to our past President on activities like this. I saw an interview on "Morning Joe" this morning and just wanted to share. They even discussed....can you imagine something like this under a Bush administration...

"He was just a boy.

Let's start there. He was an American boy, born in America. Though he'd lived in Yemen since he was about seven, he was still an American citizen, which should have made it harder for the United States to kill him.

It didn't."

Read more: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki Death - Tom Junod on the Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama - Esquire

I will wait for this to become MSM fodder but I doubt that happens. The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

"Obama's Administration Killed a 16-Year-Old American and Didn't Say Anything About It. This Is Justice?

"In the August issue, Tom Junod examines an entirely new application of power on the part of the president — the targeted killing of individuals deemed to be threats to the country. So far, thousands have been killed, most prominent among them Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The decisions to target are made and the lethal missions are carried out without any public accountability, even when those targeted are Americans and even when, on one occasion, one of those Americans was a teenager. Over the course of this week, Junod considers five of the larger implications of his story on The Politics Blog. —Eds."

This next from the author of the article is typical of this administration, on any issue...

"I spent the better part of this past spring researching and writing a story for the August issue of Esquire entitled "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama," which explores how President Obama's expansive embrace of the power to kill individuals identified as America's enemies has transformed not only his presidency but probably all American presidencies to follow. I conducted over 40 interviews with over 35 people — including former administration officials who could speak with authority about how targeting decisions are made — and tried to understand the moral reasoning of an administration that speaks as though nothing could be harder than killing individuals and behaves as though nothing could be easier, and carries out what amounts to executions on a mass scale."

This is not necessarily a crticism of the policy, but a critique of the administration and its continuing hypocrisy. Too bad this President has obviously done away with the general Presidential press conference or we could as him about it

Originally Posted by Bucco

to our past President on activities like this. I saw an interview on "Morning Joe" this morning and just wanted to share. They even discussed....can you imagine something like this under a Bush administration...

"He was just a boy.

Let's start there. He was an American boy, born in America. Though he'd lived in Yemen since he was about seven, he was still an American citizen, which should have made it harder for the United States to kill him.

It didn't."

Read more: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki Death - Tom Junod on the Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama - Esquire

I will wait for this to become MSM fodder but I doubt that happens. The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

"Obama's Administration Killed a 16-Year-Old American and Didn't Say Anything About It. This Is Justice?

"In the August issue, Tom Junod examines an entirely new application of power on the part of the president — the targeted killing of individuals deemed to be threats to the country. So far, thousands have been killed, most prominent among them Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The decisions to target are made and the lethal missions are carried out without any public accountability, even when those targeted are Americans and even when, on one occasion, one of those Americans was a teenager. Over the course of this week, Junod considers five of the larger implications of his story on The Politics Blog. —Eds."

This next from the author of the article is typical of this administration, on any issue...

"I spent the better part of this past spring researching and writing a story for the August issue of Esquire entitled "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama," which explores how President Obama's expansive embrace of the power to kill individuals identified as America's enemies has transformed not only his presidency but probably all American presidencies to follow. I conducted over 40 interviews with over 35 people — including former administration officials who could speak with authority about how targeting decisions are made — and tried to understand the moral reasoning of an administration that speaks as though nothing could be harder than killing individuals and behaves as though nothing could be easier, and carries out what amounts to executions on a mass scale."

This is not necessarily a crticism of the policy, but a critique of the administration and its continuing hypocrisy. Too bad this President has obviously done away with the general Presidential press conference or we could as him about it

I really do not see what you are getting at here? There are bound to be civilian deaths with bombs dropped from predatory drones. And, much of this should be classified so that we can continue to kill terrorists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...UY7L_story.htm

Obama is now Commander-in-Chief is the big difference from when he was looking in from the outside on what the Bush Administration was doing when they bombed civilians during his terms.

Obama demanded bragging rights on the killing of bin Laden, beefed p drone attacks, etc. He was admonished by military experts that this was a bad practice. He was giving information to our eemies. Seals, et al work in quiet, nevr speak of thir missions, etc. Now Obama has demanded input intoa movie concernig th killing of bin laden wherein he demand sthat he is shown as very decisve-like, presenidential. Again his /Administration is givng aid to the enemy. The truth of it is that Obama feared killing bin Laden would come back on him. He would not agree just to capture him and it took him a very long time to decide because the military knew months before this attack the whereabouts of Obama. finally all the detailed plans belonged to Admiral McRaven and Obama was clear that if the attempt went bad in any manner that McRaven was taking the blame.

Our Commander and Chief has never served in the military. In fact it seems more and more of our political have no military experience. Ithink that is a mistake

"Our Commander and Chief has never served in the military. In fact it seems more and more of our political have no military experience. Ithink that is a mistake."

...umm, let's see now, Mitt Romney served in the umm, let's see now. Oh yeah, he didn't serve in the military at all.

Spew on boys!!

Originally Posted by DaleMN

Spew on boys!!

Dale, it is amazing how much horse hockey they can fit on one post, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I really do not see what you are getting at here? There are bound to be civilian deaths with bombs dropped from predatory drones. And, much of this should be classified so that we can continue to kill terrorists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...UY7L_story.htm

Obama is now Commander-in-Chief is the big difference from when he was looking in from the outside on what the Bush Administration was doing when they bombed civilians during his terms.

