Obama's Drones Turn Rightbloggers Into Civil Libertarians, If Only Temporarily

"Liberals who would have demanded Bush's impeachment have collectively yawned," claimed Matt K. Lewis at The Week. But that was okay, he went on, because the "ugly truth" was that "Obama is giving us what we want... American citizens want someone who will make the big, bad world disappear." Strangely, Lewis added, "This dynamic helps explain why some other liberal policies become popular." (Other liberal policies?) "Ignorance is bliss. It's why many people believe that adults have more rights than the unborn (after all, we can see them, hear them complain...)" So by this logic, conservatives are in favor of saving the unborn and protecting the rights of suspected terrorists -- which is why Americans don't like them. Well, it's as good an explanation as any.

At Hot Air Ed Morrissey rushed to denounce liberal hypocrites, i.e. Michael Tomasky and unnamed others ("Maybe we should have a Republican as President all the time so that the media can actually do its job," said Morrissey, apparently dispensing with all that citizen-journalism bullshit), but eventually got around to telling us that "there are no easy answers for a nation attempting not just to defend itself from military attack, but also from the kind of infiltration attack that can produce massively-scaled casualties, as we saw on 9/11. The use of American citizens for that kind of infiltration is a real danger," blah blah, before rushing back for a big blame-the-media finish.

Patterico was totally down with killing whoever, but complained that "Obama is a liar and I do not trust him. So while I might be OK with what the memo proposes, there is no way for me to be sure he won't take it further, if he thinks it would benefit him politically." Well, look, it's not as if he doesn't have evidence: "[Obama] doesn't consider himself constrained by little things like budget deadlines," explained Patterico. "Why would he pass an opportunity to kill a U.S. citizen outside the above guidelines if he thought he could justify it?" Patterico then showed a picture of Obama with his nose in the air, and asked, "It's not like this guy thinks of himself as above the law or anything, does it?" (In real life Patterico is a deputy district attorney, where this kind of tight reasoning must serve him well.)

Then there was John Yoo -- hold on, you say, John Yoo? Whose name is synonymous with Bush-era torture policy? That John Yoo? Yes, but don't worry, Yoo's not pretending to be anything other than the monster he's always been; in his Wall Street Journal column, Yoo says that though both "the antiwar left and right are going ballistic" about drones, he's in favor. But he still faults the Administration, because in drafting his drone rules Obama "replaced the clarity of the rules of war with the vague legal balancing tests that govern policemen on the beat..." So see, even when they're killing American citizens preemptively, Democrats are still weak on defense. It's like they can't help themselves!

Bill O'Reilly gets extra points for claiming NBC, which had broken the story, was trying to bury it ("You heard anything on NBC about the drones?").

And some of the brethren just didn't see what the problem was at all.

Walter Russell Mead acted as if liberals' great sin was opposing Obama's drones. "Killing bad guys overseas without putting our military in harm's way may be controversial among the pundit class," sneered Mead, "but outside the Beltway and some college campuses" -- hear that, hippies? -- "drones get more support than President Obama and Congress combined--right up there with motherhood and Christmas... Andrew Jackson would have certainly approved."

Ambassador turned TV analyst John Bolton said Obama's policy was "consistent with and really derived from the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror... and I think it is entirely sensible. Whether it is foreign citizens who are involved with Al Qaeda or American citizens, we are in a war..."

At Commentary, Max Boot said, "I'd much rather that the president be hypocritical than wrong on the issue of targeted killings. In this case I think he deserves applause for taking the right stance in spite of the criticism from some of his own supporters in the 'human rights' lobby."

At National Review, John O'Sullivan sighed, "I'm broadly on the side of John Bolton, Rich Lowry, Andy McCarthy (on NRO), and Max Boot... in their support for the Obama administration's justification for drone attacks designed to kill al-Qaeda leaders, whether or not they are U.S. citizens. Admittedly, one has to grit one's teeth and mutter this support from the side of one's mouth."

We'll bet. But while gritting and muttering, O'Sullivan still felt empowered to make demands of Obama: "If we should support the president here, however," he asserted, "we should also exact a price -- and a very legitimate price at that (by 'we' here, I mean the appropriate congressional leaders of the Republican party, such Democrats as agree, and the broader American conservative movement.) In return for support, we should demand that the president actually defend the policy that his lawyers have outlined -- and the Bush policy of which it is logically an extension."

Well, good luck, buddy. The sad fact is, after years of the Orwellian War on Terror, the American people have become accustomed to such outrages, which is why Obama can get away with it. And, O'Sullivan's fantasy to the contrary, he doesn't need to justify it even with logic. We can all fight over who deserves most of the blame in hell. Meantime our insufficient but welcome solace is to watch these guys pretending to be Code Pink (minus the guts) for a couple of days.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

 So, I take it you're in favor of spy drones in the U.S., the patriot act, the even harsher NDAA & stuff like that.  I see you condemning 'right wingers' but I am very confused, seeing as how you obviously support what is normally considered 'right wing fascism' and invasive dictatorial government control of freedom.   I'm hearing the words that you favor democracy, freedom & liberality, but I am seeing a  very strong defense of the exact opposite. 

YOU sound exactly like those guys who told the jews not to worry when a law was made banning them from owning guns.  Your propaganda is also VERY similar to the type used by the Communist regimes of Stalin & Zedong.  Do you really believe the garbage, allusions, lies, and overgeneralized statements of condemnation usually reserved for people accused of racism?  What I mean is, how do you justify your contradictions, double standards & total hypocrisy to yourself - are you even aware of it or are you just too arrogant to admit you were ever wrong about something?  You are the type of person who rails against 'generalization of groups' of people because its wrong, but do you consider it acceptable if YOU choose the victim group?

Absolutely unbelievable.  I didn't think it was possible to be so hypocritical & derisive of people you accuse of 'feeling & thinking' things you would have no way of knowing and even though the claim something else; then berating them for being against something YOU should be standing against. At least if your ideals were really what you say they are, and I find it hard to believe they are.

There's absolutely nothing worse than a person who slanders an entire group of people based on a personal belief, personal bias, and misconceptions AND who CLAIM these beliefs & biases as FACT, while at the same time defending activities you ACCUSE that group of being involved with.  It boggles the mind.  I didn't believe I was still capable of feeling so utterly disgusted by humanity, hypocrisy, misdirection and lies, until I read a handful of yours.

See I always voted democrat my entire life, I hated Bush and was pretty upset when the patriot act was initiated (among other things) and it DOES NOT MATTER to me WHO is in that white house seat, whether they call themselves liberal/conservative or democrat/republican - if they enact the same type of civil rights destroying legislation and tell the same filthy lies, I am STILL going to be angry and I am still going to complain.  A liar is a liar, a fascist is a fascist, a stupid idiot bleating toady is a stupid idiot bleating today - and your complete and utter dismissal of anyone who complains about what is happening in Washington and in the world, shows that you are not capable of abstract reasoning, and an utter contempt for all of humanity and civil rights.  I'm not going to vote for people or defend people who call themselves Democrats, but who more rightly should be running under some communist fascist flag.  I only go by the facts, I'm not going to eat something that looks like a dog turd just because you say its chocolate, I don't believe what politicians tell us ANY of them, they're all self serving power mongers & greedy bastards - this is my life & my families lives and future here.  I want proof and facts and knowledge - not some douchebag with a false smile shoveling out some soundbites I hear repeated over and over by idiots like it means something.  This is TOO IMPORTANT.

Obama seems like a con man to me, there is never any real substance in anything he says.   There is no golden goose ass that I'll kiss to further any agenda that compromises my freedom, but I guess you already gave that goose a big fat wet one.


Pinocchio nose grows whenever he lies unlike Obama his ears grow whenever he fools American fools.

I will take these propagandized cartoons more seriously only if Obama tell the truth that he never told American fools that most of Obama Dronamatic Payloads are controlled by Taliban boys not by Boeing Fatass Atari-Boys in Mojave Desert who usually gun-down anything that moves on their little screen mainly sleeping babies, elders, women & cats on garbage cans. Drones are eliminating Taliban Rivals. Courtesy of Langley Grafted Bitches.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault