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 ...
I didn't say perfect or even sterling. Just decent, and especially decent when you compare them to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other turds.
...a whole bunch of 'em were learning to take off in jetliners during the Clinton years...
Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant ParagraphHere's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
Dick Cheney is wrong and Rand Paul is right.
Paul believes in the Constitution’s provision that a warrant be issued specifically detailing the wwwwwh’s of a search.
I see the Constitution as our guiding document, and if Cheney or anyone wants it changed, then they are free to pursue an amendment. The “Fisa” court is an attempt to amend the constitution by legislative vote IF it’s given ANY authority to short-circuit that constitutional requirement.
We don’t have secret courts issuing secret, rushed warrants in the Constitution. Anything in the Bill of Rights should be held to a HIGHER standard and not to a lower one.
Some say this makes us vulnerable to terrorists. I disagree. If they’ve only found a terrorist plan by painstaking research or field work, then the extra few days to do this properly is no impediment.
If they have discovered an act to be carried out against the US, then the President is the Commander in Chief, and he has the authority to make immediate strikes to protect our security.
“I didn’t say perfect or even sterling. Just decent, and especially decent when you compare them to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other turds.”
Comparing them to Barky et al isn’t setting the bar very high. “Decent” as compared to obama, reid, and pelosi is a standard that any stray dog could beat. Even the ones with mange. And perhaps even the rabid ones.
Bush/Cheney not only refused to hold anyone to account for the failures (as if that is not an indictment) but the tools tried for 2 years to deny the need for an investigation and finally put together a Potemkin 911 commission and never, never managed to secure the border w/ Marxico. IT IS TIME for THE TRUTH from the criminal Government. I am hoping Rand keeps up this line of attack. Make them SQUEAL Rand Paul!!!
..a whole bunch of ‘em were learning to take off in jetliners during the Clinton years...
Do you really believe the trainee terrorist pilots flew a 757 Airliner into the WTC or the Pentagon? These flights would be IMPOSSIBLE MISSIONS for even the best pilots in the world. Wake the hell up!
Could Bush have been better prepared? Maybe.
Was our intelligence community in shambles? Yes. Why?
Not because of Dubya, but becasue of the previous eight years of neglect, mismanagement, and double-minded hand wringing. Clinton and the Leftists brought on 9/11 because, as always, the Left's lack of purpose and conviction emboldened our enemies.
In usual Leftist fashion, Clinton failed to act in our defense when action was called for. Multiple times when the U.S. was attacked by al-Qaeda Clinton instead did nothing, sending out a message of weakness. Clinton DID act however, also in Leftist fashion, to weaken our own defenses by crippling our intelligence community and putting artificial barriers to prevent communication between the FBI and the CIA.
The story of 9/11 was a story of CLINTON's utter failure of intelligence and proper response to threats and attacks. Al-Qaeda just didn't realize that the new guy in the WH wasn't going to not do anything. Bush's unequivocal and swift response took al-Qaeda by complete surprise.
Having said that, I like Paul Rand's forthrightness - and he seems much more balanced when it comes to defense and foreign policy than his dad, who came across as a loony tune about this stuff.
Right there with you. It was a dumb statement. Most of Bush’s appointees were held up in the confirmation process in spite due to the 2000 election and all things Gore. I’m not going to rehash the administration’s failings from the 8 years prior. Enough to say that the security apparatus post 9/11 was in large measure tightened up...and to some extent, overboard (Homeland Security seemed like a good idea at the time...even to me) but to attempt to cast blame for 9/11 on Bush/Cheney just feeds the Left narrative.
I like Rand Paul...but he is naïve in many areas of national security. Not uncommon, 0bama certainly had no idea. No one does....until they read that first Presidential Briefing and have an Oh, s#@% moment.
I agree with you. The original gave citizens some protections and the FISA has bastardized the intent, but the original was the basis for the recent atrocities against the People.
Dick Cheney to the people of the US, " We have to bug your granny's phone, your daughter's phone, your phone and your wife's phone...just in case you might be a terrorist. Then, and only then, we will allow you to blow up Boston at your discretion."
Mornings are worse for grammatical correctness. Just saying...
Rand is flailing with his generalized attack on “somebody”.
***
No, not just somebody. This is part of his outreach to the other party, the segment of Democrats who have the Bush Derangement Syndrome.
So sick of this punk.
+1
Dick Cheney is a good guy, but the government has violated the trust of the people way too many times, and it looks hell-bent taking it a few steps further. I DO NOT AND WILL NOT PLACE MY FULL TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!
It’s great when someone flails away and is then taken out with one sentence. Bravo.
Good post.
Agreed
What a mess!
They covered up failure. They covered up Able Danger, which undercovered the 911 plot before the attack.
Bush & Cheney (ie they didn’t communicate), they (or their people) never made the case that Clinton had several opportunities to take out Bin Laden and disrupt al Qaeda.
....ahhhh, maybe cause they are all on the same team? and while Cheney is from WY, how many locals know he’s a Rockefeller/CFR buttboy? ....very few and no one cared.
ymmv
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.