My takes:
We do need to GTFO of Afghanistan and that will cut down on the Pakistani drone attacks. I think it is bad policy.1.Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.
Unless I'm wrong, I thought the Americans assassinated were cats in Yemen who were active Al Qaeda members. My opinion when this topic first hit the masses was that if you declare war on the US and actively participate in opposition to the US via warfare, then you have given up your protections as a citizen. I still feel that way. I did not lose sleep over that Al Alawi (or whatever his name was). He gave up his rights when he trained terrorists and actively participated in the effort to engage in violent jihad against America with foreign enemies.2.Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.
This is a stretch. WE did provide intel and stationed ships off the coast. We also supplied weapons to the resistance (like we have in Syria and God knows where else). That, to me, is a bit different than "committing forces to war." My issues with Obamaa don't hit on any of these topics...besides point #1.3.Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.
