So, on Terrorist Tuesday, President Obama picked out a target . . . .

. . . . and thirty-two other corpses in Waziristan is acceptable collateral damage.

And you have to love the fact that the Associated Press is right in there happily reporting the deaths of "suspected" terrorists. . . .

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A drone strike in Pakistan's tribal areas killed eight suspected militants early Monday, Pakistani officials said, as the U.S. pushes ahead with the controversial drone program despite Pakistani demands to stop.

--snip--

The attack followed closely on the heels of another drone strike Sunday that killed 10 suspected militants.

We noted the other day that all adult males killed by our drone strikes in Pakistan are--by official Obama administration policy--to be considered to have been terrorists . . . unless they can prove after they are dead that they weren't.

Uh, yeah.

So sanitized has our automated drone war become that it is now the norm for AP or Reuters to report our successes in killing supposed high-value militants without ever questioning the piles of dead bodies lyiing around:

Pakistani intelligence officials told Reuters they believe Libi (which means Libyan in Arabic) may have been among seven foreign militants killed in Monday's strike.

This is much better; Reuters apparently got the memo from the White House: the bodies we leave behind are not "suspected" militants, we need another adjective. Dipping his hand into the metaphorical adjective jar in the Oval Office, the Press Secretary comes up with . . . "foreign."

After all, everybody's foreign in that part of the world, and it's not like all those people count like they were real human beings.

Comments

Hube said…

Remember how evil incarnate and Constitution-shredding "enhanced interrogation" was during the last admin?

No need to worry 'bout that now! We just use a drone to kill 'em outright!

June 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog