President Obama Finally Admits to the Obvious: Murderous Drone Attacks (The Nation, Pakistan)
Feb 2nd, 2012 | 16 responses
Yesterday, in a YouTube/Google Plus town hall, President Obama finally admitted to what the world has known for years: that the United States has been using drone aircraft to kill militants in among other places, America’s supposed ally, Pakistan. This editorial from Pakistan’s The Nation welcomes this admission of the obvious, but wonders how the president could claim that most of those killed in the strikes were militants, and calls for shooting down the drones whenever they are found in Pakistan air space.
The Nation editorial starts out this way:
President Barack Obama has at last acknowledged what has long been undisputed fact to even the most casual observer: CIA-operated drones have been carrying out missions in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. His claim that they targeted “al-Qaeda and its affiliates” and not civilians, however, raised more than a few eyebrows. After all, if all of the 2,661 people killed in the 303 drone attacks since 2001 were militants and their affiliates, the phenomenon of terrorism would have fizzled out long ago. The fact is that only a small number of those killed were confirmed as militants, while the rest were civilians posing no danger to the “U.S. and its citizens,” which is the cause of the drone strikes according to the American leader. Mr. Obama made his remarks in a discussion with Web users on Google Plus and You Tube. Before that, U.S. officials had refused to talk about the drones in public.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “President Obama Finally Admits to the Obvious: Murderous Drone Attacks (The Nation, Pakistan)”
Can you picture the front page headlines if Bush had done this:
Bush Admits Murdering Innocent People, or variations, thereof.
The drones strikes have killed a lot of terrorists and as far as I’m concerned only go to show that they are getting support from Pakistan. We are not targeting civilians, the terrorists merely hide among civilians. Thats how they want to fight this war thats how its going to be fought. They don’t get to plot, plan and execute attacks on our guys, slink away across the border and call safe zone. This isn’t a game of children playing tag.
So, Slam, do you think there would have been a lack of headlines if this was done in Bush’s time?
Interesting game with the title. It implied that the Obama had admitted not only that there were drone attacks, but there were “murderous” attacks (ie he admitted not only to the attacks but also to their murderous nature). Of course that isn’t true.
Duck, I think your question is a good one. I’m not happy about the heavy reliance on drones, in part because it reduces our sensitivity to the horrors of war and allows killing to become even more abstract. It’s no fantasy for the people being killed, it shouldn’t be a fantasy (like a video game) for the people who are doing the killing either. Neither should it be a fantasy for the taxpayers who are funding (and thereby supporting) the killing.
Bush did use armed drones after 9/11. It just wasn’t known, as so much wasn’t known. Those drones were used at targets in Afghanistan while Osama was still there. Not many were complaining then, though just as many civilians were killed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-25-drones-osama_x.htm
If you want to see headlines against Obama’s use of drones, visit any left wing website.
If you want to see headines lauding Obama’s use of drones visit any right wing website.
If you want headlines about murderous drones, continue reading Pakistan’s “The Nation”.
“Both sides do it”.
And Clinton used cruise missiles. My point is that I don’t see big headlines in the MSM, on this admission. Not to beat a dead horse, IMHO there would have been big headlines during Bush’s watch for this same type of scenario.
They are all reporting it, but, if you google, the word murderous was only used by a three websites including this one.
Do you think Daily Kos would be any more frantic about it if it was Bush than they are about Obama? I don’t see how.
Anyway, all the MSM is reporting it (WaPo, LA Times, BBC), as they did when Bush did it (see above), both times without the “murderous” emphasis.
Bush did use armed drones after 9/11. It just wasn’t known, as so much wasn’t known. Those drones were used at targets in Afghanistan while Osama was still there. Not many were complaining then, though just as many civilians were killed.
Ohioan I don’t know if you were around TMV at the time but there were articles hugely critical of Bush for using drones, mainly because of collateral damage. This is the first article I remember seeing at TMV critical of Obama’s drone usage since he was elected.
DG
No, I’m a newbie here. With all due respect, I’ve never considered TMV to be a mainstream media outlet. I consider the 3 major TV corporations, WaPo, LA Times, the Guardian UK, etc. and as the report, based on WaPo, mentioned above doesn’t seem outrageous I assume not many were outraged then, either. There were certainly fewer strikes to be outraged about.
I don’t remember anything critical being in those outlets at the time, either, but that was nearly 10 years ago and my memory is worse now than it was then. Perhaps you remember something to link to?
President Bush got a lot of flack for going into Iraq, after the fact, but very little at the time. As a left wing liberal, I gave him the benefit of knowing more than I did about what should be done.
Later on, after having a nephew who was in the first wave of the second war tell me about the incompetency of the invasion, never again. I’m giving the present guy the benefit of knowing more than I do, also, and can hardly fault him for doing what I thought should have been done long before Mr. Bush was out of office.
DG
I looked at the archives and can only find Dec 31st of years starting with 2005. And most of those I read were critical of the unauthorized wire tapping.
Since the Bush administration started the manned drones in 2001, and the article above was written in 2003, I’m not sure how they could have been criticized at this website at the time. I could be wrong.
O, I think in those days, they didn’t reveal “secrets” so readily and certainly fewer (again giving them the benefit of the doubt) mission details.
It is unwise to disclose all of these tactical details, and IMHO, even the covert missions to public and enemy scrutiny.
The very next day after the OBL mission, where they all agreed to keep details secret, Gates complained that the details were out.
The details of the Somalia rescue mission didn’t need to be disclosed, who does that benefit?
Folks, these are covert, secret missions, and many in that community don’t want publicity, it makes their future jobs potentially more dangerous.
One former seal says so in this WSJ article (although the headline is over the top and this is only an unofficial opinion). I’m sure there are some other critical articles out there on this subject.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193024150056072.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Just sayin, loose lips sink ships.
Full disclosure: Leif Babin, the author of that WSJ Opinion article is married to a Fox News anchor, Jenna Lee.
Plus, for the record, it was wrong when Bush and any other presidents disclosed more than needed.
dd
Ah, so you are more worried about disclosing secrets than about big headlines in the MSM of one President rather than another President when they are exposed. I misunderstood and was on the wrong track entirely. Mea Culpa
O, bingo…………….
[...] President Obama Finally Admits to the Obvious: Murderous Drone Attacks (The Nation, Pakistan) (The Moderate Voice) [...]