Thursday, March 07, 2013

Why Sen. Paul's Filibuster Matters

I know that some people are grousing that Sen. Rand Paul's epic filibuster of yesterday was kinda sorta meaningless yet I am here to write that it not only was not meaningless but maybe a serious turning point for the Republican party.
What righteously rankled Sen. Paul is that the Dear Leader, the Obama administration with Attorney General Eric Holder hemming and hawing, would not say outright that this administration would not target American citizens here in the United States for drone strikes.
To me it is not a minor matter.
Look, I may be accused of splitting hairs on this, but I have no problem in the Obama administration taking out Anwar al-Awlaki as it did in Yemen. Mr. al-Awlaki was conducting his terror war against the United States in a foreign nation. We do not know with absolute certitude that Mr. al-Awlaki was not aided possibly by members of the Yemeni armed forces, such as it is, or the government itself. The fact that he was a naturalized American citizen does not bother me. Nor if he was a multi-generational descendant from the Mayflower.
But yes, it does bother me the possibility of such an event happening here on American soil.
While some mocked at Sen. Paul for suggesting that one could be sitting at a coffee bar or an outdoor cafe and suddenly a drone takes out not only a suspect, but many others. It is called collateral damage. The greater good is that it saved lives because that suspect could not carry out a horrific terrorist act.
Oh, as it turns out in that scenario they had the wrong guy and he and those enjoying their coffee drinks also taken out did nothing wrong at all.
Now, I would be for this option.
Same situation but instead of a drone strike, how about said suspect being arrested and tried in a military tribunal? I have not one problem with that. It is a compromise that should please both sides.
So let's get back to the Sen. Paul filibuster.
Sen. Paul decided to block the senate from taking up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is considered one of the chief architect's of the current administration's drone policy.
Sen. Paul is a libertarian type and sees this potential policy that does not rule out entirely using drones on American citizens in the United States as a bad thing. He said that if a Republican president was considering the same thing, he would be against it as well. One should believe him on that score.
And let me go a step further.
I supported the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
But, with the passage of time, there is time to see what good it has or not done. And if necessary, make revisions. It is a law passed by congress, signed by a president. Meaning it can always be scrutinized. Scrapping it entirely would be a huge, huge mistake.
Having said that, Sen. Paul put an administration that ran against such things as the Patriot Act and drone attacks and the like on notice. They are being watched. And Sen. Paul had not just Republican support but some rather left-wing Democrats ended up in support of what he was saying.
Republicans were watching how one should deal with the Democrats in general. Stick to issues. If even one that is not all that glamorous as whether or not drone strikes within the United States against American citizens are OK. Sen. Paul was focused and never went into the gutter about his serious concerns.
And as an aside, too bad two of his "Republican allies", Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John "F--- you" McCain showed what douchbrains they really are.
Instead of seeing what a serious debate can do, in which in the end the Obama administration assured Sen. Paul that is not and will not be administration policy to use drones against Americans in the United States, both not only attacked him but on the floor of the senate.
Face palm and here.
Rather than realizing what Sen. Paul was bringing up is a legitimate issue, Sen. Goober went so far to say this amazing statement in regard to as to if it is legitimate to question whether the president has the right to kill Americans by drones:

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer.”

Hey Sen. Goober, you're wrong! It sure as hell does deserve an answer because it is a legitimate question.
And of course Sen. "F--- You" McCain, man of such decorum, said that the filibuster was a disservice to the American people and that Sen. Paul was misinforming the public about the use of drones.
Oh yeah, and where were these two douchebrains last night?
Dinning with the Dear Leader, President Obama rather than actually being able to maybe help their colleague get that answer that took him close to 13 hours of talking on the senate floor to eventually  get.
No, Sen. Paul is not a disservice to the American people. You two douchebrains are.
In fact, Sen. Paul showed poise, composure and moxie that Republicans need to show in dealing with not only the Dear Leader, President Obama, but in relating to the American people.

No comments: