If Only Rand Paul Would Use His Filibuster Powers For Good Instead Of Evil

This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.

This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.

Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.” 

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” 

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.

As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.

"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers. 

If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances... 

...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day. 

So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."

Now, don't misunderstand. I think the usage of drones and who orders them and where are important issues. I think that their usage puts the US' moral creditability on the line (if we have any left to begin with). But it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the target is a US citizen or not. 

All these politicians wetting their diapers over the drone debate have framed the issue as a hypothetical attack on an American citizen, and the hypocrisy is astounding. What about those brown people we've been vaporizing "over there" with the drone program that we all knew about? Fuck them, what do we care about killing innocent civilians in a foreign land? Collateral damage. Wrong place, wrong time. Besides, they're probably jihad loving mooslims anyway, right?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and therefore and deserved a fair trial? But those 160 guys imprisoned in Guantanamo for years without benefit of trial - fuck those guys. And so says the rest of the Senate with their continual votes not to fund the closing of Gitmo. The only thing for which Rand Paul should be given credit is for actually using the filibuster as it was intended (instead of placing a cowardly, anonymous hold on a vote) even though all it amounted to was free publicity and some campaign cash as intended.

So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.

Where's Marco?

Okay, I get it. He's nervous, his mouth is drying up, he can't get the saliva to form in his mouth. Anyone who's stood in front of a crowd and performed or spoken in public knows the feeling. But why in the name of all that is holy, did he feel compelled to keep eye contact with the camera when he decided to finally reach for the water bottle? And why would his people, or the RNC, or whoever was in charge of this whole debacle not have a glass of water within arm's reach?

Keep going Republicans, you're doing great!

...And the Republican Response to the SOTU

I can't wait for the 2016 Primaries.

Take That, Joe Scarborough!

Posted by Desert Crone NM

Joe Scarborough, the former Florida congressman, full-time pundit, and pseudo-journalist, claimed Sen. Marco Rubio isn't ready to be vice president just like "'Barack Obama wasn't ready to be president in 2008, just like Sarah Palin wasn't ready to be on the national ticket in 2008.'" So Scarborough thinks Rubio, Palin, and President Obama are and were similarly unprepared to be president and vice president. Shall we take a serious look at this comparison.

Scarborough is right about Sen. Rubio. In fact, he didn't go far enough. Rubio isn't just unprepared; he's the shallow GOP's pretty pet parrot. Compared to President Obama, Rubio is "Bush" league. Rubio attended Tarkio College, a now closed, bankrupt Missouri college and Santa Fe Community College in Florida. I'm not casting aspersions on community colleges since I was an English instructor at one for 10 years. However, Columbia they are not.

Rubio's biography claims he was a football star at Tarkio College in 1989-1990, when the team went 1-8. Seriously, I probably could have been a star on that team. Rubio transferred to Santa Fe Community College and then the University of Florida, where he graduated with a BA. In 1996 he graduated from the University of Miami with his law degree. My google searches failed to produce a single prestigious award he earned from any of his colleges.

Lawyer by trade but politician by profession, Rubio became a city commissioner and never looked back. Accordingly Rubio's wealth grew along with his political clout. In 2000, when he was elected to the Florida State House of Representatives, he made over $82,000, and by 2008, when he was elected Speaker of the House (FL), his income was over $399,000. As a United States Senator, he has sponsored 18 bills, which is the fewest bills of any senator. He has missed nearly 7% of senate votes this session, which is below the senate average attendance.

Shyster by trade and profession, Sarah Palin attended 5 (6 if you count the University of Idaho at Moscow twice) colleges and universities in 5 years. Frankly, I can't imagine how any of the colleges she attended could possibly have kept up with her grades, much less her credits.

Again her colleges were not Columbia. She went on to work as a sports reporter for an Anchorage TV station. She eventually won a seat on Wasilla, Alaska city council, a town of 7800 citizens. I would like to point out that I won a seat on the board of education in a town of 25,000, so I'm thinking that I could be .....oh skip it. Anyway, we are painfully aware of the rest of her story. Palin was catapulted onto the national stage in one of the most egregious, self-centered, damaging, not to mention unpatriotic, acts by a politician and his staff ever.

Palin's lack of general knowledge about American history, world history, world geography, and global politics was abysmal. She was and still is a divisive figure and should be an embarrassment to every American. Well, except to those who share the same qualities. Oh, and she wrote a book or maybe even two with a ghost writer.

From Occidental to Columbia to Harvard, where Barack Obama graduated magna cum laud and was president of Harvard Law Review, the President's academic record is certainly more impressive than the others to whom he has been compared. According to many who have participated in White House meetings, the President also possesses an eidetic memory. In fact, his frequent critic Keith Olbermann claims Pres. Obama is one of the 1000 most intelligent people in the United States. Those of us who have read President Obama's books know he is a self-actualizer who possesses an impressive intellect as well as profound, thoughtful insight into others. Lawrence Tribe, esteemed Harvard law professor, pronounced Barack Obama to be his best student ever.

Unlike Palin and Rubio, Barack Obama didn't become wealthy because of holding public office but because of his superior writing skills. In fact, his wealth doesn't compare to many politicians, say, such as Darryl Issa. (I know I veered slightly off subject, but I couldn't stop myself.) Both Rubio and Palin have been accused more than a few fabrications and found guilty of unethical and illegal behavior. The same certainly cannot be said of President Obama.

I believe it's fair to conclude that, in terms of both character and intellect, the President is far superior to the other two. However, Scarborough is probably referring to leadership skills possessed by the President, Palin, and Rubio. Well, then let's examine the President's leadership skills. He was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, a most prestigious and probably political position. In fact, being elected president of the law review at any law school is considered one of the highest honors at any university Pres. Obama's selection shows exceptional leadership when you consider this was over 25 years ago, not a time commonly known for Black men or women to be recognized at revered white institutions. (Remember his embrace of his African-American professor Derrick Bell--black on black hugging that gave Sean Hannity the vapors.)

And then there was that silly community organizing thingy, which, of course, you only think is silly if you don't give a damn about people. By the way, if any of you have attempted community organizing, you know it is like herding cats. Organizing any group of people with different opinions, desires, goals, etc. is a tough job. It's damn hard even when the people have similar goals and desires. I know. I was president of a local teachers' union. But the Republicans, ignoring the juggernaut of a campaign organization put together by a man with organizing skills, scoff at this experience as if it's nothing. Folks, that's not nothing to put together a machine that defeated both the Clinton team and the GOP. Besides President Obama did employ lots of people, so he should be called--wait for it--a job creator.

President Obama, a civil rights lawyer and professor, could have had, along with Mrs. Obama, a very lucrative career as a lawyer in powerful law firm. Instead President Obama entered politics as an Illinois state senator, a position he served in for 8 years. Get that---8 years, not half a term, and was elected by 46,000 voters. Later in the United States Senate, he served on both the international affairs and homeland and national security committees where he was well-suited with his degree in political science (emphasis on international relations) from Columbia. As a senator for nearly 4 years, Barack Obama sponsored--not co-sponsored--but sponsored 137 bills. As a comparison, look again at Sen. Rubio's rather lackluster accomplishments. In fact, if you compare their original pieces of legislation, I think you will find much more fluff and less substance in Rubio's offerings. If you do the math, at Sen. Rubio's pace, he will never be as productive or prolific a senator as Senator Obama.

Let's pretend for a minute ol' Joe reads my post, and he shoots holes in it-- in a sort of right wingy way-- I still have one more bit of proof that will separate President Obama from those two lightweights. Historians such as Doug Brinkley and Doris Kearns Goodwin have praised President Obama as one of the most productive presidents in history. His accomplishments would be historical even without some of the most intense obstructionism and extreme partisanship in American history. So don't tell me he was unprepared, Joe. Even if you disagree with his politics, you cannot deny that President Obama has been a pretty doggone amazing president. How else can you possibly explain his accomplishments. No one has the qualifications to be President unless they've been President. No occupation fully prepares one for such a job, but in President Obama we see a kind of "harmonic convergence" of intellect, curiosity, maturity, wisdom, leadership, and temperament. How else do you explain his preparedness but to conclude that Barack Obama was born ready to be President.

Another Dictator/Terrorist Down, Another GOP Excuse to Avoid Crediting Obama

So... because of the US involvement in NATO actions in Libya, providing intelligence and air support in the Libya mission, another dictator is now dead. And at the beginning of our country's involvement, we heard much grumbling from the right and the left, of President Obama's decision to involve us in "yet another war." But now that rebels have overtaken Libya and finally have rid themselves of their dictator, everyone seems to think it's a good thing, but refuse to admit that the President was right or at least give him credit, save for a begrudging few.

"Well first of all, today's not a day to be pointing fingers. I'm glad it's all working out. Ultimately it's about the freedom and liberty of the Libyan people. But let's give credit where credit's due, it's the French and the British that led on this fight and probably even led on the strike that led to [Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gaddhafi's] capture or to his death," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) said Thursday on Fox News.

Rubio said President Obama "did the right thing" by bringing the U.S. into the multinational intervention effort in Libya but "he just took too long to do it."

Perhaps Rubio should worry about lying that his Cuban parents were exiles when they actually left the island of Cuba three years before Fidel Castor came to power. Sometimes you just have to admit when you've been bested. When you don't it just looks foolish and petty.

Now, let's remember that the general conclusion when it comes to the parties is that Democrats are weak on defense and Republicans are the tough guys with a kick ass foreign policy. But as a friend relayed to me yesterday, under our current Democratic president, Osama Bin Laden was killed, Gaddhafi is now dead, we have a free trade pact with Latin America, terrorist leaders are being taken out by drones with no American casualties... so conservatives, tell me what's wrong with Obama's foreign policy?

ADDING... Watch for the growing list of anti-Obama factions getting the vapors over President Obama's statement today that we are finally exiting Iraq. Even though it was also a "decision point" made by George Bush.