Sociopaths for Obama

Joe Klein completes the transition of the American Left into a mirror image of Osama bin Laden:

SCARBOROUGH: “What we’re doing with drones is remarkable: the fact that over the past eight years during the Bush years – when a lot of people brought up some legitimate questions about international law – my God, those lines have been completely eradicated by a drone policy that says: if you’re between 17 and 30, and within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up, and that’s exactly what’s happening . . . . They are focused on killing the bad guys, but it is indiscriminate as to other people who are around them at the same time . . . . it is something that will cause us problems in the coming years” . . . .

KLEIN: “I completely disagree with you. . . . It has been remarkably successful” —
SCARBOROUGH: “at killing people” —
KLEIN: “At decimating bad people, taking out a lot of bad people – and saving Americans lives as well, because our troops don’t have to do this . . . You don’t need pilots any more because you do it with a joystick in California.”
SCARBOROUGH: “This is offensive to me, though. Because you do it with a joystick in California – and it seems so antiseptic – it seems so clean – and yet you have 4-year-old girls being blown to bits because we have a policy that now says: ‘you know what? Instead of trying to go in and take the risk and get the terrorists out of hiding in a Karachi suburb, we’re just going to blow up everyone around them.’
“This is what bothers me. . . . We don’t detain people any more: we kill them, and we kill everyone around them. . . . I hate to sound like a Code Pink guy here. I’m telling you this quote ‘collateral damage’ – it seems so clean with a joystick from California – this is going to cause the US problems in the future.”
KLEIN: “If it is misused, and there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government. But: the bottom line in the end is – whose 4-year-old get killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.”

Yes.  You read that right.  The way to keep your four year old safe is to indiscriminately slaughter some four year old girl in Pakistan.  And this is from an ardent Obama supporter spoken in defense of Obama’s policies.  Greenwald, one of the last honest men of the Left, does the autopsy on this disgusting filth.  His conclusion is exquisitely damning of the “progressive” Left:

This exchange is a perfectly vivid expression of the Obama legacy. Here we have a standard Democratic/progressive pundit who is one of the media’s most stalwart Obama fanatics defending indiscriminate slaughter of Muslim children. Meanwhile, it’s left to a former right-wing, Gingrich-era congressman to raise objections, call for more public scrutiny, and cite the moral and strategic dangers, one of the very few commentators on MSNBC – the progressive network – who has ever voiced such passionate criticism of Obama’s ongoing killings.

Obama has led all sorts of progressives and other Democrats to be the most vocal supporters of unrestrained aggression, secret assassinations, and “crippling” the Iranian people with sanctions. It is completely unsurprising that the most sociopathic defense of drones comes from one of the most committed Obama supporters, and that it’s now left to a former GOP Congressman to raise objections. As much as anything, that is the Obama legacy.

Obama supporter:  How. Can. You. Sleep. At. Night?

""He speaks and his people sit up at attention," the President added. "I want my ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"In all cited cases, the technology IS neutral; but the user employs it for wretched ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"I disagree. As I understand him, Mark makes the point that all of those examples ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Mark, I think there's an interesting set of ideas to work through here and you're ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I don’t think Muslim cowards should give up the suicide vest until American cowards give up the airstrike.

    Fight it out like men or don’t fight at all.

    • Brian

      “You mean you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword, and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people?”

      Which quote should not be construed as disagreement with your sentiment!

      • Mike in KC, MO

        It’s really not our fault that we’re the biggest and the strongest. We don’t even exercise!

        • rakowskidp

          We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.

          (‘cept we don’t, really. We take the cowardly route and remotely fly drones with joysticks from the safety of a California military installation.

          • Where, at all, is this in christian teaching? God did not demand that either David or Goliath give up his comparative advantage.

            • Sean O

              It’s OT stuff. Commandment 5.5 : thou shall not kill indiscimantly and try to perfume it by calling it collateral damage.

            • Jonah Goldberg has always been quick to point out Urban’s anathema for crossbowmen.

              Surprised you missed that.

  • “there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government”


    • Tom, exactly what I was thinking!

