Video: “Rand Is Wrong”

posted at 7:21 pm on April 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

This piqued my curiosity when Ben Smith of BuzzFeed tweeted about it this morning.

Is it an amateur vid that the creator pinged him on just to get some attention or a professional job by a campaign or advocacy group that’s eyeing Paul as a potential problem in 2016? BuzzFeed hasn’t posted it, but Smith doesn’t usually push random reader submissions out there. It feels professional to me. There are too many gratuitous little polished details, from the letterboxing to the washed-out effect to the audio editing, for the average YouTube user. A random guy who wanted to make this point wouldn’t need to do all that; he’d just grab the Paul audio and lay it over the bombing shots. Also, the “Rand Is Wrong” title smells like a tagline for something, maybe for some sort of attack website that someone’s building. Could be this was a sneak preview offered to Smith to get people talking before whatever “Rand Is Wrong” is ends up launching.

It’s unfair, too. To watch this, you’d think Paul was opposed to shooting back at terrorists on U.S. soil when, not two days ago, he was telling Neil Cavuto he’s okay with using drones to take out an armed man suspected of robbery. His shtick about not treating the country as a battlefield is limited to the narrow case of a U.S. citizen here at home who’s suspected of planning an attack but who hasn’t acted (yet). He doesn’t want that guy incinerated by a Hellfire missile the way suspected terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen routinely are. If that’s too weak for whoever’s behind this clip, I’d hate to think what rules of engagement he/they would prefer. In fact, Paul’s big headache right now isn’t with conservatives who think he’s a libertarian squish on terror, it’s with libertarians who think he’s turning into some sort of drone-happy hawk. Just wait until the media starts pestering him about some of the people who populate the advisory board of his pop’s new think tank and he’s forced to denounce them too. Come 2016, he’s going to have more problems with his dad’s base than he will with mainstream conservatives. Which is wise, given their relative numbers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rand Paul has crossed his Rubicon.

He has lost his imperium.

He is no longer fit to command.

coldwarrior on April 25, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Deval told people to stay put in their homes and had armed goons search homes and hush people out, without warrants.

America will never be the same again, ever.

Sane people of Mass. should sue the gov’t, from top to bottom.

Rand is wrong too.

Bloomberg is always wrong.

Obama is just asleep at the switch or with the muzzies.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Fringe on fringe fight. Popcorn please.

HotAirLib on April 25, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Bolton does it better:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/4960/full

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 7:31 PM

I read this article twice and for the first time in reading hotair articles, I couldn’t make heads nor tails of it.

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM

coldwarrior on April 25, 2013 at 7:29 PM

You gave no details yet I know exactly what you mean. I got nervous the first time I smelled moderation – about illegal aliens.

He’s caught the DC pox.

platypus on April 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM

SNIFF SNIFF – this makes me sad.

gophergirl on April 25, 2013 at 7:34 PM

He doesn’t want that guy incinerated by a Hellfire missile the way suspected terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen routinely are.

Hellfire missiles don’t incinerate anyone. They have shaped charge, blast, or fragmentation warheads, none of which use fire as their kill mechanism.

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 7:37 PM

SNIFF SNIFF – this makes me sad.

gophergirl on April 25, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Think of how sad Sarah must be reading this stuff. The more our guys keep shooting themselves, the harder it’s going to be for Sarah to win in ’16.

platypus on April 25, 2013 at 7:37 PM

No protracted war [or even more something called a war] can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. – Alexis De Tocqueville

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 7:37 PM

With you, it’s always about those dastardly facts.

platypus on April 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Deval told people to stay put in their homes and had armed goons search homes and hush people out, without warrants.

America will never be the same again, ever.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Oh so salient. I was blown away, not pun intended, when the news first came on TV of what had happened. I wished it weren’t so. Then as additional news began trickling out the next day about militarizaed police going door to door, walking home owners out at gun point .. searching for some kid… It took my breath away.

I’ve heard many conspiracies floated in my day and discounted most of them. That’s began to change recently with many of the tragedgies and the questions surrounding them. Then take into account the obvious malenvolent nature of our government and it’s easy to allow suspicion to creep in.

Like, I can see some politician with the “never let a crisis go to waste” attitude using Boston as 1) a dress rehearsal for whatever it is they see coming on the horizon and 2) a great time to let police try out all of their nice new miltary equipment (such as the armored personnel carriers).

Regardless, bottom lime: I’m highly disturbed by the actions of those in power from the President on down, both parties. And sickened by what those actions portend.

preallocated on April 25, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Pat Benatared

bazil9 on April 25, 2013 at 7:42 PM

This is totally out of context.

Rand was speaking about Government hunting down and killing terrorists BEFORE they strike. An American Government that is already 3 steps ahead of the terrorists contemplating dropping a drone on them as they are planning.

