Obama Allows "Preemptive Drone Attacks" in Pakistan - Plz Come And Say It's Bush's War

Hello all,

I would like to invite everyone to say that this is Bush's war, tell us that Iraq and Afghanistan is Bush's war.
How about we talk about attacking Pakistan and Yemen without going through congress?

the Central Intelligence Agency has ramped up missile strikes against militants in Pakistan's tribal regions, current and former officials say.

The strikes, launched from unmanned drone aircraft, represent a rare use of the CIA's drone campaign to preempt a possible attack on the West.

The exact nature of the plot or plots couldn't be learned immediately

Yes, we will.

The US is trying to bomb insurgent into some kind of compromise. What else is new?

This was set up by the Bush administration, Obama doesn't support the war efforts. We must look into this law to see when Bush signed it into law.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


We have been using drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen since 911. How is this new?

To the last three posters, a simple fact:

Obama is the current C-in-C, not Bush.

As C-in-C, the decision to keep attacking is obama's alone. He could stop them at anytime, or order them to continue.

Bush can't order anyone to do anything.

Obama has ordered them to continue, thus it is now obama's war.

Simple concept here: THAT MAKES OBAMA RESPONSIBLE, NOT BUSH.

It's Obama's war now. Deal with it ...

Vat is zees Boosh you speek ov?

Initiate blame transference - NOW!

zzzp - It's all Obama's fault. I recall when Obama stood before the American people claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it was imperative we go to war. Bush? Never heard of him. - zzzp

By the way, OP, it's not Obama doing this, it's the CIA

CIA steps up drone attacks in Pakistan amid fear of al-Qaeda terror in Europe


Do we even NEED an Army these days? Let's have the CIA and private mercenary contractors do our killing for us, save the army for Veteran's Day parades.

Plz Come And Say It's Bush's War

What is the point of adding this to the thread title?

Are you here to discuss politics, or pass along headlines for Faux News? ....seriously.

if they would allow me, i'd give this 3 dark stars....and 3 distress flags.

Unfortunately, ATS doesn't allow critical feedback

It will always be known as "Bush's war". He and his administration lied about the reasons for going to war. Let's keep the blame right where it belongs. Bush.

This war will still be going on after Obama leaves the WH. What are you going to do then, start calling it "Romney's war", or "Huckabee's war", or (god forbid) "Palin's war"?

Of course it really should be known as Corporate America's war, since they are the ones who saw the $$ signs in Iraqi oil fields. This business in Pakistan and Afghanistan? All part of the ever-ongoing cover-up of 911.

I stood back and took a long hard look and still came to the same conclusion.

It isn't Bush's war or even Obamas, its Big corperations like Halliburton, BP or any other multinational that is making huge anounts of money out of this.


It looked like I was a few minutes late in my reply as the poster above got in before me

I’m not sure what the OP intends with this topic....is it to blame Bush or to highlight how Obama is just as war like as Bush?

Either way I find it quite fascinating how people on this board quickly either forget or selectively hear what they want and attribute it to whatever politician they dislike. Obama actually promised to intensify the pressure on Pakistan right along with his promise to intensify the campaign in Afghanistan. I don’t know what is more shocking, Obama doing something he said he would, or that people actually forgot that he what he said he’d do regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Obama will fight terrorism and protect America with a comprehensive strategy that finishes the fight in Afghanistan, cracks down on the al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan, develops new capabilities and international partnerships, engages the world to dry up support for extremism and reaffirms American values."—Obama's Blueprint for Change

Obama Blueprint for Change
Obama threatens to hit Al Qaeda in Pakistan

They're right to call it "Obama's War". Whoever is president at the time has the reins.
At least he's in Afghanistan, where before you have this huge lie about WMD which wasn't related to 9/11 at all, and weak attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, which didn't hold water. We'll never know whether the CIA planted the false story that the Plame scandal exposed.
The overall effect of these wars is a massive debt that US citizens have to pay to the benefit of massive corporations which are fleecing the taxpayer. They are fiscally irresponsible and ultimately only increase the amount of danger to us in the long run.
Seriously, for any poster who wants to argue the overall necessity for the wars, one must consider the bang for the buck, and who ultimately profits. 3000 people die and we had to spend over a trillion? That's a significant portion of the overall national debt. www.costofwar.com...
Even if one wants to argue the exact figures, I'm fairly certain the above site is in the ballpark.

We need to do something about our short term thinking - I don't see how our nation can continue to operate over the long term like this. Every time we install another dictator, we guarantee a future war of some kind, and it seems that all of our interventions are slowly bankrupting us while requiring more out of us to maintain a semblance of security. That is not good long term strategy.
Further, we have no more moral high ground to stand on at this point. It is time to get the hell out.

I have no wish to engage in the "Bush or Obama" conflict here, but I do want to present some information regarding the drone strikes.

In 2004 there was 1 UAV missile strike.
In 2005 there were 2 UAV missile strikes.
In 2006 there were 2 UAV missile strikes.
In 2007 there were 5 UAV missile strikes.
In 2008 there were 34 UAV missile strikes.
In 2009 there were 53 UAV missile strikes. (Two of which were prior to Obama taking office)
In 2010 there have been 76 UAV missile strikes so far.

* There were 46 UAV attacks into Pakistan in 5 years of the Bush administration.
* In half that length of time, there have been 127 UAV attacks into Pakistan under Obama.

If this pattern persists, we can expect at least a 6:1 ratio of Obama strikes vs Bush strikes.




The sources for my figures include the New America Foundation foreign policy institute and Public Media Inc.'s Long War Journal, a non-profit media company.

Obama didn't inhereit this war, he wanted it. He knew it was there when he ran, and still took the job. It's Obamas war 100%, and he needs to either step up and do the right thing, or continue business as usual.

It’s obvious from the title of your thread that you are looking for someone to blame so I will tell you who’s to blame: everyone. I know people are looking to blame one President or another, but both administrations are to blame as is Congress and even the American people.

The Obama administration is simply following the same legal arguments the Bush administration made up.

The previous and current administrations argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists resolution (or AUMF) give the President the authority to order military action against all “nations, organizations, or persons” that he may deem to be terrorists or sponsors of terrorism.

Personally I believe the arguments and subsequent action by both administrations are inconsistent with customary international law. Additionally, I’m unsure the language in the AUMF — from a strict interpretation — allow military action to expand to those “nations, organizations, or persons” not directly connected to the “attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” — something I think both administrations have engaged in.

I’d like to remind people that this resolution, with such a vague language and broad authorization, was passed on September 14 2001 by the House with 420 votes for and 1 against, and by the Senate with 98 ayes and 0 nays.

One last point — the CIA cannot be in charge of a drone program in the context of military action. The CIA is not part of the United States armed forces. Civilians who directly participate in the hostilities are in violation of international humanitarian law, they are unlawful combatants and don’t have immunity from the domestic laws of the countries and territories in which they may have caused damages and deaths.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I would like to invite everyone to say that this is Bush's war, tell us that Iraq and Afghanistan is Bush's war.

Thanks for the invitation.

It's Bush‘s war.

Iraq and Afghanistan are Bush’s war.

Ah, that felt good. Thanks again for giving me a place to say so.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I would like to invite everyone to say that this is Bush's war, tell us that Iraq and Afghanistan is Bush's war.

Thanks for the invitation.

It's Bush‘s war.

Iraq and Afghanistan are Bush’s war.

Ah, that felt good. Thanks again for giving me a place to say so.

edit on 2010.9.30 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)

You forgot to add "...being continued happily by Obama."