Rand Paul, your filibuster hit half the nail on the head—your only problem is that you love liberal war too much to understand what you are really saying.
‘Not In My Back Yard’ – Rand Paul on droning terrorists
I’m on board with the conclusion: the idea of the US Government launching a drone attack on my own soil is frightening, but call me cosmopolitan (which I assure you I am not), how on earth can Paul shed any support on the use of drones in Yemen or Pakistan after the lengths he went on against domestic drones? I’m ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan for now, but these others aren’t countries we are or were at war with and they don’t support the United States tactics combating terror (read the PEW polls). Where is a legitimate defense to accusations against the US that all that fury Rand Paul spewed for nearly 13 hours over a hypothetical is in all actuality the reality in so many places today directly because of the United States—and Rand Paul says its effective!? If Paul’s mental illustration of an American family eating dinner with drones flying overhead was supposed to instill fear of despotism in the hearts of Americans, why are we so unwilling to take a look in the mirror and just admit that droning countries we are not at war with is despotic; it is an intrusion. The statement Rand Paul just told the world, for 13 hours, is that we are going to do whatever we want globally, but we certainly won’t stand for that stuff at home. Where do we draw the line? If we are claiming that we will use drones against terrorism, where do we stop?