Sunday, March 10, 2013
Rand Paul's Silly Filibuster was a Cloaked Attack Against Our President
His entire argument was Silly! Ridiculous! Confusing! However it did accomplish one thing. It caused the media to pay attention to him since it confused both Progressives and his Tea Party base.
There are two issues:
1. Should we use Drones domestically?
2. Should we torture/kill Americans we suspect of terrorism with no due process?
These are two separate and distinct questions. His silly argument answered neither of them. Instead he confused both Progressives and his Tea Party base by mish-mashing both issues together non-sensically, asking "Will Drones be used domestically to kill American Citizens." He further skewed any possible logic by offering weird examples, including: would this authority have enabled us to kill Jane Fonda during her protests of the Vietnam War.
Rand Paul is so conniving. He was purposely confusing.
Here's how Rand Paul confused his Tea-Party base: Rand Paul utilized significant innuendo to portray our President as Hitler and purposely suggested our President would use Drones to kill innocent Americans domestically. If you don't think so, then you should have heard the Bill Bennett "Morning in America" show on Friday (March 8). I listen to right wing Talk Radio in the mornings just so I can hear their perspective. The Guest Host, Mark Davis said, "It's not that we don't want our Presidents to have Executive Authority. It's that we don't want THIS President to have this kind of Executive Authority." Then, he proceeded with the typical right wing rant of, "They're after your guns. They're after your freedoms." On and on he went, with the right wing's typical scare tactics, referencing our President as a "King" "His Highness" threatening to come down hard on militia types. Rand Paul and right wing republicans utilize these types of scare tactics to keep their base happy, threatened and in their corner.
Here's how Rand Paul confused Progressives:
1. Should we use Drones domestically?
He knew any discussion against Drones would be welcomed by certain Progressives because they've been against Drones since inception. Paul wasn't saying he was against Drones. However, his argument was so broad, he misled the Progressives.
Republicans have been FOR DRONES for years. Currently, they are used in city after city, by law enforcement, local businesses and city officials. Here are two recent articles;
a. CityCouncil unanimously approves drone aircraft (Monroe, NC)
b. Arlington to Launch Unmanned Aircraft (Arlington, TX)
They are also used by Border Patrol to monitor the Border.
For question 2: Should we torture/kill Americans we suspect of terrorism with no due process?
Again, Rand Paul Bloviated for 13 hours using silly, silly examples. Jane Fonda protesting the Vietnam War? (Oh Brother!) Again, he received applause from Progressives who are against any type of torture. But Rand Paul was just pandering for attention.
Most Republicans are for Torture. They praise Water-Boarding. They praise Gitmo.
Most don't oppose not using due process for Americans participating in terrorist acts. One example is Adam Pearlman (aka: ). He is a Senior Operative in al Qaeda AND he is an American. He was a Senior Adviser to Bin Laden and praised the 9/11 attacks.
If Rand Paul was serious about his filibuster topic, he would have used Gadahn as an example. This example was what the Policy was proposing -- on foreign soil, not domestic. But Rand Paul never mentioned him. Instead he strayed off topic, on and on for 13 hours. All, just to gain attention. Ultimately, he made a fool of himself, outed his intention to run for President in 2016, and earned the wrath and ridicule of his own party.