    • Harpy

      Precisely this.

    • kmk

      Absolutely nailed it. (Although some recently raided abortuaries have been less than antiseptic!)

  • Nonymous

    On the other hand, any country where Joe Scarborough’s crocodile tears (“We’re killing four year olds when we should be robustly questioning them and their parents!”)[1] can serve as a national conscience is in deep, perhaps insurmountable, trouble. Vote Lizard!


  • I wanted to puke when in the last debate Romney gave his full support to this policy. Mark is right on this point: both are lizards who want out vote. However more and more those lizards appear like raptors. He is also right. If this was a president with an R after his name, MSNBC would be all over it, with photos and death tolls in our faces.

  • Taking all this as wrong, and no problem with that assessment, what should be our policy for preventing future terror strikes?

    • Rather than saying “That would never work!” we could actually try undoing our decades old policy of denying liberty to the people of those countries by way of meddling in their governmental affairs, apologising for our actions thus far, making restitution for said wrongs, and allowing them to control the resources which sit on an under their various nations.

      If it turns out after all that that they really do “hate us for our freedoms” we could just reverse course on that and stop sending and receiving planes from that region, ditto boats, and continue hardening our land borders. But only if saying “we’re sorry” and making amends fails. It would be cheaper, and more in line with the political theories of those dead old slavers some of us so revere, than our policies since FDR or Wilson.

      • Of course all of this follows the belief that if it weren’t for our policies, nothing like this would happen. As if evil apart from America is unlikely. It’s a bizarre form of American exceptionalism turned on its head, that unless America is in their causing the mischief, there wouldn’t be these problems. As if problems or evil can’t exist without America being in there making them happen. Even if we undid everything we’ve ever done, do I believe that suddenly all these folks will stop hating us, stop trying to kill us, stop using terror against other non-American targets in order to advance their goals? Not likely.

        So assuming we achieve a perfection in foreign policy that outshines the Catholic Church, and believing that sin will still exist and folks will continue to lash out at us in the same way they lash out at other non-American targets, the question still stands. What should we do to protect against future attacks?

        By the way Hezekiah, your disdain for America is noted, and unfortunately, I have to take that into account any time you speak about what America should do. Sort of like football. A die hard Michigan fan isn’t going to be my source for advice on how Ohio State should play the big game.

        • No, reread what I wrote. I said we should try it, because we haven’t yet. And then if it fails, we ignore the shrieks of the ACLU and just isolate them.

          Actually, that comment wasn’t so much disdain for America as disdain for her foreign policies and the hypocrites who claim to revere Jefferson and Madison while supporting those policies.

          • I didn’t say we had tried it. I said whether we try it or not, there’s a good chance there could still be evil in the world, and some of it aimed at us. Isolate? How? I’m talking preventing another 9/11.

            • I didn’t say anything about what you said. You asked what to do, I proposed what to do, you then said you don’t think it will work. You don’t want an answer to this question, as multiple people have proven. I deeply suspect you want the drone strikes to continue, and lack the testicular fortitude to own your position.

        • S. Murphy

          Observing that some of our own policies and actions have made us a target of certain nasty people doesn’t excuse the evil, nor does it require disdain for the US to make the observation.

          • I give you the policy failures. But assuming that evil can continue smartly along without America being the cause, what is it we should actually do to prevent, say, another 9/11 attack? At least to the best of our abilities.

            • S. Murphy

              Lots of things we’re already doing, but stop the drone strikes. Keep watching – by satellite, by human sources, whatever. If somebody really is an imminent threat, capture or kill without blowing up his kids, cousins, neighbors, etc. Stop legitimate suspects at customs; or if they’re already here, pay attention and cut them off at the pass (Zac Moussaoui, Nidal Hasan) . Law enforcement and intel work, and diplomacy. And, yes, to the best of our ability. But limit the drones to being a tactical asset – live intel and fire support for troops, but not a strategic, long-range assassination asset — killing people in countries we’re not even at war with. That’s f*ing insane. If somebody takes out half my block to get at some guy I say hi to when he walks his dog, I won’t take it kindly, even if I wouldn’t have agreed with what he was doing. Habibullah the Waziri shouldn’t be expected to, either.

