The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

It must suck to realize your messiah is ****ing evil.

 

Obama "supporters" give off a more than a real ****ing Manson Family vibe.

https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/users/hussein%20obama?q=hussein+obama

 

You're a typical dumbass Lol!

Huffpo piece critical of Schultz and Obama admin with an entire 68 comments? Too bad it wasn't about something really important, like Chick-Fil-A.

But of course

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/this-is-it-america-needs_b_1999013.html

This Is It: America Needs to Hear Obama, Romney Talk About Drone Strikes in Last Debate


Co-authored by John Amick

If the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee – and a member of Congress – claims unfamiliarity with possibly the major plank of U.S. drone policy, as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did last week when asked about President Obama's "kill list" of those open for assassination based on U.S. intelligence, then what makes anyone believe the average American voter has a grasp on the killing done in their name in the likes of Pakistan and Yemen?

This is the question Bob Schieffer, longtime journalist and host of CBS’s Face the Nation, must ask himself ahead of the foreign policy (and final) presidential debate he will moderate Monday evening. He has an opportunity – and, arguably, a duty – to pose serious questions about a secretive, life-and-death U.S. government policy in front of tens of millions watching the two presidential candidates weeks before they go to the polls. The first two presidential debates had 67.2 million and 65.6 million viewers, respectively, meaning Monday’s debate would likely be the largest American audience to all at once pay attention to the subject of U.S. drones strikes that are done in their name. That is, if Schieffer dares press the candidates on what may very well be the most ominous power a president has: choosing who to kill.

The numerous legal, ethical and tactical questions about America’s use of drone strikes overseas – which the Obama administration justifies by pointing to the 2001 authorization of military force against perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks – are enough to warrant the candidates’ full views on how they would use drones in the next four years and how they view said litany of concerns over the policy. (Just Foreign Policy’s Robert Naiman has summarized the issues well.) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has counted as many as 884 civilian deaths – including 176 children – in Pakistan alone as a result of U.S. drone use, which counters the government’s claims that drones are a precise tool that allows for minimum “collateral damage.” And a recent report by researchers at Stanford and NYU found strong evidence of “double tapping,” or drones firing on civilian rescuers following an initial strike on certain targets, in Pakistan.

That President Obama has a “kill list,” revealed by the New York Times earlier this year, is one of the most shocking, revealing parts of the drone policy. The “kill list,” sans due process or any real judicial or congressional oversight, is comprised of individuals the Obama administration has deemed terrorists worthy of assassination, usually by way of a CIA drone strike. Needless to say, this “kill list” has been the subject of much debate, though the U.S. government does not officially acknowledge the CIA's drone program, much less share results of its strikes with the public.

So what about a top government official like Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee? One would assume she’s heard of the “kill list” at the very least. She may not speak ill of her party’s leader and president that uses such power, but she has to have heard of this controversial policy, right? Independent journalist Luke Rudkowski recently asked the chairwoman about the prospect of Mitt Romney, if elected president, using this authority Obama has claimed. Wasserman-Schultz, who is presumably an expert at deflecting reporters’ questions given she’s the DNC chair, treats the question as if it were a far-flung conspiracy theory, claiming she’s never heard of any “kill list.”

Others have commented on how remarkable this admission – or arrogance -- was coming from a top official. Whether she truly does not know what the “kill list” is or she believes she can get away with lying about not knowing, either way it signals an overall lack of broad, nationwide familiarity with America’s drones strikes and the deep questions and implications that linger.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) reports the topics for Monday's debate include “America's Role in the World," “The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism," and “Our Longest War—Afghanistan and Pakistan." Drone use falls into all three categories. CPD claims part of its mission is to offer “the best possible information to viewers and listeners.”

For his part, surely Schieffer, as a reporter like Rudkowski, aims to inform the public on what they need to know to make such an important decision. Schieffer told TV Guide in one of his few comments about the debate he will moderate that being picked for such important role is “one of those things that makes me say, 'Boy, I'm glad I'm a reporter.'"

Mr. Schieffer, what better way to live up to a high journalistic standard than to press Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on how they will or will not wield the power of judge, jury and executioner the next four years?

---
For more on drones, watch War Costs' video accompaniment of the Stanford/NYU report, "Living Under Drones," below. Visit War Costs on Facebook and Twitter.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6yMOzvmgVhc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Use of Drone Strikes Raised at Final Presidential Debate

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...ikes-raised-at-final-presidential-debate.html

The topic of drone strikes arose during the third and final presidential debate tonight, after years of public debate and a federal lawsuit about the use of drones to target alleged enemies of the United States in other countries, including an American citizen.

The exchange was short-lived, however. When Republican candidate Mitt Romney was asked by debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News, "What is your position on the use of drones?" he said he believed that America “should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us.”

"And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes," Romney continued, "and I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends."

But perhaps because of the two candidates' seeming agreement on the issue, at least compared with several other issues that were raised in the debate, Obama never addressed the question or Romney’s answer.

And Schieffer did not ask any follow up questions about key issues surrounding the controversial use of drones, such as what the limits on such strikes should be, if any; whether they help the fight the against global terror; and how decisions should be made to send these strikes around the globe—and how public that decision-making process should be.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a legal action over access to government documents concerning the use of drones to conduct targeted killings. The group did not immediately have a response to the debate statements on its website or twitter accounts.

The Department of Justice continues to press the government's claim that it has not officially acknowledged any CIA role in the use of drones to target and kill suspected terrorists abroad.

According to a recent National Public Radio report, Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU called the targeted killing strategy "the centerpiece of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies." When Jaffer asked the CIA about its use of drones in 2010, the agency declined to confirm whether such attacks had occurred, causing the ACLU to sue for the records under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Obama has publicly defended the use of drone strikes.

According the NPR story, Obama said during a video chat earlier this year that, “I want to make sure that people understand actually drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties....For the most part, they have been very precise—precision strikes against al-Qaida and their affiliates.”