So bombing people isn't hostile.....

...as long as you use drones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/wo...nted=1&_r=2&hp

I wonder whats next. "Its not stealing if you take the whole register." "Its not murder if you push them off a building." "Its not rape if you leave her shirt on."



I'll just be leaving this link here for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach..._United_States|||don't worry they're gonna talk about it over a round of golf|||and maybe some basketball after that!|||Yep. Disgusting.

As awful and ill-advised as our crusade in Iraq was, at least the president got approval from congress first. I think Obama's tag line for the next election should be:

Obama 2012 - If you thought Bush had contempt for the constitution, you ain't see anything yet!|||Maybe Obama thought that Bush got away with so much BS (and even got re-elected!) that this is insignificant in comparison |||^It is, isn't it? I mean, in the grand scheme of things.|||While running for office, Obama promised a lot and people bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now he is finding a different reality. He has lost support from nearly every angle.|||The NYT link doesn't work.

Bombing people with automated drones means your troops aren't subject to return fire from enemies. That appears to be the technicality skirted. Politicians at the time must have thought it was OK to kill foreigners but not OK for American troops to die killing foreigners.|||Now you know why us whiny libs were screaming so much about the horrible precedents that Bush was setting. |||Quote:








^It is, isn't it? I mean, in the grand scheme of things.




You can always find some "grand scheme of things" to justify a dubious decision. It might lead to a greater good, but it can as well be any crime imaginable. The question is, how far will the decision makers go?