King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.
By Norman Solomon
January 16, 2013
Information Clearing House
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33627.htm

A simple twist of fate has set President Obama's second inaugural address for January 21, the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

Obama made no mention of King during the inauguration four years ago -- but since then, in word and deed, the president has done much to distinguish himself from the man who said "I have a dream."

After his speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, King went on to take great risks as a passionate advocate for peace.

After his inaugural speech in January 2009, Obama has pursued policies that epitomize King's grim warning in 1967: "When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men."

But Obama has not ignored King's anti-war legacy. On the contrary, the president has gone out of his way to distort and belittle it.

In his eleventh month as president -- while escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a process that tripled the American troop levels there -- Obama traveled to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he cast aspersions on the peace advocacy of another Nobel Peace laureate: Martin Luther King Jr.

The president struck a respectful tone as he whetted the rhetorical knife before twisting. "I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King," he said, just before swiftly implying that those two advocates of nonviolent direct action were, in fact, passive and naive. "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," Obama added.

Moments later, he was straining to justify American warfare: past, present, future. "To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason," Obama said. "I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower."

Then came the jingo pitch: "Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."

Crowing about the moral virtues of making war while accepting a peace prize might seem a bit odd, but Obama's rhetoric was in sync with a key dictum from Orwell: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

Laboring to denigrate King's anti-war past while boasting about Uncle Sam's past (albeit acknowledging "mistakes," a classic retrospective euphemism for carnage from the vantage point of perpetrators), Obama marshaled his oratory to foreshadow and justify the killing yet to come under his authority.

Two weeks before the start of Obama's second term, the British daily The Guardian noted that "U.S. use of drones has soared during Obama's time in office, with the White House authorizing attacks in at least four countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It is estimated that the CIA and the U.S. military have undertaken more than 300 drone strikes and killed about 2,500 people."

The newspaper reported that a former member of Obama's "counter-terrorism group" during the 2008 campaign, Michael Boyle, says the White House is now understating the number of civilian deaths due to the drone strikes, with loosened standards for when and where to attack: "The consequences can be seen in the targeting of mosques or funeral processions that kill non-combatants and tear at the social fabric of the regions where they occur. No one really knows the number of deaths caused by drones in these distant, sometimes ungoverned, lands."

Although Obama criticized the Bush-era "war on terror" several years ago, Boyle points out, President Obama "has been just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor."

Boyle's assessment -- consistent with the conclusions of many other policy analysts -- found the Obama administration's use of drones is "encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent."

In recent weeks, more than 50,000 Americans have signed a petition to Ban Weaponized Drones from the World. The petition says that "weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs or chemical weapons." It calls for President Obama "to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his 'kill list' program regardless of the technology employed."

Count on lofty rhetoric from the inaugural podium. The spirit of Dr. King will be elsewhere.

Norman Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

So. The idea of this happening is somehow funny??

In recent weeks, more than 50,000 Americans have signed a petition to Ban Weaponized Drones from the World. The petition says that "weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs or chemical weapons." It calls for President Obama "to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his 'kill list' program regardless of the technology employed."

its funny the level of obsession and tunnel vision

published a report this month which has provided these details.



Deaths in Afghanistan

Click heading to sort. Download this data




Year


Anti-govn't forces


Pro-govn't forces


Other


Total


% change


% killings by Taliban







SOURCE: UNAMA




2006

699

230



929



75.24



2007

700

629

194

1,523

63.94

45.96



2008

1,160

828

130

2,118

39.07

54.77



2009

1,630

596

186

2,412

13.88

67.58



2010

2,037

427

326

2,790

15.67

73.01



2011

2,332

410

279

3,021

8.28

77.19



TOTAL, 2007-2011

8,558

3,120

1,115

12,793



66.90

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics

Isn't one dead kid one too many?

The personal attacks are a little , no?

So are you saying that if the numbers involved are small then the problem is not really important?

So the number of people killed in the US with so called assault rifles is just as small . . .

Might want to cover up, your bias is showing.

She just practices her 1st amendment right to worship as she chooses... and she chooses her messiah Obozo.

I would just like to point out a small, insignificant number of folks killed just before Barry's second term.

Is he a mass murderer or is he very discriminate and know exactly who is to be wasted?

300 strikes and 2,500 dead kinda' tells me he's not reeealy concerned about what playgrounds or daycare's are hit.

Two weeks before the start of Obama's second term, the British daily The Guardian noted that "U.S. use of drones has soared during Obama's time in office, with the White House authorizing attacks in at least four countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It is estimated that the CIA and the U.S. military have undertaken more than 300 drone strikes and killed about 2,500 people."

This article goes on to say that many of the strikes are in outer regions on locations with limited access (remote villages?) so the numbers could be higher.

Where be all them extremist anti-gunners screamin' to save the kids?

I think in her own inimitable way, she is trying to justify the unlawful murder of innocents with a numbers game in much the same way Stalin did.

"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."

Clearly Obama is a war criminal and mass murderer. Anyone who follows him or obeys his orders is willfully complicit in his crimes and should likewise be arrested and brought to trial. While you're at it you might want to round up Dubya, Bush Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Clinton gang, Kissinger & a few other choice war criminals...Maybe they have volume discounts at the ICC.

Time to pull Nuremberg out of mothballs.

the paraphrasing here is truly scary

what I said was what I meant.

the numbers dying have not changed, regardless of the method of delivery,,,thats my point

the outrage over those deaths because they are from 'drones', the insistence on making it unique to this administration, when those types of deaths have been occuring for DECADES around the world

while all the while IGNORING The different circumstances

in regions where people are already being killed in great numbers, and at greater risk than american kids have had to feel in their own schools, doing SOMETHING< even when it risks lifes, is better than doing nothing and letting lives be taken by someone else

comparing the actions of military that cause innocent death should involve ALL military types of civilian casualties,,and that would demand that the issue not be seen as a recent one or one attributed to one man

and comparing the actions of military in the effort to protect which cause civilian death,,,,,with the actions of disgruntled and mentally unwell people whose only effort is to KILL INNOCENT people,, is nonsensical at best

no, IM showing the level of ridiculous involved with the attempted analogy

its like serial killers pointing out the hypocrisy of laws beause doctors cut on and end the lives of ao many people every year,,,

it is the task of the military , which are TRAINED individuals, to assess difficult numbers, it doesnt make the lives less or more than other lives, its just reality

and, if it is assessed that point A is going to destroy 1000 people if not taken out, but taking them out will destroy 25

the choice is not easy, but it will have to be and has been made,,,time and time again

there is no such rationale for gunning down school children, or civilians, who according to gun lovers themself, are at risk because the gunman assumes they are no threat,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AjDy0ygM2Q&feature=youtu.be

50,000 people? Big deal.

The fact about weapon-carrying drones is that they work. It used to be, in the early days of the Afghanistan conflict that Taliban were training hundreds of fighters in dozens of camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then came the drones and now you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of guys, and even then, only at night in somebody's back yard in deep Pakistan. Again, they work, and 50,000 electronic "signatures" are about 5% of a Drudge Report mailing list. They're probably just pissed that Obama is actually effective.

Funny,yet your State forbids its Residents most Firearms allowed under the Law in other States!

Where is this proof that cluster bombing is effective in eliminating alleged terrorists?

Where is the declaration of war that allows cluster bombing in a sovereign country?

How does one know he is cluster bombing Muslims and not a few Christians gathering for Bible Study?

How many kids and other innocents are killed during these illegal cluster bomb runs?

How many Qurans were harmed in those cluster bombings would be the most important question?

BINGO!!!

they will try , like they did with Clinton, to find ANYTHING possible to stick on him with some kind of exclusivity,,,

Which is trivial.
The outrage is not because it is from drones, it is because it is hypocritical to slay children, say nothing about it, then call for action here in the US without batting an eye lash at the contradiction.

You either care about every single child's life or you dont.

Clinton lied under Oath?
OK with you?