A Painful Truth

I realize I wasn't voting for Noam Chomsky when casting a vote for Barack Obama. I can understand the strikes early in his administration that went wrong and give him a pass on those.

Five years ago, on January 23 2009, a CIA drone flattened a house in Pakistan’s tribal regions. It was the third day of Barack Obama’s presidency, and this was the new commander-in-chief’s first covert drone strike.

Initial reports said up to ten militants were killed, including foreign fighters and possibly a ‘high-value target’ – a successful first hit for the fledgling administration.

But reports of civilian casualties began to emerge. As later reports revealed, the strike was far from a success. At least nine civilians died, most of them from one family. There was one survivor, 14-year-old Fahim Qureshi, but with horrific injuries including shrapnel wounds in his stomach, a fractured skull and a lost eye, he was as much a victim as his dead relatives.

 Later that day, the CIA attacked again – and levelled another house. It proved another mistake, this time one that killed between five and ten people, all civilians.

And since it was three days earlier, he couldn't have foreseen this tragic start to the drone program under his control.

Three days earlier, in his inauguration address, Obama had told the world ‘that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity.’

The fact that the number of drone strikes we've conducted since Obama took office has increased is really no surprise. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like al-Qaeda.

Across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in the five years since the first attack that injured Qureshi – eight times as many as were launched in the entire Bush presidency. These strikes have killed more than 2,400 people, at least 273 of them reportedly civilians.

And I'm not sure this is as reassuring as it's meant to be.

Although drone strikes under Obama’s presidency have killed nearly six times as many people as were killed under Bush, the casualty rate – the number of people killed on average in each strike – has dropped from eight to six under Obama. The civilian casualty rate has fallen too. Strikes during the Bush years killed nearly more than three civilians in each strike on average. This has halved under Obama (1.43 civilians per strike on average). In fact reported civilian casualties in Pakistan have fallen sharply since 2010, with no confirmed reports of civilian casualties in 2013.

Among many painful truths is that Noam Chomsky (or his clone) are never going to be elected president of the United States. And of course, McCain or Romney "would have been worse." Still hurts, though.

"Utopian post-partisan alliegiance to "The One."?"

Is there anyone out there who knows, and can explain, what [this guy at his blog] is talking about?

He says,

"As readers know, many of the Obama cult shock troops are out surfing the web as PC commissars dictating demands of utopian post-partisan alliegiance to "The One."

By "many Obama cult shock troops," the author means me. By "dictating demands," one can only assume he refers to the post below, which discusses a bunch of red state folks & blue state folks who think respect for one another is more productive & generally better for this country than name-calling & silly labels that've ceased to mean anything through misplaced overuse. (See nihilist, socialist, radical, stalinist, nazi, fascist...).

It seems that [that guy] prefers to hate & demean others for not believing as he believes. The idea of Republicans & Democrats being civil to each other is foreign to him so, like a few of the others cited in the post below, he feels he must lash out, pretending to misunderstand, so he can attack those who posted to 52/48 as liberals (& traitors to the Con cause or fakes, one can only assume--Reading his diatribes--or indeed, any of the wingnut diatribes about this site--it's as though the Red voters who posted there don't exist) who want Republicans to roll over & play dead in the face of the Obama/Democratic victory.

The guy isn't stupid. He does understand the point of the site, and he has had folks explain it to him, just in case there was any point when he didn't. So why does he continue to pretend not to understand why it's there, and what all of the folks who've posted to it hope to accomplish? What does he think he'll gain from trashing the idea in several blog posts? What is so threatening to him, that he cannot allow these folks left & right who wish to get together to do so, even if he does not want any part of it?

What is it about some folks on the so-called freedom loving Right, that makes them want to control what you & I do? Why does gay marriage threaten them? Why is the idea of Red voters and Blue voters talking & getting along, rather than yelling labels & insults at each other, so scary that they must attack it?

If you don't want to do the things that others do, don't do them. No one is forcing anyone to go to or be a part of a gay marriage. If you prefer lashing out at others just for having different political views, go ahead & be as much of an ass as you feel you need to be... But if you believe in freedom, there's no reason under the sun to attack folks who are tired of all that lame partisan bullshit, & just want to get along as best we can, & perhaps try to work shit out WITHOUT calling each other names, or resorting to labels & talking points...

Join the rest of America, or stay in your tiny little online enclaves, bitchin' & moanin' about how much everyone who isn't drinkin' your flavor Kool-aid sucks... But if you choose the latter, please shut up about those who think your little bubble of like-minded, eternally angry folks is hurting the country, & wants to try it another way...