Orange Duce

[a fan]

The Federal government is the only truth, JHU72. Wake up, my man.

[holmes435]

Poll: 62% of Trump supporters say nothing he could do would change opinion

That's pretty sad.

[cradleandshoot]

I'm outraged by the passivity and silence of many FanLax folks regarding Trump's betrayal of the JSOC. Perhaps I'm overreacting as I was one of them. The disregard strikes too close to home for me. I thought there were a few folks on this blog that wore a uniform in service of the USA. How naive!

The operators did their jobs and achieved their objective. Result...the elimination of the world's most notorious and evil criminal.WELL DONE!

I listened to the USHOS, a gutless, lying,draft-dodging, military mocking, disgusting pile of filth spew forth his hallucinogenic "I SAW AND HEARD IT" REPORTAGE. No doubt, Scalise, Jordan-Hastert and Rubio dismiss IT'S babble as "he's just kidding".I don't think it's funny.

I'm probably out of step with FanLax nation on my revulsion of that THING. Pretty sure quite a number the FLHS are repulsed by ANY criticism of their leader.TOO BAD, SO SAD. However, my disgust with the silence of the Joint Chiefs is far greater. Of course, we all know the CIC doesn't givva about a Chain of Command. The JCs have to honor the chain but the CIC doesn't? HONOR? Colonel Vindman honored the oath he took. I can't imagine a more DISHONORABLE gutless group than the CHIEFS, MICK, POMPEO G, BRONX BOY BARR, A.G. Whitaker-Sessions, whomever the SECDEF is this week and the rest of the CIC's Politburo. Almost forgot the unctuous new communications doyenne..."12 Steps" Grisham.

All those wind-up, empty-headed ZEROS had the temerity to attack an honorable AMERICAN.

My grandkids are watching. Are your's?



US SPEC FCS.jpeg.png

[
The operators did their jobs and achieved their objective. Result...the elimination of the world's most notorious and evil criminal.WELL DONE!/quote] Ollie North has never been forgiven for some for his errors in judgement. His record as a highly decorated combat marine also means nothing. Once you get into the game of politics... nothing else you have done in your life matters. There are some folks that only remember George Patton slapped a soldier and damn near lost his command of any army units.

Ollie broke the law.
He did not merely "get into the game of politics" or make "some errors in judgment", though he certainly turned his celebrity into a lucrative political commentary career later on.

Ollie did what he was ordered to do. Laws are broken all of the time MD. The situation with the Contras gets complicated. You do know that many of their leaders were trained at the school of the Americas in the late 70s and early 80s. The political winds changed and doing so became illegal. The soldiers and marines that had helped to train these contras found it repugnant to now turn their backs on them. They understood without the support that was promised to them by the US government... it was the Bay of Pigs all over again. Please don't lecture me about why some military folks make these decisions. Do you know how many military officers broke the law by using "hot pursuit" to chase NV regulars into Laos and Cambodia. Strictly forbidden by law and would destroy and officers career in a heartbeat.

You do know that Barack Obamas attacks on targets in Pakistan were strictly illegal under international law. You know how many women, children and innocent folks were victims of the "collateral damage" from these strikes. If your going to point your fickle finger at Ollie North it had damn well be flexible enough to point to former POTUS Obama. He did the same damn thing. Will I criticize POTUS Obama for doing it... hell no. He broke the law and he did so for honorable reasons, to kill bad guys. I understand why Ollie North did what he did. I understand why so many people still hate him. What I will never forget is the personal sacrifice he made for his marines. He watched too many of them die. Col. North paid his dues and admitted what he did wrong. I am not impressed too much with how he has earned a living since then. I will always be thankful that a lot of his marines made it home because of his courage and valor on the battlefield.

If folks here want to disparage Col. North for breaking the law. I understand that. Hell recent activities from Democrats and Republicans alike have proven there is not much respect for the rule of law anymore. The new rule of thumb seems to be the end justifies the means. If you want to take someone down... do whatever you feel is necessary. The rule of law be damned.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... -than-bush

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm outraged by the passivity and silence of many FanLax folks regarding Trump's betrayal of the JSOC. Perhaps I'm overreacting as I was one of them. The disregard strikes too close to home for me. I thought there were a few folks on this blog that wore a uniform in service of the USA. How naive!

The operators did their jobs and achieved their objective. Result...the elimination of the world's most notorious and evil criminal.WELL DONE!

I listened to the USHOS, a gutless, lying,draft-dodging, military mocking, disgusting pile of filth spew forth his hallucinogenic "I SAW AND HEARD IT" REPORTAGE. No doubt, Scalise, Jordan-Hastert and Rubio dismiss IT'S babble as "he's just kidding".I don't think it's funny.

I'm probably out of step with FanLax nation on my revulsion of that THING. Pretty sure quite a number the FLHS are repulsed by ANY criticism of their leader.TOO BAD, SO SAD. However, my disgust with the silence of the Joint Chiefs is far greater. Of course, we all know the CIC doesn't givva about a Chain of Command. The JCs have to honor the chain but the CIC doesn't? HONOR? Colonel Vindman honored the oath he took. I can't imagine a more DISHONORABLE gutless group than the CHIEFS, MICK, POMPEO G, BRONX BOY BARR, A.G. Whitaker-Sessions, whomever the SECDEF is this week and the rest of the CIC's Politburo. Almost forgot the unctuous new communications doyenne..."12 Steps" Grisham.

All those wind-up, empty-headed ZEROS had the temerity to attack an honorable AMERICAN.

My grandkids are watching. Are your's?



US SPEC FCS.jpeg.png

[
The operators did their jobs and achieved their objective. Result...the elimination of the world's most notorious and evil criminal.WELL DONE!/quote] Ollie North has never been forgiven for some for his errors in judgement. His record as a highly decorated combat marine also means nothing. Once you get into the game of politics... nothing else you have done in your life matters. There are some folks that only remember George Patton slapped a soldier and damn near lost his command of any army units.

Ollie broke the law.
He did not merely "get into the game of politics" or make "some errors in judgment", though he certainly turned his celebrity into a lucrative political commentary career later on.

Ollie did what he was ordered to do. Laws are broken all of the time MD. The situation with the Contras gets complicated. You do know that many of their leaders were trained at the school of the Americas in the late 70s and early 80s. The political winds changed and doing so became illegal. The soldiers and marines that had helped to train these contras found it repugnant to now turn their backs on them. They understood without the support that was promised to them by the US government... it was the Bay of Pigs all over again. Please don't lecture me about why some military folks make these decisions. Do you know how many military officers broke the law by using "hot pursuit" to chase NV regulars into Laos and Cambodia. Strictly forbidden by law and would destroy and officers career in a heartbeat.

You do know that Barack Obamas attacks on targets in Pakistan were strictly illegal under international law. You know how many women, children and innocent folks were victims of the "collateral damage" from these strikes. If your going to point your fickle finger at Ollie North it had damn well be flexible enough to point to former POTUS Obama. He did the same damn thing. Will I criticize POTUS Obama for doing it... hell no. He broke the law and he did so for honorable reasons, to kill bad guys. I understand why Ollie North did what he did. I understand why so many people still hate him. What I will never forget is the personal sacrifice he made for his marines. He watched too many of them die. Col. North paid his dues and admitted what he did wrong. I am not impressed too much with how he has earned a living since then. I will always be thankful that a lot of his marines made it home because of his courage and valor on the battlefield.

If folks here want to disparage Col. North for breaking the law. I understand that. Hell recent activities from Democrats and Republicans alike have proven there is not much respect for the rule of law anymore. The new rule of thumb seems to be the end justifies the means. If you want to take someone down... do whatever you feel is necessary. The rule of law be damned.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... -than-bush

Hey, you can argue until the cows come home that breaking the law is just cool, indeed for a higher good, in Ollie's case, but not with the he was just 'following orders', fascist line of reasoning.

I'm ok with someone deciding to break the law and owning the consequences...civil disobedience being a legitimate course of action. But don't cop out with "I was ordered to do it" line.

[holmes435]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

[seacoaster]

Where's Mike?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"Since the investigation began into President Trump’s machinations in Ukraine, one of the most disturbing questions has been: Where is Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, who’s supposed to shield his diplomats from political interference?

And now we have the answer: Pompeo, in recent months, has essentially been in hiding, protecting himself while his subordinates took the hit — evidently hoping to preserve his influence with Trump. Sometimes his deflections and denials have been outright misleading.

Pompeo has badly tarnished his reputation in accommodating Trump. He joins the long list of those damaged by their service to this president. If you’re someone like me, who thought Pompeo was one of the smarter and more effective people in the administration, it’s a sad moment.

This harsh judgment is nearly inescapable after reading the transcripts released Monday of testimony from two key State Department officials: Marie Yovanovitch, a 33-year Foreign Service veteran Trump fired in May as ambassador to Ukraine; and Michael McKinley, a 37-year veteran, who resigned in October as Pompeo’s senior adviser because “the disparagement of a career diplomat [Yovanovitch] doing her job was unacceptable to me.”

At the core of Pompeo’s story is the conundrum of what public service means under an erratic president such as Trump. Pompeo’s defenders argue that the secretary might serve his personal interest by resigning and protecting what’s left of his political career. But would that be the honorable choice, they ask, if it would mean abandoning the State Department to even greater chaos?

A similar dilemma vexed former defense secretary Jim Mattis for two years. He stayed silent in public over Trump’s tantrums and abuses, hoping that in private he could prevent even worse catastrophes. But, in the end, this strategy of accommodation wasn’t tenable; the rucksack became too heavy, and Mattis resigned in December.

Pompeo’s defenders argue that his story is more complicated than it appears. They say that through 2018 and early 2019, as Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was spinning malicious falsehoods to undermine Yovanovitch, Pompeo had a senior deputy press Giuliani for evidence to support his charges. Giuliani never produced any, and Yovanovitch stayed — until Trump personally demanded she be fired, after which Pompeo acceded.

In the lead-up to her firing and following the publicity over her dismissal, Yovanovitch kept asking for support from her bosses. That was especially so after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted in March that she was a “joker” who should be sacked. But Pompeo was mum.

“What I was told was that there was concern that the rug would be pulled out from underneath the State Department if they put out something publicly,” Yovanovitch testified.

In late April, she was ordered home. Acting assistant secretary of state Philip Reeker told her that “the secretary had tried to protect [Yovanovitch] but was no longer able to do that,” and Deputy Secretary John Sullivan informed her she was fired. “I said, ‘What have I done wrong?’ And he said, ‘You’ve done nothing wrong.’”

Pompeo didn’t explain or apologize. His counselor, Thomas Ulrich Brechbuhl, refused Yovanovitch’s request for a meeting.

Trump’s groundless attacks against Yovanovitch continued, as did Pompeo’s silence. We learned months later that Pompeo had listened in on the infamous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked for a political “favor” in exchange for sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine — and described Yovanovitch as “bad news,” warning that she was “going to go through some things.” Pompeo did nothing.

When a transcript of the menacing July call was released Sept. 25, Yovanovitch felt personally threatened, and she again asked for help. Pompeo said nothing publicly in her defense.

McKinley, Pompeo’s senior adviser, pressed the secretary to issue a brief statement of support for Yovanovitch. “He listened. That was it. Sort of, ‘thank you.’ That was the limit of the conversation,” McKinley testified. He went to see Pompeo twice more over the next few days, the final time to resign, telling Pompeo: “This situation isn’t acceptable.”

Pompeo told ABC News last month that “not once” did McKinley “say a single thing about his concerns” about Yovanovitch’s treatment. By McKinley’s sworn testimony, that statement was false.

What is character? It’s difficult to define, but as NPR’s Scott Simon recently noted, a good, short summary is the U.S. Military Academy motto: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”

We should be careful not to judge others’ character, especially in the hotbox of today’s Washington. But it’s deeply troubling to see a powerful person such as Pompeo who is silent in the face of lies and who takes no action to protect his subordinates from wrongdoing."

[Typical Lax Dad]

Where's Mike?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"Since the investigation began into President Trump’s machinations in Ukraine, one of the most disturbing questions has been: Where is Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, who’s supposed to shield his diplomats from political interference?

And now we have the answer: Pompeo, in recent months, has essentially been in hiding, protecting himself while his subordinates took the hit — evidently hoping to preserve his influence with Trump. Sometimes his deflections and denials have been outright misleading.

Pompeo has badly tarnished his reputation in accommodating Trump. He joins the long list of those damaged by their service to this president. If you’re someone like me, who thought Pompeo was one of the smarter and more effective people in the administration, it’s a sad moment.

This harsh judgment is nearly inescapable after reading the transcripts released Monday of testimony from two key State Department officials: Marie Yovanovitch, a 33-year Foreign Service veteran Trump fired in May as ambassador to Ukraine; and Michael McKinley, a 37-year veteran, who resigned in October as Pompeo’s senior adviser because “the disparagement of a career diplomat [Yovanovitch] doing her job was unacceptable to me.”

At the core of Pompeo’s story is the conundrum of what public service means under an erratic president such as Trump. Pompeo’s defenders argue that the secretary might serve his personal interest by resigning and protecting what’s left of his political career. But would that be the honorable choice, they ask, if it would mean abandoning the State Department to even greater chaos?

A similar dilemma vexed former defense secretary Jim Mattis for two years. He stayed silent in public over Trump’s tantrums and abuses, hoping that in private he could prevent even worse catastrophes. But, in the end, this strategy of accommodation wasn’t tenable; the rucksack became too heavy, and Mattis resigned in December.

Pompeo’s defenders argue that his story is more complicated than it appears. They say that through 2018 and early 2019, as Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was spinning malicious falsehoods to undermine Yovanovitch, Pompeo had a senior deputy press Giuliani for evidence to support his charges. Giuliani never produced any, and Yovanovitch stayed — until Trump personally demanded she be fired, after which Pompeo acceded.

In the lead-up to her firing and following the publicity over her dismissal, Yovanovitch kept asking for support from her bosses. That was especially so after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted in March that she was a “joker” who should be sacked. But Pompeo was mum.

“What I was told was that there was concern that the rug would be pulled out from underneath the State Department if they put out something publicly,” Yovanovitch testified.

In late April, she was ordered home. Acting assistant secretary of state Philip Reeker told her that “the secretary had tried to protect [Yovanovitch] but was no longer able to do that,” and Deputy Secretary John Sullivan informed her she was fired. “I said, ‘What have I done wrong?’ And he said, ‘You’ve done nothing wrong.’”

Pompeo didn’t explain or apologize. His counselor, Thomas Ulrich Brechbuhl, refused Yovanovitch’s request for a meeting.

Trump’s groundless attacks against Yovanovitch continued, as did Pompeo’s silence. We learned months later that Pompeo had listened in on the infamous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked for a political “favor” in exchange for sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine — and described Yovanovitch as “bad news,” warning that she was “going to go through some things.” Pompeo did nothing.

When a transcript of the menacing July call was released Sept. 25, Yovanovitch felt personally threatened, and she again asked for help. Pompeo said nothing publicly in her defense.

McKinley, Pompeo’s senior adviser, pressed the secretary to issue a brief statement of support for Yovanovitch. “He listened. That was it. Sort of, ‘thank you.’ That was the limit of the conversation,” McKinley testified. He went to see Pompeo twice more over the next few days, the final time to resign, telling Pompeo: “This situation isn’t acceptable.”

Pompeo told ABC News last month that “not once” did McKinley “say a single thing about his concerns” about Yovanovitch’s treatment. By McKinley’s sworn testimony, that statement was false.

What is character? It’s difficult to define, but as NPR’s Scott Simon recently noted, a good, short summary is the U.S. Military Academy motto: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”

We should be careful not to judge others’ character, especially in the hotbox of this today’s Washington. But it’s deeply troubling to see a powerful person such as Pompeo who is silent in the face of lies and who takes no action to protect his subordinates from wrongdoing."

“Not tolerate those that do”.....tell me about it. Even worse is a “cadet” that excuses it.

[Brooklyn]

Gee, why is that?

[Brooklyn]

Looks like Donny Duce doesn't like New York so much anymore:

[cradleandshoot]

I'm outraged by the passivity and silence of many FanLax folks regarding Trump's betrayal of the JSOC. Perhaps I'm overreacting as I was one of them. The disregard strikes too close to home for me. I thought there were a few folks on this blog that wore a uniform in service of the USA. How naive!

The operators did their jobs and achieved their objective. Result...the elimination of the world's most notorious and evil criminal.WELL DONE!

I listened to the USHOS, a gutless, lying,draft-dodging, military mocking, disgusting pile of filth spew forth his hallucinogenic "I SAW AND HEARD IT" REPORTAGE. No doubt, Scalise, Jordan-Hastert and Rubio dismiss IT'S babble as "he's just kidding".I don't think it's funny.

I'm probably out of step with FanLax nation on my revulsion of that THING. Pretty sure quite a number the FLHS are repulsed by ANY criticism of their leader.TOO BAD, SO SAD. However, my disgust with the silence of the Joint Chiefs is far greater. Of course, we all know the CIC doesn't givva about a Chain of Command. The JCs have to honor the chain but the CIC doesn't? HONOR? Colonel Vindman honored the oath he took. I can't imagine a more DISHONORABLE gutless group than the CHIEFS, MICK, POMPEO G, BRONX BOY BARR, A.G. Whitaker-Sessions, whomever the SECDEF is this week and the rest of the CIC's Politburo. Almost forgot the unctuous new communications doyenne..."12 Steps" Grisham.

All those wind-up, empty-headed ZEROS had the temerity to attack an honorable AMERICAN.

My grandkids are watching. Are your's?



US SPEC FCS.jpeg.png

[
The operators did their jobs and achieved their objective. Result...the elimination of the world's most notorious and evil criminal.WELL DONE!/quote] Ollie North has never been forgiven for some for his errors in judgement. His record as a highly decorated combat marine also means nothing. Once you get into the game of politics... nothing else you have done in your life matters. There are some folks that only remember George Patton slapped a soldier and damn near lost his command of any army units.

Ollie broke the law.
He did not merely "get into the game of politics" or make "some errors in judgment", though he certainly turned his celebrity into a lucrative political commentary career later on.

Ollie did what he was ordered to do. Laws are broken all of the time MD. The situation with the Contras gets complicated. You do know that many of their leaders were trained at the school of the Americas in the late 70s and early 80s. The political winds changed and doing so became illegal. The soldiers and marines that had helped to train these contras found it repugnant to now turn their backs on them. They understood without the support that was promised to them by the US government... it was the Bay of Pigs all over again. Please don't lecture me about why some military folks make these decisions. Do you know how many military officers broke the law by using "hot pursuit" to chase NV regulars into Laos and Cambodia. Strictly forbidden by law and would destroy and officers career in a heartbeat.

You do know that Barack Obamas attacks on targets in Pakistan were strictly illegal under international law. You know how many women, children and innocent folks were victims of the "collateral damage" from these strikes. If your going to point your fickle finger at Ollie North it had damn well be flexible enough to point to former POTUS Obama. He did the same damn thing. Will I criticize POTUS Obama for doing it... hell no. He broke the law and he did so for honorable reasons, to kill bad guys. I understand why Ollie North did what he did. I understand why so many people still hate him. What I will never forget is the personal sacrifice he made for his marines. He watched too many of them die. Col. North paid his dues and admitted what he did wrong. I am not impressed too much with how he has earned a living since then. I will always be thankful that a lot of his marines made it home because of his courage and valor on the battlefield.

If folks here want to disparage Col. North for breaking the law. I understand that. Hell recent activities from Democrats and Republicans alike have proven there is not much respect for the rule of law anymore. The new rule of thumb seems to be the end justifies the means. If you want to take someone down... do whatever you feel is necessary. The rule of law be damned.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... -than-bush

Hey, you can argue until the cows come home that breaking the law is just cool, indeed for a higher good, in Ollie's case, but not with the he was just 'following orders', fascist line of reasoning.

I'm ok with someone deciding to break the law and owning the consequences...civil disobedience being a legitimate course of action. But don't cop out with "I was ordered to do it" line.

Sorry MD...I forget you have no comprehension of the loyalty many military folks have to their leaders. Explain to me how BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan to kill bad guys did not break any laws. Anybody owned up to those crimes yet? Is it legal under US law MD to launch missiles into another country? Don't " cop out" on me here.

[cradleandshoot]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan? Were they an example of the end justifies the means? If we can do it it Pakistan... why not in Mexico as well. What we seem to have is selective outrage in when and how the US government breaks the law.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... kes-legal/

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47480207

https://www.amnestyusa.org/is-it-legal- ... h-a-drone/

[holmes435]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan? Were they an example of the end justifies the means? If we can do it it Pakistan... why not in Mexico as well. What we seem to have is selective outrage in when and how the US government breaks the law.

Plenty of problems, I mentioned them at length on LP, including his lack of transparency and other issues.

I'm not sure what Obama has to do with being able to criticize someone who served who commits crimes.

[foreverlax]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan? Were they an example of the end justifies the means? If we can do it it Pakistan... why not in Mexico as well. What we seem to have is selective outrage in when and how the US government breaks the law.

Here is the reason -

The use of drones aligned with Obama’s ambition to keep up the war against al Qaeda while extricating the US military from intractable, costly ground wars in the Middle East and Asia.

How many innocents died under drones vs W's shock and awe?

What would be the reason for bombing Mexico...Americans were murdered while living there?

Would it be ok for a foreign nation to bomb us if one of their nationals is killed?

[cradleandshoot]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan? Were they an example of the end justifies the means? If we can do it it Pakistan... why not in Mexico as well. What we seem to have is selective outrage in when and how the US government breaks the law.

Plenty of problems, I mentioned them at length on LP, including his lack of transparency and other issues.

I'm not sure what Obama has to do with being able to criticize someone who served who commits crimes.

Because Obama, Bush and the Trumpster were committing crimes with all of the drone strikes in Pakistan. Is the Pakistsan government okay with these bombing raids? The comparison to Mexico would be the same. If we knew the whereabouts of a terrorist hiding in Mexicio... why can we not send in the drones to wipe them out? The precedant has been set. I would hazard a guess why any nation would not attack the US would be because our government would not knowingly provide safe harbor to a known terrorist.

[old salt]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan? Were they an example of the end justifies the means? If we can do it it Pakistan... why not in Mexico as well. What we seem to have is selective outrage in when and how the US government breaks the law.

Designating the cartels as terrorist organizations is the first step.
They just gave us justification to do that.

[cradleandshoot]

It's almost like someone could have served honorably while still being a d-bag lawbreaker bordering on treason in other matters.

People are complicated. Plenty of good people have screwed up, and plenty of life-long criminals have done some good things in their lives.

It's best not to conflate two distinct things to support your argument.

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan? Were they an example of the end justifies the means? If we can do it it Pakistan... why not in Mexico as well. What we seem to have is selective outrage in when and how the US government breaks the law.

Designating the cartels as terrorist organizations is the first step.
They just gave us justification to do that.

Bingo...

[CU77]

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan?

I have a big problem with it. My opinion, both at the time and now, is that Obama is a war criminal who should be in prison.

Of course that also goes for Bush the younger and Trump, at the very least. Probably every single POTUS ever, for that matter.

And I am NOT kidding.

[cradleandshoot]

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan?

I have a big problem with it. My opinion, both at the time and now, is that Obama is a war criminal who should be in prison.

Of course that also goes for Bush the younger and Trump, at the very least. Probably every single POTUS ever, for that matter.

And I am NOT kidding.

In theory I agree with you 100%. There are a lot of skeevy black ops stuff that go on the name of national security. My point is that the people behind these activities know they are wrong. They have one thing in common... they all believe they are acting out of what they believe to be their patriotic beliefs in how to defend the country. It only reinforces the fact that there is no right way to do a wrong thing. It makes it easier when you can sell it to the average American because what you did helped to keep the country safe.

[foreverlax]

So no problems with BHOs drone strikes in Pakistan?

I have a big problem with it. My opinion, both at the time and now, is that Obama is a war criminal who should be in prison.

Of course that also goes for Bush the younger and Trump, at the very least. Probably every single POTUS ever, for that matter.

And I am NOT kidding.

In theory I agree with you 100%. There are a lot of skeevy black ops stuff that go on the name of national security. My point is that the people behind these activities know they are wrong. They have one thing in common... they all believe they are acting out of what they believe to be their patriotic beliefs in how to defend the country. It only reinforces the fact that there is no right way to do a wrong thing. It makes it easier when you can sell it to the average American because what you did helped to keep the country safe.

Yup. Cold hard fact!

We want them on that wall, we just don't REALLY want to know the methods. I am bi-polar on this....happiest when I don't know how they get it done.
Not just the black ops stuff, but the watching, tracking, and listening.