I Evidently Have to Scream ‘Baby Killer!’ or I’m an Obamabot

My Monday column begins like so:

The harshest critics of my column, “No, President Obama Is Not ‘Worse Than Bush’ on National Security,” posted both here at The Daily Banter and on The Huffington Post, were anti-Obama screechers to my left (I evidently have a left) and the most common refrain was that I’m an Obama apologist and my column proves it.

Here’s the problem: the centerpiece of what I wrote, as well as a column on the same subject a week earlier, was the notion that Obama should be stripped of the war powers authority granted in the September 14, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and/or that predator drones ought to be well-regulated because it’s too easy for this risk-free military and intelligence technology to be abused.

For some reason, stripping the president of his war on terrorism powers and calling for drone oversight makes me an Obamabot and a presidential apologist. I’m not sure how that works because calling for the president to be stripped of certain powers — twice — is, in fact, the opposite of endorsing those powers.

The only conclusion I can gather is that too many commenters/activists/trolls have been conditioned to kneejerk into self-righteous screams of “Baby killer!” and “War criminal!” whenever the subject of the president and drones comes up, regardless of the context or the points being made. [continue reading here]

This entry was posted in The Daily Banter and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • ranger11

    Obama kills babies? What a jerk!

  • muselet

    See, there you go being rational and recognizing nuance again. You should know by now, if you don’t throw a tantrum about drones, you’re clearly a monster. *eyeroll*

    Well said, Bob. Again.

    –alopecia

  • mrbrink

    Total Lincolnbot!

  • chilisize

    Yes, you have a left, and just about all of it in far more command of the issue than you could ever be. The notion that drones are “risk free” requires no nuance, it requires blinders. Attacks that leave dozens of innocents (even if the president has gone ahead and deemed each and every one of them “terrorists” after the fact), make us no friends, and it’s not been shown that they make *anyplace* “safer.”

    For myself, that the president can decide via a rather doubtful approximation of “due process” that Americans can be killed, is not the biggest issue (that would be the untold and hidden collateral killing), but I will point out that John Walker Lindh is now in jail. This is the route that should have been taken with al Awlaki. The “targeted killing,” in plain honest English the assassination, of people well apart from any conventionally understood battle zone is a disgrace.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      You are accusing Bob of saying things he didn’t say and meanings his didn’t even imply. Also Bob said that he doesn’t think the President (whoever is in that role) should have that power, that it should be stripped by law from him/her. And finally the President has indicated that he would prefer to not only jail people in the U.S. but try them criminally. You might have noticed that it was Congress that put the kibosh on that whole plan. The only other thing to do is capture and incarcerate overseas or kill them. The ONLY reason we were able to capture Lindh was because our forces literally stumbled across him in an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, a country where we had boots on the ground. Captured alive, he was returned to the U.S. and tried. Awlaki was in Yemen, a place where, if we had boots on the ground, they weren’t in the right place at the right time and never would be unless we full scale invaded.

      However, you do a great job of proving Bob’s other point that screechers’ screech for the sake of screeching. Never mind what he really said or intended.

      • chilisize

        “You are accusing Bob of saying things he didn’t say…”

        Oh, am I? Well then: If Bob agrees that drone strikes are counter productive in the extreme, that the president is disengenuous when minimizing the collateral damage brought on by the program, if he shares my disgust at simply labelling anyone killed a terrorist, if he agrees that the notion that a conversation with some legal counsel who then give a thumbs-up counts as “due process” is beyond ridiculous, and that these assassinations are in general disgraceful, I will forgive him for pretending that this is about “nuance” and the war powers act, and we’re all good.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          It’s impossible to have reasonable discourse with someone like you. I should never have responded to you in the first place. Lesson learned.

          • chilisize

            Ok. If by “have a reasonable discourse” you mean “see all of my assertions accepted as is without question,” then you have a very good point.

            Mr Cesca has in fact done much more than simply bemoan the “powers” given the president, as if he cannot choose any other course beyond assassinations and collateral killing (which the adminstration then denies even occurred).

            Bob has *accepted* the notion (as you seem to) that al Alawaki needed killing. He has (tacitly if not overtly) accepted that getting say so from an attorney equals “due process.” He has remained silent (as far as I can tell) on the president’s apparent belief that any killed by drones can be after the fact deemed individuals at war with the US.

            So have a nice life.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            What are you 12 years old? If your previous commenats didn’t prove that, this one sure did. Get a life.

  • villemar

    Hot Water Burn Baby!!!