When Obama entered office we were fighting in two countries. When he left we were fighting in 7 countries. No one talks about that [Intercept Magazine - The Drone Wars]. However the people that don't wanna talk about THAT are pulling their hair out over a Whitehouse Ballroom - Paid for with PRIVATE MONEY ... They can't handle the concept of PRIVATE MONEY.
Those people are a JOKE!!!
The Overlooked Legacy of the Obama Drone Wars and the Selective Outrage of the Left
A recent social media post has resurfaced a critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of recent American history: the dramatic expansion of the nation’s military footprint under President Barack Obama. While the current political landscape is saturated with heated, and often trivial, debates, it is essential to examine the substantive issues of war, peace, and executive power with a clear and consistent moral framework.
The post correctly identifies that when President Obama took office in 2009, the United States was engaged in active, large-scale combat operations in two nations: Iraq and Afghanistan. These were inherited conflicts, authorized by Congress, with a clear (if challenging) military mission to stabilize both countries and combat insurgencies.
However, as the post notes, by the end of his second term, the scope of American military engagement had significantly widened to include operations in at least five additional countries: Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. This expansion was not primarily through the deployment of large-scale ground troops, but through a relentless and secretive drone warfare program.
The Human Cost of the Drone Wars
As reported by outlets like The Intercept in their seminal "Drone Wars" investigation, this strategy came with a staggering human cost. The claim that a significant majority—up to 85% in some reports—of those killed were not the intended terrorist targets, but innocent civilians, is a grave allegation that deserves serious national reflection.
From a conservative viewpoint, this raises profound questions about the exercise of executive power. The Obama administration pioneered a method of warfare that operated in a legal and ethical gray zone, often with minimal congressional oversight. While the goal of targeting terrorists is unequivocally necessary for national security, the means employed—which resulted in high civilian casualties—should give every American pause. Conservatism values life, accountability, and a healthy skepticism of centralized power. A process that allows a president to unilaterally place individuals, including American citizens, on "kill lists" and execute them without due process stands in stark contrast to these principles.
This is not a partisan point-scoring exercise; it is a matter of constitutional principle. Where was the liberal outcry over this expansion of presidential war powers? The same voices who now express apoplexy over political theater were largely silent as a president from their own party presided over a shadow war with devastating consequences for innocent life abroad.
The Military-Industrial Complex and Political Enrichment
The post also raises a pointed question about the financial enrichment of President Obama post-presidency. The conservative perspective has long been wary of the "revolving door" between high government office and lucrative private sector positions, particularly those connected to industries a leader once regulated or directed.
The assertion that former President Obama is now worth nearly a billion dollars is a topic for public scrutiny. While it is true that massive book and media deals with Netflix and Penguin Random House form the public-facing explanation for his wealth, conservatives rightly question the full picture. The military-industrial complex is a vast network of contractors, consultants, and investment firms. The notion that a former Commander-in-Chief, who oversaw a massive defense budget and a global expansion of military engagements, could be entirely insulated from the financial allure of that world strains credulity.
This is not to allege illegality, but to highlight a systemic issue. There is an undeniable culture in Washington where public service becomes a springboard for private enrichment, often through connections and influence peddling. This "swamp" culture, which conservatives have long sought to drain, benefits both parties and undermines public trust. The spectacle of a former president amassing a fortune while the policies and connections from his tenure remain opaque is a legitimate subject for public discourse and underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability for all public officials.
Conclusion: A Call for Consistent Principles
The central thesis of the original post holds weight: there is a jarring and hypocritical disconnect in the political discourse. The expansion of a drone war that killed countless civilians, the consolidation of unchecked executive power, and the subsequent personal enrichment of a former president are matters of profound national importance.
Yet, these issues are often ignored or downplayed by a media and political class that prefers to focus on sensationalist, but ultimately less consequential, cultural fights. True conservatism calls for a consistent application of principle—a commitment to life, a limited government that is transparent and accountable, and a robust national defense that operates within the bounds of law and morality.
It is time to move beyond selective outrage and demand a serious conversation about the real legacy of power, its costs, and its consequences. The American people deserve a discourse focused on substance, not just a circus of distractions.
#Obama #Obamacare #DroneWars #MiddleEast #DroneStrikes #Netflix #MilitaryIndustrialComplex