Posted on 03/07/2013 1:32:59 PM PST by Sir Napsalot
Via Mediaite, here’s why I said in the McCain post that I didn’t share Mollie Hemingway’s receding cynicism. I trust that Paul would have the same objections to drone policy under a Republican president. I trust that Mike Lee would too. Beyond that, things get iffy. Glenn Greenwald has a point here:
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald "Bush-cheerleading conservatives who "stand with Rand" = Rand-mocking progressives who pretended to care about civil liberties under Bush"
Graham’s the right guy to challenge Paul because he is, in his own way, as nonpartisan on executive counterterrorism power as Paul is. If I understand him correctly, he ends up arguing at the end here that “enemy combatant” status is itself sufficient to justify a drone strike on a U.S. citizen on American soil whether or not he’s carrying out an attack at the time. This is the same guy who once lamented that we couldn’t rein in Koran-burning on grounds that, and I quote, “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” .....
Graham’s not really talking to Paul and Mike Lee here (note his persistent backhanded compliments of Paul at the beginning for being a principled libertarian), he’s simply warning the rest that he knows grandstanding when he sees it and is prepared to call them on it if they keep it up.
(read the rest at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Maybe because Bush wasn’t a threat to kill Americans in America?
Bush wasn’t planning to use them against Americans on American soil.
Lindsay and McCain should get married.
Bush wasn’t trying to fly 10,000 drones over the United States of Terror.
This is the problem that I have with both (D) and (R). The issue is not so much government abuse of power, but who gets to control the ever-bigger government and its ever-growing powers over us. Both (D) and (R) seem to be conveniently blind depending upon whose ox is being gored, and who is on the receiving end of “benefits”. You might say that both (D) and (R) are looking for FWB (Friends with benefits) relationship with the power and treasure of the federal government, at the expense of the rest of us and the Constitution.
For example, we can rightly object to Obamination-Care, but Bush 43 gave us a Medicare part D, the PATRIOT act, and the massive handout to the banks.
"..... The cynicism-inducing question from last night’s Senate insurrection is how many of them mean it and how many of them pitched in simply because it was an irresistible chance to publicly humiliate Obama on a basic constitutional question. The retail politics of it were so winning that I actually thought McCain and Graham might themselves swing by to offer some sort of tepid endorsement of minimal executive accountability. Didn’t happen, but I also don’t think Paul’s stand presages any tidal shift in the Republican caucus." (Allahpundit)
Retail politics as usual, I see.
How many Americans did Bush kill with drones?
IIRC Cruz, Rand, and Rubio weren’t in the senate then.
Anybody who can’t see the difference really shouldn’t be allowed contact with functioning human beings....
Maybe because Bush’s Attorney General wasn’t saying it was okay to use them on American soil to kill Americans without any due process of law?
Really.
Lindsey Graham gets sillier the more he opens up his piehole.
If Graham knew about Bush’s daily kill list with drones, why did’t he bring it up to the awareness of US citizens before?
I don’t remember GW Bush flying drones over the US and threatening to kill Americans on America soil.
Pretty sure he would have been impeached and removed from office.
So his plan is to double down on stupid. Good luck in the primaries.
So Lindsay, which side are you on?
If the folks in Waco were able to give their opinion, I think they would express some concern for how liberal democrats define terrorists. If the million of aborted children were able to give their opinion, I think they would caution prudence in evaluating how liberal democrats value human life.
Pick a side Lindsay!
GWB had no business pushing the Patriot Act. He was derelict in his duty for not sealing the southern border, particularly after 9/11. He had no valid reason to create DHS. And Federalizing the TSA was not necessary at all. Signing the so-called Campaign Finance legislation did nothing except stiffle free speech. No Child Left Behind was a predictable disaster. GWB folded like a cheap suit when the MSM referred to his foreign policy as ‘cowboy diplomacy’, and when he was falsely criticized for trying to privatize the Soc Security system.
The Bushes, and by extension the GOPe, are wet-noodle politicans who are no friends of the Constitution and liberty.
Same holds true for those who could see no difference in Obozo and Romney.
It is possible to argue that drones could be used along the border, until a decent fence is put up. But there is absolutely no point in using drones against criminals or terrorists within the U.S.
The reason we use them in places like Pakistan is that we can’t easily send in troops to do the job. But in the U.S., we can send in police or FBI anywhere, no problem. So, what is the argument for drones? No point, except maybe to help guard the southern border.
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.