Skip to main content

View Diary: Lawrence O'Donnell's beautiful smackdown of idiot Rand Paul's paranoid and hate-filled filibuster (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Paul is an idiot (14+ / 0-)

    But I don't want an Executive office - any Executive office - dancing around the subject of drones and assassinations on U.S. Soil.

    I agree that it shouldn't have been Paul out there. It should have been Democrats on the floor demanding the same thing.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:18:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Obama can be trusted on this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, cotterperson, SilentBrook

      And with America becoming more and more diverse, it becomes mathematically impossible for the Rethugs to ever win the Presidency.

      •  You cannot be serious (14+ / 0-)
        Obama can be trusted on this
        There are so many things wrong with that statement.  First of all, no he can't.  President Obama's drone program kills 50 civilians for every target killed.  He has shown a complete unwillingness to discuss or disclose exactly how the program works, who gets on the list and how they get there, or better oversight of the program to fix the fact that it kills lots of innocent people.  

        Second, even if President Obama can be trusted with it, we don't know who the next guy (or girl) is going to be, and you're saying that you trust the next President with this power, and all the Presidents to come with it, sight unseen.  Please tell me you are not that naive.  

        Third, why do you assume that only Republicans cannot be trusted with this power?  They don't have a lock on bad judgement or bad morals.  Again, please tell me you are not that naive.  

        A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy.

        by Guy Fawkes on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:38:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Whoa, there pardner. "Trust?" You can't be (13+ / 0-)

        serious. We the People have trusted our elected officials for centuries now, and look where it has gotten us.

        No man or woman should have the power to order the deaths of innocents, and we are all presumed innocent unless we are found guilty by a jury.

        It would not be difficult, but it would be inconvenient, for the government to try all of these bad guys in absentia. We know how to do it. The jury could find them guilty and then we could kill them with drones, but we should have the trial first and then we should abide by the finding of the jury.

        It ain't rocket science, but it is good government. What is happening now is worse than Bush's torture policy. Now we just kill them.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:47:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wouldn't it be great to put the power to wage war (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and foreign policy in the hands of Congress? I mean we can't trust Obama, I think we should push for that. I would say we should push for Obama to just deal with tours to Washington....

          •  No, we should get Obama to do his job and (4+ / 0-)

            do the right thing. Your approach is stupid beyond imagination, but because you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the conversation...

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

            by hestal on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:19:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is it stupid? You just made the statement: "We the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              people have trusted our elected officials for centuries now, and look where it has gotten us." My question to you is this: The President has the authority, as Commander in Chief to use military force, especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden unforseen attacks on the people of the United States.

              If you can't trust the President, are you saying we can trust whom, to carry out this responsibilty?

              •  Go away, kid, you annoy me. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stevemb, Ritter

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                by hestal on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:46:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  constant and repeated use of drones in many (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, stevemb

                other countries is something i would hesitate to describe as a "response to grave national emergencies created by foreseen attacks on the people of the United States".

                what you are describing is not what is going on in the drone program. what you are describing is the War Powers resolution, which limits the president a lot more than you seem to think it does.

                what the drone program is is waging war, and we are currently doing so in many other countries. and as far as waging war goes - only Congress has the power to declare it. and the president even under the WPR has to report to Congress on it and get their approval.

                what is really going on is the Obama Administration is taking the broadest (and questionably stretched) interpretation of the AUMF, and Congress most definitely can change that. the president can't.

                so essentially, no one branch is trustworthy enough to have that power. and i have major issues with any branch attempting to state that they do.

                The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                by poligirl on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:27:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you suggesting that President Obama is (0+ / 0-)

                  conducting an illegal war in Afghanistan? Is this your supposition?

                  If so, why hasn't Congress and certainly why haven't you as a concerned citizen be spearheading a campaign to impeach the President right now? I know how passionate you and your cohorts feel about this issue, shouldn't you be starting a petition to impeach the President today?

                  It should be noted that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

                  The President is currently engaged in a War which was authorized by Congress to prosecute the individuals responsible for the attack on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. He is currently involved in the direction of said war.

