The junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, says a lot of things, and later opposes his own views. Then, he denies he changed his mind, he was actually being consistent.
Let’s see. When he performed his publicity stunt, which he called a “filibuster”, what was it all about? If I recall, it was about the possible use of drones within the United States on its citizens. He was against it, and wanted answers from the President and Attorney General, Eric Holder. He embarrassed his fellow colleagues as he droned on and on, saying nothing of value, (no surprise there).
This is his most recent statement, made Tuesday:
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” he added later.
When asked two questions; Should a drone have been used to eliminate a terrorist such as the younger Tsarnaev brother, and why had he changed his position? This was his answer:
“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. Let me be clear: it has not,” he wrote. “Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.”
“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections,” the senator continued. “This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”
Now witness his original statement which prompted his publicity stunt:
“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” Paul said at the beginning of his 13-hour filibuster, which stalled the nomination of John Brennan to become CIA director. He was eventually confirmed.
This guy is getting to me. How can voters continue to elect those who merely want to be a “professional politician”, and only for the betterment of themselves and special interest groups? And why do the least intelligent among us gain power over us?
I wrote some time ago that Mr. Paul would do anything to keep his name and face in the ‘limelight’, and is beginning his run for the 2016 Presidential election. This proves it. And maybe it’s a good thing. Unlike “Caribou Barbie”, voters will have more time to realize how much he tries to be ‘politically correct’, and at the same time makes nonsensical comments.
Columnist-The Guardian Express