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 ...
She won’t go any further than saying it should be left to the states. That’s about where her father is, except that he thinks the states should all legalize it. Given that, I’m saying she’s in favor of it, until such time as she speaks out against it, or otherwise opposes it. It’s amazing that her views are not known.
Sandy Berger should have been first followed by many others.
I don't really consider somebody who said "deficits don't matter" to be a "decent guy."
Whatever his flaws, Rand Paul represents the grassroots Tea Party wing of the Republican party. People like Cheney and Karl Rove represent the crony, backdoor deal side of the party. Their views are so far apart it's only infighting if you think party affiliation trumps ideas and principles.
I agree with her stated position that it should be left up to the states. As long as she doesn’t become some sort of advocate for gay marriage I think she is acceptable on the issue.
the homo agenda is a deal killer. She should go back to her kids in Va
“Well, look, I think, you know, my family has been very clear about this, that we think freedom means freedom for everybody,” she said. “’I think it’s wrong to discriminate, in those relationships, based on someone’s sexual preference.”
That’s Liz, and that’s pretty bad. Her opponent is unequivocal on the subject.
I have yet to hear how ANY of these programs can supposedly co-exist with the 4th/5th, the words of which are QUITE clear.
I want to see/hear the pretzel logic the Right uses to justify such readily identified as Unconstitutional. I already know the Left has shut their fat mouths now that THEIR party is the one in power.
It only goes to show, to me, how much difference there is between the two parties....ZERO.
Shoot down? Shit, the pilots could have ejected and used their plane as a ram. Gov’t SAT on their thumbs to watch what would happen.
Don’t forget to blame the TSA for their idiotic rules 1) NOT allow the pilot to carry (still a problem I believe?) 2) Allowing the takeover of the cockpit w/out resistance.
9/11 COULD have been prevented if gov’t was in the business of PROTECTING our Rights, not suppressing them: anyone carrying could have stopped the ‘jackers.
Hell, here’s how I would do it, with as little infringement/inconvenience as possible:
- Pilots: secure cabin door, arms readily available if needed
- Passengers: can carry whatever weapon they wish, but can only carry ONE frangible round for their weapon.
NO way 200+ people would have let ~9 rag-heads even try, and minimal chance of damage/problems to the plane.
You’re right, that’s pretty bad.
It’s amazing that Dick Cheney and his family can be so confused as to think the gay marriage issue is primarily about “freedom”. Having your relationship certified by the state is not a matter of freedom.
Yes, it’s amazing when “freedom” is determined by what the state will sanction. That’s just 180 degrees off. Orwellian.
Exactly.
Why is it that in the luxury of hindsight that everyone wants to condemn the President George W. Bush administration?
1) The public never envisioned this type of attack! It would have been hard to justify actions to prevent it
2) Previous attacks on the World Trade Center buildings had failed
3) Someone suggested shooting down the airplanes before they could hit: even if it had been done, there would be those condemning that administration for attacking its own people when there was no certainty of the terrorists’ targets nor their intentions
4) In the fog of war, it’s far harder to respond to a surprise attack than it is to hurl thoughtless accusations afterwards.
The failures below should be directed at the Clinton administration:
1) Jamie Gorelick’s wall; failure of vision; failure to put in place systems to properly coordinate various agencies
2) Making the transition period difficult for the incoming administration
3) Failure to relay critical intelligence to the incoming administration
4) Allowing the country to be distracted by felonious and/or treacherous acts, perjury and so on
5) Undercutting morale, rewarding fools instead of those working hard and faithfully
6) Not allowing the country, incoming administration and various agencies to understand how serious the ongoing threats were
7) Not taking Bin Laden out when it was clear he was a dangerous enemy and they had the chance to do so. (But maybe the Clinton administration itself did not fully appreciate the threat at this point?)
Is anyone looking for someone to blame? Then place the blame where it justly belongs.
The fact is, America had a different world viewpoint before the 9/11 attacks. And our defenses were not fully oriented towards suicide kamikaze attacks at that time; and the nation had other things to worry about.
Personally, I’m not prepared to condemn President George W. Bush for trying to heal the nation and go after the perpetrators overseas instead of going on what might seem to some as a witch hunt internally.
Rand Paul is jumping the shark here. He is fully aware of Jamie Gorelick’s role in building the wall between the FBI and the CIA in order to protect Clinton from “China-gate” (and other) scandals. Bush and Cheney had been in office for less than 9 months at the time, and the disinfecting of the White House took more Pine Sol than was available on the planet.
I am rapidly losing respect for the tiny little Rand Paul.
Going after Cheney is not the way to advance yourself with conservatives. And blaming Cheney for 9/11 failures is pathetic.
OK, Rand, you’re down to the minors again in my estimation.
So Rand Paul wants the FBI seizing individuals' computers, when they are not suspected of a crime? That's a switch.
George Tenet meets your criteria
The person who caused the massoui fiasco was gorelick.
Rand is disingenuous to imply it was bush/Cheney’s fault when they are the ones who broke down the wall.
Agree..and the msm are going to take full advantage to divide and conquer...again.
Agreed. They are all united in their hatred for the United States as a sovereign nation.
I agree.
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.