Does Obama want to be remembered as “Barack, bringer of drones”?

I’ve been writing about Obama’s drone and national security speech lately, and also gathering takes on it from other commenters. I showed Jon Stewart’s commentary here. I’d like to look next at the commentary from Chris Hayes’ show and that of some of his guests.

I’ll say to start that this is an important speech, but not perhaps in the way that Obama intended it. And I’m still left with that Möbius strip aftertaste, the feeling that this speech folds back on itself in a “stop me before I kill again” but “here’s why I’m doing it” way. I’m frankly both fascinated and creeped out by it. (The “creeped out” aspect was mainly discussed here.)

Let’s look now at a few segments from a Chris Hayes show that was mostly devoted to this speech and the protester who interrupted it. (These are selections, and not in order of broadcast.)

First, this discussion with Spencer Ackerman, Howard Fineman (who makes some excellent points) and Rep. Keith Ellison. Watch first, then some thoughts:

Ackerman (at 1:46) catches the cognative dissonance in the speech, what I’ve been calling its Möbius strip aspect, (all emphasis mine):

“In some ways it’s two speeches. One was a fascinating speech where he outlines that the war has to end, and the other is a frustrating speech where he doesn’t quite take the implications of what he’s saying into the proposal stage.”

In other words, the fascinating part is the words, the self-declared aspiration; the frustrating part is the … deeds, which he’s rather vague about. Words and deeds, what we’ve always noticed about Obama as not matching up.

And Fineman adds at 4:02:

“On a functional level, clearing away some of the grand thematics here, he gave a pretty spirited defense of the drone program.”

Back to deeds, what he’s doing now. And it us a vigorous defense — click here for the transcript and start reading at the phrase “Moreover, America’s actions are legal.” Obama wraps himself in phrases like “a just war – a war waged proportionally” and “clear guidelines, oversight and accountability” — by which he means the executive branch establishing oversight over the executive branch. Not your daddy’s American Constitution — or your Founders’.

Fineman continues:

“I think he also defended, though not as fulsomely, domestic surveillance. … Within this sort of aspirational desire to get rid of this term about the “global war on terror” and maybe give back power, he used the term “ultimately.” He didn’t say immediately. Don’t expect to see a bill tomorrow to get rid of all that power he’s got.”

An interesting discussion.

Now Hayes in a brief segment on how the president defends the drone program while acknowledging that there are problems with it. He ends by asking the question — that’s what he says, but how will he act?

Note the mismatch in the president’s comparison of Al-Awlaki to a sniper with a gun (1:11). At most, Al-Awlaki was accused of actively conspiring. That’s a far cry in urgency and immediacy from actually shooting at people from a tower.

Mr. Obama, I’m going to call that one disingenuous — partly because it’s just a false comparison, and partly because the difference between the two cases is likely to be missed by most people (which is often the point of a disingenuous argument, if you want it to “fly”). Hayes appears to miss the distinction, for example.

Hayes ends by tying the drone program to Obama’s enduring legacy — an astute observation — and wonders, given Obama’s fine words (my phrase), how in the future Obama “actually acts.” As indicated above, the right question.

Finally, this conversation with Hina Shamsi of the ACLU and Joshua Foust (ex-DIA). The entire clip is here. I want to focus on just a brief segment, something Ms. Shamsi said and Froust agreed with. Listen:

Hina Shamsi (at 1:25) has a great answer to the question “Why is the drone solution not a good midway answer to either doing nothing or invading?” She makes two very concise points, one about capture as an alternative (it’s underused, or not used at all), and the other, that the drone program is “absolutely hated in the countries where it is being carried out.”

It’s hard to come to grips with that last point from the comfort of your chair — without putting yourself in the shoes of those who constantly watch the skies in fear of soulless, pilotless American planes. If a foreign nation sent a drone to kill someone in your neighbor’s house — in Albuquerque, say, or a Cleveland suburb — and your daughter were visiting at the time, and died … what would be the odds you’d immediately think of revenge?

I’d put those odds at just below 100%, assuming you still had a pulse and weren’t blown up yourself. After all, did not the invasion of Iraq ride a national tidal wave of revenge for piloted attacks against New York and Washington,  in other words, “9/11”?

Interestingly, Joshua Foust, the second guest, adds that the program Obama is describing as his future path is what’s actually happening now in Yemen, and he adds that this program is “generating these failures that Hina is talking about.” In other words, what he says he wants to do, he’s already doing, and it’s already failing.

