saw them as a neocolonial instrument. The closer you are to the problem, says Swift, the more you understand the value of force as a policy instrument."

tl;dr: there is little evidence supporting the view that drones create terrorists, and people who actually live under the thumb of the extremists targeted by drones welcome the strikes. Kinda odd that neither the Stanford report or the NYT mentioned this. I also see that you conveniently ignored how the governments of these countries welcome Obama's drones, not to mention the clear negative correlation between drone strikes and terrorist attacks.
..

Quote :

"This is the saddest insight into your thinking. Does this congressional oversight committee contact US citizens who have been targeted for assassination? Do they put them on trial and give them a chance to prove their innocence? How many of those congressional oversight committee members are present in the kill-list meetings? How many of them sign off on these extrajudicial killings? You know the fucking answer to these questions."

No, but we're talking about Obama's approach vs Bush's. One keeps the CIA on a short leash, personally overseas every single strike, and lets congress in on what they are doing. The other did not.

..

Quote :

"Honestly, you can't intellectualize it. The only thing different than the Bush wars vs the Obama wars is the method of implementation."

Even if this were true, you can't just shrug this point off. Execution matters. Would you rather have 10 years of Iraq or 1 month of Libya?

Quote :

"The response and hostility that we are met with is still the same, which should be the most obvious fucking thing in the world, because people living in occupation don't care if they're being terrorized by humans or by robots. You, as an American, are just as much at risk for a terrorist attack now as you were when we were actively occupying Iraq. And foreign citizens and civilians are dying needlessly just the same, fueling anti-American sentiment around the world."

Again, this is just your opinion. There is no evidence supporting that Obama's drone policy has had any of the negative effects you're attributing to it. Kind of a recurring theme for your post. Seriously dude, it took you like 2 days to respond, and you've contributed nothing of substance. Just like Romney.

..

Quote :

"^^^^shrike pwnt, stay the fuck home"

Oh shut the fuck up or get off the sidelines and say something constructive you fucking tool.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 2:55 PM. Reason : :]

10/25/2012 2:52:41 PM

Quote :

"According to data compiled by the New America Foundation from reliable news reports, 337 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan have killed an estimated 1,908 to 3,225 people since 2004, of which 1,618 - 2,769 were reported to be militants. This means the average non-militant casualty rate over the life of the program is 15-16 percent. In 2012 it has been 1-2 percent, down sharply from its peak in 2006 of over 60 percent.""

how is "militant" defined?

Quote :

"I don't care what some biased report by people who clearly have an agenda, like yourself, have to say."

what agenda do you think the people behind the Stanford/NYU study, journalists like Glenn Greenwald, and internet message board posters like JesusHChrist have? i ask this because your assertion seems to question their integrity. do you believe they're secret Romney operatives intent on subverting support for Obama? do you believe they're reactionaries who simply get off on going against the grain? could you believe that they legitimately think that the killing of strangers thousands miles of away is both morally wrong and in no way makes their lives safer?

Quote :

"Would you rather have 10 years of Iraq or 1 month of Libya?"

are there any other options, like our government not being militarily entangled with other foreign governments?

Quote :

"Again, this is just your opinion. There is no evidence supporting that Obama's drone policy has had any of the negative effects you're attributing to it."

is there any evidence that Obama's drone policy has had any positive effects?

10/25/2012 3:13:59 PM

Quote :

"First of all, on the civilian deaths, you are just plain wrong."

I'm not, actually. Continued use of the term "militant" to describe all military aged males in a strike zone is a convenient way of lowering the numbers in your favor. Might as well label the whole area as "hostile" and just drop a nuke over it and get it over with.

Quote :

" Multiple reports, multiple data sources, all pointing to the same conclusion: civilian casualties from drone strikes are low and have gotten lower since Obama took office, approaching almost 0% in 2012. Show me some data, any data, that refutes this point."

When you bastardize the language of "militant" to reduce the appearance of collateral damage, it makes it pretty hard to find data that contradicts evidence. Are you going to declare Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a militant? Because he fits the description based on the loose language. Yet, we have no way of proving him innocent or guilty, because he never stood trial. It's too late to do that, because, you know, he's fucking dead. And the fact that there are "multiple reports," all reporting different numbers, should, at the very fucking least, make you critical of the legitimacy of the low civilian numbers. We don't know these numbers definitively because of the secrecy that the entire program operates under.

Quote :

"Dude, you do realize we live in 2012, right? I can pick up my smart phone and chat in HD with a family member in Egypt while hiking through a snowstorm in the middle of Utah. Hell, we've had cameras on cruise missles for two decades, and you're acting like it's impossible for a pilot to remotely pinpoint targets from a few hundred feet up. Not to mention calling them "robots" (or even drones, they are really UAVs) is a misnomer. They are not autonomous. Who's the idiot? Educate yourself,"

These drones aren't shooting bubbles. They're not shooting lasers. The damage done by a single shot is not going to snipe out one bad guy in a crowd. The physics just don't add up like that. And we have documented proof that the CIA has been targeting funerals and first responders. But as long as the administration labels them "militants," based solely on their age, you turn the other cheek and take them for their word. Bravo.

I find it fascinating that so-called liberals like you defend the morality of drone warfare because you somehow think that technology is going to filter out the moral absurdity of the entire operation. Would you be willing to let Mitt Romney make those decisions, as well? Please answer this question.

Quote :

"I dropped bombs, hit my target load, but had no idea who I hit. [With drones], I can look at their faces... see these guys playing with their kids and wives.... After the strike, I see the bodies being carried out of the house. I see the women weeping and in positions of mourning. "

How touching. He waited for the kids to leave the home before he destroyed their livelihood. But I'm sure that kid will never in a million years swear to take up arms against the US. After all, there's no proof of this, am I right?

Quote :

"On blowback, you're quoting a terrorist. Hardly a reliable source. The truth is, yes, Pakistani's and Yemeni's as a whole oppose drone strikes."

That was the whole fucking point. People take up arms against the US because they resent our policies. How did you miss that?

In one moment, you concede that we are fighting "terrorists," and then you turn around, and in the same breath, say it's okay because we're not pissing off the state actors that they live in. No fucking shit, we're not at war with states, so we should be concerned with the policies that promote terrorism and create terrorists, not policies that are given the green light from state actors.

Quote :

"Brian Glyn Williams, writing in the journal Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, points to evidence that in some sections of Pashtun society, support from drone strikes on Taliban targets is high. His sources include three separate polls that showed either direct support for the strikes, or support for the Pakistani state versus the Taliban insurgency."

Wow. Three polls, and that's enough. Three polls conducted by a state sponsored think tank. Yet, you dismiss the NYU-Stanford study, which conducted hundreds of interviews with civilians and poured through thousands of pages of news reports. But I'm the one with the confirmation bias? Yeah, okay.

Quote :

"I also see that you conveniently ignored how the governments of these countries welcome Obama's drones, not to mention the clear negative correlation between drone strikes and terrorist attacks. "

You know what other government supports drone use? OURS. I left that out of my reasoning as well, because I'm not a blind servant to authority.

Quote :

"No, but we're talking about Obama's approach vs Bush's. One keeps the CIA on a short leash, personally overseas every single strike, and lets congress in on what they are doing. The other did not. "

Short leash? He personally oversees kill meetings and has presided over more drone strikes than his predecessor. This is a positive, in your eyes?

Quote :

"Even if this were true, you can't just shrug this point off. Execution matters. Would you rather have 10 years of Iraq or 1 month of Libya?"

How about neither? Why isn't that an option? Oh, that's right, because during the post 9/11 decade, you've shifted to the right, just like all other Democratic loyalists.

Quote :

"Again, this is just your opinion. There is no evidence supporting that Obama's drone policy has had any of the negative effects you're attributing to it. "

You're right. The times square bomber, who openly admitted his motivation, to the "spontaneous" attacks on our embassies.......they're all just random acts of violence carried out by savages. Sure, that makes sense. They must hate us for our freedoms (something even Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't even acknowledge, as posted above.)

Quote :

"Seriously dude, it took you like 2 days to respond, and you've contributed nothing of substance. Just like Romney."

I have a job, with deadlines. Today was the first day I had half an hour to respond to your nonsense. It did not take me two days to collect my thoughts. Don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back.

I do find it amusing that anyone who opposes Obama, even from the left, is somehow enabling Romney, who pretty much agreed with Obama on all things foreign policy wise. And yes, that includes the use of drone warfare. Kudos.





[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

10/25/2012 3:30:47 PM

Quote :

"Oh shut the fuck up or get off the sidelines and say something constructive you fucking tool. "

shrike, your blind trust and overall worship of the obama administration is absolutely PATHETIC. obama has done nothing but continue doing the same shit democrats cried about for eight years, and then some. when you're done convincing, well, nobody that unyeilding drone strikes are somehow OK, why don't you address your hero's stance on guantanamo, indefinite detention of citizens, the patriot act, and a laundry list of other bullshit that reveals obama is more interested in wiping his ass with our bill of rights than actually following it. kindly, go fuck yourself.

10/25/2012 3:54:49 PM

^don't forget about all that warrantless wiretapping.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/02180820822/it-takes-jon-stewart-to-finally-ask-obama-about-civil-liberties-lets-him-off-hook-bogus-answer.shtml

10/25/2012 3:59:07 PM

^and don't forget about continuing the War on Drugs

and as for non-civil liberties related actions, extending the Bush tax cuts and failing to bring a public option to the table when pushing for his handout to insurance companies/healthcare plan

in his defense, he did end don't ask, don't tell, which frees up even more people to go kill other people for unclear reasons

10/25/2012 4:07:18 PM

Quote :

"and don't forget about continuing the War on Drugs"

did he ever make any promises to end that, though?

10/25/2012 4:25:07 PM

Quote :

"When you bastardize the language of "militant" to reduce the appearance of collateral damage, it makes it pretty hard to find data that contradicts evidence. Are you going to declare Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a militant? Because he fits the description based on the loose language. Yet, we have no way of proving him innocent or guilty, because he never stood trial. It's too late to do that, because, you know, he's fucking dead. And the fact that there are "multiple reports," all reporting different numbers, should, at the very fucking least, make you critical of the legitimacy of the low civilian numbers. We don't know these numbers definitively because of the secrecy that the entire program operates under. "

First of all, the characterization of militant isn't coming from me, or from the administration. You're basing your entire opinion on that one NYT article that talked about "military aged males". None of the civilian causality figures I posted use official figures. They are compiled from, and I'll use your words, "hundreds of interviews with civilians" and "thousands of pages of news reports". In other words, people actually close to the attacks identified the victims as either militants or civilians. Are the numbers definitive? No, but they clearly show a trend of reduced collateral damage over time, on top of the already low rate relative to other forms of lethal force.

And I don't know what Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was, and neither do you. Anything else is just speculation on your part. My personal opinion? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and his death was an unfortunate tragedy. However, let's not pretend he was killed at a Starbucks while doing his homework. The Shabwah province, where he died, is literally the epicenter of Al-Qaeda activity in Yemen.

Quote :

"These drones aren't shooting bubbles. They're not shooting lasers. The damage done by a single shot is not going to snipe out one bad guy in a crowd. The physics just don't add up like that. And we have documented proof that the CIA has been targeting funerals and first responders."

Who said they are shooting bubbles and lasers? Enough with the strawman. They do use smaller munitions and more precise targeting than say, cruise missiles or bombs dropped from fix winged jets. The result is far less collateral damage. The evidence supports this. The rationale for targeting "first responders" is because the Taliban and al-Qaeda typically cordon off the area for 10-24 hours following the strike. This is again, supported by evidence from multiple news reports, and the tactic was actually encouraged by Pakistani officials in the FATA.

Quote :

"In one moment, you concede that we are fighting "terrorists," and then you turn around, and in the same breath, say it's okay because we're not pissing off the state actors that they live in. No fucking shit, we're not at war with states, so we should be concerned with the policies that promote terrorism and create terrorists, not policies that are given the green light from state actors."

The main driver of terrorism is poverty, corruption, and a fucked up society that doesn't allow women to go to school, not Obama's foreign policy. Malala wasn't shot in the head by a drone.

Quote :

"Wow. Three polls, and that's enough. Three polls conducted by a state sponsored think tank. Yet, you dismiss the NYU-Stanford study, which conducted hundreds of interviews with civilians and poured through thousands of pages of news reports. But I'm the one with the confirmation bias? Yeah, okay."

I dismiss it because they are only presenting one side of the story. That screams "bias" to me.

Quote :

"How about neither? Why isn't that an option? Oh, that's right, because during the post 9/11 decade, you've shifted to the right, just like all other Democratic loyalists."

What exactly is your problem with the NATO led intervention in Libya? What would your preferred response to the imminent massacre of a civilian population by Gaddafi?

Quote :

"You're right. The times square bomber, who openly admitted his motivation, to the "spontaneous" attacks on our embassies.......they're all just random acts of violence carried out by savages. Sure, that makes sense. They must hate us for our freedoms (something even Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't even acknowledge, as posted above.)"

You know, if I were a member of Al Qaeda, and my organization had been systematically exterminated over the past 4 years by drone strikes, I would say bad things about them too. The guy said he was inspired by your friend, Al-Awlaki, and only mentioned drones in passing. This is a pretty fucking stupid point and you know it.

..



http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/dem-fla-poll-barack-obama-47-mitt-romney-45?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tampabaycom%2Fblogs%2Fbuzz+%28The+Buzz+|+tampabay.com%29

Quote :

"An Oct. 23-24 poll (MoE +/- 4%) from the Democratic Project New America and USAction groups has Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney in Florida 47 percent to 45 percent:"

"Romney has Florida and NC locked up. Coloroda is leaning Romney"

10/25/2012 4:31:35 PM

i think he claimed he wouldn't interfere with State supported medical marijuana, but the justice department has cracked down on dispensaries in California way more than Bush did

and even if he didn't make any promises or guarantees, any politician who continues the War on Drugs is a fuckhead

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ...]

Quote :

"Are the numbers definitive? No, but they clearly show a trend of reduced collateral damage over time, on top of the already low rate relative to other forms of lethal force."

why are we killing anyone at all? where's the proof that killing these people is needed to keep us safe?

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ...]

10/25/2012 4:36:29 PM

Real Clear Politics moved NC back to a swing state.

10/25/2012 4:41:06 PM

Quote :

"First of all, the characterization of militant isn't coming from me, or from the administration. You're basing your entire opinion on that one NYT article that talked about "military aged males". None of the civilian causality figures I posted use official figures. They are compiled from, and I'll use your words, "hundreds of interviews with civilians" and "thousands of pages of news reports". In other words, people actually close to the attacks identified the victims as either militants or civilians. Are the numbers definitive? No, but they clearly show a trend of reduced collateral damage over time, on top of the already low rate relative to other forms of lethal force."

It's already been established numerous times that the figures used by newspapers were figures delivered to them by the administration. Since there is no definitive way to fact-check this, third-party figures are relatively non-existent. And trusting the Pakistani government is even worse than trusting the US government, as they've been caught outright taking claim for drone strikes conducted by the US (which, conviently, is another way to lower reported US civilian casualty numbers).

Quote :

"And I don't know what Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was, and neither do you. Anything else is just speculation on your part. My personal opinion? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and his death was an unfortunate tragedy. However, let's not pretend he was killed at a Starbucks while doing his homework"

You know, just change the name to of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki to Trayvon Martin, and this excuse sounds EXACTLY like what the Sean Hannity's and right-wingers of the country said after that Zimmerman fiasco. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to the ones who committed the murder of an American teenager who was never given the chance to defend himself in the court of law. But hey, apples and oranges, right?

Quote :

"Who said they are shooting bubbles and lasers? Enough with the strawman. They do use smaller munitions and more precise targeting than say, cruise missiles or bombs dropped from fix winged jets. The result is far less collateral damage. The evidence supports this."

You mean like this evidence:

Quote :

"Securing permission to use these “signature strikes” would allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-seeks-new-authority-to-expand-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/18/gIQAsaumRT_story.html

They don't even know who they're hitting. They're taking educated guesses. And you still stubbornly think that we've only killed 139 civilians?

I didn't think anyone would be naive enough to think that the collateral damage would zip toward 0% in just a matter of years without raising a base level of skepticism.

Quote :

"the tactic was actually encouraged by Pakistani officials in the FATA."

The tactic is also encouraged by Hamas. You know, that other organization that right-wingers love to hate.

Quote :

"The main driver of terrorism is poverty, corruption, and a fucked up society that doesn't allow women to go to school, not Obama's foreign policy. Malala wasn't shot in the head by a drone."

Hawks love to rant and rave about how badly women are treated in foreign countries to justify their "they'll greet us as liberators!" bullshit.

Quote :

"I dismiss it because they are only presenting one side of the story. That screams "bias" to me."

And yet a poll that conflates drone approval and anti-taliban sentiment in one fell swoop doesn't scream bias to you?

Quote :

"What exactly is your problem with the NATO led intervention in Libya? What would your preferred response to the imminent massacre of a civilian population by Gaddafi?"

The US has absolutely proved to be incapable of being the impartial arbiter of international morality.

Quote :

"You know, if I were a member of Al Qaeda, and my organization had been systematically exterminated over the past 4 years by drone strikes..."

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has seen an increase in their membership since the start of our drone campaign. Not the other way around.

10/25/2012 5:07:55 PM

Quote :

"You know, just change the name to of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki to Trayvon Martin, and this excuse sounds EXACTLY like what the Sean Hannity's and right-wingers of the country said after that Zimmerman fiasco. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to the ones who committed the murder of an American teenager who was never given the chance to defend himself in the court of law. But hey, apples and oranges, right?"

so, so true.

hopefully, shrike will spare himself the embarassment of another retarded wall o' text, although i would appreciate a response to my questions from him in regards to obama's stance on our civil liberties. seeing as i'm trying to get off the sidelines, and all.

10/25/2012 5:24:03 PM

Quote :

"It's already been established numerous times that the figures used by newspapers were figures delivered to them by the administration. Since there is no definitive way to fact-check this, third-party figures are relatively non-existent. And trusting the Pakistani government is even worse than trusting the US government, as they've been caught outright taking claim for drone strikes conducted by the US (which, conviently, is another way to lower reported US civilian casualty numbers)."

Source? So according to you, figures from independent news sources are copied from official figures, which are cooked, and anything from the Pakistanis is a lie. The only sources we should trust are ones that support your view. Is that about right? Do you know what you sound like? A global warming denier.

Quote :

"You know, just change the name to of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki to Trayvon Martin, and this excuse sounds EXACTLY like what the Sean Hannity's and right-wingers of the country said after that Zimmerman fiasco. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to the ones who committed the murder of an American teenager who was never given the chance to defend himself in the court of law. But hey, apples and oranges, right?"

Nope, not even close. The right wingers tried to claim Trayvon instigated the conflict that got him killed. I said no such thing about al-Awlaki's kid. I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I think the likeliest scenario was that he was collateral damage in a strike targeting someone else. If he was the intended target of the strike, then I agree that the government owes us an explanation, like they gave for his father.

Quote :

"They don't even know who they're hitting. They're taking educated guesses. And you still stubbornly think that we've only killed 139 civilians? I didn't think anyone would be naive enough to think that the collateral damage would zip toward 0% in just a matter of years without raising a base level of skepticism."

Nope, I never said we've only killed 139 civilians, but again, nice try. I pointed to multiple sources which all show a downward trend in civilian deaths, even while the number of strikes have gone up, including signature strikes. I don't think the number is 0% but I certainly don't think its 99% like you seem to believe. Maybe they don't know who they are hitting, but it's clear from the evidence that they are hitting mostly militants. The difference between you I is I've provided sources to support my claims, you have not.

Quote :

"Hawks love to rant and rave about how badly women are treated in foreign countries to justify their "they'll greet us as liberators!" bullshit."

I never said they'll greet us as liberators. What I did say is that there is no evidence that drone strikes are a primary driver of terrorist recruitment. Can you make a single a point without completely misrepresenting my claims?

Quote :

"And yet a poll that conflates drone approval and anti-taliban sentiment in one fell swoop doesn't scream bias to you?"

Maybe, but it does show that there is another side to the story. A side that none of your sources appear to acknowledge.

Quote :

"The US has absolutely proved to be incapable of being the impartial arbiter of international morality."

You didn't answer my question. I find it hilarious that you bring up Benghazi, which was a tactical failure in the context of larger strategic victory. We had thousands Libyan's marching against the attacks and praising our role in Gaddafi's downfall. This is in stark contrast to Bush's failed military endeavors.

Quote :

"Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has seen an increase in their membership since the start of our drone campaign. Not the other way around."

Nope, wrong again. AQAP has indeed increased it's membership, but it has nothing to do with our drone campaign. Gosh, what else could it be? Anything else happening in Yemen? Oh yeah, a civil war and economic turmoil leading to social unrest and poverty. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks in Pakistan have dropped as the drone campaign has escalated, and there is absolutely no evidence showing recruitment there has increased.

Quote :

"hopefully, shrike will spare himself the embarassment of another retarded wall o' text, although i would appreciate a response to my questions from him in regards to obama's stance on our civil liberties. seeing as i'm trying to get off the sidelines, and all."

How about you pull your tongue out of JesusHChrist's asshole and come up with an original thought? I'm not here to defend Obama's entire presidency. Everything you mentioned had to be done in concert with congress, who's stood in his way on every single issue, especially Guantanamo. I don't think he's totally blameless, but he's hardly the cause of the problem. Criticism of Obama's drone strike policy relies mostly on myths, inaccuracies, and total lack of nuance which is why I've singled it out.

[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM. Reason : :]

10/25/2012 7:41:11 PM

Quote :

"Source? So according to you, figures from independent news sources are copied from official figures, which are cooked, and anything from the Pakistanis is a lie. The only sources we should trust are ones that support your view. Is that about right? Do you know what you sound like? A global warming denier."

I don't know why you keep asking me to repeat myself. The Pakistani's have been caught claiming responsibility for US drone attacks. That's been documented. So yeah, they're suspect. What I am saying, is that because of the secrecy of the program, it is impossible for third party sources to verify the claims they receive from government officials. Here's a random selection:

Quote :

"A drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region killed at least eight militants Thursday, Pakistani intelligence officials said."

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-12/asia/world_asia_pakistan-drone-strike_1_drone-strike-militant-compound-drone-attacks?_s=PM:ASIA

Quote :

"U.S. drones killed at least 21 suspected militants in Pakistan's South Waziristan on Monday, Pakistani officials said, part of an intensified U.S. assault in the tribal belt this month."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/us-pakistan-violence-idUSTRE75Q52L20110627


I can find a million other articles from news wires that follow the same format:

"Drone strikes in the _____ province of ________ kill X number of militants, officials say"

Yet, we know, for a fact, that they have been caught lying:

Quote :

"Asked on June 29 about US ‘targeted killings’, a euphemism which in this case referred to the CIA drone strikes, Brennan responded: ‘One of the things President Obama has insisted on is that we’re exceptionally precise and surgical in terms of addressing the terrorist threat. And by that I mean, if there are terrorists who are within an area where there are women and children or others, you know, we do not take such action that might put those innocent men, women and children in danger.’ He was more precise: ‘In fact I can say that the types of operations… that the US has been involved in, in the counter-terrorism realm, that nearly for the past year there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.’... ...A detailed examination by the Bureau of 116 CIA ‘secret’ drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2010 has uncovered at least 10 individual attacks in which 45 or more civilians appear to have died. Six children are named among those killed"

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/07/18/washingtons-untrue-claims-no-civilian-deaths-in-pakistan-drone-strikes/

Quote :

"Sometimes arriving on the scene just minutes after the explosion, he first has to put his camera aside and start digging through the debris to see if there are any survivors. It's dangerous, unpleasant work. The drones frequently hit the same place again, a few minutes after the first strike, so looking for the injured is risky. There are other dangers too: militants and locals are suspicious of anyone with a camera. After all, it is a local network of spies working for the CIA that are directing the drone strikes. But Noor Behram says his painstaking work has uncovered an important – and unreported – truth about the US drone campaign in Pakistan's tribal region: that far more civilians are being injured or dying than the Americans and Pakistanis admit. The world's media quickly reports on how many militants were killed in each strike. But reporters don't go to the spot, relying on unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials. Noor Behram believes you have to go to the spot to figure out whether those killed were really extremists or ordinary people living in Waziristan. And he's in no doubt. "For every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant," he said. "I don't go to count how many Taliban are killed. I go to count how many children, women, innocent people, are killed." The drone strikes are a secret programme run by the CIA to assassinate al-Qaida and Taliban extremists using remote, wild Waziristan as a refuge. The CIA does not comment on drones, but privately claims civilian casualties are rare... ..."The youth in the area surrounding a strike gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside those who have seen a drone attack. The Americans think it is working, but the damage they're doing is far greater." Even when the drones hit the right compound, the force of the blast is such that neighbours' houses, often made of baked mud, are also demolished, crushing those inside, said Noor Behram. One of the photographs shows a tangle of debris he said were the remains of five houses blitzed together."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan


Hmmmmm......there hasn't been a single civilian death according to John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism. Yet people who report from the scene have contradictory numbers? Think that might be why these official counts have such a low fucking percentage number? Naahhhhhh, it must be the pinpoint precision that magically shot up when Obama got into office.


http://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/officials_say_journalism/


You're literally accusing me of not listening to "the other side of the story," which is quite clearly composed of state sponsored propaganda. These newspapers all cite government officials, who have been caught, on the fucking record, blatantly lying about the number of civilians who are killed. So yeah, I don't naturally trust them when they cite numbers that are ungodly low.

Quote :

"Nope, wrong again. AQAP has indeed increased it's membership, but it has nothing to do with our drone campaign. Gosh, what else could it be? Anything else happening in Yemen? Oh yeah, a civil war and economic turmoil leading to social unrest and poverty. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks in Pakistan have dropped as the drone campaign has escalated, and there is absolutely no evidence showing recruitment there has increased. "

First of all, my claim was that AQAP has increased. Which you agreed with. But do you seriously think that they are joining al qaeda, and then focusing their energies against the US just for the hell of it? Yes, social unrest, poverty, and being under occupation all lead to radicalism. But if we weren't there, then they'd focus their anger at their oppressors, and not us. And our drones are not just in Pakistan, so that's a red herring. Our drone campaign is peppered all throughout the muslim world. Hence their anger.


[Edited on October 25, 2012 at 8:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/25/2012 8:31:51 PM

Quote :

"I'm not here to defend Obama's entire presidency"

that's rich. the reason you're not here to defend obama's presidency is because you fucking can't.

and btw, as someone that's so rabid about him getting reelected, maybe you should clear up for us which of these issues you don't exactly agree with? me and a few other people gave you the chance to weigh in on a number of hot button issues, all of which obama has SOME control over to one degree or another, and you skirted them all...i see why obama's way of doing things agrees with you.

you're not convincing anyone with half a brain that the obama administration has continued and amplified the trend of pissing all over civil liberty. a vote for obama is a vote of approval. you probably don't even give a shit about that, though... as long as he makes it rain birth control pills and raises taxes on those evil millionaires, he's got the important issues covered.

10/25/2012 8:38:24 PM

Quote :

"I'm not here to defend Obama's entire presidency."

that's fair, but you are defending the drone program. so please, tell me why the drones are necessary at all? what is the proof that killing anyone thousands of miles somewhere else is helping keep me safe? is it keeping the average Pakistani more safe, or in any way improving the quality of their life? what's the full motivation behind the drone program? is it to make the world a better place for its citizens, or is it to protect the strategic interests of some specific state power?

10/25/2012 8:50:30 PM

How is Rasmussen's swing state poll with Romney +5 so out of whack with every individual sing state poll I've seen, including their own. I've yet to see a single one greater than Romney +3.

Makes no sense..

10/26/2012 8:27:54 AM

Their methodology is fucked up

10/26/2012 9:56:19 AM

Quote :

"Criticism of Obama's drone strike policy relies mostly on myths, inaccuracies, and total lack of nuance which is why I've singled it out."

This is something that I've wanted to believe. If true, there would have been some truly epic bad reporting. Sure, that's possible. The people in charge (like Petraus) are trying to expand it and even put it under CIA control. That's non-military, and that's not a good thing.

Here's my source of information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VghBXeaVWS8
leading to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_print.html

Please debunk me!

I didn't really experience the really bad chilling effect until I got to "signature strikes"

Quote :

"The review process is compressed but not skipped when the CIA or JSOC has compelling intelligence and a narrow window in which to strike, officials said. The approach also applies to the development of criteria for “signature strikes,” which allow the CIA and JSOC to hit targets based on patterns of activity — packing a vehicle with explosives, for example — even when the identities of those who would be killed is unclear."

According to the admission of the administration itself, we kill strangers who we see with weapons. This is given as a reason that we hit weddings, and honestly, it makes sense. It's not just packing a vehicle with explosives. That was an 'example'. I know a lot of what you read is presumptive. But that's because the administration won't release the information about it. But just in case you were thinking that this concern is exaggerated, consider this, also from an administration official:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12733-29-killed-by-us-drones-in-yemen-in-one-week

Quote :

"A “high-ranking Yemeni intelligence official” quoted in the Wall Street Journal criticized this policy: "Every Yemeni is armed, so how can they differentiate between suspected militants and armed Yemenis?" "

I'm not using stuff from crazy people sites. I'm using information that leaked out of our own government. For the larger picture, perhaps you remember the ties the birth of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had to our intelligence involvement in Afghanistan when the Soviets were fighting there? Well our drone strikes are perceived as politically beneficial to one side of what is basically a civil war in Yemen. I couldn't make up a program that had DISASTER written all over it more than this.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/201242665054283749.html

You said "Criticism of Obama's drone strike policy relies mostly on myths". Let me be fair - someone's criticism is based on myths. Of course.

I want you to really think about what a "signature strike" means and tell me what you think about it.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 10:28:20 AM

Quote :

"Maybe they don't know who they are hitting, but it's clear from the evidence that they are hitting mostly militants."

I missed this part of your post. I just want to point out that the second half of that sentence directly contradicts the first half.


If they don't know who they're hitting, then they have no fucking way to verify that they're hitting militants. The only way they could possibly "confirm" they are hitting "militants" would be to look at the charred remains, and say, "yeah, he looks like he's military aged. Therefore, he must be a militant." Which, is exactly what they are doing.

"That militant was on PCP, Johnson! I HAD TO USE NECESSARY FORCE! You saw him! No, no, no paperwork, just sprinkle a little crack on 'em and let's get out of here."

http://youtu.be/JJ3dk6KAvQM?t=1m54s



Honestly, at this point, you're starting to sound like bdmazur in the Israel/Palestine thread, reflexively defending the indefensible because of some emotional attachment you have with the aggressors.

10/26/2012 11:57:39 AM

^^I already covered signature strikes in one of my previous posts. Yes, it sounds pretty icky, but when you look at the civilian causality rates, they've continued to go down even as use of that tactic has increased. That tells me that they are, in fact, mostly killing the right people. The whole characterization of Obama's drone policy as a bunch of flying killer robots indiscriminately murdering children left and right is just wrong. Again, this is my source,

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Quote :

"This means the average non-militant casualty rate over the life of the program is 15-16 percent. In 2012 it has been 1-2 percent, down sharply from its peak in 2006 of over 60 percent."

Which describes its sources here,

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones/methodology

Quote :

"Counting the strikes: There must be at least two credible media sources verifying a strike in order for it to be added to our database. We have endeavored to find a minimum of four credible media sources per strike."

You may not like their figures because it doesn't fit your narrative, but it's the most extensive and credible count of the human cost of drone strikes there is. Other reports paint a similar picture,

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-light-drone-wars-death-toll-150321926.html

Quote :

"But an AP reporter who spoke to about 80 villagers at the sites of the 10 attacks in North Waziristan, the main sanctuary for militants in Pakistan's northwest tribal region along the Afghan border, was told that a significant majority of the dead were combatants. Indeed, the AP was told by the villagers that of at least 194 people killed in the attacks, about 70 percent — at least 138 — were militants. The remaining 56 were either civilians or tribal police, and 38 of them were killed in a single attack on March 17, 2011."

Now, do mistakes happen? Do ballistic weapons sometimes miss their intended targets? Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with drones.

..

Quote :

"You're literally accusing me of not listening to "the other side of the story," which is quite clearly composed of state sponsored propaganda. These newspapers all cite government officials, who have been caught, on the fucking record, blatantly lying about the number of civilians who are killed. So yeah, I don't naturally trust them when they cite numbers that are ungodly low."

Bull fucking shit, you can't cherry pick a handful of reports and pretend that discredits all reporting on drones strike causality. Again, that's exactly what AGW deniers do. Not mention, "unnamed Pakistani officials" have been caught exaggerating civilian causality claims just as often as they've underestimated them. You also continue to cite the NYU report, which was a hack job,

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2012/10/03/living-under-drones-the-anti-drone-campaign-can-do-damage-too/

Quote :

"In fact there was no field research in FATA. And of the 69 people interviewed with direct experience of drones, the majority were arranged by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), Reprieve’s partner organisation, which funded their transport costs from FATA to Pakistani cities. No effort was made to randomly select the interviewees; nor was there a control group to check the accuracy of their statements. As a result, criticism of the army and the Taliban, which crops up frequently in other reports from FATA, is airbrushed out of the quotes. Everything is blamed on drones. “Before the drone strikes started, my life was very good. I used to go to school and I used to be quite busy with that, but after the drone strikes, I stopped going to school now,” says one. “Before the drone attacks, it was as if everyone was young. After the drone attacks, it is as if everyone is ill. Every person is afraid of the drones,” says another. Nor was reference made to reports that the Taliban surround an area after a drone strike to prevent people from finding out who has been killed. Instead, the difficulties of retrieving and burying the dead and helping the wounded are blamed entirely on the risk of a second drone strike. “When a drone strikes and people die, nobody comes near the bodies for half an hour because they fear another missile will strike,” says one."

Hmmm, cherry picking interviewee's and airbrushing quotes to make drone attacks look worse than they really are. But they don't have an agenda right?

Quote :

"I missed this part of your post. I just want to point out that the second half of that sentence directly contradicts the first half."

No it doesn't. Just because they don't know their names doesn't mean they can't positively identify them as militants.

Quote :

"Honestly, at this point, you're starting to sound like bdmazur in the Israel/Palestine thread, reflexively defending the indefensible because of some emotional attachment you have with the aggressors. "

Nope, I'm just presenting the other side of the story. But keep trying to make a caricature of me instead of actually addressing the evidence.

..

Quote :

"what is the proof that killing anyone thousands of miles somewhere else is helping keep me safe? is it keeping the average Pakistani more safe, or in any way improving the quality of their life?"

There is no proof, and I'm not saying there is. I think that's a valid discussion that should be had. As I've said, all I know is that there is another side to Obama's drone policy than just piles of dead bodies. I know al-Alwaki, who was killed by a drone, was responsible for at least 3 attempted attacks on US soil, one of which was successful. I know there was a terrorist plot to kill hundreds of people on the streets of London was thwarted due to a drone strike. I know that Bin Laden himself admitted that drone strikes had been devastating to Al Qaeda. Those are all things that got lost in the flood of anti-drone reporting.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM. Reason : :]

10/26/2012 12:10:23 PM

Rasmussen conducts polls strictly by rotary phone

10/26/2012 12:41:59 PM

Quote :

"Bull fucking shit, you can't cherry pick a handful of reports and pretend that discredits all reporting on drones strike causality. Again, that's exactly what AGW deniers do. Not mention, "unnamed Pakistani officials" have been caught exaggerating civilian causality claims just as often as they've underestimated them. You also continue to cite the NYU report, which was a hack job"

I also included the Journal of Investigative Reporting, which also highlighted the discrepancy between official counts and on the ground accounts. But you ignored that.

Look, the only thing I'm saying, and I'll say it one last time: When news reports follow the format of " X number of militants were killed in ___istan, officials say, then you should take that claim with a HUGE GRAIN OF SALT, because high ranking officials have been caught deliberately lying about the number of civilians killed. They've also been caught deliberately mislabeling people as militants to deflate their numbers.

What does that do? It repeats government claims as fact without independent verification. If an unnamed government official leaks numbers to a credible news agency, then that news agency has no real way to verify the claims, because it's not like they can go to the scene and count the remains and pull up their birth certificates and decide "this guy was a militant, this guy was a civilian." So the government makes a claim, the paper writes that claim down, and the New America foundation says, "that's good enough for me." And you, lazily interpret that chain of events as fact checking.

I'll post this again, because Greenwald describes this process better than I can:

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/officials_say_journalism/



And then you turn around and declare the NYU study (and the Investigative Journalism study, by association) as a hack-job with an agenda, without considering, even for a moment, that the government that is responsible for carrying out these attacks might have a vested interest in disseminating information that suggests that collateral damage has dropped "from 60% down to 2% once Obama got into office" Goddamn son, you are being hoodwinked like a motherfucker. Nobody, NOBODY, can get the numbers down that fucking low without doing some shady shit. You have to be incredibly gullible, or just fucking stupid to believe that.

Now, both of those revelations should at the very least, make you, as a liberal, DEMAND more transparency in the actions of government officials. Like, I dunno, not killing people based on behavioral traits, which they are currently doing. Or how about not killing American citizens without trial, which they are currently doing. Or, how about not letting the C.I.A, a civilian agency oversee military operations?



I'll ask you, one last fucking time, and I expect you to answer:

Are you okay with giving Mitt Romney, and every president that follows, the authority to meet in secret, and personally order the assassination of any American citizen? Are you willing to let him do that based on your behavioral traits?

10/26/2012 12:51:15 PM

Interesting tidbit today about the composition of the 2012 electorate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Government%20-%20Political%20Parties%20-%20Politics

Quote :

" The composition of the electorate for the 2012 presidential election is looking quite similar to what it was in 2008 as well as 2004, according to an analysis of the demographics of Gallup's likely voter sample since Oct. 1. Thus, key elements of President Obama's electoral coalition, such as racial minorities, women, young adults, and postgraduates will likely turn out at rates similar to those in 2008."

..

Quote :

"Are you okay with giving Mitt Romney, and every president that follows, the authority to meet in secret, and personally order the assassination of any American citizen? Are you willing to let him do that based on your behavioral traits?"

Nope, and I've never said so. But again, you're acting like this is some new phenomena. US presidents have been suspending habeas corpus, skirting the constitution, and illegally detaining US citizens for two centuries. Your analysis lacks historical context, nothing he's done has been unprecedented. Nor could he prevent any future President from doing them. Your problem seems to be with a specific tactic used to address a problem that basically didn't exist prior to 2001. In comparing the body count, economic cost, and overall results of Bush's approach, vs Obama's, it's pretty clear who's done the better job.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 1:07 PM. Reason : :]

10/26/2012 12:52:01 PM

Honestly, you can't in all seriousness believe that an increase in drone strikes, plus a trend toward using more lax rules for engagement have led to a decrease from 60% to 2% of civilian deaths. There's just no fucking way.

I can't be the only one who thinks it's impossible for those three conditions to occur simultaneously.

10/26/2012 12:59:01 PM