Friday, March 8, 2013

To Drone or Not to Drone

When Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered on the Senate floor, he made an excellent point about the drone controversy as to whether or not the President of the United States has the authority to kill American citizens on US soil. The Constitution demands a person be afforded due process when deemed to be an enemy of the USA, but the Obama administration was making a case for using lethal force to keep us safe.

John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attacked Paul's message, and thus attacked Paul,  and it must have made the Democrats smile to see the GOP and all this crazy infighting. On one hand, we have Rand Paul, who has made no secret about his interest in running for president in 2016, while on the other hand, we have a faction of the GOP who doesn't believe Obama would go crazy with the power of the drone. They believe he would only use it to take out terrorists who would pose a future, if not immediate threat to the United States. 

The filibuster clearly raised Paul's perceived validity as a presidential candidate because it gave him the exposure he needs. But it may have hurt McCain, who many on the right see as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). This may have been political suicide for him.

Insofar as how Graham is viewed, that remains to be seen. Some see him as a champion of truth where Benghazi is concerned, and I don't disagree with that notion. Others see him much like McCain because he went against Paul. In Graham's case, I believe it may have been an act of courage to challenge Paul; in McCain's case, I'm less certain of anything. Personally, I have a problem of anyone going to dinner with Obama.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The imbalance of nature: blame the Jews

Iran launched an unprecedented attack on Israel on Saturday night, April 13, using over 300 rockets, missiles and UAVs to assault the civili...