Another week, another audience, and Sen. Rand Paul has changed his position yet again on the use of drones in military and combat, this time when cornered by FOX News. Dave Weigel:
“I do think that there is a valuable use for drones and as much as I’m seen as an opponent of drones, in military and warfare, they do have some value,” Paul said. “I think this is a difficult situation. You have hostages being held; some of them are American. You have people holding hostages; some of them are American. I’ve been an opponent of using drones about people not in combat. However if you are holding hostages, you kind of are involved in combat. So I look at it the way it is in the United States. If there’s a kidnapping in New York, the police don’t have to have a warrant to go in.”
Of course, as Weigel notes, this is the totally opposite position as to where Paul has been on the question of drones.
Had Paul never spoken out about drones before, this would have been a newsless answer, comparable to what other Republican candidates and politicians had been saying. But Paul has a long, dramatic record of pronouncements about drones. He’s said that a drone that flew over his home would meet the business end of a shotgun. He’s demanded stronger justifications from the Obama administration before it targets any American citizens. That talk has won him praise from the left and the libertarian right.
Yet on Fox, Paul declined the chance to criticize the administration. “You really don’t get due process or anything like that if you are in a war zone,” said Paul. “I tend not to want to blame the president for the loss of life here. I think he was trying to do the right thing.”
Paul’s comments perplexed Glenn Greenwald, the journalist and co-founder of The Intercept who has written extensively about drone warfare. “I don’t get his strategy: he’s never going to attract GOP hawks, so why dilute what makes him interesting/unique?” asked Greenwald on Twitter. “If his big maverick view is now reduced to ‘no drone killings of Americans on US soil,’ it’s hardly interesting.”
You tell me, Double G. You’re the one who’s been backing the guy for the last year. But hey, he’s got all kinds of rubes to fool running for President, right?
I doubt if the Pauls have any intentions beyond keeping their seats and keeping their names in the news. They’re massive phonies even by the standards of politicians.
Chris, you are the first caller with the correct answer. We have a winner, now back to 30 minutes of non-stop classic rock.
Don’t you get it? Baby Doc can take any damned position that he wants, ’cause his ideology proves that he’s fucking smarter than you. He can take both sides of any issue that he wants, because his Unassailable Libertarian Intelligence is too much for us mere mortals to comprehend. Because Freedom. The freedom to be for AND against everything. Positions are for little people. Paul can do and say anything he fucking pleases because he is a God among men, slapping his big, Libertarian schlong upside the head of logic and reason, because Libertarians Are Better Than You. Only the truly enlightened, the self-certified among us, are destined to lead. Therefore, we must genuflect to this self accredited laser eye surgeon. Because Freedom.
That comment from Greenwald just proves that the man is a fool of the first order. It asumes that Rand Paul can afford to run in a Republican primary without appealing to actual Republican voters. The idea that Rand can tringulate himself into relevance by brand differentiation is absurd. He can’t because the voters don’t want what Greenwald thinks Rand is peddling–libertarianism and anti drone stance. The Republican voters who are the only base for someone like Rand are not and never have been interested in small government, nor are they anti drone or anti killing of foreigners. They are completely uninterested in civil liberties or due process except when the government is controlled, as they see it, by illegitimate black people. This is not and never can be a question of principle in which a principled libertarianism rules pragmatic self interest and the will to power.
Rand Paul and his father are both crazed ideologues and manipulative, cynical, racist and authoritarian bastards. They may allow the Greenwald’s of the world to suck up to them and praise them but its only in service of getting and maintaining power.
And we have a new Attorney General.
I’m glad it’s starting to sink in. I keep saying, I live in Kentucky and watched his election. Rand Paul is a serial, even pathological liar. Imagine Mitt Romney without any attempt to fudge things to seem consistent. He says whatever he thinks any individual audience wants to hear, period.
His father is much more consistent, although in a horrible racist, religionist lunatic conspiracy theorist way. Using Ron as a starting point, my best guess is that Rand Paul’s actual positions are ‘Get the government out of the way of my screwing over anybody I want, especially blacks.’ It really is a guess, because he’s been on every side of every issue. Yeah, he’s more consistent with ‘repeal civil rights’ stuff, but his audience is more consistent on wanting to hear it.
That Greenwald writes love letters to this guy is an eloquent testament to his actual priorities.
Wonderful speech by Loretta Lynch. Class act, after a dreadfully long wait to be confirmed.
@aimai: “That comment from Greenwald just proves that the man is a fool of the first order.”
Yah think? He’s also the fool who encourages people to vote Republican to “punish” Democrats. Of course, when the sh*t hits the fan, he’ll be far away in Rio.
Someone should start something along the lines of Fantasy Football for pundits and knock points off for obvious errors in judgement. Greenwald wouldn’t have been a high draft pick for me anyway, but supporting Rand Paul was clearly a mistake he should be paid enough to recognize.
Drones are complicated, just like any use of military force. It’s obviously way more complicated than Rand Paul’s mind can handle.
Speaking on the possibility of justice and redress for all.
I don’t read Greenwald (or anyone else) on Twitter, but I hope he got a massive push-back if he’s feigning surprise about the Tribble-topped presidential aspirant’s latest position on drones. The TTPA has been all over the map about drones and every other so-called “libertarian” position since his first fundraiser.
Rand is either afflicted with ADHD, or pandering to Whoever Wrote The Cheque Today. Neither quality is especially desirable in a President.
Can we finally put GG in the box marked “discard”? He, Rand “Personhood Amendment” Paul and their respective fanboy douchebros all deserve each other.
What I wish Obama would say, on the subject of drones:
“I reject, absolutely and unequivocally, the idea that remotely-piloted aircraft raise additional or different issues under the law of war or international human rights law than any other weapons system. We expect that our military will live up to their legal and ethical obligations in the use of every weapon with which they are entrusted, and we expect that if that doesn’t happen, the convening authorities and Judge Advocates General will take appropriate action. As for the CIA, I don’t trust those fuckers as far as i can throw them, and I don’t think that DOJ can provide effective oversight, so I’m taking away their drones.”
@Betty Cracker: Betty, I prefer TBOGG’s description of Rand. TBOGG says he wears a merkin on his head. Merkins are very retro since they’ve been around since at least the middle ages.
The ridiculous thing about this is that we’re not being told anything we didn’t already know. After that hours-long grandstanding “filibuster,” Rand Paul quickly came out within 24 hours to say that okay, to clarify, he was totally fine with drones being used (even on U.S. soil) if there was a genuine “imminent threat.” (As if the security state hadn’t learned decades ago to claim that anyone they shot was an “imminent threat” and use that to justify doing whatever they wanted). Is Greenwald claiming that he’s only now realizing that the man was never serious about droooonez?
I realized pretty quickly when I discovered them that both Pauls (whether or not it’s intentional) are basically a political Rorschach test for their supporters. They’re a blank slate onto which quite a few left-wing anti-war protesters, socially-liberal-but-economically-conservative techie glibertarians, and Confederate flag waving unreconstructed segregationists all project their own value system and assume that “he’s the only guy in Washington who understands us!”
For any article on drones, just substitute in the word “bombing.” There are times and places where it is completely appropriate. There are times and places where it is a crime. There are times and places where it is legally acceptable but may be unwise for other reasons.
Where the pilot is sitting really has no bearing on whether a particular bombing is right or proper.
@burnspbesq: I like that.
@Mike J: I agree. I view drones the way burnspbesq described, that they are another weapon, and should carry all the responsibilities of any weapon.
I also think that the military is too complicated for Paul, and that’s just one part of being a president.
Paul Krugman on Rand Paul, libertarians, and how they don’t actually exist as a discernably separate faction in American politics.
From your fingertips to the ears of PBO.
Drones are no more complicated than cruise missiles. I understand the whole point of “weapons with no human in them make it easier to push the button,” but they’re not even the first of these – I see no change between what we’ve got now and what we had when Clinton fired a bunch of Tomahawks into Sudan.
That should be evidence enough that Rand has at least as much trouble with English as he does with drone-specific policy.
Sadly, admitting in public that you don’t believe that every issue is black and white is taken as a sign of weakness.
Funny, because he doesn’t even agree with that. Here he is on Cavuto’s show.
“PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
Clearly, the plot has gone wandering off its own again. Apparently the point of asking and answering questions is not about clarifying one’s actual positions and thoughts on actual situations that one might actually have to deal with and conveying same to an interested public, it’s all just performed as a platform of building a memorable, unique, easily distinguished logo and brand. The the inept pol blew it, should have been out there burnishing his polished vintage 2015 maverickishness (defined as “inevitably not what the other candidates say or what mere reality might suggest as reasonable”).
Could someone tell me again why so many on the left think GG is smart or politically astute?
If drone technology had been feasible during a Republican’s term in the WH, would we even be having this conversation?
Of course not.
mai naem mobile
Q.What’s.the picture definition of a dilemma?
A. A libertarian with his house on fire.
I’m not sure he’s a fool. I’ve seriously wondered if he’s a deliberate ratfucker. It’s not like they don’t exist. I lean ‘selfish asshole’ because those are so much more common.
I read one of his articles on Rand Paul, like I do occasionally to make sure I’m judging GG fairly. He addressed his critics by saying that Democrats do not like him saying good things about Rand Paul because Democrats like killing babies, don’t want to admit it, and are uncomfortable when someone points it out. Yes, that was his entire counterargument and how he phrased it. It was such a breathtaking sophistry that… I just… well, it basically writes off GG as someone trying to seriously discuss politics.
@mai naem mobile: Nononono. The joke you’re searching for:
What goes “Nine one CLICK! Nine one CLICK! Nine one CLICK!“?
A Libertarian whose house is on fire.
Predator drones have been used in Afghanistan/Pakistan since 2001.
Wow. I don’t know which is the worst assumption in that: armed robbery for a $50 take, total lack of due process, or the assumption that perps should get shot because lawnorder.
@Cacti: Has GG forgotten Rand saying he would have no problem with a drone taking out someone running from a bank he just robbed, due process be damned? That included Americans on US soil.
It’s obviously way more complicated than Rand Paul’s mind can handle.
That covers a large range of subjects. Like the entire history of human thought.
Mention drones and the Obots get up off their knees, wipe Obama’s ass slime off their lips and begin spluttering outrage at the usual suspects.
No, it’s not. Your Dreamboat Daddy-Figure is an amoral monster.
@Cacti: I didn’t know that. I was basically going by how we got little rending of garments in our popular press, and from Republicans, and with our 2nd Amendment ammosexuals, about drones being evil Big Gummint things until President Obama…
I think I see my error.
Yup. Guess what color he imagines the guy holding up the liquor store to be. That GG thinks this guy is a champion of civil liberties is all you need to know about GG.
@FromTheBackOfTheRoom: Ur funny.
So does this mean that Paul is the same as Obama, or does it mean Obama is the same as Paul?
Predator drones were first put into service in the Balkans conflict in 1995.
Oddly, it wasn’t until sometime after January 2009 that drones became an unspeakable evil.
Mike in NC
Rand Paul will be the first Republican aspirant to bail out. He’s clueless if he thinks he can sell his pseudo-libertarian schtick to far-right extremists who control the GOP Iowa primary. Might as well tell them he hates corn and bacon causes cancer.
Could someone tell me again why so many on the left think GG is smart or politically astute?
First, I don’t think that many actually do.
Second, He’s like the WF Buckely for the left. Speaks in a tongue and tone that sounds like it’s smart if you aren’t really listening to the context. IOW it’s shit wrapped in nice words with a bow on top. If you unwrap it, it still stinks.
@Mike in NC:
Rand Paul never had a chance. My only question is whether he ever thought otherwise and was even a little sincere in his attempt to run for POTUS. His father was happy being the crazy man on the soapbox yelling pointlessly, but it seems to me that Rand’s made a little more of an effort at mainstreaming himself – e.g. hopping onto the Tea Party Movement bandwagon.
Still remember that time wr0ng way Cole said Rand Paul has some good ideas because of something he said about drones on one of his usual left wing pandering comments.
Then like about a week later he clarified and said he was perfectly fine with drones killing people…just as long as they were being used by private contractors/execution squads and not gov’t armies or gov’t police.
Cole will buy just about anything Paul says apparently. He will never admit it but I totally could see Cole voting for Paul given half a chance. Griftwald will be cheerleading for weeks before and Cole apparently finds Griftwalds bullsheit irresistable.
Pretty sure that starting July 1st in Kansas, a (let’s be honest, white) guy with a gun in his hand and some cash in his pocket would very much be considered law-abiding, no matter where he’s emerging from. A Blah…well, ya cant be too careful and should probably 86 him.
In fact it was Clinton who ordered the arming of predator drones, which until then had only been used for recon. This happened after a predator located Osama bin Laden, and the 45 minute flight time of the cruise missile that was sent after him gave the bad guys time to conclude their meeting and leave.
Unlike Papa doc for whom I think it was always a straight up grift, I do think princeling Rand imagines himself being cut from Presidential timber.
I must be one as well then.
45 yrs ago I served on a ship in the USN that fired weapons that went unguided for over 20 miles before they exploded. It also had guided missiles that went even farther, and were unmanned.
I’m not a fan of drones for other reasons but they are just another killing tool. It’s how they are used and against whom that is the problem. You may think the military is about keeping peace but the way they do that is killing or threatening to kill people and destroy stuff. In that regard drones are no different than any other weapon.
Anonymous At Work
This is quintessential libertarianism; all libertarians suffer from a mouth-foot problem that is become more and more apparent. They talk one way but when times get tough and they have to take either unpopular libertarian stances or popular (and usually conservative) partisan stances on an issue, they revert to the partisan stance.
Culture of Truth
That’s all it ever was; some of us figured that out during his silly filibuster. And no, it’s not that interesting.
Yes, no one objects to drones just because they are unmanned killing instruments; and one can argue that the butchering of civilians is essentially the same no matter what weapon is used. If it was an atrocity when the Nazis did it in Guernica, then it was an atrocity in Dresden and Hiroshima, in Vietnam and Cambodia. Nor have we seen the last of it.
‘No drone killings of Americans on US soil,’ has always been Rand Paul’s position. Anyone actually paying attention to what Paul was saying (instead of just fapping to Paul’s marketing stunts for strategic/financial reasons) would have realized this by now.
Actually, wait, let me clarify Rand Paul’s position: No drone killings of Americans on US soil, unless the drone is operated by a corporation or private citizen, in which case it’s a second amendment and “castle doctrine” issue.
Rand Paul’s perceived hypocrisy is irrelevant when compared to Barack Obama killing civilians, but whatever makes Obama supporters feel good I guess.
Or I know, we could complain about Bush’s war crimes some more too.
@Mike in NC:
It worked in Kentucky. It was quite easy. On the night he got the nomination, he told the Teabaggers who got him through the primary that he was one of them and would never tack to the center. The next morning, he gave a speech for the general election about how he was a moderate Republican who had never held extreme views. He says whatever the audience wants to hear. I don’t think that will work in a national election, just because he won’t be able to keep each audience from hearing what he tells the others.
@Frankensteinbeck: Yet he won over 55% of the vote in 2010 and no one doubts that he would be reelected by Kentuckians in 2016. Such is the power of White Tribalism.
You mention unmanned killing instruments. Those 5 in shells or those missiles I mentioned were and are unmanned and/or remotely guided. What makes them different than drones? How they are aimed? The 5 inch shells were thrown in a generally desired direction. The missiles were guided by a wire and radar. How does that make them different than drones?
It’s the people they are aimed against and the fact that someone can see a lot more and closer to where they are aiming. And they still kill people who are not the target. That 5 inch shell can easily land out of sight, it was completely out of operator control when it left the barrel.
How is it different? I don’t see the difference in the weapons, only in the range and how they are used. Is it that some operators are not in the military? Or that they are probably getting paid more than the military operators? The WEAPON isn’t really any different. The use? Now that’s different.
@Knowbody: Or we could stick to the topic.
That was actually a low score for Kentucky, but yes, you’re completely right. Kentucky whites went BALLISTIC when Obama got elected. They’d have elected a mutant half-man, half-turtle.
[…] What makes them different than drones? […] How does that make them different than drones? […] How is it different? I don’t see the difference in the weapons […]
Yes, when I said “the butchering of civilians is essentially the same no matter what weapon is used,” I was not speaking of differences.
It’s hard to Stand With Rand when he’s the Schrodinger’s Cat of Politics.
Your overriding concern for foreign civilians who are accidentally killed is quite admirable, and quite the tell. Must be nice to be a white guy.
@Frankensteinbeck: They did, didn’t they?
If you are looking to keep score, I give up, you win.
@Belafon: I thought hypocrisy involving drones was the topic. Obama is very guilty of that, too.
Tell you what, sport. When Rand Paul is the one ordering civilian deaths like our current Commander-in-Chief is, let me know.
@Ruckus: That’s really it. When you take the technology out of the picture, the moral question remains just as difficult as it has been since the dawn of war. The question of when and whom to kill, for what reasons, and what damage is acceptable, is extremely hard. The purely correct theoretical answer is always never, under no circumstances, and none. But in the practical world, it can’t be.
Rand Paul wants to deny women agency over their lives – one thing he is consistent about is promoting Personhood. Tell you what sport – I’ll give a shit about drones when I get full control over my body, and until then, fuck you sideways with a rusty harpoon.
Actually, I think Paul would only improve by being imaginary.
It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. Rand is venal enough for it to be both.
Libertarian is just another word for “I know the GOP brand sucks, even if I am one.”
