But it’s not the one you think. Someday, in the not too distant future,
perhaps….
But I am getting ahead of myself.
Yesterday Obama
delivered his apology for botching the implementation of the single most
important social program of his administration.
The rollout of Obamacare has been a laughable failure – the hilarity
tempered only by the fact that millions of lives are being disrupted and who
knows how many thousands of lives will be put at risk because of the failure of
the program.
The magnificent failure is being performed on the full
public stage, in an area of life that touches every single American. While this may be one of the most publicly
visible failures of a government program in history, there is no reason to
believe it is the only one. In fact, it
is safe to assume that this failure is typical of failures that occur every
single day in every single government program.
The only difference is that Obamacare is painfully visible and personal
to almost every single American.
This brings me to the murder-by-drone program of the United
States Government, a program that has gained significant visibility under the
Obama administration. The government
keeps a kill list, known sanitarily as the Disposition Matrix:
The Disposition Matrix is a
database that United States officials describe as a "next-generation
capture/kill list". Developed by
the Obama Administration beginning in 2010, the "Disposition Matrix"
goes beyond existing kill lists, and creates a blueprint for tracking,
capturing, rendering, or killing suspected enemies of the US government. It is
intended to become a permanent fixture of American policy. The process determining criteria for killing
is not public, but has been heavily shaped by presidential counterterrorism
adviser John Brennan.
The database's existence was
revealed by a three part series published in The Washington Post. The Post
noted that as of their publication, the number of civilian and militant
casualties resulting from American drone strikes would soon exceed the number of
people killed in the September 11th attacks.
One day, God willing, we will see a president offer his mea
culpa for the botched rollout and implementation of the kill list. Ideally, it will be issued as a public
relations stunt in hope of swaying public opinion prior to his standing trial
for war-crimes.
Using the Obamacare mea culpa speech as the basis – with the
necessary changes noted in brackets – following is that speech, to be delivered
in the not-too-distant future:
Good morning, everybody -- or good
afternoon. Today I want to update the American people [and the world] on our
efforts to implement and improve the [targeted kill list program]. And I'll
take a couple of your questions.
[It] has now been [sixteen years]
since the [disposition matrix, popularly known as the kill list] opened for
business. I think it's fair to say that the rollout has been rough so far, and
I think everybody understands that I'm not happy about the fact that the
rollout has been, you know, wrought with a whole range of problems that I've
been deeply concerned about.
Yesterday, the White House
announced that in the [sixteen years since the publicly announced start of the
program], more than a hundred thousand [terrorists were] successfully [killed].
The problems of the [program] have [resulted
in] too many [non-combatant deaths], and that's on us, not on them.
Those [deaths] represent more than
1.5 million people. Of those 1.5 million people, 106,000 of them have [been
confirmed by the World Court as actively in combat or otherwise a threat].
And, you know, that's on me. I mean,
we fumbled the rollout on this [targeted killing program]. There are a whole
bunch of things about it that are working really well which people didn't
notice, all right, because they weren't controversial…there [was] a whole bunch
of stuff that we did well over the first [sixteen] years, but we also knew that
[developing accurate lists, and killing only people on the list]…was going to
be complicated, and everybody was going to be paying a lot of attention to it.
And we should have done a better
job getting that right on day one, not on day [6,000].
I was not informed directly that
the [kill lists and drone strikes] would not be working…the way [they were]
supposed to. [Had] I been informed, I
wouldn't be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great. You know, I'm
accused of a lot of things, but I don't think I'm stupid enough to go around
saying, this is going to be like [shooting fish in a barrel]…if I thought that
it wasn't going to work.
So, clearly, we and I did not have
enough awareness about the problems in the [program]. Even [sixteen years] into
it, the thinking was that these were some glitches that would be fixed with
patches, as opposed to some broader systemic problems that took much longer to
fix and we're still working on them.
So you know, that doesn't excuse
the fact that they just don't work, but I think it's fair to say, no, …we would
not have rolled out something knowing very well that it wasn't going to work
the way it was supposed to, given all the scrutiny that we knew was going to be
on [the program].
With respect to the pledge I made
that [we will only kill terrorists], I think -- you know, and I've said in
interviews -- that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward
unequivocally ended up not being accurate. It was not because of my intention
not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.
Keep in mind that the [1.4 million
non-combatant deaths] account for [0.02%] of the [global] population. So when I said [we only kill terrorists], you
know, I'm looking at [the 99.98% of the global population we didn’t kill]…And
that accounts for the vast majority of [people].
You have [collateral damage] that
accounts for about [0.02] percent of the [global] population. And our working
assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks
would [not be killed]. And it didn't. And again, that's on us…that's on me….And
as I said earlier…and I will repeat, that's something I deeply regret….
Now, it is important to understand
that out of that population, typically, [some would have died anyway]. You
know, this [world] is not very stable and reliable for people.
But if you just got [killed] and so
far you're thinking, my [life was] pretty good, you haven't [terrorized anyone],
and now you get [killed], you're going to be worried about it…Now, for a big
portion of those people, the truth is, they might have [died anyway]…
But look, one of the things I
understood when we decided to [implement this program], part of the reason why
it hasn't been done before and it's very difficult to do, is that anything
that's going on that's tough in -- in the [terrorist killing business], if you
initiated a reform, can be attributed to your law. And -- and so what we want to do is to be
able to say to these folks, you know what, the [targeted kill list program] is
not going to be the reason why [you were killed]. Now, what folks may find is [that
they would have died anyway]. But that will -- that's [life].
[My] expectation was that for 98
percent of the [global population], either it genuinely wouldn't change at all,
or they'd be pleasantly surprised [by not being killed]. That proved not to be
the case. And that's on me.
And [for the non-terrorists] --
those who got [killed] do deserve and have received an apology from me, but
they don't want just words. What they want is whether we can make sure that
they're in a better place….
And by the way, I think it's very
important for me to note that, you know, there are a whole bunch of folks up in
Congress and others who made this statement, and they were entirely sincere
about it. And the fact that you've got this percentage of people who've had
this, you know, impact -- I want them to know that, you know, [every] senator
or congressman, they were making representations based on what I told them and
what this White House and our administrative staff told them, and so it's not
on them, it's on us. But it is something that we intend to fix.
I think there's going to be a lot
of -- there's going to be a lot of evaluation of how we got to this point. And
I'm -- I assure you that I've been asking a lot of questions about that. The
truth is that this is, number one, very complicated.
One of the things [the federal
government] does not do well is [limiting its own violence]. You know, this is
kind of a systematic problem that we have across the board.
There you have it.
Yesterday, Barack Obama offered the template for all future federal
government apologies – and there will be many, as one promise of
salvation-by-state after another fails due to economic
reality.
But the single most important mea culpa will be for the abusive
and inhuman policies of murder as practiced by individuals who are employed by
the state. One day, God willing, this apology
will come and at least some of the perpetrators will face justice while in this
world.
They most certainly will in the next.
And yet this killer continues on with nary a blip on whatever moral radar that exists. So where are the consequences for screwing people in life and in death for these vermin? An honest business gets sued or worse. These rats?
ReplyDelete