One of the most hilarious aspects of the debate that's tearing the
Left apart like a spin cycle would candy underwear is the subterranean
war (completely ignored by the MSM, natch) that's brewing between
so-called liberals and the real kind is the same anti-NRA people happen
to be the very same ones who have no problem with unmanned drones that
carry multiple warheads killing innocents abroad.
person can square two diametrically opposing sides of what should be a
black and white debate about the sanctity of all human life is a
conundrum into which no rational-thinking person should try to delve for
too long. The corporately-owned MSM, of course, as effectively and as
invariably as it had in the age of SCUD missiles and Stinger missiles
before that and napalm before that and the Bomb before that, have been
championing the use of unmanned drones almost as if they have a
financial stake in the matter (Oops, looks as if part of it does
And Republicans who'd ordinarily frantically cast about for a nerf bat
or a wet noodle with which to hit the president are staying mum on this
matter because, well, they love death and neverending war. They just
won't give the black guy any credit for helping them further their
This byline isn't about them because the
right wing and the mainstream media are completely worthless, incurably
corrupt and counterproductive to the advancement of our species. Since
they obviously have nothing substantive to add to the national and
international debate about any subject under the sun, I feel I stand on
firm ground when I say we can automatically dismiss whatever they have
This is, instead, about the widening fissure between
liberals over the drone strike controversy that's hardly treated at all
like a controversy by virtually all networks (save for Rachel Maddow
God bless her, who's been taking some hits from her own fan base for
accurately reporting on them) from Fox on up. This is about
self-identified, so-called liberals who should know better and, despite
who they voted for last November, have to be considered Bush Democrats,
this decade's answer to the Reagan Democrats of the 80's.
nothing else, the raging debate about the legality and morality of
drones is effective in revealing who really understands the issues, who
reveres all human life and who is not so scared for their personal and
our national security to be blinded by fear from those who think drones
are our friend because they protect national security and keep us from
squandering American lives.
We know that drones are used
along the border in the American southwest and, because it helps keep
out brown furr'ners out to take our jobs in hotel rooms, rich peoples'
lawns and stables and taco stands, the rift began when certain
"progressives" grew comfortable with them. Then, when the hostage
situation was unfolding in Alabama last week and this week, we heard
perhaps once or twice in the media about unmanned drones
hovering overhead before it dropped into the memory hole. Once again, unmanned drones were circling over Alabama soil during a law enforcement operation
and ABC was reporting this as if it was as common as pepper spray and K-9 police dogs.
One not versed in Constitutional law (such as our president) would think this is a clearcut violation of posse comitatus
and perhaps they'd be right in a dive bar argument were it not for
three things: #1 Drones are largely a civilian weapon. Drone strikes and
surveillance are authorized by the CIA which are in turn authorized by
the president and a small, hermetic cabal of people. #2 Posse comitatus
even if it would still apply to CIA drones, would forbid such resources
being used on American soil. Drones never touch down during the
operational phase. And, #3, Posse comitatus
, thanks to Bill Clinton
and, you guessed it, Barack Obama
, doesn't really exist, anymore.
But the moral sliminess and undulating agility of those who are
suddenly in favor of border security and drone strikes is much more
reprehensible than that of conservatives who want government off our
backs while cheering the regulation of women's vaginas when one realizes
with a start that these are the same people who still proclaim
themselves liberal and voted for Obama because he was a somewhat less
scary alternative than Romney or McCain.
And the mental gymnastics of the liberal elite
is really quite an adorable thing to behold, especially when they
defend drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents worldwide, especially
when one also realizes they sound suspiciously like the so-called
liberal factions that cheered on the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
and the not-so-gradual Indian-giving of our Constitutional protections
and civil liberties under the USA PATRIOT Act.
"But... but, American lives are more valuable!"
One of the skeeviest arguments from the Left is that drones protect
American interests such as national security without endangering
American lives. This is the whole sniper-as-unsung-hero mentality that
turned murdered ex SEAL Chris Kyle into a hero of the anti-NRA movement
and a posthumous poster child for gun control, a role he no doubt
would've laughed at. Kyle, the self-confessed killer of 150 people in
the interests of national security, was murdered by a fellow war veteran
on a gun range in Texas, which seemed to deepen the conviction of many
in the "reality-based community" that if a "good guy" like Kyle, who
made good money bragging about how many he'd killed, could effortlessly
get waxed at a gun range in Texas of all places, well, then, no one is
safe until we enact some stricter gun control measures.
By the same token, the use of Predator drones, essentially snipers on
tons of anabolic steroids, are to the Left a far more congenial, if far
less accurate, way of getting rid of terrorists. But this argument has
more holes in it than a Putin-era hostage.
First, it assumes the fallacious argument that 1) we're actually
killing nothing but terrorists, thereby securing national security, 2)
the CIA actually has a right to violate national sovereignty such as
Yemen's and Pakistan's and everywhere else our Sasquatch footprint
lands, 3) if we're killing innocent civilians, that's an acceptable
amount of collateral damage, especially since we don't have to hear the
wailing from grieving relatives or see the vaporized bodies except,
perhaps, in sanitized "reports" on CBS. And, 4) If you're not with us,
you're against us and you forfeit your own constitutional protections
even if the State Department doesn't officially revoke your citizenship.
Secondly, and most despicably, the rationale that this puts fewer
American lives in danger while we're putting innocent people to death
seems to more than suggest that American lives are infinitely more
valuable than that of brown villagers 7000 miles away. All that's
missing from the so-called liberal argument is, "If the President does it, it's not illegal.
" (The White House's darkly comical 16 page white paper
essentially said as much.)
So let's unpack and deconstruct these morally contorted arguments one piece at a time:
1) We haven't been attacked on American soil by Muslim terrorists since
9/11 and we were largely able to achieve this through military
intervention using special forces, admittedly superb intelligence work
amongst coordinating agencies and, most importantly, virtually without
predator drones that were a relative rarity during the Bush
administration. Plus, as one noted pundit opined a few years ago
perhaps al Qaeda hasn't attacked us not because Bush and Cheney kept us
safe and free by suspending our civil liberties but simply because al
Qaeda chose not to.
national sovereignty makes a mockery of both a sovereign nation and our
avowed intention to liberate them from noxious entities and bad actors
who would also violate their national sovereignty. Liberals had a
problem with this regarding Iraq and Afghanistan but seemingly no
problem with such violations when Navy SEALs dropped in to Pakistan to
allegedly kill bin Laden and launching drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan
and, yes, Afghanistan and all without even notifying their governments
beforehand. Our endless history of military misadventurism would, one
would think, teach us time and again that might does not always make
right. In fact, it rarely if ever does.
3) Once again, if we're killing innocent civilians, and then lying about it
it makes a mockery of another country's sovereignty and reduces lost
human life to static numbers that can be massaged and negotiated ("No,
we didn't murder six children, it was only three") or, God help us, be melted down into a single comma
on their glorious road to freedom. Once again, so-called liberals have
no problem with the trampling on of another nation's sovereignty since
no one dares trample on ours. Except for our federal government.
4) Liberals that used to be so concerned for the rule of law such as
the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and UN Security Council Resolutions
and their jeering of those who'd denigrated it now, a decade later, have
no problem with the Obama administration murdering American citizens
and their teenaged offspring abroad without due process. These same
liberals who went into righteous conniptions with terrorism suspects
being detained without charge, those same ones who complain bitterly
(justly) about Bradley Manning's persecution and the
suicide-by-persecution of Aaron Swartz suddenly are inured to the acrid
moral aftertaste of their fellow Americans, al Qaeda operatives or no,
being killed without a vetting process or any judicial review
5) Heaven forbid we
should legitimately put JSOC operators in harm's way when they entered
the Special Forces after being told, and accepting, they'd be doing just
that in defense of flag and country when we have drones to do the dirty
work. These are the same liberals who just last week cheered the
Pentagon clearing the way for women in combat roles behind enemy lines.
And the, "American lives of Special Forces operators are more valuable
than that of innocent villagers" smacks of the same jingoism that made
the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan and, before that, Vietnam, possible.
"We're Killing Others So We Don't Get Killed."
This sudden and convenient abandonment of liberal conscience under the
Obama administration is deeply disturbing because it charts the moral
putrescence into which all too many liberals have fallen without
simultaneously achieving even a wretched common ground with
conservatives who still feel as if liberals are the greatest pox upon
Mankind since the Bubonic Plague.
As Pogo once famously said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." With
the notable addendum that we are looking into a mirror but darkly.
The plain facts are that if the Bush administration had begun using
drones at the beginning instead of toward the end of its fabled
stumbling Skid Row run, these same "liberals" would've been massing
outside the White House by the hundreds of thousands screaming for
Bush's pretzel-bruised head on a pike. If Bush had signed an executive
order, and his Alberto Gonzales Justice Department had produced a white
paper, authorizing the assassination of US citizens without the
slightest shred of judicial review, you would've seen Cindy Sheehan and
the Gold Star Mothers on TV more often than Peyton Manning.
Instead, liberals and their blandly evil Dopplegangers who are more in
the center and even to the right more than they'd like to admit are
tearing each other apart on an issue that, until recently, we were all
united. The droners, let's call them, are uncomfortably comfortable with
the taking of innocent lives in the interests of national primacy and
being able to do so with complete and utter impunity.
Tell me if this sounds all too familiar. I won't stop but feel free to tell me, anyway.
The same liberals who rightly said the wanton slaughter of innocent
Iraqis and Afghanis resulted in their being recruited into al Qaeda and
the Taliban are suddenly tone deaf to the exact same thing happening
in Yemen, in which joining an al Qaeda that buys the loyalty of
grieving families victimized by drone strikes is widely seen as the only
way to oppose the United States. They're also conveniently using Muslim resentment
at this Crusades v10.0 as an excuse to continue the drone strikes until the war on terror is, at last, won with honor.
Some day, hopefully, when we look back on these casually bloodthirsty
years, after Obama's disturbing cult of personality fades into as much
obscurity as had Bush's, we'll wonder how we could've been led so easily
astray with a 16 page white paper and by an unshakable belief in a man
who led us even deeper into the shit-slimed rabbit hole as had his
predecessor. We'll wonder, as we did after Bush left office, how we
could've been so effortlessly bamboozled into cheering on drones
personally deployed by a man who had as little problem curtailing our civil liberties
as that self-same predecessor.
And maybe, just maybe, the more erudite and conscientious of us will
hit upon the answer by recalling those prophetic words of former Georgia
Congressman Bob Barr when he warned us, "If you give government power, it uses it."
However, if you limousine liberals still will not or cannot hit upon
the provenance of this madness that had taken over so many of you from
2009 onward, then perhaps it's time you burned your Liberal cards. That
shouldn't be too hard. Just pretend it's your parents' bra and draft cards so your apostasy won't hurt as much. Otherwise, kindly step aside. The real humanists have work to do.