> famously and publicly joking ...at the white house correspondents dinner. I think that context matters.

I also think drone strikes exacerbate public outrage much the way mass shootings do: if we want to decrease gun deaths, limiting AR-15s isn't the way to do it because the vast majority of gun deaths are handguns. But mass shootings upset people, so we outlaw the guns that upset them. Similarly with drones, people don't get as upset about tens of thousands killed in a broader war, they're put off by the smaller number of casualties caused by drones.

You would think that if the policy was as flawed as you describe it would be easier to find evidence of it now?