Comments about ‘Charles Krauthammer: A good case exists for Obama's use of drones’

Right on, Chuck!!

Krauthammer just surprised me. Goo job, Charles -- you nailed it this time.

Anyone who speaks out against the use of drones should be required to sign up at their local recruiters office. Oh, don't want to join? Don't have the courage or stomach for it? Fine. Then don't complain against drones.

Mr. Krauthammer praising and supporting a policy of Mr. Obama is not an everyday event.

Drones kill terrorists with little or no risk to our forces. I imagine there are spies on the ground where terrorists live, and these people are at risk, we never hear how safe these people are. I suppose their tools and tactics are good enough that they are fairly safe.

When the terrorists started attacking us, like the Japanese they awoke a sleeping giant and now they are caught up in storm greater and longer lasting than they ever supposed.

Our intelligence assets are probably the greater half of this drone war, terrorists are being spied on by people, and electronic means in a very effective way, they are being killed off like flies, we haven't had an other 9-11 since 9-11.

Why monkey around with success?, if our drone war does violate the law of war and this is a problem, then change the law of war but continue to do what we are doing because it is working.

Imagine my shock and amazement at reading this. Just perhaps, we can now start debating policy, on its merits, rather than ideological partisan talking points. This is one area where Bush and Obama have been mere mirror images of themselves. They do not agree necessarily on long range strategy, Bush and Obama, but they agree upon taking out those who would harm our country.

And yet, the same day this is published, the DN gives voice to those who seek impeachment or even revolution for these same tactics. Rendition, drone attacks - these were all fine just a little 4 years ago. But now, with a different administration, this raises to high crimes and treason to Republicans who live in Heber.

And least Charles is able to break free of the silliness to show reason has a chance, just once in a while.

@UtahBlueDevil:

"This is one area where Bush and Obama have been mere mirror images of themselves."

Not so fast... Bush only water-boarded. Obama bypasses that tactic as being inhumane and goes direct to outright killing. I can see Obama's point... if a drone missile hits, the pain only lasts a few seconds at most. With water-boarding the anxiety pain could drone (no pun) on for days and even weeks.

"...salutary but hopelessly confused debate...".

Charles has perfectly described his own approach.

To me there is more to Chucks editorial this week than just agreeing with the POTUS re: use of drones! I am wondering if Krauthammer is starting to realize that he along with the rest of the Right Wing media have driven the rage, hate, no compromise bus over the edge of the cliff and are desparately looking for the escape hatch! Fact is, the GOP has lost the next generation of voters. They failed to watch the horizon of demographics now it is too late! Obama will finish his next four and Hillary will fill in the next eight years. The under 40 generation has watched the antics of the radical right highjack and hold hostage the GOP and the rest of congress. They have come to dispise or at very best they have lost trust in the latest Right Wing rhetoric. There is no reshaping or polishing the GOP image. To survive the next couple of decades there must be a rebuilding and reposturing of the party. As a 75 year old life long conservative who watched his party deteriorate and implode, I look forward to that rebuilding process, unfortunately I will not live long enough.

Are you people serious? What have we become?

a drone is a weapon just like an aircraft carrier is a weapon. I basically agree with Krauthammer- I have no problem with the administration using drone strikes overseas although their rationale was sketchy and generally incompetent as are most of their policy prescriptions e.g. this nightmare legislation wreaking havoc across the country (the affordable care act)
It's laughable to me though that some continue to criticize waterboarding but have no problem with drone strikes. So funny. Would you rather be waterboarded and live to tell the tale or blasted to kingdom come with a hellfire missile? I know what I'd choose.

@Alfred - drone attacks into Pakistan started in 2004. Unless there has been some huge revision of history, that would have President Bush kicking off the practice. Has Obama taken the tactic to new levels... absolutely. But lets not fooled into thinking drone attacks are a creation of the Obama administration, but an extension and expansion of a Bush policy.

Sometimes the right policy is the right policy regardless of the party in the White House.

Let's go back a little further, UtahBlueDevil... when manned aircraft were used to target civilian populations such as in Germany and Japan (does Enola Gay ring a bell?). That would seem to predate Bush by a considerable.

So, what's your point? Maybe you need to re-read Chuck's article.

My point is simply... Obama (and his Democrat minions) criticized Bush for water boarding two or three captive enemy combatants yet gleefully and with much satisfaction, dropped drone missiles on the combatant's cohorts while asleep in their beds. In the first case they live to tell their friends and family about it. In the second case they enter Nirvana to commune with Allah.

"Sometimes the right policy is the right policy regardless of the party in the White House."

All we ask is for Democrats to be honest and consistent. Which is a huge task since they will go to any lengths, tell any lies, to dis the opponent in elections.

Alfred, I mentioned this in another thread, but as odd as it sounds, there are rules to warfare, and what you are allowed to do to enemy combatents. What you can do to a prisoner is far different that what you can do to a combatent on the field of battle. Terrorist who have declared war on us, and with whom our own congress has declared war back, are enemy compbatents. They are offerend no protection of civil law. It is that priciple that enabled us to hold a few hundred "enemy combatents" in jail in Cuba for years - without any charges be raised.

I am completely unclear what targeting civilian populations has to do with the subject. A Japanese or German - just by their nationality - did not transform them into combatents. On the other hand, claiming association with Al Queda who has publically declared war on the US, does make you an enemy combatent.

All I ask is for everyone to be honest and consistent. Which is a huge task since they will go to any lengths, tell any lies, to dis the opponent in elections - regardless of party affiliation...

Who determines who is a member of a terrorist group?

What evidence do they need to put a person on the terrorist list?

Or does the president just get to decide who is a terrorist and who is not?

I am cool with bombing terrorist group targets. I am yet uncomfortable with targeting an individual American citizen of the president's choosing, with no check or balance in place. It opens the door to political assassinations. Drone bombs should never be used for the elimination of political opponents.