What's the real story with Obama and his drone war contrition?

Flopping Aces ^ | 05-29-13 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

Exactly what's going on?

No sooner does Obama make a speech about restricting the use of drones does he kill again:

It took all of six days for President Obama to undermine his own new rules about restricting drone strikes.

On Wednesday morning, Pakistani security sources reported that a U.S. drone strike killed four people near the North Waziristani city of Mirim Shah. One of them, apparently, is Wali ur-Rehman, the second in command of the Pakistani Taliban, although the group for now denies Rehman is dead. Still, if you listened to Obama’s big speech on counterterrorism Thursday, you could be forgiven for thinking that the drones weren’t going to target the Rehmans of the world anymore.

“Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al-Qaida and its associated forces,” Obama said at the National Defense University, “and even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained.” Among those constraints: preferring to “detain” terrorists instead of killing them; “respect for state sovereignty”; and the inability of other governments to handle the terrorists. Perhaps most importantly, Obama underscored, the drones will for now on only target “terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people.”

In case the point was lost on anyone, the White House released a “fact sheet” clarifying whom it will and will not kill in the future. “[T]he United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” it stated. “It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force.”

Did Wali ur-Rehman pose a “continuing, imminent threat” to U.S. persons?

This regime, which characteristically cannot wait to claim credit for anything, refuses to even acknowledge the newest assassination:

Six days after President Barack Obama addressed criticisms about the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists and signed new guidelines regarding their usage, the White House declined to confirm the newest report of a drone strike.

The Associated Press, Reuters and other news outlets reported on Wednesday that a U.S. drone strike on Wednesday killed Pakistani Taliban leader Waliur Rehman. But White House press secretary Jay Carney wouldn't confirm those reports at Wednesday's press briefing.

"I cannot confirm reports that this individual is dead," Carney said in response to a reporter's question.

Carney went on to address the speculative death:

Carney, however, then addressed Rehman's hypothetical death: "I would simply say that his demise would deprive the TPP [Tehreek-e-Taliban] of its second-in-command and chief military strategist."

That statement prompted further questions from journalists about why the administration was addressing a death they didn't know existed. Carney said he chose to address what's known about the individual, but he was "not in a position to confirm reports of his death."

Let us remember that these killings are ordered directly by Barack Obama, via his personal "kill list."

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

Obama's policy has up to now been clear: "if you're dead, you're guilty"

[jsanders2001]

Look at it this way. The Left / libs / progressives and their leaders have proven to be spineless flimflamming liars with not one shred of integrity and no vision of leadership since 0 has taken office. They have proven what we have saying about them and what we predicted and that they are much worse for America than the Republican Party. Sets the stage for a heavy handed defeat in the making.

[CMailBag]

Oops, I did it again..

[colorado tanker]

Obama has no problem announcing one policy and following another. See Guantanamo.

That said, I think the reason for the speech is when he surrenders Afghanistan and loses the drone bases next year he can claim they weren't needed anyway because of the new policy.

[clearcarbon]

"No sooner does Obama make a speech about restricting the use of drones does he kill again:"

The character of an addict.