https://politics.theonion.com/bored...F&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_content=Main
Sorry, I found it funny. 😅
Sorry, I found it funny. 😅
I honestly wasn't even thinking about his drone policy when I wrote that, and I should have been. Obama has often come across as unrealistically idealistic and I'm still not certain to this day if that was genuine but it feels like he was advised that the drones we're the most surgical way to deal with terrorist camps without being honest about the civilian impact of mistakes, which seemed far too common.This conversation is so frustrating because... it just feels like everyone, myself included, is just kind of running the same script depending on where in the overton window we want to be? "I'm an idealist, I refuse to accept that a president trying hard couldn't create a perfect foreign policy, if he wanted to." "I'm a realist, and I recognize the constraints on the president's power both domestic and foreign make a perfect foreign policy an impossibility." Which is all well and good when you're discussing generalities, but I feel like we'd be making very similar arguments, made by the exact same people, whether the Overton Window was trying to figure out "Should we conquer Venezuela and steal their oil?" or "Should we make aerial bombardment illegal as a matter of international law?" And it becomes much more about the relative positions than where the Overton Window should be in the first place.
I don't mean to pick on you, Greg NYC3, but I keep seeing people bringing up obstructionists in regards to the drone issue, and I can't figure out why. A President's power is nearly unlimited to shape foreign policy as he wants, both constitutionally and by custom. If you're trying to make a hard 180 degree turn like Trump in dismantling the entire liberal international order, yeah, the generals and the civil service are going to start putting up a fight, but otherwise? You're golden. I don't blame Obama for delivering an Obamacare without a public option, or for failing to get cap and trade passed, for precisely this reason. But drones? Not a single one of those fires without the President's say-so, delegated or otherwise.
So, here's my pitch for why drones are different: Obama was the first leader in world history to have access to them. To the extent that people think there are domestic and bureaucratic restraints on how the President can act here, there was no existing drone doctrine he would have to overthrow to implement something. There were no entrenched interests relying on government contracts for drone production. He was writing on a blank slate. And no one, in the history of the world, is ever going to have that blank slate again. Precedent matters, and norms matter, even in the anarchic field of international relations. You never get a second chance to be the first to establish norms around the usage of new and unique weapons.
What precedents did Obama set? That national sovereignty did not matter, in ordering drone strikes. That the nation ordering drone strikes need not provide a formal declaration of war, or even let anyone domestically know that these strikes were occurring. That the global hegemon should be able to kill the citizens of weaker countries indiscriminately. And that not even citizenship in the global hegemon protected someone from being killed, or entitled them to due process protections.
It is hard to imagine a drone policy more maximally terrible than the one Barack Obama adopted. Perhaps an international agreement banning their use in anything but declared war is impractical, though I think we still should have attempted it. But it is not hard to make Obama's policy, on the margins, more humane and more just. Obama did not seek a compromise between two poles, he ran so far to the right that he's practically out of bounds. The effects of his carelessness will long outlive him, and probably outlive any of us. In the short term, it means more bloodshed in the middle east. In the long term, it makes whoever comes after America as the global hegemon more dangerous.
Pardon the florid language, but murder robots are being dispatched to neutral countries, slaughtering a whole bunch of people, and we claim victory because everyone within a certain distance from our target is defined to be an enemy combatant. Drones would be a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum argument against Bush's cowboy diplomacy if they weren't very real.
Near as I can tell, at least part of the trans community.Manning still has defenders? Wow, what factions has she not alienated at this point?
No collusion, perhaps... But conspiracy and obstruction of justice?
Yes
Next week for sure!So much for yesterday's chatter about new indictments (or Mueller sending his report to Barr) today!
When the usual people online start hyping something it never happensSo much for yesterday's chatter about new indictments (or Mueller sending his report to Barr) today!
"The incident that happened with, I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic, I think she has a different experience in the use of words, doesn't understand that some of them are fraught with meaning, that she, what, didn't realize."
I honestly wasn't even thinking about his drone policy when I wrote that, and I should have been. Obama has often come across as unrealistically idealistic and I'm still not certain to this day if that was genuine but it feels like he was advised that the drones we're the most surgical way to deal with terrorist camps without being honest about the civilian impact of mistakes, which seemed far too common.
I'm almost sure that in his mind he thought he was saving lives and further bloodshed by using the drones instead of boots on the ground but the program should never have been legal.
Pelosi's comments and the Politico article's contents/timing make me think that people are underestimating just how personally this was taken by some inside senior House Dem membership as a factor in what went down.When you can't even properly explain what your problem is with something maybe there wasn't a problem in the first place 🤔
Meghan McCain is absolutely an extremist and also monumentally stupid. She said "climate change isn't even in the top 30 things I think of when I vote."
Yep, definitely a moderate, intelligent, fair conservative right there.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/house...fore-he-testified-to-congress-lawyer-confirms
White wing talking points signal boosted by Fox News picked up by the usual congressional suspects.
10 hours over four meetings. Not 10 hours right before Cohen's testimony.
Hmm... Thanks.https://www.thedailybeast.com/house...fore-he-testified-to-congress-lawyer-confirms
White wing talking points signal boosted by Fox News picked up by the usual congressional suspects.
10 hours over four meetings. Not 10 hours right before Cohen's testimony.
I see alot of people hanging their hopes on Manaforts trial next week but people are forgetting that this is the judge that PROFUSELY apologized for revoking his bail after he was caught witness tampering. Judging from the transcripts she was visibly distraught for having to send a rich white person to jail, and i fully expect her to give him a similar sentence that he got yesterday and to run them concurrently.
He will be given credit for time served which is almost a year, and he'll get out a year early for good behavior, roughly 2 and a half years. Trump won't even need to pardon him.
(probably)
Bad angle plus shadow from her bangs making it look like she has jowels.
[2]crosses