My beef with drones is not the boogey-man "on US soil", it's Obama's Bush-Lite Doctrine

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. I spent no time justifying anything

I identified a series of positions. My claim is simple:

Obama's policy is a slightly modified version of Clinton's cruise missile policy, not an extension of Bush's policies.

That's the claim. You can take it or leave it, or argue against it or whatever, but please don't assign more claims to me than that. Indeed, I say very clearly in my post that I prefer position 3), which is what you appear to be arguing for here. Here's what I said, in plain English:

Needless to say, that context does not allow for option 3). That's the real cause for disappointment. Option 3) remains as distant a goal as ever.

Perhaps this was difficult for you to interpret, so I'll be even more clear: position 3) is the position I prefer. It is the goal, and the only moral goal. It is the correct position.

Better?