And they weren’t a big issue until it was a Democrat as president, you make his point, exquisitely.
“Libertarians are what Republicans call themselves when they’re trying to get laid.”
Oh, blow it out your ass.
@brantl: Just makes him doubly unqualified…
I see what you did there.
@Chris: They are not much different than the V-1 flying rockets, over 9,000 of which hit S.E. England from German positions in WWII.
More than seventy years ago.
The new talking point being pushed by Huckleberry is the country is about to criminalize Christianity. The rubes will really really believe anything they hear on Faux news or from the GOP clown car members
Actually, Obama has been consistent on drones. (He uses them.)
Keep up this fake naïvete and people are going to start thinking it’s genuine.
@Cervantes: Watching people “think things” has become the most enjoyable form of entertainment I have, sorry to say.
I hope I get a chance to check it out later today. Thanks for the head’s up on it.
someone tell Glen Greenwald that paul is triangulatin’. It may not be interesting, but its what pols do to muffle the rants of their competition from labeling them as extremist… and no one really seems to hold them accountable for it.
You write this as though drones are used to deliberately target civilians, and this is obviously not the case, even though fools like Greenwald always dissemble on this point.
Bombs kill civilians along with “enemies” who are targeted. So do missiles. So do troops on the ground.
If you want to oppose any and all military action, that’s fine,and a good subject for debate. If you want to say that drones and other modes of attack must never be used unless it is absolutely certain that there are no civilians anywhere near, this is also a good subject of debate, though you would probably lose this one.
Talk is cheap, jackass. Document a single instance of an American use of unmanned aircraft clearly violating the well-understood (except by you, apparently) international law-of-war norms about proportionality and reasonable efforts to avoid collateral damage. I don’t think you can.
Violations by Israel are a whole other ballgame, but that’s another inflammatory conversation for another time.
Here’s where I’m confused. Are people opposed to drones instead of manned aircraft, or any warfare at all? If it’s the latter, I get it. If it’s the former, I just don’t see why manned aircraft are better or somehow more morally acceptable.
I focused on the killing of civilians, not on the instrument used. I did not mention drones, nor did my examples involve drones, nor did I use the word “deliberately,” although, with those examples, even you might agree I should have. The latter word is interesting, of course. One set of meanings is as follows:
These are from the OED. Other dictionaries will confirm.
In this sense, learned proponents of modern drone warfare would be the first to assert that the use of drones is deliberate. This is not tantamount to saying that killing of civilians is intended, of course — but by the same token, when said killing of civilians is a likely consequence (as is the case in practice), and when said killing is carefully weighed and thought out, etc., then it can’t simply be wished away or conveniently forgotten.
Re your aside on Greenwald, I am passionately uninterested.
What I oppose first and foremost is the killing of civilians of any age or gender.
This then becomes trivial and worthless. Nobody is for the killing of civilians.
So again, civilian deaths are a possible consequence of any military action. Not necessarily a likely one.
But, now, what? Your opposition is feeble absent a suggested remedy.
He accrued a lot of goodwill by being a dogged antagonist of the Bush Crime Syndicates countless fuckups and atrocities long before most of the media had finished unlatching their lips from GWB’s ass.
The fact that he’s become an increasingly insufferable narcissist more interested in pissing matches and sticking it to the Obama Administration and its [mythical] army of mindless zombie bootlickers than the stories he claims to care about, or the accuracy of his reporting, is typically overlooked or ignored by his admirers.
That’s easy to say!
You wrote (#53) that “drones are no different than any other weapon.” Responding (#56), I agreed: “The butchering of civilians is essentially the same no matter what weapon is used.” You responded (#61), again showing how drones and other weapons are similar. I responded (#64) saying that I was “not speaking of differences,” either.
And so you “give up”? Was I not disagreeing enough?
Really? In that case, what have you been doing about it?
@Hal: There’s a perceived difference between a pilot in a cockpit and a drone jockey 3000 miles away from the action: there’s more personal risk, more emotional/moral investment and less videogame-resemblance for the pilot. The idea is that the person in theatre will be less inclined to act without thinking and more likely to make moral decisions in the engagement. Then again, the USAF has been training Warriors for Gun-Totin’ Capitalist Jeebus for over a decade now, so the suggestion that a randomly-selected USAF pilot would have the least compunction bombing heretics back to the stone age is somewhat questionable.
You dodged my question. What’s your remedy? You claim you don’t want any civilian deaths. This means you must also have a solution that prevents any side of any conflict from killing civilians.
And since you note that you focus on the killing of civilians and not the instrument used, I expect that your solution will also prevent beheadings of captured civilians. And also things like the recent shooting death of a Pakistani peace activist and the critical wounding of her mother.
So, what are you doing about it?
There is no appreciable difference.
With 2 minor points and one of them is really semantics. Who is piloting the drones? Some think that non military is a problem. But CIA or even contractors, the pilots are being paid by us, through our representatives. We are doing it, although with military there is some idea of better control. I’m not sold on that last point. Next we are getting much closer to the point of impact with visual ability. A pilot in a fighter/bomber is going far faster and therefore has to target from greater distance. Or firing relatively blind to GPS points or satellite pictures as in the case of cruse missiles/navel guns. Those satellite pictures are good but I’d bet still not as informative as a drone is capable of. Now is that information being used reasonably? I have no idea.
Is not a sentence.
@Cervantes: Point taken!
That’s pretty funny, in context.
There are numerous things people do to oppose war in general, or any war in particular. I doubt you are completely unfamiliar with the options, but if you are I could make you a list.
To that I would add that people should act first to stop harm being done in their name with their resources. This argument, too, can’t be unfamiliar to you, but if it is, well, that’s easily remedied also.
Now your turn again: if “[n]obody is for the killing of civilians,” would it be (or is it) OK for you to stand by silently when it happens in your name?
@Ruckus: There’s an actual body in the bomber who could be shot down / taken prisoner / used for propaganda; there’s no body in the drone. The perception is significant for the operators, and for the commanders ordering the various actions who, depending on the weapon, either send “our boys” into the warzone or simply deploy a piece of hardware. The “putting armed forces in harm’s way” risk aspect to piloted aircraft has historically been a deterrent to action that simply putting a piece of machinery in the same position lacks. That said, though, for a nation there’s precious little difference, but so long as someone else has gone off to fight in wars that’s always been true. I think we’re discussing two distinct points here: it sounds like you’re asking about the morality of undeclared warfare, and I’m talking about why using devices to carry out that warfare generates less national angst than using manned vehicles.
@Culture of Truth:
It never was even that. It was Paul grandstanding against a strawman position the AG never actually took, while at the same time introducing legislation to make a reality the non-existent thing he was arguing against (Paul’s bill formalized when internal US lethal drone use was permissible).
Greenwald has never “backed” Rand Paul. He has agreed with some positions that Paul has taken, which apparently you also agree with, and which the most prominent Democrats (Obama, Clinton) have disagreed with. If you’re going to say he “backs” him or “writes love letters” to him, link please.
Greenwald cares more about fighting the use of drones than about promoting whatever the Democratic Party dishes out. So yes, if a Republican speaks out against drones, Greenwald will point it out and commend the person for it. It’s just childish to say that that’s the equivalent of an endorsement.
Well angst really doesn’t enter into my thinking on this in the least. Maybe it’s my age or my experience but a manned plane and an unmanned piece of equipment that does the same thing didn’t seem to be of much differing concern to the military. Sure they paid a whole bunch to train that pilot and they’d like to get more than one run out of him/her but actually valuing that human? Not in my limited range of experience, it’s just another piece of equipment.
Putting forces in harms way? That’s what they are there for. It’s what they train for, for some it’s what they live for. Once our civilian leaders give that order you do your job. The military may suggest/yell and scream that a particular action is foolhardy but when that order is given, you go. So no, I don’t see putting forces in harms way to be an issue here. We’ve done so many times.
Wake me when you get a coherent response.
Is it our use of drones per se that he opposes? What if helicopter gunships were gate-crashing all those Yemeni weddings?
Here are two cases: (1) a drone crashed in hostile territory and (2) a pilot captured in hostile territory. Would the American public react the same way in the two cases? And is it your perception that the Pentagon is therefore indifferent as between these two cases?
GG was a big booster of Paul’s sham drone filibuster. He propped it up and pretended it wasn’t total BS in order to queue up his favorite pass-time, downplaying & ignoring the excesses of the GOP while engaging in hyperbolic attacks on the sincerity and motives of the Dems.
Is Rachel Maddow straight in the fantasy world you inhabit?
J R in WV
But FSM forbid he just cashed a personal check for $75, bought a $25 bottle of good booze, and got $50 in change!
Where would you find a mutant white man/white turtle? Is that an albino turtle?
Because on some issues that really matter, he is right more often than a broken clock.
@brantl: Mitch McConnell.