In this situation, the Obama Government was 3 steps behind, playing catch up. They had warnings, and did nothing.

portlandon on April 25, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Ben Smith, from Politico? Yeah, I know what he’s up to.

Dongemaharu on April 25, 2013 at 7:43 PM

You gave no details yet I know exactly what you mean. I got nervous the first time I smelled moderation – about illegal aliens.

He’s caught the DC pox.

platypus on April 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Rand is one of my senators. I’ll tell ya the issue.. These people don’t run to be senators any longer. They have 0 inclination to go to D.C. and try and be a represenative of their respective states, they go their to begin an immediate presidential campaign. Used to be senators didn’t win the presidency (that still holds on our side).

Now they use whatever the flavor of the month issue in a state is to make it to D.C. and immediately begin an amateur hour panderpalooza trying to win over the national electorate.

Gag.

preallocated on April 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Then as additional news began trickling out the next day about militarizaed police going door to door, walking home owners out at gun point .. searching for some kid… It took my breath away.

preallocated on April 25, 2013 at 7:40 PM

And probably gave holocaust survivors flashbacks.

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Regardless, bottom lime: I’m highly disturbed by the actions of those in power from the President on down, both parties. And sickened by what those actions portend.

preallocated on April 25, 2013 at 7:40 PM

This is worth a read

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Thread winner! Maybe for the week.

platypus on April 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Deval told people to stay put in their homes and had armed goons search homes and hush people out, without warrants.

America will never be the same again, ever.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2013 at 7:30 PM

I think he got his ideas from a how to book written by the KGB.

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:49 PM

No protracted war [or even more something called a war] can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. – Alexis De Tocqueville

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Oddly enough, WWII had the effect of restoring freedoms to the American people that had been lost in the FDR years.

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Ridiculous, Rand was attacking the President’s ability to use “kill lists” on American territory. But hey, lets kill our own for saying things that made perfect sense.

rob verdi on April 25, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Rand was talking about droning someone not currently committing a crime.

So I’ll ask: guy is holed up in a warehouse. Cops have one minute to get to the top of the building and stop the guy from his countdown to nuke. A drone is available and can hit him in 30 seconds. Is anyone here seriously saying “No way, not ever” to that solution?

beatcanvas on April 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM

With you, it’s always about those dastardly facts.

platypus on April 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM

It’s like a compulsion.

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM

preallocated on April 25, 2013 at 7:40 PM

totally agree.

davidk on April 25, 2013 at 7:55 PM

My Country, My Ass

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 7:58 PM

I like Rand, but yeah, this is one of the challenges that he faces. We are in a war. That’s a fact. And it’s both on our own soil and abroad. So the isolationist/interventionist gap is going to be nearly impossible for him to navigate under his current political posture. He will always be vulnerable to this type of criticism. On the one hand, Obama/Holder would love to drone us here. But on the other side, the Bush-era nation-building strategy in Muslim countries is obviously a bust. As long as we keep playing according to this imagined dichotomy, we lose.

Bottom line is, we need to stop lying about what Islam is, and start basing our policies on reality. Until we do that, everything will fail. Rand has incorporated some of that reality into his rhetoric, but, like most of our pathetic politicians, he is afraid, or refuses, to go all-in.

We need a politician who will tell the truth. Why is this so difficult? Allen West has gone on record telling the truth. I saw him speak at CPAC in DC and he didn’t hesitate to be honest about this at all. But then he lost his election. Our country is in rough shape right now. Thanks to lib-scum. Fight the lib-scum, and maybe we can win the war.

WhatSlushfund on April 25, 2013 at 8:00 PM

At the end of the day does it matter if a president uses a drone strike or sends in an agent to kill an american on American soil based on the looser rules that are now used for American traitors (and enemies) overseas? The key issue was the right to do so on American soil. Anyone can feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

rob verdi on April 25, 2013 at 8:00 PM

This video is pretty weak sauce.

Some random losers blow up a makeshift bomb in Boston and we’re to believe our country is battlefield in the never-ending War on Terror? F that.

TheDriver on April 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM

If we are at war now, then what do you call the Revolutionary war and the Civil War and WWII? You can not call things so vastly different by the same word or you destroy all the integrity of that word.

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM

WhatSlushfund on April 25, 2013 at 8:00 PM

^^^5

bazil9 on April 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Meanwhile, in NH today:

Paul 28%
Rubio 25%
Christie 14%
Bush 7%
Ryan 7%
Martinez 3%
Jindal 1%
Perry 1%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/paul-rising-in-new-hampshire.html

TheDriver on April 25, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Some random losers blow up a makeshift bomb in Boston and we’re to believe our country is battlefield in the never-ending War on Terror? F that.

