"Just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor." Ouch.

[JoePhilly]

99. Well, let's see ... I was FOR invading Afganistan initially. I was AGAINST the invasion of Iraq

from the start. Bush let our troops languish in Afghanistan when he became distracted by Iraq.

Generally speaking, I'd prefer fewer of our troops be on the ground and in harms way when we do take Military action.

As such, I'm generally supportive of using drones to move more of our troops out of harms way, regardless of which party holds the White House. And so, my issue with Bush was never about drones, but about his shift of focus to the wrong country.

So, the author seems to think he has a monopoly on knowing how "pissed" Dems and liberals were (interesting you used both terms), and what made them pissed.

There were many much better reasons to be pissed at Bush than drones.

Death by drone is not that much different than death by tank, or death by cruise missile fired from a warship hundreds of miles away. Early man fought with sticks ... then stones, then spears, arrows, cannons, guns, mortars, planes, ships, missiles, tanks. The general idea is to be able to kill your enemy from a safer and safer distance. Was the use mortars during WWII illegal or immoral?

You ask if I'm pissed now about drones ... no.

Was I pissed then about drones ... also no.

I suspect I'm not alone, as a Dem, in this regard. In fact, outside DU, I suspect my position in the majority position on this point. Which would also make the author's claim that Dems are acting differently now, false.