Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"

[ProSense]

30. Speaking of

1. Just because Rand Paul might be a grandstanding hypocrite and worse, doesn't detract from the fact that he provoked debate on an issue that is long overdue.


"We are pleased that we now have the access that we have long sought and need to conduct the vigilant oversight with which the committee has been charged. We believe that this sets an important precedent for applying our American system of checks and balances to the challenges of 21st century warfare. We look forward to reviewing and discussing these documents in the days ahead," Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said in a statement.

They credited Paul with raising the use of drones domestically as a question of "fundamental importance." http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/index.html

...of nonsense, the constant asking for an answer to a hypothetical question and then, as Goodman's piece does, stating that it's hypothetical and unlikely is ridiculous. Put another way: He said "no" and we know it's "no," but why can't he give us some hypothetical scenarios in which that "no" would be "yes."

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ ” the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., wrote to Mr. Paul. “The answer to that question is no.”

No means no.

Rand Paul's ridiculous hypothetical solved nothing. All he did was focus attention on himself and created the impression that he's the go to guy on the issue.

I mean, look at all the people supporting his crazy drone bill.

Should the Senate pass the Cruz, Paul drone bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022480661