Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 22, 2013

Civil libertarians have worried that some of President Obama's comparatively hawkish national security policies are silencing "liberal" Democrats who would have opposed such measures under President Bush or another Republican. Now there's new evidence that Obama's support for such policies isn't just silencing them -- it's winning them over.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

nullifidian

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

That's the finding of new research by Brown University political scientist Michael Tesler, who studies what he calls the "racialization" of political issues in the age of Obama: mainly, the way voters' attitudes about race can make them more or less likely to support policies once they know those policies are supported by Obama. Last year he made headlines with an American Journal of Political Science article about the way racial attitudes shaped opinions on the Affordable Care Act.

In a YouGov poll of 1,000 voters last August, Tesler found significantly more support for targeted killing of suspected terrorists among white "racial liberals" (i.e., those liberal on issues of race) and African-Americans when they were told that Obama supported such a policy than when they were not told it was the president's policy. Only 27 percent of white racial liberals in a control group supported the targeted killing policy, but that jumped to 48 percent among such voters who were told Obama had conducted such targeted killings (which Tesler refers to as the "Obama cue")

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"Now there's new evidence that Obama's support for such policies isn't just silencing them -- it's winning them over."

We are screwed. The ruling class has found the perfect solution to total social control: put a black "liberal" in the White House.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tell us something we don't know.

"Kirsten Powers And Panel Hit Media Hard On SOTU: They Fawn Over ‘Every Stupid Idea Barack Obama Has'"
www.mediaite.com

#3 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-22 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Democrats and Republicans are not "liberals" and "conservatives".

Never have been, in my lifetime at least, but the last two presidents have illustrated this in painfully obvious detail.

#6 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-22 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 | POSTED BY SULLY

My point exactly! Not a dimes worth of difference.

Country Club Rep & the Dem Ruling Class = Orphaned Voters

Shameless plug

#8 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-22 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Republikans love drones when a Republikan sits in tbe Oval Office. And torture, don't forget torture.

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-22 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

And that's why the left is so easy to mock----they're the biggest hypocrites you'll ever meet in life. It's just too easy---and when you point out the hypocrisy and double standards they'll either run away, deflect, justify, or get in a fetal position with their thumbs in their mouths.

#10 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Democrats love Wall Street then a Democrat sits in the Oval Office. And creating millionaires, don't forget about income stratification.

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-22 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

And that's why the left is so easy to mock----

#10 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02

Everyone is easy to mock. And almost everyone is afraid of being mocked. Enter the reason why Rush has made millions off of huis Very Afraid of Him audience.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-22 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We are screwed. The ruling class has found the perfect solution to total social control: put a black "liberal" in the White House."

Nader knew this back in '08 when a poll listing the major planks of his platform received overwhelming support. Asking respondents who they believed held these positions they responded saying they were from Obama's platform. When respondents were asked the same questions with info on what candidate was promoting them, support went down.

#13 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-22 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And that's why the left is so easy to mock----they're the biggest hypocrites you'll ever meet in life."

Actually I would give the hypocrisy award to "limited government" conservatives who love mass incarceration, drones, Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, the War on Some Drugs, etc.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Republikans love drones when a Republikan sits in tbe Oval Office. And torture, don't forget torture.

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-22 09:55 AM | Reply

Doesn't have a problem with Demorats and drones and the killing of innocents since it's not considered "torture"----a quick death is always better.

#16 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

You need to latch onto a good dictionary....preferably one in English.

#17 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-22 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually I would give the hypocrisy award to "limited government" conservatives who love mass incarceration, drones, Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, the War on Some Drugs, etc.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 10:06 AM | Reply

[...] let me define hypocrisy for you---- Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or trying to enforce standards, attitudes, lifestyles virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually hold and may even regularly violate.

See, "limited government" conservatives feel you can limit government and still "love mass incarceration, drones, Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, the War on Some Drugs, etc."---what's hypocritical about that. What most of them probably want (can't speak for them but will try) is limited government in other areas which they would feel government's role doesn't lie.

#18 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Actually I would give the hypocrisy award to "limited government" conservatives who love mass incarceration, drones, Patriot Act, Gitmo, waterboarding, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, the War on Some Drugs, etc"

Don't forget the Iraq War. Hyper-aggressive foreign policy based on astonishingly childish political theories and assumptions isn't exactly "conservative". Nor is refusing to pay for it by lowering taxes. Gambling thousands of lives on the bet that "they will prolly love us after we get rid of Saddam and they will do what we say and the rest of the region prolly follow too and oh yeah lets borrow more money to do it" is the opposite of conservative.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-22 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

For most people it has nothing to do with race, but a lot to do with trust (and verify).

While I wouldn't trust Mitt or GW with Sam Walton's Oreos, Obama has enough character to be given some leeway in my not so humble opinion.

Not that he or any President should not have rules that verify said trust. Which seems to be in the works since the hearings.

Because there are such a thing as progress, character, good will, common sense and common cause.... no matter what the Chicken Littles say.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

such things

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama has enough character to be given some leeway in my not so humble opinion.

Not that he or any President should not have rules that verify said trust.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 10:35 AM | Reply |

And therein lies the conundrum. Trust does not just resonate with words, platitudes or BS but with actions. And that's where lefties fall short when the standard is lifted by a bearer of their party. They with emotion accept the words, the hubris, and platitudes and disregard the standard bearer's actions while being critical of someone they naturally abhor that is on equal footing with their standard bearer in another cabal.

#23 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lefties know an all hat no cattle frat boy and a corporate pimp when they see them.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama has enough character to be given some leeway in my not so humble opinion."

Someone with strenght of character might have operated on the fringe of the law once in a time sensitive situation. But then he would have pushed of the gaps in the law to be addressed so that it didn't become a habit.

Obama has chosen to operate on the fringes of the law indefinitely. That is not morally upright position.

#25 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-22 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama has chosen to cooperate with Congress on developing transparency and oversight for some tactics dealing with al Qaeda, including drone strikes, that have operated previously under the 2001 AUMF.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here is a good article on the ongoing debate...

"One way to untangle this situation would be to amend the AUMF to clarify the scope of the conflict in which the U.S. is engaged. On the tactical level, that would permit Congress to define the circumstances in which the U.S. may detain and interrogate -- measures at once more humane than drone strikes and far more likely to yield actionable intelligence rather than merely consume it. The original law doesn't mention detention or interrogation, instead referring only to the use of armed force.

On a strategic level, a legislative effort to amend the AUMF would require lawmakers to face up to the reality that America's adversary isn't simply this or that group but rather those who pursue a totalitarian Islamist ideology."

Read more: swampland.time.com

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has released its annual report on the protection of civilians in the conflict in Afghanistan.

"You can argue over which of these counting systems to believe. But the takeaway is obvious:

Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war.

Granted, many civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other such wars were killed by our enemies rather than by us. But that's part of the equation.

One reason to prefer drones is that when you send troops, fighting breaks out, and the longer the fighting goes on, the more innocent people die.

Drones are like laparoscopic surgery: They minimize the entry wound and the risk of infection."

www.lawfareblog.com

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

developing transparency and oversight for some tactics dealing with al Qaeda, including drone strikes, that have operated previously under the 2001 AUMF.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 10:56 AM | Reply

I'm sure past "innocents" will be happy to hear that----another Obama imagery for which he is famous for by those in know in Washington-----and that just solidifies my point.

#30 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Try reading #29.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama has chosen to cooperate with Congress on developing transparency and oversight for some tactics dealing with al Qaeda
#27 | POSTED BY CORKY

Note to CORKY Strategic news leaks are not what most would call transparency.

#32 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-22 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"face up to the reality that America's adversary isn't simply this or that group but rather those who pursue a totalitarian Islamist ideology.""

Hilarious. Meanwhile, the world's global superpower pursues its totalitarian ideology of "full spectrum dominance" over the planet. Imperialists have been dreaming about push-button warfare forever, and now they have a shiny new toy to play with.

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

-not what most would call transparency.

Ongoing negotiations with Congress are.

-now they have a shiny new toy to play with.

"Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war."

But I'm sure you have better solutions for fighting al Qaeda, now that we are in that fight. Perhaps one day you will enlighten us with something other than the Turtle Solution.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

While I wouldn't trust Mitt or GW with Sam Walton's Oreos, Obama has enough character to be given some leeway in my not so humble opinion.

A president of strong character needs to recognize the damage that a president of weak character can wreak later on by following the precedents he (or she) sets.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-22 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

"A president of strong character needs to recognize the damage that a president of weak character can wreak later on by following the precedents he (or she) sets."

Well said. It's all about precedence. For another example, what President is going to kill the Patriot Act now that Obama has institutionalized it?

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

But I'm sure you have better solutions for fighting al Qaeda, now that we are in that fight.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:23 AM | Reply

Corky, that's not necessarily the issue for me. The issue is the smug arrogance and obfuscation of "Bush on steroids" and his followers. When is it going to get through the heads of folks like you. It's the hypocrisy---admit it; you don't like the neocons based on how they behave as imperialists. You love your guy since he's as good at it as they are but verbally acts like he's different. He's created an image supported by the puppet masters in order to accomplish the imperialism that the masses will once again support especially the low information ones who are led by the nose.

#38 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

An aspect of this that shouldn't be overlooked is that one's perspective is so thoroughly influenced by the answer to the simple question, "who do you trust more?". And from that simple question, all screams of hypocrisy flow.

#39 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-02-22 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#36 Trust, but verify.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, Matsop. He is a conspiracy inside an enigma next to a Manchurian Candidate topped with cherries and whip cream.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like the thesis of this article is being proven on this thread.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

-now they have a shiny new toy to play with.

"Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war."

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The premise of the article is that the preference is based on race, which is not being proven on this thread.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The premise of the article is that the preference is based on race,"

The premise of the article is in the headline, regardless of how certain people want to spin it.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

An aspect of this that shouldn't be overlooked is that one's perspective is so thoroughly influenced by the answer to the simple question, "who do you trust more?".

#39 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-02-22 11:47 AM | Reply

And the simple answer is the person who by their actions (NOT THEIR WORDS, IMAGERY) earns that trust.

#46 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The use of drones needs to be discussed in the context of how we would go after terrorists without drones and/or in the context of not going after terrorists at all. If you accept the idea that we do need to go after them then you need to decide how we should do it. I think we should do it with the least potential for harm to Americans and hopefully the least possible collateral damage as well. Perhaps drones do cause more collateral damage but they also save the lives of Americans so it is a difficult question. I can understand the objections of some based on the human rights questions but if I were President I think I would put national security ahead of other considerations and depend on Congress and/or the courts to limit my power as is the intent of the Constitution. So, if we want to limit the use of drones then Congress should pass legislation laying out how and when they can be used, they should design some sort of oversight that could allow them to have real oversight of the President and his use of drones. By having Congress do that it would somewhat eliminate the problem of who happens to be President since it would apply to any President. Whatever the law is at the time most Presidents have and will use the utmost extent of their legal authority as CinC, to do less and thereby endanger Americans would be seen by most as a derilection of their duty.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-22 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

at what point does this thread get recognized as bickering?

#48 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-22 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by Corky

I mentioned the need to amend the AUMF in previous threads. But, I'm curious why you left out this part of Mukasey's opinion piece in the WSJ as reported in the Swampland article:

Judges have no basis or background that suits them to review targeting decisions and no way to gather facts independently. Because they may serve for life, there is no way to hold them politically accountable for a decision -- how best to defend the country -- on which elected politicians are supposed to rise or fall. If it is simply a matter of introducing into the process some figure in whom the public has unreasoning trust, we might just as plausibly have the president's targeting decisions reviewed by Oprah.
Counter to the general authoritarian liberal solution? That was the focus of the article.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-22 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because the quote I used was more relevant to the discussion.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29 | Posted by Corky

Another curiosity. The Slate article reported at Lawfareblog is about civilian deaths in Afghanistan not the broader use of drones and civilian deaths in the war against anyone, anywhere for any reason. I have not seen anyone oppose the use of drones in a hot war zone. Yemin ain't it.

#53 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-22 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#52 It may indeed...

#54 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-22 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because the quote I used was more relevant to the discussion.

