"Why did you wait?" Donald Trump seemed confused by CIA's desire not to kill family members of terrorists.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

President Trump’s pronouncement that he would be pulling troops out of Syria “very soon” has laid bare a major source of tension between the president and his generals. 

Trump has made winning on the battlefields of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan a central tenet of his foreign policy and tough-guy identity. But Trump and the military hold frequently opposing ideas about exactly what winning means. 

Those differences have played out in heated Situation Room ­debates over virtually every spot on the globe where U.S. troops are engaged in combat, said senior administration officials. And they contributed to the dismissal last month of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster who as national security adviser had pressed the president against his instincts to support an ­open-ended commitment of U.S. forces to Afghanistan. 

Trump’s words, both in public and private, describe a view that wars should be brutal and swift, waged with overwhelming firepower and, in some cases, with little regard for civilian casualties. Victory over America’s enemies for the president is often a matter of bombing “the s--- out of them,” as he said on the campaign trail.

Of course under President Obama the policy was to spare innocent civilians, and family members, and instead use precise targeting to take out the terrorist objective.

As we know that did not always work, and many innocent civilians were also killed.

However Trump does not seem at all bothered by that sort of collateral damage.

Trump came to office promising to give the Pentagon a free hand to unleash the full force of U.S. firepower. His impatience was evident on his first full day in office when he visited the CIA and was ushered up to the agency’s drone operations floor. 

There agency officials showed him a feed from Syria, where Obama-era rules limited the agency to surveillance flights — part of a broader push by the previous administration to return the CIA to its core espionage mission and shift the job of killing terrorists to the military. 

Trump urged the CIA to start arming its drones in Syria. “If you can do it in 10 days, get it done,” he said, according to two former officials familiar with the meeting. 

Later, when the agency’s head of drone operations explained that the CIA had developed special munitions to limit civilian casualties, the president seemed unimpressed. Watching a previously recorded strike in which the agency held off on firing until the target had wandered away from a house with his family inside, Trump asked, “Why did you wait?” one participant in the meeting recalled.

To be clear killing innocent people overseas is how you create more terrorists, not defeat terrorism.

Trump's inability to understand that, or to respect human life, will only ensure that not only does terrorism outlast his term, but that it increases exponentially.

Having said that I am going to tack on the report about those Russian sanctions right here, because I do not think they deserve a post of their own.

Some in the media are trying to give Trump credit for finally cracking down with some aggressive sanctions that will actually hurt the Russian oligarchs who support Putin, but they are fools.

Trump is NOT behind these sanctions. In fact he was clearly dragged kicking and screaming into supporting them, because he had NO choice.

If this were really something that Trump was behind, he would have tweeted the shit out of it, but there is not a peep about this on his account.

To sum up Donald Trump does not value human life, but he absolutely values his relationship with Vladimir Putin.

President Obama and Vladimir Putin pledge to wipe out Daesh in wake of terrorists attacks in Paris.

Courtesy of the Mirror:

America and Russia have pledged to wipe out ISIS . 

Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin sat down at the G20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, for crucial talks. 

The two world leaders were pictured huddled around a coffee table in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Paris .

And Obama and Putin are by no means alone in wanting to bring the fight to the terrorists.

Already France has launched a series of air attacks: 

France bombed the Syrian city of Raqqa on Sunday night, its most aggressive strike against the Islamic State group it blames for killing 129 people in a string of terrorist attacks across Paris only two days before. 

President François Hollande, who vowed to be “unforgiving with the barbarians” of the Islamic State after the carnage in Paris, decided on the airstrikes in a meeting with his national security team on Saturday, officials said.

I totally support the idea of going after the terrorists, but I very much want people to keep in mind the lessons of the Iraq War and  remember that killing people in predominantly Muslim countries in retaliation for attacks conducted by Muslim extremists only exacerbates the problem and does nothing to keep us safe, but rather puts all of us in greater danger.

Sometimes the idea of killing them over there, before they kill us over here, only makes more of them over there want to kill us over here.

P.S. By the way for those confused as to who I am referring to in the title, "Daesh" is the name that ISIS does NOT want you to call them. So of course that will be the only name that should be used to refer to them.

Florida Republican candidate suggested that President Obama should be arrested and hanged. Seriously? Update!

Courtesy of Tampa Bay Times:  

As Americans honored the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday, a Republican candidate for Florida House District 68 said President Barack Obama should be hanged for war crimes. 

"I'm past impeachment," Joshua Black wrote on Twitter. "It's time to arrest and hang him high." 

The tweet caught the attention of Chris Latvala, a Republican candidate for House District 67. 

"You aren't seriously calling for the killing of Obama are you?" Latvala replied. "I know you are crazy but good heavens. U R an embarrassment." 

Latvala added: "I make it my business when so called GOP candidates become an embarrassment to my beloved party." 

Black, 31, of Pinellas Park moved to Florida in 2007 after practicing street evangelism in St. Louis and works as a taxi driver. According to his campaign website, Black entered politics in 2012 when he tried influencing the presidential primary. 

The website says: "Republicans have a serious communication problem. Everything we say sounds like spears." 

Hours after the tweet, Black defended his comment. Obama should be held responsible for ordering a drone strike that killed a U.S. citizen overseas, he said. 

"He should be executed for treason," Black said. "I think the appropriate punishment is death. They killed Benedict Arnold. (Obama) shouldn't be allowed to kill Americans without a trial."

So in the eyes of this wingnut President Obama is comparable to Benedict Arnold, the most famous traitor in US history. Oh yeah, nothing exaggerated about that!

Hey look I am also uncomfortable with the idea of drones killing American citizens (And by the way there have been four.), but I am also aware that police officers shoot and kill suspects all over the country in what are considered life and death circumstances, without benefit of a trial, and as a rule we do not suggest that they be put to death.

And let me point out just how incredibly hypocritical it is to demand that this President be tried of war crimes, when the entire fucking reason we were over in Afghanistan and Iraq is due to the policies of George W. Bush, a man that we KNOW started the wars based on fabricated intelligence.

After we have arrested and imprisoned George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, THEN somebody can start talking about arresting President Obama.

And on that note the radical fringe falls silent. 

Update: Well guess who got a visit from the Secret Service. 

Rand Paul pulls a 180 on drone strikes directed at American citizens: "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him." Wait, what?

"Shh, don't wake it, it's sleeping."

Courtesy of The Hill:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he would have supported police using drones in last week's hunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing. 

"If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them," Paul told Fox Business Network. 

Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under "extraordinary circumstances." The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat." 

Paul said that the question of an "imminent threat" was the pivotal one when considering drone policy. 

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities." 

Okay that "imminent threat" excuse does not hold any water in my opinion. What really seems to be the case is that Paul is perfectly fine with killing people, he just doesn't want anybody to spy on him while he is soaking his tiny Libertarian member in the hot tub.

Paul got ALL kinds of positive praise for holding in his urine for 13 hours to complain about the use of drone strikes,  which culminated with libertarians, college kids, and desperate pro-war Republicans throwing confetti all over his hairpiece.

But as far as I am concerned this statement the other day COMPLETELY undermines his argument, and provides ready made political advertisements for his future opponents.

And Paul, seeming to realize this, attempted to walk back his comments:

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. 

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. 

“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets. 

“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”

 No his comments did not "leave the impression" that his "opinions had changed." They stated it outright!  Or, to play devil's advocate, they demonstrated an example of blatant hypocrisy.

In other words it is NOT okay for the President to use drones, but totally cool for local law enforcement to use them to gun down a guy with a bottle of stolen Jack Daniels in one hand and a fifty dollar bill in the other. How's THAT work?

Look I am not a fan of the use of drones either, though to be fair I much prefer them over having our soldiers coming home in body bags. And I appreciate the fact that this conversation about the appropriate use of drones has started. (You can see Alex Wagner's report on yesterday's Senate hearings on drone strikes here.)

However if Rand Paul thinks that he is still the "go to guy" on the appropriate use of this new technology he is fooling himself

As for the drones being used on American soil, unlike Rand Paul I am MUCH more at ease with the idea of them flying over my hot tub than having them open fire on American citizens. Somehow the idea of the government sneaking a peek at my trouser snake is much preferable to the idea that they might instead shoot it off.

But hey, that's just me.

Michele Bachmann totally baffles John Brennan during questioning in front of the House Intelligence Committee by asking bizarre questions about armed drone strikes and Benghazi.

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

First off, Bachmann brought up one of her favorite topics, the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September 2012. She wanted to know about the White House’s “armed drone strikes” in eastern Libya prior to those attacks last year. 

“Armed drone strikes in Libya?” Brennan asked in seeming disbelief. “I am unknowing of such and would defer to the White House to address your question.” When she pushed him on the issue, Brennan asserted that “the White House doesn’t have a drone capability, responsibility” and said “I don’t know what it is specifically you’re referring to.” 

When she failed to get the answers she was looking for, Bachmann said, “well if we aren’t going to talk about that, we aren’t going to talk about that, but that’s a question I’d like to know.” She moved on, asking Brennan “what is our red line regarding the Iranian nuclear development program?” 

“That clearly is a policy question,” Brennan responded, explaining to Bachmann why he’s not the right person to answer that question. From there, Bachmann went off on a tangent about the various times the United States and U.S. interests have been attacked over the last few decades, expressing her concern that an Iranian nuclear attack could also come as a surprise. 

But the most bizarre moment came at the end of Bachmann’s time when she asked about Iran’s “heavy water reactor.” The CIA men conferred amongst themselves for several seconds before politely informing Bachmann that it would be better to have that discussion in a “closed session.” 

It’s not entirely clear whether Bachmann thought she would be able to extract classified information live on C-SPAN from Brennan and his CIA colleagues, or if she was just using her platform on the committee to air some of things on the international stage that have been bugging her. Either way, it was likely one of the strangest interactions between Congress and the CIA ever caught on camera.

Did you SEE the blank stare on Brennan's face? He had no fucking idea what she was talking about, and THEN she starts bringing up classified information as if she has NO idea that C-Span can be seen by people in other countries. You know, like Iran.

Okay I have two questions,

First how in the HELL does this lunatic get a seat on the House Intelligence Committee?

And two, have you finally had enough Minnesota? Are you finally ready to get rid of her and put somebody with at least two brain cells to rub together in her place?

She is literally beginning to make Sarah Palin look like some kind of genius.

Note to Rand Paul, if President Obama WAS actually going to launch drone strikes against Americans on American soil, THIS would be his first target.

I am not a fan of the drone program, and have serious questions about its effectiveness in targeting real terrorists while excluding innocent bystanders, I have to say that I find this image pleasing on a rather visceral level.

And before anybody gets their panties in a twist, NO I don't think it is appropriate to bomb Fox News.

Having Sean Hannity worked over in a back alley? Not quite as morally repugnant. 

Lawrence O'Donnell obliterates Rand Paul's conspiratorial filibuster.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Excellent job on Lawrence's part. I don't know which filibuster Dionne and Grim saw but the one I saw closely matched the one that O'Donnell is describing.

It was crazy, it was conspiratorial, and it was aimed right at the most deeply held fears of the Tea Party movement, That this president will soon target them with drones for daring to speak out against him.

For those who keep asking what the purpose of Paul's filibuster was, first off I can't believe how slow you are on the uptake, and secondly this:

Paul himself seemed to appreciate that this was an important moment for himself, confidently acknowledging to POLITICO in an interview that he was “seriously” considering running for president in 2016. 

“I think our party needs something new, fresh and different,” he said. “What we’ve been running — nothing against the candidates necessarily — but we have a good, solid niche in all the solidly red states throughout the middle of the country.” 

But he suggested previous Republican candidates have had limited appeal to voters beyond the Republican base. 

“We have to figure out how to appeal to the West Coast, New England [and] around the Great Lakes area. We need to figure out how to appeal to the blue-collar voters that voted — that were Democrats that voted for Reagan and I think are drifting back because they see us as the party of the wealthy. … I do want to be part of making the Republican Party again more of a national party, less than a regional party, which I think we’re in danger of becoming. 

Does that make it more clear?

Paul was able to grab the spotlight, use the drone strike debate to make himself seem vaguely topical, and manipulate a few people out there who don't feel very connected to any one party, into believing that he is not an absolute lunatic.

Which of course is EXACTLY what he is. But hey seeing open disagreement within the Republican party is never a bad thing in my opinion.

And if Rand Paul wants to run in 2016, let him run in 2016. Who knows, considering how discombobulated the Republican party is these days, he might just win.

The black helicopter crowd VS the Democratic party, sounds like popcorn time to me!

President Obama agrees to release secret drone strike memos.

The Seattle Times:  

The Obama administration Wednesday directed the Justice Department to release classified documents discussing the legal justification for the use of drones in targeting U.S. citizens abroad who are considered terrorists to the two congressional intelligence committees. 

The announcement appears to refer to 2010 memos from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who had joined al-Qaida in Yemen. He was killed in a CIA drone strike in September 2011. Members of Congress have long demanded access to the memorandum. 

The decision to release the legal memos to the intelligence committees came under pressure, two days after a bipartisan group of 11 senators joined a growing chorus asking for more information about the legal justification for targeted killings, especially of Americans. The announcement also came on the eve of the confirmation hearing scheduled for Thursday for John Brennan, President Obama’s choice to be director of the CIA. Brennan was the chief architect of the drone program as Obama’s counterterrorism adviser. 

Until Wednesday night, the administration had refused to even officially acknowledge the existence of the documents, which have been reported about in the media. This week, NBC News obtained an unclassified, shorter legal memo, described as a “white paper,” that officials said described the legal framework that officials follow in using the drones. 

Administration officials said Obama had decided to take the action — which they described as extraordinary — out of a desire to involve Congress in the development of the legal framework for the use of drones. Aides noted that Obama had made a pledge to do that during an appearance on “The Daily Show” last year.

This is big news and I am hoping it will give Congress, and hopefully the American people, some idea as to how it is determined that an individual is considered dangerous enough to justify raining death down on him from the skies.

Personally I don't think this will provide much solace for those of us who find this kind of death dealing abhorrent but at least it indicates more transparency from this administration and it is certainly a hell of a lot more than we EVER got from the Bush administration.

Rachel Maddow disusses the Justice Department white paper justifying drone strikes against Americans, and illustrates once again why MSNBC is NOT Fox News.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is perhaps NOTHING more controversial about the Obama administration than these drone strikes in countries in which we are not actively waging war. And when you add in that Americans have been targeted by these drones that just makes it all the more difficult to defend.

So I am not even going to bother.

Essentially this is wrong. Americans, even those who we have determined to be enemies of America, deserve due process.

The only way I could see this as being a reasonable, or legal, response by America is if there truly was NO way to arrest and put these people on trial, and there was little doubt that they were in the process of launching an attack against America or Americans stationed overseas.

However even then we are playing with fire, and we must remember that the powers exercised by ONE President will surely be exercised by every President that follows. Think about that for a moment.

By the way let me point out that Rachel was not the ONLY MSNBC host to take this on, and that the story was broken on her program, which  you know would never have taken place on Fox News while George W. Bush was in office.