Glenn Greenwald Continues…

…to be one of the rarest things in the media: an honest progressive who warns that Obama is Al-Quaeda’s best recruiting sergeant.

Also nice to see Jon Stewart telling the truth here:

Meanwhile, watching Glennwald take apart Andrew Sullivan’s by now squirm-making sycophancy for the dangerous incompetent in the White House is just an enjoyable side benefit. The spaniel-like devotion Sullivan has for any pol that will affirm him in his appetites and desires is embarrassing to watch. Show a little dignity, man!

""We actually have it in our Constitution that you cannot have titles of royalty and ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"I think that people are always drawn to pagentry and beauty. The trick is getting ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Meanwhile the darling of the pro-life movement, Neil Gorsuch, was key to a Supreme Court ..."

Bravo, Mr. Rowen!
"Without sneering at anyone, I can only regard this PR stunt with the cynical skepticism ..."

Every Chilean Bishop Submits His Resignation

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Will

    I hear that, on the other hand, Romney is going to stop all drone attacks and pull all troops out of the mid-east.

    • Ben

      Where did Mark say anything about Romney?

    • Mark Shea

      You mistake me for somebody who supports Romney. You should really familiarize yourself with my views.

    • Chris M

      ..I don’t recall Romney ever running on the “I’m not W! I’ll close Guantanamo! Stop the Wars! Hope! Change!” platform, either. As it stands now, Obama is a blatant liar and his supporters are showing themselves to care not a whit about policies, only about identity politics.. Either that or they really ARE dumber than a bag of hammers (no offense to any hammers who read Mark’s blog)

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    There’s a lot of wisdom in grandma’s old saying: “Never judge a man till you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.”

    Imagine that you were a law-abiding person in your community, but the local drug cartels were becoming a huge problem. Violence was the norm in some neighborhoods. The local government couldn’t control it, so a foreign power came in, sending in armed troops, and in order to fight the cartels they oftentimes killed civilians, either in direct attacks or bombings’ “collateral damage.”

    Now image that during a bombing run, your innocent children are killed while going to the store. Yes, the troops were honestly trying to take out some bad guys. But your children are still dead.

    Would you be tempted to join the resistance to get the foreign troops out of your country?

    I sure as hell would.

    We’re fighting fire with gasoline. It’s madness. This has never, never, never worked throughout human history. It only makes matters worse.

  • Richard Johnson

    Four planes attack buildings in our nation, with three of them being successful. Thousands die in the attack. Our military experiences a surge in volunteers to “go punish the bastards that did this”.

    Drones attack villages in Afghanistan, killing innocent people. Their people respond by taking up arms to “go punish the bastards that did this”.

    And we act surprised that they hate us for the same reasons we hate them. Go figure.

  • kenneth

    Of course our drone war is recruiting more militants. That’s the whole point of the exercise, and the underlying doctrine of our imperial “defense” infrastructure. The only way to keep getting paid for mult-trillion dollar weapons programs is to drum up a demand for them. It’s also the only way in a putative democracy to ensure the indefinite reach and duration of “emergency powers.” Obama’s expansion of the drone war is part and parcel of this, but anyone who thinks Romney is going to be any different is deluded. He’ll quite likely win in November, keep the drone program, and open a whole new war front. My bet is that we’ll be in a full-out shooting war with Iran by about this time next year.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Shhhh kenneth, the anti-critical-statements-concerning-our-ruling-elite drones will hear you!

  • This logic rules out all military action. It talks about a real downside to the use of force. That is the recipients often don’t know or care about the rest of the issue. They only care about the physical injuries to themselves and/or their loved ones. But unless you want to dismantle the entire military you need more than that. You need to show that the conditions for the use of force are X, Y, and Z and those conditions are not met here. The trouble is we don’t know that much about Yemen. Who are they targeting? How has their accuracy been? What are the threats being addressed? How credible are they? If we don’t have that information it is hard to say whether the price we pay is worth it.

    Perhaps we need to identify which countries are serious about law enforcement and cooperating with anti-terrorist activities and which countries are not. This could be based on publicly available evidence. Then we could limit drone attacks to only those countries that won’t let us go after them using due process. The trouble is due process has gotten a bad name. Too many criminals get off on technicalities. Still it beat the alternative. If any president should understand that it would be Obama who was a constitutional law expert before he entered politics.

