supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
From our friend Kesgardner, who someone said carries water for the establishment (Accurate).
This is one of those longer than usual FB posts, so bear with me. It concerns Rand Paul and what happened yesterday. Yes, I'm still not on his bandwagon and won't be jumping on anytime soon. Here's why.
Yesterday on Twitter, I suggested that Rand Paul's real beef was with our counterterrorism policies generally, from the Libertarian (big L) perspective, and not just with the drone policy. My first clue was his decision to filibuster Brennan after he actually voted to confirm Hagel, who I regarded as much worse. The Paulbots love Hagel and despise Brennan precisely because of the counterterrorism policies (among other reasons). Or at least that's what they told me on Twitter. I believe them.
Then I listened to Paul's actual attack. His attack on Obama's drone policy was a classic straw man attack that played to the Libertarian mob. He essentially accused it of being SKYNET and then attacked SKYNET as a threat to our liberties. Well, duh. Not even Eric Holder argues that drones can randomly attack Americans without due process. It was the libertarian version of populism at its worst, and Paul reeled in many conservatives as well who have been frustrated with Obama and Holder and who were starved to hear GOP politicians actually speak out against their policies on ANY subject.
You people know what I think of Obama and Holder. But in this case, their drone policy has been badly misrepresented. Their actual policy is much closer to the views held by Bush and Cheney (and Brennan) following 9/11. The WSJ sums it up better than I can:
"The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an “enemy combatant” anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane."
See, their real beef is with the entire counterterrorism policy that includes how we classify and treat enemy detainees differently from ordinary criminals. But we conservatives are so starved to hear politicians actually sound like conservatives that we look past all this and feel good for opposing SKYNET while pretending our opponents (as bad as they are) somehow support it. It's actually somewhat pathetic that THIS is all it takes to think of politicians like Rand Paul as heroes rather than what they really are -- our employees.
To be sure, I loved much of what happened yesterday -- especially when speakers turned to broad general themes rather than drone policy and other Libertarian red meat. Ted Cruz in particular was outstanding and I said so last night. Did I mention that many of us are starved to hear GOPers actually speak out in favor of individual liberty and limited government? Just beware of false Libertarian prophets who know how to stir up the mob. I really hope I'm wrong about Rand Paul, but he sure seems to me like he is Ron Paul's son in every way that matters. And yesterday didn't exactly change my mind.