              • There you go. That’s what I meant. Sometimes it’s just nice to stop and consider what we could be doing (making sure it isn’t just what we were doing as of 9/10/2001), rather than just complain, criticize, and complain some more. Sometimes I think there’s something in the Internet culture that encourages a certain Monday morning quarterback mentality.

            • Alex Carlson

              You could start with illegal immigration, lots of problems with terror and drugs/guns. Hell Mexico has been having like 50k people a year die to small arms, and we do nothing but support the illegal trade by doing nothing we are committing genocide for no reason and little gain if any observed, this is why I vote usually R, they tend to help those screaming for peace and without the tools to offer themselves. Instead of mocking some of the largest protests for freedom and rights known to man… atrocities under such power should be met with devastation, and nothing else. In the bible it says to help your neighbor not balance out your results first. All I have to say is if we cannot defend and help our side of the globe then why do we think we can help anyone else, including ourselves?

        • Ted Seeber

          “Of course all of this follows the belief that if it weren’t for our policies, nothing like this would happen.”

          It also follows the belief that some cultures are so incredibly incompatible with ours that evil will occur in those nations *regardless* of what we do, and thus, the best thing to do is not have communication with those cultures.

          • Isolation again? That’s fine and dandy, and in any century before the 20th, it might work. But assuming that if we just pull a Paul Anka, and just don’t look, I’m not convinced the threat will just evaporate into thin air. Therefore, the question again still stands: what is it we should do to combat this and prevent further 9/11 level attacks on our nation? Focusing on what we’ve done wrong is OK, but what about ideas for what could work?

            • Ted Seeber

              The threat won’t evaporate. That’s why the isolationism has to be total. Completely total. No communication. Cut off the phone lines and internet access. Stop trade. Treat every airliner or boat coming out of their region as an enemy until proven otherwise.

        • Jamie R

          Bombing 4 year old children Afghanistan also doesn’t solve the problem of evil in the world. If anything, it contributes to it.

          There’s evil in the world, some of which will be directed at us. That’s true, but utterly irrelevant and unhelpful. Evil is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of anti-American terrorism. Even if we assume that everyone who is inclined America is simply deranged and evil, we have to ask rationally what we can do disincline them from attacking America. Torturing them and bombing their children isn’t going to disincline anyone from attacking America. A sane foreign policy might.

      • So when Qutb went all in on anti-americanism in the 1940s, that was because of our evil deeds in Egypt? That’s not historical.

        Qutb came to the US in 1948-50, decided we were not good people during the Truman administration, and went on to be the intellectual godfather of the islamists, bringing along with him that anti-americanism he acquired in the US. This does not absolve the US of its own misdeeds. It does mean that our muslim problems do not have a simple solution entirely under US control that can be implemented while retaining our identity.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Our security forces should certainly come up with one, but “not killing innocents” is a pretty solid starting point.

      • That’s a great ‘what we shouldn’t do’. But what *should* we do?

        • If no one here proposes something you like, do we go on murdering innocent children in the name of keeping well-fed white folks safe in their enclaves?

          • I have yet to see anyone propose anything. It’s been either stop all America’s policies, just don’t look, or we shouldn’t do (fill in the blank with all the things we’ve done wrong). Assuming we do all the things we can to not provoke people, what are some tangible ideas for preventing further 9/11 level attacks?

        • Andy, Bad Person

          I don’t know. That’s why my name is “Andy, Bad Person,” not “Andy, National Security Expert.”

        • Mark Shea

          Not indiscriminately kill children and then make up bullshit rationales about how doing so protects our children would be a good start.

          • Once again Mark (and I think my point is beginning to be made due to the constant responses), I’m not saying what we shouldn’t do. I’m asking what should we do? Some actual ideas. Plans. Suggestions. Anyone can sit in the bleachers and see what the team shouldn’t have done. But what are the actual plans for what we should do?

        • Ted Seeber

          What we should do- stop buying their products. Stop selling them stuff. Stop interfering in their countries. Stop sending them tourists. And stop accepting tourists from them.

          In other words- cut off Islam until the time of reformation is over, 400 years from now.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “what should be our policy for preventing future terror strikes” Preventing future terror strikes wherein four-year-old girls are killed? That’s easy. Stop using the drones.

      • And if terror strikes didn’t begin until after we began using drones, that would be a great idea. And I’m fine with going through the long list of what we *shouldn’t* do. But what *should* we do?

        • ivan_the_mad

          It’s enough to say something is wrong and we ought not to do it. You don’t need an alternative to a wrong action in order to not act wrongly.

          • No it isn’t enough to say what is wrong. It’s far more credible to say what is wrong, and then proceed to give tangible solutions and ideas for what should be done. Otherwise, we fall into the typical post-war boomer tendency of thinking that to criticize is to accomplish.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Did you miss this part? ” You don’t need an alternative to a wrong action in order to not act wrongly.”

            • ivan_the_mad

              Just so we’re clear, I’m addressing drone strikes that kill innocent people Over There, which I consider every bit as much a terrorist strike as 9/11. I’m not here interested in discussing how to prevent another 9/11, but I will insist that we don’t need to know the answer to that question in order to stop conducting drone strikes that kill innocent people.

              • Well then, we’ll have to move the conversation to another time, because tossing some ideas about how to prevent another 9/11 was my point. Actually, the whole thing was brought up by one of my sons, listening to one of a million arguments on a cable news show about what they are doing wrong. He said all he ever hears is people complain about what the other side does wrong (in terms of the war against terrorism) and nobody ever seems to say what we should do. And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do. It doesn’t take anything to criticize or condemn an action. Not in the US at least. I mean, for all the tales of secret detainment camps and covert assassinations of anyone who speaks about the government that I’ve heard since I was a kid, people still seem pretty free to criticize our government. And add to that the Internet, and I just started wondering if we’ve become a little too accustomed to being comfortable with the idea that criticizing what’s wrong is good enough. Thought I would throw it out there to see what happened. It didn’t disappoint, though a few folks started to catch my drift from what I can see.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  Have a nice day, Dave G.

                • Kristen inDallas

                  Hmmm… so it “didn’t dissapoint” you that almost no one had an answer to your question. That would sure disapoint me, if I were asking a question that I really hoped there was good answer to. Almost sounds as if you were hoping that people would fail this little test, so there’d be a good reason to critisize them (for criticising others too much). Oh and here I go criticising… darn!

        • His point, and it is a sound one, is that we can prevent the overwhelming majority of terror strikes that are actually occurring, by simply ceasing drone warfare. We would still need a plan to handle the few terror strikes attempted by the swarthy sort that kneel and pray religiously, of course. But just eliminating theterror attacks we ourselves commit would result in a drastically huge, orders of magnitude type reduction in terror attacks world wide.

          • Or do you now propose we make the perfect the enemy of the good?

          • Your dig about the swarthy sorts is what I meant above. Don’t worry, I’m not happier when I see Mark appeal to such stereotypes. And I’m sure ending the drone strikes could only help. But it’s that other part, the ‘plan to handle the few? terror strikes attempted’ that I’m asking about.

            • That’s no dig. Arabs and Persians are swarthy. Arabs and Persians make up the overwhelming majority of radical Islam.

              Doesn’t that chip get heavy?

            • No need for the added interogative. Muslims terror plots, whether successful or not, even INCLUDING the ones your government goes out and cooks up to entrap disaffected but otherwise peaceful people, don’t begin to approach the number of terror attacks successful carried out by your government since 9/11.

              So yes, definitely the few. But since you want to eliminate ALL terror attacks, you want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

    • Ted Seeber

      Here’s what I think our policy should be: Don’t trade with cultures that are between 1300 and 1900 years old. Don’t let them send tourists here, don’t do business with them, take in their refugees ONLY if said refugee is willing to come in with nothing and live in a refugee camp for a while to build up money to become American, and abandon all allegiance to foreign lands.

      We should have only four fronts in any given war. The Mexican Front, the Canadian Front, the Pacific Front, and the Atlantic Front. And our troops should NEVER go outside of our airspace and borders, for any reason whatsoever.

      • Kristen inDallas

        Haha. I just had an awesome though about applying your foriegn policy strategy to conflicts that arise w/in the home. Said by parents to the 5, 7, and 17 year old children:
        “Do not interact with siblings between the ages of 13 and 16. Do not trade or make deals with them. Do not let them into your room or go anywhere near yours.” LOL

        Not meant as a dig at all by the way, just amusement. It might actually help keep the peace. haha.

      • Why would you refuse to deal with cultures older than your own? because Modernity represents a real break with Christendom. They are two seperate civilisations, it seems to me.

    • Patrick

      The first thing the U.S. should do is to formally end it’s lockstep support for Israel. The second thing it should do is completely drop the anti-Iran rhetoric and realize that Iran has legitimate interests. The third thing is to remove itself from the United Nations and NATO so as not to be drawn into conflicts in the middle east (Iraq in the first case, Libya in the second). The fourth thing is to shutter it’s military bases in that region and in every other region that isn’t on the literal doorstep of the U.S. It goes without saying that the U. S. shouldn’t be “aiding” any foreign governments, but that is a minor expense – still: no aiding foreign governments.

      I think anti-American sentiment in the Arab world will dissipate when our contacts with it are almost exclusively commercial.

      • At least you and Ted are throwing out some ideas, I’ll give you that. Isolationism is one possibility. Whether it would end, or just delay, attacks would remain to be seen.

        • Ted Seeber

          It would NOT end attacks- that’s why the isolation has to be total, and EVERY communication treated as a potential attack.

          It is 1392 by the year of the Prophet. Do you remember what happened to Christianity between 1300 and 1900 A.D.?

          • Jamie R

            Modernism happened, and was immediately followed by the bloodiest century in history. The last point in time we should want the middle east to be at is 1900.

            Also, you’re idea that people become more civilized over time, and that because it’s 1392 in the Muslim calendar they’re as savage as we were in 1392 is fundamentally stupid.

            • Ted Seeber

              Yet, as Tibet proved in the Year of the Buddha 1392, relatively accurate.

              Comparative theology- a fun game for both geeks and historians!

              • Tibet did not even begin to be exposed to Buddhism until the Year of the Buddha c1000, so FAIL!

                Seriously, Ted, there is no corollary to Modernity developed in any place or time, context, other than Western Christendom.

        • Patrick

          Heh. I like how you’ve asked for policy specifics, and then when I’ve given you specific policies, you’ve turned them into a generalized policy (“isolationism”) which I have not advocated and gone on to say the generalized policy might not work, disregarding the details of the five policy proposals that I’ve actually proposed.

  • Chris M

    As I was informed at work today, if you aren’t voting for Obama it’s because you’re racist. Even if you’re too polite to say the N-word, you’re part of the “Institutionalized Racism” inherent in our society. No other reason is possible for voting against Dear Leader. Not his unfettered love of aborting (mainly minority) babies.. nor his penchant for firing drone based missiles at brown people.. nope.. it’s because I hate black people. Even if I don’t know it.

    • Mark Shea

      I’m glad to see you are reaching clarity. Continue the Re-Education Process.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      As I was informed at work today, if you aren’t voting for Obama it’s because you’re racist . . . it’s because (you) hate black people. Even if (you) don’t know it.”

      Lots of people hold a variety of sweepingly broad, groundless notions about others’ actions, beliefs, wishes, and motivations concerning certain vexed questions. Often these notions hold zero correspondence with reality, and may be fairly characterized as approaching delusional.

      Holding these broad characitures of others’ viewpoints, I suppose, makes life seem simpler and easier, and provides a sense of security for persons who lack the curiosity and the intellect to attempt to comprehend the truth about the viewpoints of persons with a background or perspective fundamentally different to their own.

      It is one thing to hold a delusional idea, and to have the good taste to keep it to oneself. The act of boldly proclaiming these semi-delusional notions as the final word on any subject, indicates an arrogance and an effrontery of which only the really terminally clueless are capable.

      Sadly, such persons are to be found functioning in perfectly respectable settings everywhere. Best to nod vaguely and move on, if possible.

      • c matt

        Better to be silent and thought stupid than to speak and confirm it.

        • Alex Carlson

          Only if you have nothing to say would you be afraid of the results, I shout openly with every stupid thought aloud so that I can be taught and learn from it instead of growing fur and flocking with the sheep. I WILL STAND for what I believe, whether it is foolish or ingenious I will evolve from this cave-man like theory with peotitic justice. Only the damned man will follow others to their extinction.

    • Kristen inDallas

      I like to tell those people I am voting for Andre Barnett, Reform party, because he is blacker than Obama. (in reality still undecided, and obviously skin color has nothing to do with my choice, but it is effective at making those people shut up, and if we’re lucky, effective at making them learn the name of at least one other candidate.) hahaha.

      • ivan_the_mad

        You are having fun. This is clearly not permitted in The Rules.

      • Chris M

        No, no, Barnett or Condi or any other black politician with anything but a -D after their name is an Uncle Tom. If you weren’t white, you’d understand that. But apparently Institutionalized Racism strikes again!

      • I just point out that for all my blue-eyed straight brown haired-ness, Obama is whiter than me. gets perplexed looks, but gets me left alone on the subject too.

  • John C

    Romans 1: 21-22. Debased thoughts from our elite progressive friends. Similar to their views on abortion: “We don’t abort our babies, but those people . . . . you know the people we mean . . . . those people need to have this procedure . . . . available . . . . to them, because we all know that there tend to be too many of . . . . those kind of people . . . . . “

  • Nate

    This is madness. If Joe Klein is at all decent, he goes and writes in his next column, “What I said was horrible and wrong.”

    And unless I’m misunderstanding him, he seems to be arguing that, yes, killing four year old girls is bad. But think of how much worse it would be if the people in the White House didn’t know what they were doing! Vote for Obama because think of how much worse it could be if Romney were in office?

    How much worse could the indescriminate killing of children be? This is as bad as it gets. Rachel is weeping for her children. We are a terrorist state.

    • ivan_the_mad

      No, this is Sparta.

    • John C

      Klein really seems to be saying that American children are worth more than Pakistani children. Maybe someday Klein and his pals will admit that abortion is all about eugenics. The “best people” need to preserve their lifestyle.

    • c matt

      What would you expect from an administration that believes babies are oh so much punishment?

      • Something different in kind from the previous “pro-life” administration, rather than merely a difference in degree.

  • Ted Seeber

    I sleep at night by voting for Will Christensen instead- but only because the Constitution Party of Oregon thinks that Virgil Goode isn’t very good.

  • Jim B

    From the movie ” Patton” (1970):

    “Correspondent: General, we’re told of wonder weapons the Germans were working on: Long-range rockets, push-button bombing weapons that don’t need soldiers. What’s your take on that?

    Patton: Wonder weapons? My God, I don’t see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics. Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed. No heroes, no cowards, no troops. No generals. Only those that are left alive and those that are left… dead.”

  • bill bannon

    Peter Bergen sees the drone/ civilian problem greatly reduced…he gives figures:

  • Jim

    This is exactly what is missing every time a Romney supporter brings up the “Apology Tour” that Obama supposedly made.

    Because of the reality of these drone strikes, if Obama was honest, he would have said “I didn’t apologize, I lied through my teeth and they all swallowed it hook, line, and sinker!”

  • Baby M

    You almost start to get the feeling that the whole “peace movement” and all of the opposition to “war crimes” and such from the Dems was just partisan b.s. used only to get their own team into power.

  • Peter W

    Mark Shea and other right-wing nitwits: the likes of Joe Klein are not the “left,” he doesn’t speak for the “peace movement” (as opposed to the right-wing bowel movement), and no one writing on this website have a clue about the 2-party rot that is American politics. Anyone in the Repugnant or Demagoguery Party boat is guilty of betrayal, and dumber than dog feces.

    • chezami

      You don’t read this site often, do you?