NOBEL PEACE PRIZE RECIPIENT,
PRESIDENT OBAMA, ORDERS DRONE STRIKE ASSASINATIONS FROM “KILL LIST”
The
New York Times, in a report that is acquiescent if not outright supportive,
describes how President Obama orders the killing of terror suspects from a list
compiled by government. The president personally reviews the biographical
profiles of suspects and selects those individuals marking them for
assassination. The administration calls this list the “Kill List”.
The objective of this post is not to criticize the
presidents’ policy; for the most part, I support the president’s strategy.
(I prefer the more even handed
Bush-Cheney policy of trying to capture, interrogated and water boarded -if
necessary- insurgents and then hold them indefinitely at Gitmo -if convicted of
crimes- so that they can not return to the battlefield.)
My objective is to
once again show the double standard and hypocrisy of our media and to do what
they refuse to do, scrutinize Barrack Obama’s Administration.
For eight
years the media persecuted Bush and Cheney for instituting reasonable anti-terror
policies. Obama continued Bush’s policies and the media criticism abruptly
stopped. Now Obama has escalated his aggressive strategy which is to
assassinate suspects first, ask questions later! Because the president is a Democrat, outright assassination without
trial has now become an acceptable practice of our government to the Pro-Democrat
lame stream media.
The concern of possible mistaken identity or of
innocent people becoming collateral damage to Obama’s bombs is apparently not
of concern to the left. Why, because Obama is a progressive, a Democrat Commander
in Chief. I have not seen one critical
report of Obama’s “Kill List” in the sucky Palm Beach Post, the same paper that
for 8 years utilized an ocean of ink attacking the Bush-Cheney’s anti-terrorist
policies.
Where are Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and all the
anti-war protesters hiding? Do they really not care about war? Are they just
political stooges for the left?
Collateral Damage
The
following is the from the report by the liberal New York Times describing
Obama’s “Kill List”:
“WASHINGTON — This
was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15
Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies
resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several
were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger
than her 17 years.”
The Times described how Obama is unilaterally targeting and killing- without
trial- young men and women suspected of being terrorists. Many of the dead were
young black men living half way around the world in Yemen, Africa. How
different would this New York Times report be if Bush and Cheney were still in
office? Would the article’s title be “IMPEACH THE WAR CRIMINAL
PRESIDENT!”? The New York Times
seems to admire Obama’s assassinations; their report was entitled:
“Secret
‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”.
The Times reports:
“His actions have often remained inscrutable,
obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the
president’s own deep reserve.”
Can you imagine the reaction of The New York
Times or The sucky Palm Beach Post if Bush-Cheney developed an assassination
list that included American citizens and used inscrutable actions obscured by
secrecy rules? Would they respect Bush’s deep reserve to protect the nation?
LOL!
More
from the Times fawning report of our international, state sponsored
assassinations:
“A few
sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the
public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr.
Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and
indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the
2001 terrorist attacks”.
The New York Times admits that Obama has retained
the Bush-Cheney policies but now the media accepts the strategy and hardly
mentions protestations of human rights groups!
The following is more of the liberal Democrat
hypocrisy reported by the Times.
“Harold H.
Koh, for instance, as dean of Yale Law School was a leading liberal critic of
the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies. But since becoming the
State Department’s top lawyer, Mr. Koh said, he has found in Mr. Brennan a
principled ally.
“If
John Brennan is the last guy in the room with the president, I’m comfortable,
because Brennan is a person of genuine moral rectitude,” Mr. Koh said. “It’s as
though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly
charged with leading a war”.
So,
the Bush bashing Mr. Koh, after being hired by Obama suddenly becomes not only
a supporter of Bush-Cheney policies, as conducted by Obama, but approves of an
aggressive escalation; a policy of assassinating terror suspects without a trial!
Obama turned to his
corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder to answer the following question
concerning legality; “Could Obama order the targeted killing of an
American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in
secret and without the benefit of a trial”?
The Times further reports
the DOJ’S conclusion:
“The
Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step,
asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it
could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch. Mr.
Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along
with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the
target list but was traveling with him.
If
the president had qualms about this momentous step, aides said he did not share
them”.
How would the press react if Bush claimed he could satisfy the Fifth
Amendments’ guarantee of due process by internal deliberations with Dick Cheney
and his executive branch? Again, LOL!
As an independent, I supported Bush’s anti-terror
policies and I support Obama’s tough strategy to protect America. Unlike the
Democrats and the national media, I’m consistent; still, a little media
oversight might be helpful to our Republic. I don’t expect any oversight of
Obama by the Palm Beach Post, but I must ask:
WHY
DID THE PALM BEACH POST SAVAGE GEORGE BUSH?
WHY
DOES THE CORRUPT PALM BEACH POST ALLOW OBAMA’S POLICIES TO GO UNCHALLANGED?
THAT’S WHY THE PALM BEACH
POST SUCKS!
