Posted on 03/10/2013 5:56:32 AM PDT by RaceBannon
As of this writing, Senator Rand Paul is still on his feet filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the CIA. But as he eventually made clear, his goal is not so much to actually stop Brennan, as it is to make a meal of the comments made this morning by Attorney General Eric Holder when he was pressed about U.S. policies on drone strikes on terrorists during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked whether the government considered it had the right to use an armed drone on an American citizen within the borders of the United States, Holder didn’t give the senators a straight answer. They were entitled to such an answer, as well as to the documents they requested. But those who are now saying that the dustup over using drones in the United States is the sole point of Paul’s filibuster hasn’t been listening closely to him as he held the Senate floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Yet even if we concede that, as we should, Paul’s real beef is something else. The attempt to shift the discussion about drones to the fanciful suggestion that the Justice Department might target Tea Party members is a red herring. Paul’s core objection to the drone program remains what he calls the “perpetual war” against Islamist terrorists.
But Paul does seem to oppose the drone strikes. Indeed, anyone who heard all or most of his several hours of talk on the subject heard a great deal that shows he thinks the “perpetual war” against the Islamists is the real problem.
The unfortunate fact is that Americans will have to continue fighting al-Qaeda. This is not because our leaders lust for war or are enraptured with drone technology, but because our enemies believe they are engaged in war that will go on for generations until we succumb. Winning that struggle will require patience and endurance as well as the will to seek out these enemies wherever they may be plotting. Targeted killings of these terrorists are necessary and effective. But Paul’s core critique of the administration is not about a theoretical drone attack in the United States but about this very tactic.
I mean...REALLY!
Sorry. You’ve lost me.
BS article.
Rand’s queston was very specific about citizens NOT engaged in combat against the USA.
His position on radical islam has nothing to do with this. Video here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/06/video-rand-paul-on-the-rise-of-islamic-radicalism/
Your article is a disgusting hit piece filled with lies.
I know, quoting PAUL statements back to PAULBOTS confuses them
I mean, REALLY!
Sorry, you lost before you ever read this, I guess...
I stand with Rand
Funny, it was quite honest, yet, like a Ron Paul supporter, you attack the message instead of it’s contents
You RONULANS copy the tactics of the democrat party more than the republican party
The basic moral standpoint of Libertarians is to the left of moderate democrats, yet you claim to be republicans
Why is that?
And why is it that so many anti-Semitic persons, left wing CODE PINK, now Van jones, and soon to come DAVID DUKE supporters flock to the RONULAN point of view?
“Like communism, radical Islam is an ideology with worldwide reach,” Rand Paul said. “Containing radical Islam requires a worldwide strategy like containment.”
Paul argued that adopting a Reagan-like stance in American foreign policy would better serve American interests.
“The truth is that Reagan used clear messages of communism’s evil and clear exposition of America’s strength to contain and ultimately transcend the Soviet Union,” he said.
Paul’s speech was delivered on Reagan’s 102nd birthday. More than 300 people attended the event, filling two auditoriums.
...............
Rand Paul is 100% correct. Not many politicians have the balls to say that radical islam is evil.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/31/Sen-Rand-Paul-Amendment-No-F-16s-To-Egypt
In defending holder, mcstain and obungo you've really gone around the bend to full on nutter.
Yes, as always, the best way to advance your position is to start name calling. /s
But Paul does seem to oppose the drone strikes. Indeed, anyone who heard all or most of his several hours of talk on the subject heard a great deal that shows he thinks the “perpetual war” against the Islamists is the real problem.
The unfortunate fact is that Americans will have to continue fighting al-Qaeda. This is not because our leaders lust for war or are enraptured with drone technology, but because our enemies believe they are engaged in war that will go on for generations until we succumb. Winning that struggle will require patience and endurance as well as the will to seek out these enemies wherever they may be plotting. Targeted killings of these terrorists are necessary and effective. But Paul’s core critique of the administration is not about a theoretical drone attack in the United States but about this very tactic.
FOR LEGAL DOPE!
FOR LEGAL HOOKERS!
FOR ENDING WAR AGAINST ISLAMISTS IN THIS PERPETUAL WAR THAT WE DIDN’T START!
FOR RONULANISM!
The two words “perpetual war” does not comprise a "statement".
Rand Paul and his father are not the same person and yet you are deliberately mixing up the two. I was never a Ron Paul supporter.
You should go read up on Rand Paul so that next time you don’t post anything stupid.
the second best way is to accept single statements that sound good while ignoring the 75% that are dangerous as not relevant
meaning, you aren’t paying attention to the rest of his life and history
such as voting for NDAA
The man is not a patriot, he is a libertarian
I dont know why there is such an urge to generalize and attack between us Freepers. I suppose it really is true, we are not that different than the other side.
That’s not what I heard.
I heard Paul say if the American takes up arms against the U.S. in a war zone(Middle East), shoot him. He relinquishes his Constitutional protections
when he takes up arms on foreign soil.
His question was what about doing it in the U.S.? Several officials have declared the War on Terror is worldwide and includes the U.S.
Does that make drone strikes on our soil legal?
The answers he got were, hypothetical, unlikely, only if the terrorist could not be captured any other way or it was too difficult.
And then the question as to whether said terrorist was actually in the act of a terrorist strike or merely sitting at a sidewalk cafe unarmed.
Collateral damage, convoys carrying the perp plus others came up also.
Who could be defined as a terrorist ‘worthy’ of having a kill order place on them?
I thought he was spot on.
The Bill of Rights refresher course he presented alone was worth the hours of watching. I couldn’t put it down.
And it was answered.
In a two-sentence letter to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, Holder said he had heard Paul wanted to know if the president could use a drone to kill an American outside of an emergency situation.
"The answer to that question is no," Holder wrote.
Not a Paulbot by any stretch.
I believe if a country is attacked then the attack should be visited upon the attacker thousands of times over. We should have carpet bombed Afghanistan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia till they screamed for peace.
Unfortunately Bush just went after the 1 person and not the nations that gave him free reign. Then tried to fix his daddy’s mess.
I link myself with a bomber Harris and Curtis Lemay kind of warrior. Not an LBJ/Nixon, GHW Bush/ GW Bush kind of morass warriors
so you support his signing of NDAA?
So you support his voting in of all that is said here:
For years Ron Paul supporters believed that flying a blimp and googling Who Is Ron Paul would lead to the people coming over on September 11 being caused by American foreign policy. It hasn’t and it won’t. Every Paultard victory was an imaginary triumph that took place in their own bubble. Now the Republican Party is climbing into an even smaller version of that bubble.
And then a few years from now we can celebrate every one of the Paul clan’s publicity stunt complete with the No Drones blimp while losing by a landslide to Hillary Clinton.
The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don’t win by abandoning conservative values.
You don’t win by going liberal on immigration.
You don’t win by going liberal on government spending
You don’t win by going liberal on social values.
And you don’t win by going liberal on national defense.
You either have a conservative agenda or a mixed bag. And Rand Paul is the most mixed bag of all, because the only area that he is conservative on is limited government.
If the new Republican position is open borders, pro-terror and anti-values, then what makes the Republican Party conservative?
Reducing conservatism to cutting the size of government eliminates it and replaces it with libertarianism. It transforms the Republican Party into the party of drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, terrorism... and spending cuts. And the latter is never going to coexist with a society based on the former.
This isn’t the popular thing to write. The popular thing to write is to praise Rand Paul for his political theater and to call it courage. And then maybe to timidly dissent in one or two areas, while praising him as the future of the Republican Party.
But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party... then the party has no future.
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.