The questions should be asked. Questions in themselves are not evidence. Opinions and claims from unnamed officials are not evidence in themselves.

That the drone war is not as select and pure of purpose as presented is shown by real evidence. The drone program appears to have outlived its usefulness and is now providing diminishing returns and escalating unnecessary carnage. For those reasons, I believe it should be ended as it stands now.

The contention I make is that there is no evidence that President Obama himself -- not the CIA, not top officials with leeway to make such decisions -- is deliberately, recklessly, personally targeting innocent civilians.

That's not sweeping the drone program under the rug. It is making an obvious statement of reality. Such a reversal of character would be unusual for him, and I believe has more context than we know enough about.

End the program, yes. Pretend that President Obama is somehow merrily conducting its every side result of civilian carnage is ridiculous.

"You may hold him innocent of what are pretty clearly war crimes," uh, no, don't go there.

I am saying there is no evidence that President Obama is deliberately, recklessly, personally targeting innocent civilians, not that he isn't ultimately responsible for any decisions he actually makes.

I am against real and declared war crimes, no matter who commits 'em, but reasonable people can, and do, argue about those war crimes.

Is it more or less of a war crime for combatants to deliberately embed themselves in a civilian population, to shield themselves behind innocent people, in order to commit murderous acts while counting on the higher humanity of their enemies to not attack them where they are?

And must we always refrain, when it means those same combatants will then be emboldened to intimidate the civilian population to stay in place as shields, to build their arsenals, hatch their plans and launch their attacks? Is our restraint, when our foes would just as willingly kill their hostages themselves, always the only criteria?

It's a legitimate dilemma, not just a partisan one.

Let me make this clear before you heap another presumption on my head: I wish for this drone-bombing program to cease. I believe it has outlived its proven usefulness for some time, and now is showing ever-diminishing returns. It now seems to be killing more innocent civilians, incidentally, accidentally, or not, than it is taking out bad guys who would kill far more of them left untargeted.

What I do not believe is that President Obama -- in direct opposition to a lifetime of character and intelligence, without any information that we are not privy to -- is continuing the program with reckless and deliberate disregard for innocent life.

BTW, El Q -- Why are you equating 19th century social rules with equal service in the military?

That was also a time when people of color were deemed to be generally less intelligent, moral and valuable than their white counterparts; the Irish were a race of amusing drunkards, and children could work in coal mines.

History, and context, are your friends.

Can you explain how "men will be men" and "women will be women" after combat training and while on duty? Other than using the latrine, and it's not that hugely different.

There are smaller, slighter of build guys who aren't as capable of feats of strength as their brawnier counterparts. We don't automatically relegate them to support roles. They might turn out to be the best snipers, saboteurs and tank drivers, among other less strength-dependent jobs.

It took a fundamental and profound change to integrate people of color into the military ranks at a time, not that distant, when a lotta white folks had been drilled with the idea that it demeaned them to eat, shower, sleep in the same barracks and fight alongside folks who looked different.

It will take another effort of will and education, and the repeated demonstrations of those who can, to show that what we look like is not as important as how we think and function as individuals.

You know what? They weren't all women, either.

And lauding them is fine, but if that's an excuse for saying there's a place for women in combat and it's not carrying a gun, that's just silly.

Now, if you can point to hard evidence that women just routinely wash out of training 'cause they can't keep up with the guys, go for it. Citing something vague about some alleged Marine Corps episode ain't it.

Compared to the number of women in Marine basic training, how many able-bodied men wash out for one reason or another, despite their best efforts?

Hard not to assume when you make statements that have been a staple of "conservatives" for years, such as "... (thus demonstrating once again that he doesn't really care about the Constitution..."

You can disagree with a lot of things, but that's just hooey. Obama is a Constitutional scholar, taught Constitutional law for years at one of our top law schools.

The Supreme Court can disagree about the Constitution; it doesn't mean the justices don't care about it. The POTUS can make controversial decisions affecting Constitutional law, that doesn't mean he doesn't "really care" about the Constitution.

Oh, yeah, it's all the fault of Barack Obama who won't over-ride laws, lack of the kind of evidence that can actually be brought into court, and reluctant prosecutors to go after people shielded by their pet law firms and bought Congressional reps.

And has done absolutely nuthin' to try to change laws and policies, right.

Just 'cause, well, see how much the financial industry supported his last campaign? 'nuff said.

What was not correct about what he said?

Theoretically, as in theory, yes, anyone with cash and access can now do this, mental patient or not, actual tinfoil-lined basement or not. A potential desktop armory, theoretically.

if you can disprove what he and many others are saying in a quite reasonable way, do so. Just claiming it's panic-mongering ignores the reality.

What "actions"?

"The beliefs of many people in this country" are that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was really born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim/Marxist, "pals around" with terrorists and has plans to grab all our god-given guns any day now and impose Sharia Law.

How does anyone, let alone a liberal-progressive, take steps to have a "reasonable discussion to belay those fears" when those fears are so patently ridiculous but clung to, regardless?

We can't have a "rational discussion" with the irrational, who wanna believe Rush, Breitbart, Alex Jones, FuxSnooze, Beck, etc. etc. rather than the facts. Nuts.

To be clear, you're both presuming a lot on a vast amount of what you don't know.

There is no evidence that President Obama is deliberately or recklessly, personally targeting innocent civilians.

You don't know what his Defense advisers, all those generals "conservatives" love to insist must know more than a POTUS does on how to run the military, are telling him he needs to do with drones.

And using it to bolster the tired "conservative" meme that this particular president for some reason "really doesn't care about the Constitution," unlike, oh, say, your hero Ronald Reagan is just lame.

As was Paul's filibuster, although at least he showed how a filibuster really should be done.