    • George Lower

      Here is a perfect example of introducing a red herring to distract us from the real point. Having knowledge to determine “whether or not it is worth it” to conduct drone strikes is irrelevant to the discussion. When someone is calculating how much collateral damage is acceptable and then cooking the books so that ANY MALE in the vicinity is automatically a “combatant” there is something gravely wrong with the process. At the very least it is a calous disregard for the consequences of using deadly force and at the worst it is premeditated murder. I don’t buy the argument that we should give the President a pass because he has better information and is smarter than all of us…

  • George Lower

    “This logic rules out all military action. It talks about a real downside to the use of force. That is the recipients often don’t know or care about the rest of the issue. They only care about the physical injuries to themselves and/or their loved ones.”
    Duh…no this logic means that we should use military force in a way that minimizes the collateral damage and doesn’t escalated the situation…exactly the opposite of what the President is doing.

    I just watched the Ted Turner movie “Gettysburg”…one of the interesting side stories was the issue of the 2nd. Maine. The story is that 120 men signed 3 year enlistment papers when the rest of the regiment only signed 2 year papers. Since the majority of the regiment was no longer enlisted the regiment was disbanded. The 120 men who signed three year enlistments were reassigned to other regiments. The problem was that these 120 men only wanted to fight with the 2nd Maine and they simultaneously “resigned”…they were in acutality deserters from that moment. On the eve of the first day of Gettysburg these 120 men were dumped in the lap of Col. Chamberlain the new commander of the 5th. Maine Regiment….what was the good Col. to do? He had orders to shoot the men if they didn’t comply and fight with his regiment…however, Col. Chamberlain was smart enough to know that if he shot these men he could never return to Maine, should he survive the war. Rather than use force, Chamberlain fed the men, listened to their grievances and then humbly asked them to join his regiment because he was gravely under strength due to previous engagements. The Colonel explained his situation and said that he would be personally grateful for any who chose to help and that any who chose not to join would be treated fairly (in other words he treated them like men made in the image and likeness of God)…all but 6 joined immediately (the other 6 held out until the beginning of the Battle of Little Round Top, then asked to be reinstated to join the fighting)…would that we had a President as smart as Col. Chamberlain…

  • bob

    So our drone attacks help recruit terrorists. Why believe this? Was there some crisis, a shortage of them until this came along? I recall a few days ago that the taliban were said to block access to polio vaccine for children if they didn’t stop. Besides pointing out what brave men these fellows must be, how exactly does the population of such countries make the distinction between a casualty of a drone attack and the polio victim? Which is more dead, the one killed by a missile intended for a terrorist or the one whose life saving vaccination was prevented by a terrorist? What a barbarous world is over there. No possible comparison to anything we’ve ever witnessed. I don’t think gangs in LA would be this low. Time to simply remove ourselves from that part of the planet. It’s occupied by Martians or something.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “So our drone attacks help recruit terrorists.” I think we need to distinguish between terrorists and guerillas resisting the occupying forces of a foreign power.

      “Which is more dead, the one killed by a missile intended for a terrorist or the one whose life saving vaccination was prevented by a terrorist?” The better question is, for which one is the US government directly responsible?

      “No possible comparison to anything we’ve ever witnessed.” Yeah, I guess you’re right. It’s not quite as bad Auschwitz or Dresden or Hiroshima.

      • Mark Gordon

        Or what goes on daily in Planned Parenthood offices.

      • bob

        I think the way I’d compare this to the nazis might be this way. Suppose they declared it an outrage that some badly dropped bombs had killed some Jews, then declared they would continue to kill Jews until we stopped bombing Germany in response? THe taliban just don’t have any peers.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “THe taliban just don’t have any peers.” I’m sure they do; in fact, they even have superiors. Like Mark Gordon wrote, PP. Taliban denying polio vaccines to kids? How about Americans right here in America denying 2000+ children life to begin with every day? If you need to think that the Taliban are the worst people in the world, don’t let me stop you.

    • jacobus

      “I recall a few days ago that the taliban were said to block access to polio vaccine for children if they didn’t stop. ”

      I’m sure that has absolutely nothing to do with this:

      Sponsored by the American People!

  • Has anyone ever died from having a vaccine withheld?


    Bob, you’re a great (example of an) American!

    • bob

      Yes, lots of people have died of polio. It didn’t just paralyze people.