Bottom line

We’ve now presented a number of takes on this speech — my own, where I doubt the president’s sincerity and see a pivot back to his base as the Republican scandal machine gears up (shades of Clinton, whose plan to privatize Social Security was short-circuited by a certain blue dress); Jon Stewart’s, who also seems to doubt Obama’s sincerity; and Chris Hayes and his guests, above, who more politely but consistently point to the differences between Obama’s words and his deeds.

What drove this speech? I point to Obama’s need to re-please his base during scandal season. Hayes points to the legacy issue, that drone kills are coming to define him in a lasting and major way. Does Obama want to be remembered as “Barack, Bringer of Drones”? Apparently not, though he has sometimes seemed to revel in it, as below:

See what I mean? “Boys, I have two words for you — predator drones.” Incipient second thoughts? A touch of conscience? Or reveling in the power to kill? I hear only one of those three in that “joke” — and am appalled at the “you and me, bro” laughter in the room. Some days I hope there’s a hell.

Is this speech a scandal pivot, a bit of legacy spin, or something more sincere? All three could be correct; or none of them. I’ve brought a fair amount of data in the last few days; feel free to decide for yourself. And happy Memorial Day. Is there better time to course-correct on national security overreach? Not if a course correction is needed.


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

164 Responses to “Does Obama want to be remembered as “Barack, bringer of drones”?”

  1. Sweetie says:

    “he attributes that to ‘US’ or ‘WE.'”

    the royal we.

  2. Sweetie says:

    “Drones are good, murder is good, censorship is good and raw militarism is good. Human rights? All bad. Very, very bad.”

    Sounds like a summation of the Wilson administration, with drones as an update on the package.

  3. karmanot says:

    Very like+++++++++ Military families and the wounded are being grievously treated by the Obama administration. The waiting list for thousands is already well over a year now. 250,000 cases of rape and sexual abuse have been reported and are being ignored.It’s scandalous and a national disgrace.

  4. Bill_Perdue says:

    Do you have any pictures of them in their fascist uniforms, or giving a fascist salute, or ….

    You’re confusing fascism with right centrist politics. Both parties are right centrist and one is as bad as the other. You call the Republicans fascists and at some point you’re going to say that Democrats, or some Democrats, are better. If anything, they’re worse, as least as long as they’re in power.

    If they lose the Senate they’ll still be right centrist, they’ll just whine more.

    Democrats don’t kowtow to Republicans – they have the same program. Two gangs of criminals, one program of wars, austerity and union busting.

  5. JayRandal says:

    About ALL of Congressional Republicans are fascists. Unfortunately many of
    the DC Dems kowtow to GOPers. Those who help Wall Street are DINOs. My comment about Vermont being one of few remaining liberal bastions.

  6. Kim_Kaufman says:

    Here’s Glenn Greenwald’s take: “Obama’s terrorism speech: seeing what you want to see” and for fun: Tavis Smiley and Cornel West on the other two speeches he gave:
    The only real scandal is the one against journalists. If Obama is trying to get “his base” to support him now, this is a good time to get something — more than just a freaking speech. When Obama said, as Medea was being taken out of the room, “she’s not listening to me” it was the perfect narcissistic viewpoint. The fact is, we’re sick of listening to him because his actions have failed to correspond to his pretty speeches.

  7. ronbo says:

    Blowback. One word CAN destroy the illusions of a clouded and morally confused mind.

  8. ronbo says:

    Now THAT drone strike might be noticed!

  9. Bill_Perdue says:

    Another unhappy Memorial Day for working class GIs.

    Obama’s wars of aggression continue to take a huge toll on working class people in the military.

    As of today 2228 GI’s have been murdered by his policies and tens of thousands more wounded. GI and veteran suicides, as of the most recent count, have been almost one an hour, or 22 a day. If they continue at that pace 8,000 or so will take their own lives themselves this year. We can only imagine what they went through, what they saw and what they did to cause such overwhelming, fatal despair.

    The wars of aggression of the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama are nothing short of criminal. Count on the Republicans declining to impeach or convict Obama for being a war criminal and a mass murderer. Just as he didn’t prosecute Bush and Bush didn’t prosecute Clinton. And so on and so on.

  10. Bill_Perdue says:

    Excellent article.

