'Unmanned Bombs Away'

Wall Street Journal Loves Obama's Drone War Vs. Pakistan: 'Unmanned Bombs Away' The paper’s editors attack unembedded journalists who report the Pakistani deaths. Instead, they say, we should all just shut up and listen to U.S. intelligence agencies.

commondreams.org

The Wall Street Journal is officially in love with President Obama's undeclared air war inside of Pakistan's borders. In an unsigned editorial, the paper enthusiastically endorses Obama's use of predator drones to bomb areas throughout Pakistan. The WSJ editors praise the administration, saying "to its credit, [the White House] has stepped up the use of Predators." The editors declare: "When Pakistan's government can exercise sovereignty over all its territory, there will be no need for Predator strikes. In the meantime, unmanned bombs away."

All HAIL the 'administration.' So...when Pakistan can step up and be a 'real' country, we can stop bombing them with drones.

Lord Bingham, until recently Britain's senior law lord, has recently said UAV strikes may be "beyond the pale" and potentially on a par with cluster bombs and landmines. Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says "the Predator [drone] strikes have an entirely negative effect on Pakistani stability." He adds, "We should be cutting strikes back pretty substantially."

But Bingham and Kilcullen are naive fools, according to the WSJ editors.

It is very telling that the WSJ editorial-with no apparent shame-fails to mention the U.S. drone attacks last month that may have killed more than 80 people in Pakistan, including as many as 70 people in a U.S. bombing of a funeral procession in a tribal area. The WSJ editors defend the attacks, saying they are killing "high value targets," saying of those killed by U.S. drone strikes, "Is the world better off with these people dead? We think so." But the fact is that some statistics from the Pakistani government suggested that of the 700+ people killed in these U.S. drone strikes since 2006, 14 were "high value targets" or "al Qaeda" leaders and the vast majority were civilians. In this case, the real question is: "What does it say about the U.S. that its government authorizes the killing of these civilians?"

We've talked about this before. Instead of approving of the actions of an out-of-control government, the media. WSJ included should be calling for accountability and restraint.

It's time to boycott the mouthpieces of the crooks to let them know we're tired of being fed bull.

The WSJ has lost all credibility recently. From plagarism to just shoddy reporting. This does not surprise me at all!

As far as the unmanned drones in Pakistan though, I was under the impression that Pakistan had approved of this action. It was a supplement to their crackdown. At one point it was meant to halt the retreat of the Taliban from the cities Pakistan was chasing them out of?

I may be wrong. Most of my news comes from ATS, I occasionally flip between FOX and CNN, but they usually just frustrate the h*ll out of me!