Posted on 07/19/2013 11:06:57 PM PDT by WilliamIII
en. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on CNN’s The Situation Room on Tuesday evening where he was asked to respond to former Vice President Dick Cheney who told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace that the junior Kentucky senator was wrong when he criticized the NSA’s surveillance programs. Paul tore into the Bush administration’s role in the establishment of the post-9/11 security regime, noting that he thinks it is possible to catch terrorists using methods consistent with the Constitution.
Cheney told the Fox News Sunday host that Paul was incorrect in his criticisms of the NSA’s communications monitoring programs. The former vice president said that Congress authorized the post-9/11 counterterror programs and there is nothing illegal about them.
RELATED: Rand Paul Slams Obama On NSA Surveillance: ‘Utter Rank Hypocrisy’ Is Why People Hate Gov’t
“What I would ask is who did they fire after 9/11?” Paul asked. “Not one person was fired.”
“Do you remember the ’20th hijacker’?” he continued. “[Zacarias] Moussaoui, captured a month in advance? The FBI agent wrote 70 letters asking, ‘let’s look at this guy’s computer.’ In the FBI, they turned him down.”
“It wasn’t that they couldn’t get a warrant, nobody asked for a warrant,” Paul added. “To me, that was really, really bad intelligence – really bad police work – and, really, someone should have been removed from office for that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
With all due respect your passage is mired in the minutiae and is unable to articulate the ripple effect of dropping the stone in the pond. Simply put, the inference is wrong.
The principle in the main is that an incomplete intervention sets conditions that require further intervention.
As an example, a surgeon can remove a bullet to save the life of a wounded person, but leaving that wounded person bleeding to death on the table renders the prior act of saving the life pointless.
Reagan’s efforts freed hundreds of millions behind the Iron Curtain but left a vacuum that was filled by persons and sects that established breeding grounds for Bin Laden and global jihad.
What Reagan ultimately decided in regards to Afghanistan and what Rand is defending in regards to our constitutional rights are both correct. The two are not in opposition. The Soviet Union was our mortal enemy. The Afghan intervention was expected to cause swarms of jihad to spread globally.
The correct followup action to treating the bleeding that threatens the patient on the table is to either rely on thrombosis or stanch the flow or a combination thereof.
Thrombosis in this case refers to the popular push-back of jihad which occurs and has occurred naturally as long as the US does not disrupt the natural process of social coagulation. This occurred in Pakistan where the society there rejected jihad but embraced its literal children; many of the jihadists had taken refuge there and their sons and daughters grew up and intermarried into the general population.
What Cheney is defending is the mummification of the patient to stop the bleeding without regards to suffocation of constitutional rights. What Rand is advocating are compresses, sutures, needle and thread.
The two arguments are an ideological argument of which Rand sides with American ideals and Cheney sides with the New World Order. The two arguments are diametrically opposed and the winner of the argument will depend on the awareness of the American people which is why freerepublic.com exists.
>>This occurred in...
1978
Well done!
Oh and Congress has NEVER written an unconstitutional law either. /s
I used to respect you Mr. Cheney. When it comes to dealing with terrorists, the Second Amendment militia is the correct strategic direction with which to round those people up and get them out of this country. You just don't get it.
Ted Cruz - 2016.
(Thanks for finding and posting that)
I will never believe that fighters could have not be scrambled to shoot down the two jumbo jets that crashed into the WTC. Better 400 people die that over 3,000. But Bush fired no one. Obama fires no one. And when the big-eared nothing is no longer president they will be the best of buddies. Presidents look out for each other. Bush should have indicted Clinton for his treasonous actions but let him slide. They are all crooked SOBs. The only thing 9/11 accomplished was making rich men richer. Never forget Cheney’s Haliburton with their “no bid” contracts courtesy of this warmongering SOB. Absolutely illegal but of course he got by with it.
I'm liking Rand Paul more everyday. Liz Cheney running for that US Senate seat might have a real good unintended consequence. Maybe those in the US Senate and HOR who want to change the Republican Party will give up on compromising with the 'pubs who represent the globalist ptb.
The Phoenix memos revealed that the FBI knew what was going to happen, but not when. Nothing was done. Those who blocked the warnings should have been fired.
Everybody kept their jobs, except those who died in the terror attacks.
Care to defend that?
Dick Cheney is wrong.
The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[71]
I don’t find the part that says warrants need to be issued in every case. The Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and directs actions when a warrant is issued. But it doesn’t order a warrant for searches.
Am I reading this wrong? If so, how?
OTOH, here’s somebody who believes in firing everybody in the outgoing admin.
That alone would fix a bunch of our ills.
Go, Rand :D
The expansion of government didn’t just suddenly happen under Obama. It’s been a long battle and small-government conservatism is losing.
Rand Paul is a demagogue, and everything in that “minutiae” is 100 percent correct.
Thanks Condor51.
nobody was sacked for the manifest incompetence that allowed 9/11 to happen. That is indefensible, regardless of what ill-reasoned crap Rand Paul said about us arming the Afghans. The biggest ever (known) breakdown of our intelligence community happened, and nobody got fired.
I appreciate Dick Cheney’s efforts on behalf of this country, and his willingness to criticize Obama, but he’s never seen a domestic spying program that he didn’t like, and he supports and advocates for gay marriage. His daughter needs to run against a Democrat, instead of against a fairly solid conservative. At least that way we don’t get a -1 on the gay marriage issue if she wins.
The world is an imperfect place and sometimes you do what you have to do. Arming the mujihadeen helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, a clear case of the ends justifying the means. We defeated the bigger problem — communism — and are now in the process of defeating the smaller problem of islamic terrorism. In a more perfect world we wouldn’t have to go about things this way, but that’s not the world we live in. There’s a utopian streak on the right that’s nearly as unreasonable as its counterpart on the left.
What is her position on gay marriage? Is it the same as her father’s?
And AFTER 9/11? Borders...still open. Visas...still granted. Chop the heads off those that failed to do their JOBS....nada.
They couldn’t even open ANWAR to start getting us off the Sauds teat.
Face it, gov’t doesn’t work, especially for We the People. Big gov’t FAILS MISERABLY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.