“[R]esearch by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.
Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.
There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration—averaging one every four days. Because the attacks are carried out by the CIA, no information is given on the numbers killed.”
In an article in the New York Times on the bureau’s report, Scott Shane obtained the following juicy quote from a “senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity,” who claimed that “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation,” and added “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”
One must marvel at the string of non sequiturs produced by this faceless, heartless, soulless, ballless* son of a bitch. “Targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation,” he says. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t murder. As for the “misinformation” that he whines about, where is it? He doesn’t question a single fact in the report. “Let’s be under no illusions,” when he’s seeking to fill our heads with them. And the “elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed,” well, who are they? Do “they” have anything to do with this most wicked report, which surely has a thousand times as much truth as the disingenuous drool distributed by the Obama Administration?
As for the War in Afghanistan, Reason’s Brian Doherty fills us in on the woeful details of this decade-long disaster. With so many major-league careers invested, or, rather, tarred by this morass, it’s easy to believe that we won’t do the sensible thing, because the sensible thing to do is admit that we were hopelessly misguided and wrong. What is perhaps most laughable about this disaster is the notion, effectively endorsed by both President Obama and would-be President Romney, is that if we leave Afghanistan in 2013 we will have “lost,” but if we leave in 2014 we will have won. An additional year of meaningless bloodshed and waste can transform defeat into victory! O brave new world!
Afterwords
According to a Washington Post poll, 83% of Americans, and 77% of Democrats, are down with the Administration’s policy of random slaughter, which is deeply disgusting. Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald keeps us up to date on all the wickedness. He needs all the help he can get, so send him some cash and buy his books.
*Does “ballless” have two “l’s” or three? Neither Bill Gates nor the Shorter Oxford will help me. Three “l’s” are probably illegal unless you’re speaking Welsh, but then, why not? The Urban Dictionary goes with two and gives a curious definition (“crude/rude/shocking”) and an even more curious example: “Clayton! your so balless!! how dare you!” which, to my ears (and eyes), is 1) inaccurate, 2) ungrammatical, and 3) way non-urban. (“Clayton”? Not only is that totally ballless, it would surely get you beaten to a pulp out on the street. And “How dare you?”? What’s up with that? Don’t try that on the street either.)
