…at the Church of St. Drone.

By the way, the NY Times piece mentioned in this article (“Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”) illustrates quite nicely the ideological blinkers that devotees of our God King wear when it comes to his gross betrayal of their fantasies about him–fantasies they persist in indulging even when the facts are staring them in the face.

Question to the NY Times, what shred of evidence do we have have that the Secret Kill List is a “test” of Obama’s principles? Is it not, rather, blazingly obvious that the Kill List is a huge and glaring illustration of Obama’s principles? From his habitual secrecy, his hostility to transparency, his ease at smashing religious conscience, his untroubled certitude about his power to order the indefinite detention of citizens, his totalitarian ease with the use of deadly force, and his expressed frustration with checks on executive power, it should be plain to any person of common sense that this is a man who deeply dislikes any hindrance to unchecked unilateral power wielded by him and him alone. He knows best and he is the State. The NY Times grotesque more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger puzzlement–as though they were profiling a good but errant high school sophomore who has somehow temporarily lost his way but who “means well”, instead of confronting a dangerous tyrant with profound hostility to any checks on his power–is but one of the reasons it is a fool’s errand to apply to the Times for serious journalism. They are not watchdogs. They are lapdogs.

"None of those seven billion are terrible.One of my kids has particularly challenged me, exasperated ..."

“They Didn’t Get to Design our ..."
"Do you have a magisterial citation for the living wage being only what is required ..."

“They Didn’t Get to Design our ..."
"see this:From: this if you think the media covered Trump's migrant crisis unfairly: Robyn ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Ah just delete my comment rather than backing up your slanderous charge, eh?Guess lying for ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tim

    Apparently the President consults St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in these decisions:

    “According to press reports, aides claim the president is a student of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas who brings their views to targeting choices.”

    (Mr. Yoo’s views on Augustine and Aquinas don’t seem right to me, btw).

    • Ted Seeber

      Specifically- Augustine’s original just war contained the concept that all battles must be fought *hand to hand*, *against an invader*, and *on your own soil, putting YOUR family at risk*.

      I don’t see any modern politician doing that, do you?

  • That’s why Fr. Z calls the NYT “Hell’s Bible”.

    Funny how they were oh so quick to publish war plans for Iraq and Afghanistan and portray it as pure journalism, whereas here, like you say, they are admiring the strength and fortitude of the courageous, sort-of-a-God, Tyrant Obama as he struggles with making these decisions to kill innocent American….umm..I mean Afghan children…I mean citizens…no..I mean “combatants”….

    This is just MOTS……more of the same….for the past 150 years….don’t trust the government, not any of them.

  • Mark,
    I found this piece I wanted to share and then follow with a question or two:

    When Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the nation’s clandestine drone war was confined to a single country, Pakistan, where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead, according to the New America Foundation. The number of strikes has since soared to nearly 240, and the number of those killed, according to conservative estimates, has more than quadrupled.

    Under Bush, there was torture (or what I and others called enhanced interrogation) but he was killing less people (arguably) and by extension, less children.

    Under Obama, there’s no torture, but more deaths and more children killed.

    Understanding that both are egregious, would it be inappropriate to state that more people would be alive under Bush (presumably)? Less innocents killed?

    In terms of Baby Steps and sin and all that jazz, wasn’t Bush and his policy on torture better than what we have now?

    • Ted Seeber

      “Under Obama, there’s no torture, but more deaths and more children killed.”

      I’m sorry, but can you cite your source for this claim? I don’t believe for a second that the military under Obama has given up Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and in fact, the NDAA2012 that Obama signed less than 7 months ago seems to give tacit approval to EXTENDING these techniques to American Citizens on American Soil.

      • I can’t cite a source… it was conjecture, perhaps foolish conjecture, based on what this President says… and the more I read those words, the more foolish the conjecture seems…

        However, your point feeds my own… Bush might’ve been bad (from the perspective of some) when it comes to these issues… but Obama… seems much worse…

        So if we believe in baby steps as to behavioral correction (and Mark makes a convincing case as to that belief, as do other Catholics I respect), then it would seem to me that voting for Bush back in ’08 would’ve been more prudent than not doing so… and in ’12, voting for Romney even more so…

        Or not.

        • McCain… not Bush… in ’08…


        • Ted Seeber

          Every President in my 41 years as an American Citizen has been worse than the one before. I have no hopes for whoever succeeds Obama at all.

          • I’ve got 10 years on you and I feel pretty much the same. It’s been hard to trust government since Nixon.

    • One great problem with Obama, and it isn’t just on war policy as he’s doing it on spending too, is that he has taken temporary exceptions that were considered emergency use only and normalized and extended them. That was always the biggest danger with what Bush was doing and in Obama, the potential has turned all too real.

    • Mark Shea

      Bush and his policy were *prelude* to what we have now. And when the GOP takes the White House, absolutely none of this will be ratcheted back. The one thing the GOP has consistently applaude Obama for doing is exactly this stuff. The thing the used to be conservatism loves this militaristic, unilateral police state crap.

      • I think that we’re going to ratchet back on the collateral damage if for no other reason because there are weapons in the pipeline that are more discriminating, quadcopters carrying sniper rifles instead of drones carrying bombs for example.
        The problem is that we’re entering the end phase of westphalianism and the restrictions it imposed that stopped this sort of thing from happening are eroding all around. No doubt people applauded when it was foreign human rights activists interfering in the internal affairs of nations. This really is the flip side of the coin. A new dispensation needs to be negotiated or the 1st world nations need to put their big boy pants on and re-establish the westphalian limits in a robust way, though I’m not even sure that at this point that is a realistic option.

        • Ted Seeber

          More discriminating only makes things *worse* from a pro-life Catholic point of view- it means more death-as-the-solution instead of life-as-the-solution.

          • Are you really making an argument in favor of more innocents killed vs less innocents killed as a pro-life Catholic position? Pardon me while I go microwave some popcorn, I want to hear this one. It’s the most macabre fascinating thing I’ve read this week.

            • Richard Johnson

              I think what Ted was saying is that weapons that are “more discriminating” will be used far more often, thus resulting in less consideration for innocent life. After all, precision weapons never malfunction or hit the wrong people, and the more precise they are the more guilty the dead become.

              • Ted Seeber

                Exactly. I go back to Augustine’s just war position above- It is far more just to look an invader in the eye and kill him because YOUR family is in danger, than to invade a foreign land looking for weapons of mass destruction that never existed in the first place.