I have always believed that this is so and have always opposed drone targeted assassinations as well as aerial bombings in most unconventional war situations. Was opposed to this when Bush did it and then Obama greatly escalated it.
Last edited by Eric7216; 12-21-14 at 10:16 AM.
But, yeah, not a scientific poll.
And in the mass media your right, but in print and other less syndicated news casts wrong. Democracy now for example always covered the fallacy's of the Obama doctrine.
Also that was 2009. People generally will give a president some leeway in the first six months or so to see what he changes, and that was at the end of the bush presidency so all his war crimes where known.
If you do bush 2008 and Obama 2010 you get 696,800,000 for bush and 10,800,000 for Obama.
This also excludes the word drone strikes, which allot of the Obama crimes articles where about.
Last edited by b_dubz; 12-21-14 at 10:48 AM.
bush* used drones to assassinate terrorists outside of war zones years before Obama became president, both with and without permission
Drone strikes in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since 2004, the United States government has attacked hundreds of targets in Northwest Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division. Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan.On drones, Obama is Bush | Opinion | The Seattle TimesPakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has repeatedly demanded an end to the strikes, stating: "The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country". The Peshawar High Court has ruled that the attacks are illegal, inhumane, violate the UN charter on human rights and constitute a war crime
President Bush authorized about 50 non-battlefield drone strikes.