If Bush had done it, I would have approved.

[gulliver]

I see a lot of posts saying that "we" would not have approved of taking out Anwar al-Awlaki if Bush had done it. Not me. I would have approved of it. I would have approved of Bush taking out OBL too.

Of course, he didn't do that. Bush and his Republican "panic-attack" approach to security failed miserably. But if Bush and the Republicans hadn't been such world-class, metaphysics-straining f-ups and had gotten OBL and al-Awlaki (like Obama did), I would have applauded.

[Broderick]

1. OK LMAO

Run with that! If it makes you feel better.

[ixion]

2. unrec

for intellectual dishonesty.

[uppityperson]

5. rec to counter your mindreading unrec. Op posted his opinion and you know his opinion better

because you mindread?

[ixion]

7. No, because I think critically, and for myself.

And if I have to explain it to you, it's not worth the effort.

[uppityperson]

8. And of course that means everyone else thinks as you do. You basically called the Op a liar

because you have a different opinion.

[ixion]

9. I said his statement was intellectually dishonest, because it is.

if you can't deal with that, that is your problem. See post #6

[uppityperson]

10. Yup, he's a liar. gotcha. eom

[ixion]

11. there is a subtle difference

so your word, not mine.

[uppityperson]

12. "intellectually dishonest" means no delete. "liar" doesn't. Gotcha. Good job.

[ixion]

13. If you want to debate, fine. But I'll not respond to another snark post.

Good day.

[johnaries]

18. "Intellectual dishonesty"? How so? What evidence do you have

that the OP feels differently?

[ixion]

20. See post #6. eom.

[SpiralHawk]

3. If Jesus had done it, I would have disapproved

No special exceptions.

[ixion]

4. well said.

[Ed Suspicious]

14. Amen to that! n/t

[MilesColtrane]

6. Bush did do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[loyalsister]

15. I think consistency is good

I don't get the controversy.

I was so rigidly against Bush that I attacked him over anything I could come up with. Looking it from a POV where there are people who do that on the other side, I have rethought my disposition and lack of critical thinking.
I think it's reasonable to ask questions. At the same time, I think there is too much unknown information for average citizen to make a full legal analysis. The president is the commander in chief advised by military experts. Raising questions is one thing, thinking I know better is arrogant.

[ixion]

17. how's this for consistency:

The Bush Doctrine was illegal and unconstitutional when Bush used it, and it's just as illegal and unconstitutional when Obama, or any other sitting president uses it.

[loyalsister]

21. Good for you

Although, I don't think the constitutionality of the laws under which they both acted has been tested. Not being a judge or constitutional lawyer, I reserve judgement.

[Vincardog]

16. NO President has the right to ignore the constitution. NO ONE

[The Northerner]

27. +100

[Bucky]

19. Pfff, as if Bush ever prioritized going after al-Qaeda figures. Unless al-Awlaki had oil....

He was safe from the neocons

[JI7]

22. Bush should have done it instead of start some useless fucked up Wars that had nothing to do

with terrorists who attacked us or any other threats.

in fact many attacked Bush for not going after them as Obama is doing and instead starting wars.

[Modern_Matthew]

23. Thank you for stopping here on the way to Freeperville. Have a nice day. nt

[MrSlayer]

24. Agreed.

If Chimpy had been more interested in killing the terrorists instead of making his buddies money with the misadventure in Iraq, we would be better off. Unfortunately, he was not.

[philly_bob]

25. Remember that Bush had the Pakistanis as our #1 allies... (nt)

[WinkyDink]

26. Is this a poll? I approve of anti-littering laws!

[ellisonz]

28. Thanks Gulliver - You Took Me Back!

It seems the minds of these people are so taken up with intense speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the discourses of others, without being roused by some external taction upon the organs of speech and hearing; for which reason, those persons who are able to afford it always keep a flapper (the original is climenole) in their family, as one of their domestics; nor ever walk abroad, or make visits, without him. And the business of this officer is, when two, three, or more persons are in company, gently to strike with his bladder the mouth of him who is to speak, and the right ear of him or them to whom the speaker addresses himself. This flapper is likewise employed diligently to attend his master in his walks, and upon occasion to give him a soft flap on his eyes; because he is always so wrapped up in cogitation, that he is in manifest danger of falling down every precipice, and bouncing his head against every post; and in the streets, of justling others, or being justled himself into the kennel.

http://www.millstoneeducation.com/worldLit/b4thru7/gulliver/excerpts.php