Obviousily you do not see the hypocrisy in all of it.

Of course he got smart about the things he was calling the previous administration names about, but he continues to be hypocritical on this.

And from your post and the reactions...KILLING is the most important thing and we, the WH, will decide who is a terrorist. That was one HUGE and LOUD criticism of the previous administration that got my attention.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Dale, it is amazing how much horse hockey they can fit on one post, isn't it?

Killing of children that the President say should be killed, at least to me, is not horse hockey.

As I said the one ctitique this man had of Bush that got my attention was killing of people and THEN deciding they may have been/could have been/ should have been a terrorist.

But, KILLING who is deemed a terrorist by the WH is most important then.

The continued hypocrisy of this WH is what gets me more than the killing.

You would have been tearing up your keyboard had Bush done any of this !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Obviousily you do not see the hypocrisy in all of it.

Of course he got smart about the things he was calling the previous administration names about, but he continues to be hypocritical on this.

And from your post and the reactions...KILLING is the most important thing and we, the WH, will decide who is a terrorist. That was one HUGE and LOUD criticism of the previous administration that got my attention.

Actually, the real question is why was the previous administration such cowards? And why is Willard now saying he would not have gone after Bin laden.

Do you really want to elect another coward like Junior?

Originally Posted by coralway

Actually, the real question is why was the previous administration such cowards? And why is Willard now saying he would not have gone after Bin laden.

Do you really want to elect another coward like Junior?

What of what you post has anything to do with the article in anyway shape or form ???

Are you saying that Obama is macho for this, or what ?

Here's my thought for Bucco and Rubi and the rest of the repubs. It doesn't matter what he does you will find fault sometimes legit most often not. Were you not the same repubs to declare Obama soft on terror? So now he is too hard on terror? When will he be just right? As for your boy Romney where does he stand? No position again,so whats new. You criticize Romney says nothing and I continue to play good golf.

Originally Posted by waynet

Here's my thought for Bucco and Rubi and the rest of the repubs. It doesn't matter what he does you will find fault sometimes legit most often not. Were you not the same repubs to declare Obama soft on terror? So now he is too hard on terror? When will he be just right? As for your boy Romney where does he stand? No position again,so whats new. You criticize Romney says nothing and I continue to play good golf.

I do not know how to respond to this post. Since my name was mentioned I will....

I DO in fact find fault with the President, basically and mainly, because of is "twisting of facts and truths" and his hypocrisy. He, like all of us, have every right to what they believe, but he does not do what he says EVER !!!! And he gets away with it !

Now, yep I was concerned about terrorism when he was elected, but saw right away he was adopting most of what had been going on already....but this is quite a jump for anyone. From chastising the past administration for lack of subpoena's to killing because you THINK they may be a terrorist is a huge jump and then to present yourself in a manner that contradicts all of it is pretty hypocritical and pretty much dominates this entire administration.

As for my "boy" Romney, I do not understand what you are asking of anyone on this. The post was about our country's actions not about Romney and frankly I have not compared where each candidate stands on this particular issue yet...mucho too early for that in my opinion.

And of course this president has pretty much done away with the general press conferences that used to be held thus he cannot be asked about the hypocrisy.

Glad you are playing good golf and sorry you cannot see the hypocrisy of what is happening.

And finally you say I always find fault with Obama....on this forum I praised him on attempting to do something about health care costs, BUT he lied and did nothing about health care costs..along with a number of things in that area.

I praised him at the beginning of his administration on here for terror tactics....but again....I find this to be hypocrisy at the highest level.

Originally Posted by buggyone

"Our Commander and Chief has never served in the military. In fact it seems more and more of our political have no military experience. Ithink that is a mistake." quoted by Rubicon

...umm, let's see now, Mitt Romney served in the umm, let's see now. Oh yeah, he didn't serve in the military at all. quoted by The Buggyone

...ummm, if you read Rubicon's post, he stated that "more and more of our political have no military experience."

I would imagine that he was already including Mr. Romney in that statement, but I'm sure that everyone appreciates you pointing that out...

I agree that our politicians should have some type of military experience.

Originally Posted by ceejay

...ummm, if you read Rubicon's post, he stated that "more and more of our political have no military experience."

I would imagine that he was already including Mr. Romney in that statement, but I'm sure that everyone appreciates you pointing that out...

I agree that our politicians should have some type of military experience.

Without the draft in the future it will be tough to have military experience in politicians

And, I just do not agree with having military experience....not sure what it does for you. Having said that as with every aspect of leadership you need to listen, and surely you need to listen to the military. The overall goal of the military IS NOT necessarily a military issue...they implement.

I would never delete from consideration someone who did not serve at least not since the draft was gone. That lack during the draft denoted other things to consider and even then it was not all bad.....people serve in different ways. Would not put military service in my top ten qualifications for President

Originally Posted by buggyone

"Our Commander and Chief has never served in the military. In fact it seems more and more of our political have no military experience. Ithink that is a mistake."

...umm, let's see now, Mitt Romney served in the umm, let's see now. Oh yeah, he didn't serve in the military at all.

buggyone ...my point precisely. I have a personal belief that the President ofthese United States in addition to being a natural born American citizen, 35 years of age or older and have served 4 years in one of America's military branches