Skip to comments.Rand Paul Blasts Dick Cheney: ‘Someone Should Have Been Removed From Office’ For Pre-9/11 Failures
Posted on 07/19/2013 11:06:57 PM PDT by WilliamIII
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. I am w Rand Paul
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.