The drones issue discussed in the Nader piece is an interesting catch-22. On one hand, there’s no broad support for massive, formally declared foreign entanglements anymore. There is also, however, a demand for tough counter-terrorism policies. It seems like any direction but the present would receive a commensurate amount of criticism, if not more.
If I were president, I would use drones in the same manner. When it comes to US safety and the lives of its citizens, I think a president must act completely self-interested. The president must always have the needs and concerns of his own country ahead of those of others.
Key words: illegal, contradictory, aggresive, criminal, he doesn’t run with the Democratic party on his speeches…need I say more? He has ruined military and foreign policy.
“If the Democrats don’t recover the Congress, then he can’t get anything done.” On the majority of his speeches, all he does is talk about himself, what he “can” do, what he “has” done and never acknowledges the fact that if he is not on the same page as the rest of his Democratic party, then where does he stand alone?
i don’t know if worse is an accurate or fair comparison. consider that Bush set in place the groundwork for unconstitutional acts (patriot act, guantanamo, etc). everything the obama administration has pursued in the name of national security has been a logical extension of those Bush-era policies. Does something need to be done? of course. drones attacks are increasing and constantly putting civilians in harms way. These unconstituional acts are not simply the fault of Obama, but they are part of a worrying trend that needs to be reversed.
It’s erroneous to make the conversation no drone strikes at all vs. reform.
It’s very possible that drone strikes could be done in such a way that respects sovereignty (or at least weighs it more heavily) or allows more judicial review. The statement that it’s Obama’s policy or no policy at all is a false dichotomy.
The drones issue discussed in the Nader piece is an interesting catch-22. On one hand, there’s no broad support for massive, formally declared foreign entanglements anymore. There is also, however, a demand for tough counter-terrorism policies. It seems like any direction but the present would receive a commensurate amount of criticism, if not more.
If I were president, I would use drones in the same manner. When it comes to US safety and the lives of its citizens, I think a president must act completely self-interested. The president must always have the needs and concerns of his own country ahead of those of others.
Doctors face a worse fiscal cliff.
A profession that once seemed very lucrative has turned into a massive headache for everyone.
Nader: Obama is worse than Bush.
Key words: illegal, contradictory, aggresive, criminal, he doesn’t run with the Democratic party on his speeches…need I say more? He has ruined military and foreign policy.
“If the Democrats don’t recover the Congress, then he can’t get anything done.” On the majority of his speeches, all he does is talk about himself, what he “can” do, what he “has” done and never acknowledges the fact that if he is not on the same page as the rest of his Democratic party, then where does he stand alone?
I’m hesitant to agree with Nader — manly because he’s wrong on so many things that it makes me question my position — but I have to agree.
i don’t know if worse is an accurate or fair comparison. consider that Bush set in place the groundwork for unconstitutional acts (patriot act, guantanamo, etc). everything the obama administration has pursued in the name of national security has been a logical extension of those Bush-era policies. Does something need to be done? of course. drones attacks are increasing and constantly putting civilians in harms way. These unconstituional acts are not simply the fault of Obama, but they are part of a worrying trend that needs to be reversed.
It’s erroneous to make the conversation no drone strikes at all vs. reform.
It’s very possible that drone strikes could be done in such a way that respects sovereignty (or at least weighs it more heavily) or allows more judicial review. The statement that it’s Obama’s policy or no policy at all is a false dichotomy.
The doctors fiscal cliff is also not a slope. A change to the payment formula will be immediate
Pakistan would have to exert authority over tribal areas for their to be any sovereignty concerns.