In today’s Daily Oklahoman there was an editorial written by a Michael Gerson of the Washington Post. His avoidance of facts and the very real threat of too big a government caused me to have a bone to pick, but I can’t fit my reply into such a small space to be reprinted by the paper, so I will do it here. I will put part of his article in quotes and my reply in italics. (Not because I think you, my dear fans, are too ignorant to understand but I just think italics look pretty…..)
“WASHINGTON — Since arriving in the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul has been probing here and there for issues of populist resonance. Audit the secretive, sinister Federal Reserve. Rein in those TSA screeners patting down little girls. In each instance Paul has evoked the fear of oppressive government, without tipping over into the paranoia of his father’s most dedicated supporters. It has been a diluted, domesticated, decaffeinated version of the ideology that motivated Ron Paul’s presidential races. On drones, Rand Paul finally hit pay dirt. Thanks to his filibuster, Americans can now feel safe that if they are “typing emails in a cafe,” they will not be “summarily executed” by a Hellfire missile. This has admittedly not been a large problem since 9/11. Paul is careful to point out that he is concerned about the possible abuses of some future, Hitler-like president.”
First off, Paul is a politician, plain and simple. He along with the other 534 ass-hats in Washington can be trusted about as far as I can pee. (About 22 feet). That being said, the “paranoia” is not evoked by Paul but by an over-reaching gov’t. People haven’t liked the idea of a Federal Reserve since the 1920’s and to try to diminish a parent’s fears and inherent nature to keep their child from being felt up by a total stranger just shows how out of touch this guy is. Furthermore, to NOT fear a gov’t run by a “Hitler-like” president is ignorant at the very least. “Hitler-like” presidents, dictators, prime-ministers, etc. were prevalent for most of the 20th century and have slaughtered upwards of 100 million people in just 100 years. Only a FOOL says it can’t happen here.
“Seeking an unobjectionable assurance, Paul was aided by a bungling administration, at first incapable of effectively articulating its own policy. The Justice Department memo on drone strikes leaked last month said that a target must present an imminent threat of violence; capture must not be feasible; and the operation must comply with the rules of war. Offing a noncombatant at a Starbucks in Pittsburgh is not an option. But it took some time for the attorney general to say this plainly.”
Apparently, Mr. Gerson needs to be reminded that there is such a thing as the Fifth amendment which states very plainly that a person “cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.” A 16 year-old child who was a citizen of the U.S. was assassinated while simply riding in a car down a road in Yemen. This child presented no imminent threat, nor was he a combatant. He was related to a previous target with ties to Al-Qaeda. I don’t know all the details, maybe this kid was slated to be the next Osama bin-Laden, who knows? What I do know is, drones targeting children riding in cars is no different than extremist gunmen targeting children at a school in Beslan. It’s a soft target and it should be beneath us to engage in the same despicable tactics of our enemies.
“In the interval, Paul gathered the sudden, unexpected, Internet-driven momentum of a varied coalition. There were, of course, paleoconservatives who believe a tyrannical dystopia has already arrived.”
As compared to some hack, wannabe columnist who wants to ingratiate himself to the blue-blooded GOP ranks down at the country club? As for dystopia, if you haven’t read the book 1984 by Orwell and then walked out in the street and seen how many cameras are watching you ALL THE TIME, drones flying overhead, the tracking of sites you look at on the internet, etc., and not felt even slightly paranoid, you’re more a fool than you look. Honestly, it’s like some politicians read that book and said, “Hey….. what a GREAT idea!!!!” It’s about power, stupid.
But this group was joined by partisan Republicans who enjoyed watching the Obama administration squirm and yield. And by some, on the left and right, who believe the drone program has inadequate oversight, or that American security policy is over-reliant on targeted killings, or that the whole enterprise is ethically suspect.
“Ethically suspect” to kill a kid riding in a car……… ya think?
It was Paul’s political genius to pick a ripe populist issue and drive home one narrow, uncontestable point. But in the course of a 13-hour filibuster, it becomes impossible to hide your deeper motivations. Paul employs the prospect of drone murders in an attempt to discredit the “perpetual war” in which “the whole world is a zone of war.” His actual target is the war on terrorism, which he regards as unconstitutional and counterproductive.
When Paul spoke at last summer’s “We Are the Future” rally in Tampa, he praised his father in particular for raising the issue of “blowback.” This, in the Paulite milieu, is the idea that American policies of aggression and empire provoke terrorist attacks.
Here’s the crux of the issue, that Paul is just like his daddy and against the war on terror. And he is. Personally, I have no problem prosecuting a war to annihilate terrorism, but when it stops working to keep the general populace safe, then why continue down the same path? Terrorists are very adaptable and we have to change our tactics as often as they change theirs. If you’re going to fight a war, fight it right or don’t fight it at all. And if you don’t think we’ve been in a perpetual state of war since the Cold War, read this article from one of the most CONSERVATIVE organizations out there: the CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rand-paul-vs-forever-war
Not ideology of Chuck Hagel
“In various settings, Rand Paul has described himself as a foreign policy “realist.” But this is not the ideology of Chuck Hagel or others skeptical of democracy promotion and nation-building. Paul’s “constitutional foreign policy” denies the legal basis for the war on terror, would place severe constraints on the executive in defending the nation and hints at the existence of an oppressive national security state.
These views are not new. They were central to Ron Paul’s presidential runs. But now they have an advocate who is more skilled, picks his fights better and possesses a larger platform. If the younger Paul runs for president in 2016, it will set up a lively debate on foreign policy fundamentals.”
blah, blah, blah…..
“On the other side of that debate are two administrations and the majority of members of Congress from both parties who, since 9/11, have found the threat of terrorism both real and unappeasable. In this period, the American government, with congressional authorization, has destroyed terrorist training camps, undermined terrorist communications, fundraising and planning, targeted terrorist leaders, and disrupted more than 40 plots aimed at U.S. targets.”
He’s right. Terrorism is both real and unappeasable. But I’ve got news for this genius, we’ve been fighting terrorists where they live and where they fight decades before 9/11. We’ve had these things called CIA and covert operations for a while now, you might want to Wiki them some time. Gerson assumes that the “war on terror” has given us the ability to stop these threats when in reality, we’ve had this ability all along and had been using it pretty effectively up until the “war on terror”. We’ve been attacking terrorist camps since the late 60’s, before bin Laden was a guy named Carlos the Jackal whom we captured without a war on terror, drone strikes or unlimited executive powers over life and death. We prosecuted an entire Cold War against the Nazis and Soviets and WON without having our children felt up at airports or having random phone lines tapped. To have a heavy-handed gov’t step in and take away individual rights were THEIR tactics, the fascists and the commies, not ours. The same with targeting U.S. citizens for assassination without trial or due process. These are the tactics of the Taliban and the same Muslim extremists that target women and children. As I said before, we should be above that.
“Far from perpetrating imaginary terrors on Americans, the government has protected them from real ones. Which is the reason that Republicans, in the end, cannot #StandWithRand.”
To say that these fears Rand and his growing crowd of followers are articulating are imaginary is so ludicrous it makes me want to hit this idiot upside the head with a history book with a follow-up slap by the Constitution. The GOP is split into two factions right now. The REAL dinosaurs in this party like Graham and McCain need to wake up and remember their oaths they swore to the Constitution. And this douche-bag columnist needs to get his nose out of John Boehnor’s bleached asshole and realize there’s nothing conservative about an over-reaching, over-bearing government.