                  •  um, what part of "many other countries" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    did you not understand? it's pretty clear language. how you got to "conducting and illegal war in Afghanistan" from what i wrote is beyond me, but may i suggest careful reading before commenting could be beneficial?

                    and which part or sentence of what i said are you calling into question? cuz it seems my comment and your comment (except for the wrongful accusation from you that i already corrected) are not mutually exclusive. they actually do not contradict at all.

                    if this is your stab at argument, perhaps a few debate classes would do you well.

                    The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                    by poligirl on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:44:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What part of the President was authorized to (0+ / 0-)

                      prosecute the individuals responsible for the attack on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, don't you understand? Yes, wherever these individuals happen to be. Do you understand? Also, it's convenient to mention many "other" countries. Am I to assume Afghanistan is not to be included in many "other" countries? I bet you will not say if it is or not. Evasion, evasion, what a wonderful invention.

                      By the way, I noticed you evaded my question of your spearheading a campaign to impeach the President based on your intimation or veiled suggestion that he is conducting an illegal war. Have you been writing your Congress folk about that? I always admire folk who stand up for their convictions, not just simply suggest the President has violated the laws of the nation or perhaps the world and do nothing about it.

                  •  I'm saying it (0+ / 0-)

                    the AUMF is and always has been an illegal action. It was when W was in charge and still is now.

                    Watch you refused to comprehend in the reading of the comment you responded to was using that argument to defend bombing countries and people outside the fake war in Afghanistan.

                    Oh and one more thing it would be nice if you could provide a link to the last time congress declared war;


                    There are no sacred cows.

                    by LaEscapee on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 05:07:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm (5+ / 0-)

        I don't really think this administration is going to use drones to kill Americans on US soil, but reserving it as a power of the presidency is a bad idea.

        The future is a long time. Who knows what may happen or who may get elected. Is this really something we want our government to keep in their back pocket as an option instead of utilizing our constitutional legal processes?

        •  Interesting point. But Presidents have always (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          been given great decision making latitude in the manner of conducting the defense of the nation. For example, John Kennedy by himself could have started a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

          And Bush dropped tons of bombs all over Iraq. Do you think this power by the President should be reserved for legislators?

          By the way, I agree with you that President Obama would not use drones to kill Americans on American soil, and certainly not while having lunch in a cafe.

          •  Well (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NedSparks, poligirl, stevemb

            Couple of thoughts. One, I didn't agree with the Iraq war either, but it did have a Congressional vote that approved it, which in theory ought to provide some oversight regarding what the American people wanted. A unitary executive using drones to go around killing people without really having any public discussion of what is happening is a different situation.

            Two, I do think there is a distinction between using them in the U.S. and using them overseas, in that it is easier for us to capture someone and bring them to trial here in the U.S. Using our currently existing legal system is very feasible if someone is in the US. There is really no reason not to use our existing legal processes in that situation (I suppose one could argue except perhaps in a very extreme 9/11 type circumstance such as a plane currently in the air and about to hit a target).

            Overall I do tend to feel that the technology to some degree is getting in the way of the discussion, in that I don't really think it's any better for us to send an army over and kill people than it is for us to use a machine to do it. But at least if things are out in the open we can talk about them.

            Ultimately I just think it's a bad idea. In addition to the morality, the net results of these kinds of actions just have so rarely ended up being a positive for the U.S. in the long run.

            •  overall I agree with the points you've made, I (1+ / 0-)

              would make one distinction, however, and that is even though Congress did authorize force in Iraq, they did not micro manage how President Bush conducted that war, and he dropped many thousands of bombs killing many Iraqi citizens.

              Now, in terms of Afghanistan, Congress did authorize the President to use force against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2001.

              This was intended to destroy al-Qaida and deprive it of its sanctuaries in Afghanistan. And just like the Iraq authorization of force, there was no stipulation how such force should be used. Still, whereas Bush dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs over Iraq, President Obama employs drones in Afghanistan....

      •  A Bit Of Help With Your Confusion (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, hestal, Nada Lemming

        Note the difference between the following dictionary entries:



        On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

        by stevemb on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:14:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site