Sunday, the president’s former spokesman
confirmed how far the president would go to keep his drone policy a secret. Don’t acknowledge that it exists…period.
While Democrats railed against the Bush team for waterboarding a terrorist to extract information that may have saved the lives of U.S. soldiers over the past four years, the Obama team refuses to answer questions about drones that kill innocents.
The White House even instructed former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs
not to “acknowledge” or “discuss” the secret drone program used so often and liberally by this administration.
After all, knocking off terrorists with remote-controlled drones means there will be collateral damage and dead children ordinarily begets bad press. Not so much for Obama, even though he has increased
the use of killer drones in countries throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Meanwhile, after four years, Obama continues to throw wild punches at the Bush administration, including blaming it
for all of his own administration’s economic woes. Obama even falsely claimed
that he would close GITMO, cut the U.S. deficit in half, but when it comes to drones, mum is the word.
It’s amazing what a president can get away with when he has a friendly and compliant press.
To be sure, many, including most conservatives and Republicans, would prefer to assassinate terrorist leaders with drones rather than risk American lives in the war on terror. It makes perfect sense. But then, they also believe water boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
in March of 2003 was a good thing. After all, Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
However, what is interesting to many from both sides of the aisle is why the double standard in the media. How do media reconcile
the fiercely aggressive anti-Bush campaign waged over the injury-free waterboarding of the leader of the September 11 attack on New York City verses four years of polite inquiries over Obama’s use of killer drones and the resulting collateral damage?