Political Irony

7 Comments

1. a regular reader wrote:

   [crickets] When it comes to anything Obama does wrong, I have learned that silence is the typical response from those-who-hate-the-GOP.

   Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 8:11 am | Permalink
2. Iron Knee wrote:

   You can’t blame them. Have you heard the audience at any of the Republican debates (cheering executions)?

   Besides, why bother? No need to attack Obama when Fox News and the Republicans will do it for you.

   (Note, in case anyone can’t tell, I’m being ironic. As is “regular reader” since this comic directly contradicts what he is supposedly saying.)

   Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 8:20 am | Permalink
3. TJ wrote:

   I am very disappointed with Obama’s record on things like this. I just didn’t have anything interesting to say about it. Disgust is about it. However, and this doesn’t make it right, I think McCain would be doing far far worse things right now.

   Iron Knee, he’s either being ironic or he’s projecting.

   Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink
4. PatriotSGT wrote:

   I’ll explain how i think about this and why I MIGHT agree with the President on this one.

   You are considered a USC until such time as you publicly or in writing renounce your citizenship. You can do this by proclaiming you no longer want to be a USC or by decalring war on , taking up arms against, or IMO aiding those that do either. For example, in the case of the US born Yemeni cleric he had publicly called for war on the US and had further organized or caused to be organized acts of war against the US. In my mind, and I’m fairly certain the law, this is the equivelent of renouncing ones citizenship.

   And here is where I have the problem and why I said MIGHT support Obama. Who shall be responsible for determining if someones actions have indeed met the threshold of renouncing ones citizenship? In Awlaki’s case it was the president, which IMO is not the best way. It should not be 1 person deciding a fate of this magnitude. If they want to use it we should have some sort of judicial process declaring the renouncement. If that will be the case then I’m behind the president, if not, then I’m against.

   Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
5. Iron Knee wrote:

   Totally agree, PSGT.

   Something like the FISA court would work for me.

   Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
6. Don wrote:

   Me too, PSGT. I seem to remember a war fought about 150 years ago in which maximum force was applied against those that worked mightily against the union of the US. If, as the north claimed, there was no right to succeed, then those fighting for the Confederacy still retained their US citizenship, were judged to be enemy combatants, and pursued militarily.

   I understand the administration’s justification for their actions in taking out Al-Alwaki, but I seriously question their ability to take unilateral actions based on the president’s say-so.

   I also get nervous over the rapid expansion of executive power we’ve witnessed in the past 12 years. Bush and Cheney were in a rush to escalate the president’s power and in all too many cases Obama as continued that escalation. The authority to terminate enemies who are US citizens by the simple say-so of the president is just one of those grabs for power.

   Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
7. Hassan wrote:

   Al-Awlaki was never even indicted of something. If the punishment of rebellion is death, then for sure there needs to be a transparent process (judicial) to determine whether if he has met the criteria for being assassinated.

   What about another american Samir Khan, whats up with his assassination, or 1 week later killing of Al-Awlaki US born son?

   I feel as long as people being assissinated are brown muslims, these debates are mere academic devoid of any human emotions. God forbid if a white christian is targeted then we would see real condemnation of the process.

   Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:09 am | Permalink