May 6, 2009 8:43am
President Obama to Push Afghanistan, Pakistan to Fight Extremists
EmailToday President Obama will tell Presidents Karzai and Zardari: "We face a common threat."
Read more HERE.
– jpt
Today President Obama will tell Presidents Karzai and Zardari: "We face a common threat."
Read more HERE.
– jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Obama’s Viet Nam.
Soon he will have to bring back the draft.
Posted by: Sally J | May 6, 2009, 8:47 am 8:47 am
Yep, we face a common threat, but we are a few miles further away than Senor K.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 6, 2009, 8:54 am 8:54 am
Obama must be worried he will be tried as a war criminal for killing innocent civilians in his drone attacks.
Killing innocent women and children is acceptable to him if he can kill terrorist too.
But waterboarding a terrorist for a few seconds is wrong–even if the info saves lives.
Posted by: nick | May 6, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
“JALALABAD, Afghanistan (Reuters) – A U.S. coalition force air strike on Sunday killed 47 civilians, including 39 women and children, in the eastern province of Nangarhar, an Afghan official said on Friday.”
Wouldn’t each of you volunteer to be waterboarded if it would save the lives of those 39 women and children? Which is worse?
As always, the Left remains silent in the face of murder when its own guy is in charge.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am
It is always unfortunate when civilians are casualties. Let’s remember this, however: Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice would call them “collatoral damage.” Of course when it happened under their watch, the right-wing defended them.
Posted by: William J. LePetomane | May 6, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
Somebody said:
“JALALABAD, Afghanistan (Reuters) – A U.S. coalition force air strike on Sunday killed 47 civilians, including 39 women and children, in the eastern province of Nangarhar, an Afghan official said on Friday.”
Wouldn’t each of you volunteer to be waterboarded if it would save the lives of those 39 women and children? Which is worse?”
…
This is an interesting critism that I’ve never heard before, but I’m not sure if I understand the connection between waterboarding someone and blowing up civilians.
You are also acting as if civilian casualties just started happening yesterday. These kind of “accidents” have been happening for years in both of the wars, even in the wonderful Bush days of waterboarding.
Posted by: reason | May 6, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
“Obama must be worried he will be tried as a war criminal for killing innocent civilians in his drone attacks.
Killing innocent women and children is acceptable to him if he can kill terrorist too.
But waterboarding a terrorist for a few seconds is wrong–even if the info saves lives.”
…
When did righties become interested in civilian casualties?
Posted by: reason | May 6, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
“Of course when it happened under their watch, the right-wing defended them.”
Of course, that defense was based on the fact that three-fourths of the sitting US Congress authorized Mr. Bush to initiate his war. Who has authorized Mr. Obama to launch assassination strikes in Pakistan? Who, indeed, has the power to authorize such strikes? If Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were war criminals, how can it be claimed that Obama is not?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
“When did righties become interested in civilian casualties?”
Any time they are inflicted unlawfully. I still await the legal justification for these assassinations, but have heard none.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 11:37 am 11:37 am
“…but I’m not sure if I understand the connection between waterboarding someone and blowing up civilians.”
I’m quite sure you do not. Both activities, depending on the circumstances, can be criminal, although it would take a strange calculus indeed to conclude that non-lethal waterboarding in pursuit of life-saving intelligence was the worse of the two.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am
“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Barack Obama
On US troops in Afghanistan
August 14, 2007
—————
US air strikes in Afghanistan on Tuesday killed dozens of civilians including women and children, officials from the Red Cross have said.
Afghan officials in the western province of Farah told the BBC as many as 100 civilians might have died.
(BBC News May 6, 2009)
—————
Change we can believe in.
Posted by: tjp612 | May 6, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
In 2013, will there be international trials in the Hague for former President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton as war criminals in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Posted by: Will Stanton | May 6, 2009, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
“Both activities, depending on the circumstances, can be criminal,”
Waterboarding is always criminal under the Geneva Conventions as it is considered torture.
Targeting civilians can be deemed criminal in some cases but for the most part the loathsome term collateral damage applies.
Again this is a paramount reason not to enter into wars based on lies, we can make the case that our fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan is self defense against Al Queda. We could not make the same claim about Iraq.
“although it would take a strange calculus indeed to conclude that non-lethal waterboarding in pursuit of life-saving intelligence was the worse of the two.”
It amuses me that someone with zero moral compass is trying to force those with one to make some kind of Sophie’s choice.
Especially since the moral premise depends on torture stopping an attack like in “24″
Except torture did not stop any attack.
I think Blair’s full comments on this are appropriate (as opposed the 1st part which right wingers pass off as proof)
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
“Of course, that defense was based on the fact that three-fourths of the sitting US Congress authorized Mr. Bush to initiate his war.”
Congress gave Bush the legal leverage to go to war.
The decision to do so was his or maybe Cheney’s.
“Who has authorized Mr. Obama to launch assassination strikes in Pakistan? Who, indeed, has the power to authorize such strikes?”
That same Congress did.
Check Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
“If Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were war criminals, how can it be claimed that Obama is not?”
Because those 3 repeatedly lied to the American people to get them to invade Iraq when they were no threat to this country.
Shall we go over the dozens of lies AGAIN.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
“”When did righties become interested in civilian casualties?”
They are not interested.
Fascist is trying to create a moral dilemma based on false constructs.
“Any time they are inflicted unlawfully. I still await the legal justification for these assassinations, but have heard none.”
Its above.
You can go back to waiting for Bush to find all those WMDs Saddam was giving to the terrorists.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm