Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Addendum to kaboom 2
Here are the latest figures on the drone attacks in Pakistan. During the final 6 years of the Bush administration, there were a total of 43 drone attacks and 426 casualties. During the first three years of the Obama administration, these numbers have swelled to 241 and 2,254 respectively (so, yes, "thousands", in fact WAS an accurate designate). It doesn't, folks, take a skilled statistician to see that this is a statistically significant difference, and a cutting one - spin it however you want.............source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Well,it does make it more difficult for republicans to call Obama soft on terrorism. Are they going to call him a warmonger now?
Ah, but ya just know the Obama-ites are feverishly working to spin it positive. Bush was a war criminal, Obama a national hero.
Yeah right. Such consistency from the fevered left.
My understanding, and I'm open to correction, is that we didn't have a large drone program in place in 2001, so Bush couldn't have run an Obama-like war even if he wanted to. And the only reason Obama has the option to have such an active drone program is because the Bush administration put it in place before leaving office.
To think, if Clinton hadn't pushed so hard for that peace dividend, perhaps we could've had a large fleet of drones in 2001, Bush could've gone into Afghanistan and/or Iraq in a totally different way, and we wouldn't have the war casualties we do.
I think that one could argue that Obama is a hell of a lot more like Bush than not
The great What If...
If Bush had paid more attention at the beginning to intelligence reports, we may not have had to go in at all.
And if Congress and the Senate, who had the same reports, had paid more attention perhaps the same could be said Jerry.
Perhaps, RN, but I am not so sure.
It appears that Clinton and Bush may have both had opportunities to incinerate bin Laden prior to 9/11. Neither one of them did, unfortunately.
Don't worry. Obama's got it covered!
As he said today:
"Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement."
Jerry, that's one thing that the right really can't criticize the President over. The dude has been VERY tough on terror and has the notches on his belt to prove it (I still didn't agree with the surge in Afghanistan).
And this Romney Obama-appeasement stuff is utterly shameless (he pulled a similar stunt on Huntsman accusing that fellow of "cut and run" in one of the debates). The dude will basically say anything, I'm thinking.
The only republicans that won't "say anything" are the ones who have no chance of getting the nomination.
Does that say more about the candidates or the electorate?
It is an embarrassing time to be a republican.
You know me, Jerry. When I agree with you, I agree with you. And on this, I agree with you. And it's sad. I can still remember back when (and, yes, I'm definitely dating myself here) there wasn't just a moderate wing to the Republican party but a liberal one; guys like Ed Brooke, Jacob Javits, Chuck Percy, Lowell Weicker, Stew McKinney (the McKinney Act - Google it). Yeah, maybe they have believed in a smaller, more efficient form of government but they did in fact believe in it.
Post a Comment