Taken out of context, as pointed out.

#55 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-22 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#53 Yemin could be similar were we to have to install troops to do to al Qaeda there what we did in Afghanistan.

At a much higher cost in civilian casualties than with drones, not to mention troops and treasure.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

And completely within the context of how to create rules for certain tactics, which was the discussion.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have not seen anyone oppose the use of drones in a hot war zone. Yemin ain't it.

#53 | Posted by et_al

Too me, the point of drone use is to avoid putting boots on the ground when occupation is not necessary. In some cases, drones may actually save a place from becoming a hot war zone

#59 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-02-22 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war."
#43 | POSTED BY CORKY

The Center piece of the Obama middle east policy:

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

www.huffingtonpost.com

I guess the dignity of some human beings is best demonstrated by blowing them to smithereens?

Before the chours of "you would support drones strikes if Obama was" A)white B)a republican c)an American. Here is my view on weaponized drones. There needs to be legal grounds for their use and they should not be used extensively as the damage to the relationships with the indigenous people is higher than boots on the ground in the middle east.

#60 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-22 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

This article is complete Horse crap.

When this study was being conducted, who was Obama being compared to? Which other president in history has ever used drone strikes?

BushJr? I don't recall anyone being critical of BushJr for drone use.

"Liberals Favor Targeted Killings If Obama Does It" is only a valid statement if there was something to qualify it.

Liberals Favor Targeted Killings if Obama does it, but not when Eisenhower does it...

Fact is, Obama is the first president to use drones and not have to commit human troops to a battle. And if he is successfully able to kill the desired target, more power to him.

I could just as easily say that "Conservatives Favor Massive Wars if a Republican is president."

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-02-22 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Doggone, Danni, that was excellent. Where did you plagiarize that from?"

No plagiarism from me, when I do I label it as such. That post was just the same thing I've been arguing with other liberals about the use of drones and the position of President in relation to him having the responsibility to rein in his own power. It's the responsibility of the other two branches, it's his job to use his power however he sees fit to protect American security at home and abroad. It's the job of the other two branches to make sure his powers are limited appropriately and Constitutionally.

#62 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-22 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

-There needs to be legal grounds for their use

The 2001 UAMF

-and they should not be used extensively as the damage to the relationships with the indigenous people is higher than boots on the ground in the middle east.

"Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war." UN Report

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Liberals Favor Targeted Killings If Obama Does It" is only a valid statement if there was something to qualify it.

There are qualifiers in the article. you probably didn't bother to read it:

Tesler found significantly more support for targeted killing of suspected terrorists among white "racial liberals" (i.e., those liberal on issues of race) and African-Americans when they were told that Obama supported such a policy than when they were not told it was the president's policy.
www.salon.com

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2013-02-22 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Face it CLOWNSHACK you liberals are a bunch or blood thirsty warmongers but you just prefer the smiley face of a nameless faceless Drone strike over boots on the ground and bodies in GITMO.

#65 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-22 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

you need to read it better, Clown.

there was no comparison to GWB.

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-22 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Tesler found significantly more support for targeted killing of suspected terrorists among white "racial liberals" (i.e., those liberal on issues of race) and African-Americans when they were told that Obama supported such a policy than when they were not told it was the president's policy."

Complex issue that many people haven't given a great deal of thought to so if they trust the President then they are more likely to believe that a policy he has instituted would be a good policy. George Bush sold the Iraq war on the same basis, virtually every Republican supported that invasion at the time, even Chuck Hagel did at first.

#67 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-22 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eb, I wasn't trying to draw a comparison to BushJr. I was trying to make the point that Obama is the first president ever to have drone technology at his disposal.

To say: "Liberals Favor Targeted Killings If Obama Does It" is an inaccurate statement because there's no other president to compare him to.

"If Obama does it" means there's a comparison being made, which I'm pointing out doesn't exist.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-02-22 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Face it CLOWNSHACK you liberals are a bunch or blood thirsty warmongers but you just prefer the smiley face of a nameless faceless Drone strike over boots on the ground and bodies in GITMO.

#65 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2013-02-22 02:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Blood Thirsty warmongers? You sure you want to make that claim panny?

