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

tomt200.jpgNBC recently brought to light the Obama Administration's policy of conducting drone attacks on civilians "even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S." so long as "an informed, high-level" official thinks they're warranted.

This is apparently approved even against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, as the Authorization of Use of Military Force signed by President Bush in 2001 "does not set forth an express geographical limitation on the use of force it authorizes," per the Administration's white paper.

This put rightbloggers into an uproar -- not because they're against this sort of thing, though some of them did a fair job of pretending. No, they were mad because Obama was getting away with something that they just knew they'd do a much better job of getting away with.

The NBC report disseminated quickly, and other Mainstream Media outlets rushed to get in on it; the New York Times, for example, published "Drone Strikes' Risks to Get Rare Moment in the Public Eye" -- which included material that the Times, among others, had previously agreed to keep quiet, presumably in order to preserve their access to government sources. (Interestingly, this went on even as the Times was suing the government for more information on drones.)

But, as Beyonce's publicists also recently discovered, once the lid's off anything goes, and the Administration was roundly attacked for its disturbing program.

There was an outcry from the big-name liberals you'd expect: Jon Stewart ("We told you we were going to be transparent -- we just didn't tell you it was going to be about the last guy's secrets"), Bill Moyers ("killing innocents and driving their enraged families and friends straight into the arms of the very terrorists we're trying to eradicate"), Eugene Robinson ("Obama's drone attacks are just wrong"), Mother Jones ("The government needs the approval of a judge to detain a suspected terrorist. To kill one, it need only give itself permission"), The American Prospect ("this definition of 'imminent threat' is disturbingly similar to the contortions of logic that the Bush administration used"), Roger Ebert ("With all due respect, Mr. President, that's bullshit"), Tom Tomorrow, Bill Maher ("I know Obama's a swell guy and Bush was an evil oaf, but it really is the same policy, isn't it?"), etc., not to mention tons of leftbloggers. We should add that some of them were talking about drones before it was cool.

But there were some liberals who on-the-other-handed the revelations: msnbc's Touré ("as soon as you join Al Qaeda, you become an imminent threat") and Krystal Ball ("Do you feel the same about George W. Bush having that power as President Obama? Call me a hypocrite but I sure don't"), for example. Also McLaughlin Group stalwart Eleanor Clift, who called drones a "blessing," and Michael Tomasky, who said, well, at least Obama wants to put in a review process and isn't George Bush.

We got these names from rightblogger accounts; as they are especially motivated to find liberal hypocrites, we're surprised they didn't find more. We're sure there must be others, though probably not so many, if only because at the moment the heat's on.

worldcantwait.jpg
Guess those must be rightbloggers protesting drones at the Inauguration. But why aren't they wearing tricorners? (cc) Debra Sweet/World Can't Wait
Anyway, rightbloggers were all over it. A number of them focused on Touré, for reasons that will be obvious if you've seen a picture of him ("resident race-baiter Touré" -- Independent Journal Review; "So, does Touré still think George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin?" -- Matt Vespa, The PJ Tatler, etc.).

In the main, though, rightbloggers didn't much bother with actual documented defenses, but just attacked "liberals" in toto for their largely invisible support of the President's drone strikes -- even when they themselves had not previously shown any interest in the civil liberties of alleged terrorists.

Rob Port of Say Anything, for instance, complained that "not only is that an affront to due process rights enshrined in the 5th amendment, but it sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents," then challenged liberals: "While some of you might trust President Obama to wield these powers (I don't), would you have said the same thing about George W. Bush? Would you feel that way about a President Romney?"

For perspective, here is some of Port's previous civil liberties reporting: "Torture is such a subjective, political term," he said in 2011. "When you say 'torture' most people think of people being stretched on a rack or something... But whatever we call that sort of interrogation technique - be it 'enhanced interrogation' or 'torture' or what have you - the point is that it works..." (To those who "say they object to these sort of techniques because they're 'immoral,'" Port rejoined, "if we can get some jihadist to cough up information about terror networks and plots, wouldn't it be immoral not to use them given that such intelligence can save lives?")

Similarly, NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard, decrying Clift, claimed "the obvious conclusion from what we've seen this week is the Obama-loving media have gone so far in the tank for this president that they're willing to throw all their once strongly-held beliefs overboard to defend him." In past reportage, Sheppard has revealed himself in favor of torturing terror suspects; when Shepard Stern said Americans "don't fucking torture," Sheppard rebuked him: "Even if it helps save lives, Shep? What if it saves the lives of folks close to you? Might that change your opinion? It is indeed fascinating that the further we get from 9/11, more and more Americans are forgetting that we are indeed at war with terrorists," etc.

Generally speaking, the more outraged a rightblogger's reaction to Obama's drones ("Do I even need to play the 'Imagine if President Bush had done this' card?... Why do we need the second amendment? To stop tyranny"), the more likely it is he'd never batted an eye over human rights abuses before 2009 ("A lot of folks on the left -- to include some high ranking Democratic leaders -- have accused our soldiers of torturing terrorist prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Camp Gitmo. The ridiculousness of theses charges is that these lefties have no idea what real torture is," etc.). See also Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, now ("How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for ya?") and then ("more rubble, less trouble").

Some rightbloggers had a less easily-followed agenda. "I am not feeling warm and fuzzy" about Obama's program, Bookworm Room announced. Then: "Admission: I am warm enough, but very fuzzy on details about internal drones because DHS hasn't explained the purchase of 450 million hollow-point bullets (they're the type of bullets that expand after entry)..." Possible translation: Let us find how the drone program fits in with the ObamaHitler Administration's plan to take over Disarmed America with 450 million hollow-points/fluoridated water. Later: "California is searching for Christopher Dorner, who has murdered 3 people already and has a 'kill list.' The administration has a 'kill list' as well, which is only geared towards Americans on foreign soil, along with foreign jihadists/Al Qaida. Add to the mix that Congress approved the use of 30,000 drones by 2020 within our borders. I can see the program's usefulness in apprehending Dorner, but..." Here the logic trail grows mighty cold, and we must abandon the search.

Some of the brethren hit the hypocrisy angle, and then explained why they wouldn't do things any differently (except for the personnel angle, of course).


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
4 comments
palebunnyinfidel
palebunnyinfidel

 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.

alakhtal
alakhtal

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

 

Loading...