    Count on the Republicans declining to impeach or convict Obama for being a war criminal and a mass murderer. Just as he didn’t prosecute Bush and Bush didn’t prosecute Clinton. And so on and so on.

    They want some of that action themselves so if they move it’ll be over some non-issue like the IRS ‘scandal’.

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    What could be more reckless than murdering tens of thousands of civilians, including can civilians and wasting the lives of tens of thousands of working class GIs? Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps – Now 22 A Day Almost once an hour – every 65 minutes to be precise – a military veteran commits suicide, says a new investigation by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    What could be more reckless than arming the terrorist thugs of the IDF with terror weapons like white phosphorus artillery shells and bombs. It’s an invitation to retaliation by islamist terrorists.

    What could be more reckless than cutting Medicare and Medicaid and sentencing people to death.

    What could be more reckless than driving down wages, busting unions and doing nothing substantial about tens of millions of unemployed and the poverty and homelessness they face.

  12. Bill_Perdue says:

    Which members of the GOP congressional caucus are fascists.

    Which members of the Democrat congressional caucus are fascists.

    Do you pretend that Republicans are fascists to try to mask the fact that the Democrats are a rightist party and that both congressional caucuses and the WH (no matter who’s running it) are composed entirely of lapdogs for the rich?

  13. JayRandal says:

    Vermont in my opinion is summed up by Sen. Bernie Sanders the only openly socialist
    politician in Congress. If Vermont was not so cold in winter I would probably move from
    Georgia to live there. Has some liberal similarities to San Francisco in some ways but
    not as openly Gay as SF. Having been born and raised in California I know SF better
    than Vermont. San Francisco has an enigma side to it in that Gays live openly there,
    but at same time Rep. Pelosi represents wealthy Elite of SF more than supporting Gays there. If our country breaks apart due to GOP fascism then Vermont might be last bastion of left wing liberalism.

  14. BeccaM says:

    Perhaps. I suspect we haven’t seen the last of him though. He seems obsessed always with getting the last word, no matter how illogically, heartlessly, or artlessly expressed.

  15. Ford Prefect says:

    Nicely said. You’re right “Orwellian” comes too easy. But it’s also easy for a reason. The data are ubiquitous.

    I long for the day when using that term is a stretch. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime though.

  16. dave3137 says:

    And we are either oblivious to, or outraged at the idea of “blowback.” Our actions never have “consequences,” because we are always right. The President asks, about Guantanamo, “Is that who we are?” Exactly who does he think WE are? Did WE do that? Did WE authorize forced feeding? Did WE have much of a say at all? Do we ever? Shouldn’t he have said “Is that who I am?” (Since it could stop if he ordered it. And he could release half of those folks today, under current law, but doesn’t.I Don’t say WE, Mr. President. Take some responsibility. What ISN’T “terrorism” these days? What “leaks” aren’t “supporting the enemy”? What journalists who stray from being administration stenographers are permitted to do their jobs in a so-called “free” society without being accused of criminal behavior? We use the word “Orwellian” too easily, because a lot of people who use it don’t appreciate what it really means, but we have become “1984.” Perpetual war justifies anything. Period.

  17. karmanot says:

    Sadly, it’s already tradition.

  18. Ford Prefect says:

    Thanks. And perhaps for the first time, it seems to have actually worked!

  19. Ford Prefect says:

    This is spot on and has always been the problem with this administration:

    …because he argued both sides of the case then declared he will keep on doing the same as before.

    The argument about “having troops in harm’s way” is interesting only in the sense that it essentially means our elites think the entire world is theirs to stomp the living shit out of. In the end, killing is killing and war is war. For the ruling elites, drones give them some moral distance in their own blinkered eyes. The obvious problem is they think drones make it easy to murder without using boots on the ground. But if boots aren’t the answer, then why are we killing people anyway? They’re basically admitting the bloodshed isn’t legitimate, since putting troops in there would n’t be acceptable.

    But in the real world, killing is still killing and blowing people up for no good reason is still blowing people up for no good reason. There is no technical “out” for the bloodletting. Only shortcuts.

    I don’t think others getting drones is a concern for them. They’re slow, low and easy to shoot down for our advanced, technological abattoir-culture. Drone counter-measures would be far more interesting, methinks. If somebody comes up with a cheap means to shooting down a $7 million drone loaded with another million in weapons reliably, then that might raise a few hackles.

  20. Ford Prefect says:

    Shit! Don’t say that out loud!

    Someone will get ideas!

  21. Ford Prefect says:

    Their classification system serves two nefarious purposes: 1) It means we’re killing lots of “bad” people (funny how they use that word, instead of something technically relevant, like “criminal” or “murderer.” Merely “bad” is somehow seen as adequate.); and 2) all those innocent people aren’t innocent. They’re “bad” too. It’s body-count and CYA all in one sweet package!

  22. Ford Prefect says:

    It’s a feature, not a bug. The only way to justify war spending on current levels is to make sure there’s lots of boogeymen out there who want to kill us. So they’re doing their level best to create that demand.

    We live in an era in which “running government like a business” has been the mantra for 30 years. What else could we expect from our CEO-class rulers?

    No analysis of NatSec policy is relevant without considering the business model, since that’s what is driving all of it!

  23. lynchie says:

    You just admitted that we as a country recklessly attack civilians (because no one stop us) so they retaliate in any way they can.

  24. karmanot says:

    “eventually they’ll all want to kill us.” The dystopian inevitability.

  25. karmanot says:

    Yep, “body counts,” If the take ear trophies that counts for two.

  26. BeccaM says:

    Brilliantly put, Ford.

  27. MyrddinWilt says:

    Was he told not to? I haven’t seen that yet.

  28. MyrddinWilt says:

    Oh but everyone could agree with Obama’s speech, or at leas half of it because he argued both sides of the case then declared he will keep on doing the same as before.

    I think it is a little more than just wanting to triangulate the GOP though. I think it is more about getting excited about the shiny new toys and all how convenient it is to be able to play at war without having any US troops in harms way.

    As I have been saying for some time though, drones are going to get a lot less popular as soon as other countries start flying them.

  29. BeccaM says:


    Attending a wedding? Terrorist.
    Attending a funeral? Terrorist.
    Walking down a road believed to be used by terrorists? Terrorist.
    Living next door to a suspected terrorist? Terrorist.
    Be a male between the age of 12 and 65? Terrorist.
    Riding in a car or bus with a suspected terrorist? Terrorist.
    Standing next to someone who, from several thousand feet and through a grainy telephoto lens, sort of resembles a suspected terrorist? Terrorist.

    It didn’t pass my notice how they’re essentially classifying everyone killed by drone bombs to be terrorists, militants, or insurgents, whether there’s proof or not. Maybe their thinking is if we throw enough missiles at these people, it’ll become a self-fulfilling fact — eventually they’ll all want to kill us.

  30. BeccaM says:

    Hey, apparently it’s better that an entire village be wiped off the face of the Earth than for a single American soldier to risk his or her life.

  31. karmanot says:


  32. karmanot says:

    When I TROLL hunt for reptiles I drone them for efficiency’s sake and you would certainly approve of that. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that bold enough for you?

  33. karmanot says:

    yep! I suspect it’s easier to support killing than actually serving and putting it on the line.

  34. karmanot says:

    “not at all clueless” Then you are clearly a psychopath.

  35. karmanot says:

    Well done! Skinned that troll like a pro!

  36. karmanot says:

    “You’re a bloody-minded nationalist” Bingo!—-the most contemptible form of armchair patriotism.

  37. Sweetie says:

    Presidential legacy is just part of the distraction engine surrounding the office and the conduits of corrupt power behind it. In other words, it’s mainly for the plebs.

  38. karmanot says:

    I don’t think Obama raves. He’s seems quite articulate to me.

  39. karmanot says:


  40. karmanot says:

    But, but hurling insults is not needless. Sun Tzu opines that defining the enemy is a basic tactic, especially according to the level of ignorance that will bring him down.

  41. Ford Prefect says:

    With drones, there seems to be two holdovers from vietnam: 1) “If he’s running he’s VC,” and 2), body counts, although they say they don’t do them, the press releases announcing their kills would bely that.

  42. karmanot says:

    “Give it up, Karmanot” But Becca, I’m Irish/Scots and have been at war with these types for over 1500 years now. :-)

  43. karmanot says:

    Heart surgery with a chainsaw

  44. BeccaM says:

    Help yourself.

  45. BeccaM says:

    Or Drone Operator Jones hears from his supervisor, “You’ve been returning with full ordinance too often. It’s making our numbers look bad. You need to be making at least 80% positive IDs, got it? I don’t care if you’re not sure, your report says you’re sure. It’s not like anybody’s going to charge you with a war crime if you’re wrong.”

  46. BeccaM says:

    Kali is fierce, but just. Our Troll du Jour just want people to be killed because foreigners scare him.

  47. Ford Prefect says:

    Ok. But that’s not how it works. The way it works is if you’re male, between the age of 12-65 and you’re in a town, village or road “used by terrorists,” you’re a terrorist suspect–they don’t even have to know who you are. If you’re labeled a suspect, you’re as good as dead. Also too, everyone else within the blast radius is also posthumously labeled a “suspect.” Men, women, children of all ages. Under Obama’s “rules” a three-week old infant within the blast radius is a “suspected terrorist.” Got it?

    That’s how it works. You’ll notice that actual intelligence has nothing to do with it. So your notion of pre-emption is just bullshit. It doesn’t exist.

    Lastly, while we’re blowing up innocent people all over the world, you are as likely to be killed by your own furniture as by a terrorist. You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer, than by a terrorist. And since you live in a red state with hardly any workplace safety protections, you’re hundreds of times more likely to die at work than from a terrorist. Extra points for those who live in Texas, who are vastly more likely to be killed by their boss than anyone else.

    Still, why let things like perspective get in the way of a good killing spree, right?

  48. NorthAlabama says:

    you see, that’s the difference between us. i understand your views and reasonings, i just don’t agree, and i don’t feel that disagreement gives me the right to hurl needless insults at you and your beliefs. but keep on going, as long as you want – it shows your true character, too, or lack thereof.

  49. NorthAlabama says:

    troll much? you forgot the all caps, bold letters, and multiple exclamation points.

  50. BeccaM says:

    Give it up, Karmanot. You’re dealing with a guy who has zero empathy and absolutely no objective understanding of human psychology. He actually believes terrorists have no motivation other than an insatiable desire to kill. In his world, every one of them simply wakes up one day and says to themselves, “I hate America and I want to murder people, so let’s get on with it. Who needs any other reason?”

    And apparently all their neighbors are in on it. “Have you heard? Abdul is a terrorist now. A shame none of us feels like doing anything about him. I guess if a Hellfire missile hits our house, it’s our fault. I’m sure the rest of our extended family will understand and forgive them, because the Americans clearly had no choice. They’re at war with us, you know — not our country, but just us.”

    And apparently there are never any mistakes in targeting. No false-positive IDs. No strikes because a given drone operator was under pressure to have as high a body count as possible and to be sure to launch his missiles before returning to base — because that kind of thing has never, ever happened before in American war-making. Anybody standing next to the maybe-terrorist is acceptable collateral damage because hey, even though Congress has not actually declared a war since the WWII armistice and countries like Yemen and Pakistan are ostensibly our allies, we’re at war with subsets of their civilian populations and mere suspicion is enough to warrant execution.

    And never any alternative to death from above, sprayed indiscriminately.

    And 9/11 excuses everything, no matter how unrelated, damaging, immoral, and/or reckless.

  51. NorthAlabama says:

    i would rather track down those planning the attcks before the attacks, not after.

  52. Ford Prefect says:

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that being “proactive” means killing people in advance of something else happening? If nothing happens, there’s no crime. If there’s no crime, there’s no criminal. And besides, we’re really indiscriminate about killing anyway, with 90% of our “hits” being innocent bystanders.

    You’re proactivity requires perfect knowledge of “the enemy” to have any worth at all. Otherwise, it’s just murder. Or terrorism. Take your pick. And you think I have blood lust? ARe you mad?!

  53. NorthAlabama says:

    will never let go!

  54. karmanot says:

    It’s a good day for being alive. It’s a good day for outing the jive. It’s a good day for dissing the hama from Alabama. there, that’s how it’s working out for me. You?

  55. Ford Prefect says:

    Well put! Of course, the icing on this cake lies in the way he can also claim to take responsibility while blaming all of us for all his various crimes. When it comes to murder, torture, murdering Americans without due process or shredding the First Amendment, he attributes that to “US” or “WE.”

    His speeches aren’t even very good. They’re easy to parse. He says extra-judicial murder should have rules attached to it. Well, his own “disposition matrix” could hardly be described as “rules” in any real sense, since it’s still extra-judicial murder. But some mindless drone of a “journalist” can spout about rules, so it’s all good! Murder reformed. Except it’s still murder!

  56. karmanot says:

    I would have asked my relative but died in the collapse . Any other questions from the vicarious gallery?

  57. NorthAlabama says:

    i’m sure you have some crazy glue nearby.

  58. karmanot says:

    My moron dar just broke the meter.

  59. NorthAlabama says:

    not at all clueless. if my friends and neighbors were recklessly attacking civilians of another country, i might expect retalliation.

  60. karmanot says:

    Would make a great T-shirt and bumper sticker!

  61. NorthAlabama says:

    i pay close attention. i’m just able to separate the ravings of killers from the right of self defense.

  62. karmanot says:

    When you lose a child in war, maybe, just maybe you might get some clue. If the town in which you live gets wiped out by a drone and you family, neighbors and friends die terrible burning deaths, maybe you’ll get a clue. But, I doubt it, you are pathetically and dangerously clueless.

  63. NorthAlabama says:

    i think it’s a very good insight to your beliefs. no blood lust here, only glad to see we’re being proactive, instead of waiting for the explosion, and then wondering what we did to cause it.

  64. karmanot says:

    Oh but they do and have. You aren’t paying attention.

  65. Ford Prefect says:

    Wrong again. Deliberately killing innocent civilians for a political purpose is the very definition of terrorism. That’s what Obama & Co do. We even whore out our drones to other governments and kill their political opposition (or even fulfilling personal vendettas) in exchange for basing rights. See also: rendition, systematic torture (Abu Ghraib!!), illegal invasions, indefinite detention without charge or trial, naked wars of aggression and so forth. The Obama Administration is even arming jihadi groups affiliated with Al Qaeda in Syria. How’s that NOT terrorism? Some of them have even demonstrated cannibalistic tendencies to make their point. How is that NOT terrorism?

    You’re a bloody-minded nationalist. You believe murder is fine when it’s done by your people and wrong when others do the same thing. Basically, you have no moral compass and are unable to even make moral distinctions in the first place. You really ought to stop preaching, as it only makes you look horribly craven.

  66. karmanot says:

    Yep, someone hiccups at the wrong moment in Fort Bum Scratch Texas and a whole village is gone.

  67. karmanot says:


  68. BeccaM says:

    I concur. He’s the friggin’ president and C-in-C. Gitmo was opened under C-in-C authority, it could be closed down by the same. If force-feeding prisoners is wrong, then order it to be stopped. If endless war is bad, then declare all reasonable pre-war objectives achieved and end them. If a free press is that essential to American democracy and values, then stop prosecuting whistleblowers and spying on the press. If it’s accepted by all reasonable persons that indiscriminate drone strikes creates more terrorists than the few actually killed, then order it to be stopped in favor of more effective diplomatic and law-enforcement strategies.

  69. NorthAlabama says:

    bully much? how’s that workin’ out for ‘ya?

  70. karmanot says:

    Who knew Obozo had an inner Barry Goldwater.

  71. karmanot says:

    A neighborhood kid has one and flies it over Alabama’s house to see if his/her panties are in a bunch.

  72. karmanot says:

    Cool: from Ava Broun to Ilse Koch in one paragraph.

  73. karmanot says:

    There is at least one in North Alabama.

  74. karmanot says:

    “I defer to Muhammed Ali on war.” Same here!

  75. BeccaM says:

    I know. Even if ‘fighting back’ isn’t the least bit careful to fight those actually responsible. He pretty much epitomizes everything that’s wrong and immoral with our country’s foreign policies.

  76. karmanot says:

    “it was done on purpose” FACT: oh, indeed it was, as was the murder of an innocent family riding in a taxi, as were the civilians who tried to help them —remember that incident, It turned Bradley Manning into a whistle blower. It is you armchair, blood thirsty, voyeurs who keep this death march alive. Your stubborn ignorance and refusal to face reality is a form of terrorism in itself.

  77. NorthAlabama says:

    if you equivocate our military and political leaders with terrorists, your way too lost to talk on the subject.

  78. karmanot says:

    It always looks that way when sitting safely at home.

  79. NorthAlabama says:

    sweeter than whatever you call what’s going on in your mind.

  80. NorthAlabama says:

    i’ve never advcated murder of anyone. i just don’t have issues with fighting back after every other recourse has been exhausted.

  81. karmanot says:

    Thank you. But the Kali Durga from Alabama respectfully disagrees.

  82. NorthAlabama says:

    it would probably be better asked of anyone living in manhattan when the towers collapsed, “darlin'”.