Tell me, how many ground troops are needed for a targeted drone strike?

How may wars has Obama started that required military action? Required American lives to be put at risk?

Yea, and I would prefer a drone strike to having "boots on the ground and bodies in GITMO".

You're so desperate you contradict yourself in one sentence. Congratulations Panny.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-02-22 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63 | Posted by Corky

The AUMF? This one:

[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons...

Doesn't seem to authorize perpetual war against anyone, any where for any reason. If the idea is to limit "boots on the ground" with drone strikes then a basis in law is needed to do so, see also LOAC.

#71 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-22 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Did you read #64? They were more likely to support the policy after being told it was Obama's policy. They were less likely to support it generically without any association to Obama. [...]"

I get that, and I explained why I think that happens. Same thing would have happened if Ronald Reagan told you big tax cuts would not leave deficits and debt.

#72 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-22 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another aspect of this discussion is what really do drones strikes replace? Is it necessarily "boots on the ground" or might it also be "napalm bombing" by jets or "smart bombs?"

#74 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-22 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't think small. Liberals are also more inclined to think that 8% unemployment is "great progress", blockbuster deficits are "responsible and necessary", ordering a SEAL team to kill Public Enemy #1 is "the hardest decision any President has ever made".

We've lowered the bar, big time. [...]

I expect the lib[...] love affair with drone warfare to end eventually, along with most of the other stuff. And it will be like 1984, where they'll just say they always opposed those things. Always have, always will.

#75 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-22 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

ordering a SEAL team to kill Public Enemy #1 is "the hardest decision any President has ever made".

It seems to have been too hard for BushJr to carry out. He didn't want to give the order to have his childhood friend killed and instead redirected us into a fake war to murder the guy that made his daddy look bad. Oh, and he was "spreading democracy".

We've lowered the bar, big time.

when BushJr was elected? Yea. Pretty sad day. When the GOTP presented us with their 2012 presidential nominees? That was pretty pitiful as well.

I expect the libtards' love affair with drone warfare to end eventually, along with most of the other stuff.

"Along with most the other stuff?" wtf does that mean? As far as Drones, it's no different than any other military advantage we've utilized, and it saves American Lives.

#75 | POSTED BY UGLYBLINDDATE AT 2013-02-22 06:22 PM | REPLY |

LOL, Ugly, Living in China has you pretty out of touch with reality in America.

#76 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-02-22 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

On the contrary.

#77 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-22 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

let me get help of a famous scene for my reaction...if you don't GET IT, maybe someone can help you out..

www.youtube.com

#78 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-22 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

And that's why the left is so easy to mock----they're the biggest hypocrites you'll ever meet in life.

Nonsense.

That title goes to the many Repubs who decry anything government while fighting to be part of it.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-22 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trust does not just resonate with words, platitudes or BS but with actions. And that's where lefties fall short when the standard is lifted by a bearer of their party. They with emotion accept the words, the hubris, and platitudes and disregard the standard bearer's actions while being critical of someone they naturally abhor that is on equal footing with their standard bearer in another cabal.

#23 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-22 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:wears the biggest blinders known to man

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-22 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. "Democrat" and "liberal" are not necessarily synonymous.

2. I'm fairly certain the study used more precise language than the headline writer.

If I live up to my name, I take the stance that drone killings make an awful lot of sense. If I speak my hear, they horrify me, no matter who's ordering them.

#81 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-23 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

""Democrat" and "liberal" are not necessarily synonymous. "

Who knows what "liberal" means. Is John Stuart Mill a "liberal," or is the Drone Warrior-In-Chief a "liberal"?

#82 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, liberals make terrible warriors.

Just ask the ghost of FDR.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nulli, to most liberals I know, the Democratic party is not terribly liberal. It's that simple. Barack Obama is not a liberal. He's a centrist (more than less) who campaigned as a liberal.

#84 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-23 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The White House's New Game: Trade Benghazi Secrets to Hush Up Drones"

"they are reportedly offering to give Republicans new information about the attack on Benghazi, in the hopes that Senators will back off on demanding more information about its drone program."

www.theatlanticwire.com

#85 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-23 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement