JIM CREES: Thirteen hours of diminishment
When Randal Howard Paul stepped up to the main stage in the U.S. Senate last week and managed to churn out 13 hours of random chit-chat on the topic of drones, he didn’t actually succeed in doing anything except, perhaps, getting the Attorney General to admit the President of the United States could not order the assassination of Americans on American soil.
I’ll sleep better tonight.
Senator Paul, (R-Kentucky), held up a vote on the confirmation of the next head of the CIA by rambling on about something that had nothing to do with the CIA - certainly not in any immediate context.
Still, he wanted to be sure the president could not legally order a drone strike on anyone in these United States, (I suppose so that he could comfort and assure his supporters.)
He was worried, and said as much, that the President could and might order Hellfire missiles to rain down death and destruction on Houston, Nashville, or Big Rapids for that matter.
I guess there are folks out there who seriously worry about this kind of stuff. In fact, I’m pretty sure there is a relatively small cadre of the citizenry who worry about getting popped with a drone fired missile. The same people who worry Barack Obama was born somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. The same people who think the U.S. is actually responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The same people who think the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary were staged by Washington insiders.
So, Senator Paul “forced” the government to admit the President could not use drones to whack the ‘competition.’ Unfortunately, what he really did is diminish the importance of an issue that needs to be discussed in a more serious debate than that which Paul has created.
Interesting enough, Paul has in the past reduced any role he might have in any such a future debate because he largely is on the same page with the president regarding the use of drones - other than in killing Americans in New York, St. Louis, or Stanwood!
The fact is, even during his filibuster Paul suggested there was a military benefit to using drones within the U.S. - except in his ridiculously suggested scenario.
As part of his 13-hour chat fest, Paul said: “Nobody questions, if planes are flying toward the Twin Towers, whether they can be repulsed by the military ...”
And in the past, Paul himself has supported the use of drones in patrolling the border with Mexico. Paul also simply doesn’t have too much of an objection to the use of drones in ‘taking out’ foreign targets overseas.
On the issue of drone usage, he is pretty much in bed with the Obama administration - except when it comes to the President snuffing Jane Fonda as she sits in a cafe in Malibu or Palm Springs. A couple or four decades too late for some!
The Obama administration’s use of drones to support U.S. foreign policy around the globe is pretty ...odd.
Hundreds of civilians are being turned into “collateral damage” as they are incinerated by a Hellfire rockets. After an intensive study by the New America Foundation, it has been suggested that only some two-percent, (that’s 2 percent), of those killed in drone strikes fit the government’s own definition of “senior level targets.”
That’s a lot of collateral damage for very little strategic benefit.
Paul apparently has no problem with blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians overseas. Nor does the president, for that matter, despite the fact that time and time again the effectiveness of this policy has been called into serious question.
Still, while the Obama administration simply ignores questions on the drone policy, Rand Paul limited his questions to whether the president could order a drone strike on someone who spoke out against his policies here in the U.S. - like me!
I am not, however, worried about getting ‘droned’ any more than I’m concerned successive governments are covering up the many, and sometimes stunningly creative conspiracies that keep folks like Paul, his daddy, and many of their followers waking up in the morning.
I, unlike Senator Paul, simply am not worried that Barack Obama is going to be the next Adolph Hitler - elected by a majority of the people and then turning his otherwise enlightened country into a Hell on earth.
Paul’s illusionary, and delusional worry about a coming tyrannical reign by the federal government is fodder for loons, (of which we simply aren’t lacking in these United States.)
The problem with the looniness of Rand Paul and others like him is that they reduce serious topics of discussion into the stuff that keeps late-night comics gainfully employed.
Paul’s filibuster was so much silliness.
His main topic of concern - the use of drones - is a serious one for serious debate.
Paul managed to turn it into so much buffoonery.
Thanks for nothing.