I've seen a barrage of criticism dropped on President Obama this year about his lax rules on who to assassinate with a drone strikes, including NPR, the ACLU, The Daily Show, my liberal friends and now even Buzzfeed.
I think the Buzzfeed article is what brought it to critical mass. It's not fair to say that liberals are giving the O-man a pass on this issue because all one hears today is criticism of this plan from liberals. The only defense I have heard comes from within the White House.
So yes, if George W. Bush was still in office the left would be going crazy over this issue, but it's not like the Obama drones are endorsing Obama's drones. Maybe they'd be organizing more protests and recording stupid folk songs about it if there was a Republican behind it, but they aren't ignoring it either. I love pointing out liberal hypocrisy but it's not coming from the rank and file.
The only hypocrisy comes from the president himself. The sweetest part of this whole ordeal is that the even President Obama doesn't think this policy is a good idea, judging by the post-election New York Times story that started:
Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
I do need to separate myself from some of the other critics here. I don't oppose the United States using assassinations in the war on terror, and it doesn't make a difference to me if they targets are American citizen or not. By all means, Anwar al-Aulaqi needed killing. My issue is the method the O-man uses to approve the assassination and the lack of oversight or even judicial review that could influence further drone assassinations.
The president wants us to trust him, and by extension, everyone that takes office after him. That's a horrible way to run a country.