TheDriver on April 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM

If enough people believe it, we will lose all are civil and constitutional rights. It will be as with the Fourth Amendment at airports, but with everything.

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM

This video does a great job exposing the shortcomings of libertarian rhetoric when it’s confronted with reality. If I were a campaign adviser, I’d run this verbatim in a primary.

Stoic Patriot on April 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

This video does a great job exposing the shortcomings of libertarian rhetoric when it’s confronted with reality. If I were a campaign adviser, I’d run this verbatim in a primary.

lawl

TheDriver on April 25, 2013 at 8:14 PM

If enough people believe “we are at war”, this perpetual “we are at war”, we will lose all our civil and constitutional rights. It will be as with the Fourth Amendment at airports, but with everything and everywhere, and it will take a real “we are at war”, a real “we are at civil war”, to ever get them back..

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM

This video does a great job exposing the shortcomings of libertarian rhetoric when it’s confronted with reality.

Stoic Patriot on April 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

You mean the reality of driving ourselves to national bankruptcy with swiss-cheese borders and halfarsed occupations? The reality that we cannot eternally be at war with Eastasia much less with liberals ‘in charge’?

Come the hell on, right-wingers, have a God d@mned original thought on foreign policy for once in your sodding lives. What is your brilliant endgame, attempt a military takeover when the nation finally destabilizes to continue your permawar?

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:22 PM

If enough people believe “we are at war”, this perpetual “we are at war”, we will lose all our civil and constitutional rights. It will be as with the Fourth Amendment at airports, but with everything and everywhere, and it will take a real “we are at war”, a real “we are at civil war”, to ever get them back..

VorDaj on April 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM

I seriously wonder if things will not eventually degenerate into a three-way c1v1l war with Marxists on one side, opportunistic militant NeoCons on the second, and people trying to take out the other two before they wind up under either one’s thumb.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I seriously wonder if things will not eventually degenerate into a three-way c1v1l war with Marxists on one side, opportunistic militant NeoCons on the second, and people trying to take out the other two before they wind up under either one’s thumb.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Don’t wonder too much. It won’t happen.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM

I would take the thoughts and opinions of the video’s producer a bit more seriously if they had the guts to affix their name to it.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Don’t wonder too much. It won’t happen.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Don’t be sure. The average permawar voter is very much kept in line by the thought of all the firepower we now use elsewhere being turned on them.

If that power is split, for whatever reasons, it will mean their chances of success – or even surviving long enough to be taken seriously before they have to disband – goes up exponentially.

Likewise, the welfare contingent is kept happy by free stuff. They will want it back…very badly.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Come the hell on, right-wingers, have a God d@mned original thought on foreign policy for once in your sodding lives. What is your brilliant endgame, attempt a military takeover when the nation finally destabilizes to continue your permawar?

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Obama and his inner-circle are very interested in war, including the one being waged by Islam against the hated infidel west and the United States. The political left in this country talks a great game on war – “give peace a chance” and all of that – but the reality is very different. Do you know that Obama has our military forces engaged in a total of thirty-five African nations at the present time? 35! Yet, many speak of Obama not being interested in war? Bush, who only engaged us in two conflicts – one arguably not of his choosing – ranks as a mere pretender by Obama’s total.

The disinterested stance is a front, a bit of public opinion propaganda designed to lull the masses back to sleep. Make no mistake: Obama and his people are following developments in the Middle East and Africa very-closely indeed. They aren’t interfering because they have no need of doing so – the Muslim Brotherhood-backed “rebels” and “freedom fighters” in Syria and elsewhere – are doing just fine. Why should B. Hussein interfere? Things are going exactly as planned by his Muslim brethren. Just remember folks; if you think it is bad-enough that Obama has Muslim sympathies, just remember that his “remodeling project” in the Middle East and Africa (on terms favorable to Islam) is being funded in part by your tax dollars.

RasThavas on April 25, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Got that right, Thank God for REAL Conservatives like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Marco Rubio!

Rand Paul is the big sell-out!

celt on April 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Got that right, Thank God for REAL Conservatives like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Marco Rubio!

Rand Paul is the big sell-out!

celt on April 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

At this point it would be easier to simply list the handful who weren’t total backstabbing sellouts, you could probably count them on your hands.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Don’t be sure. The average permawar voter is very much kept in line by the thought of all the firepower we now use elsewhere being turned on them.

If that power is split, for whatever reasons, it will mean their chances of success – or even surviving long enough to be taken seriously before they have to disband – goes up exponentially.

Likewise, the welfare contingent is kept happy by free stuff. They will want it back…very badly.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM

I suppose it depends on what you mean. Those groups will continue to not like each other but the idea of anyone breaking off to form their own nation or that people will get organized and start shooting at each other is nuts. N-V-T-S nuts!

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 8:43 PM

My sarc tag was filtered out…Rand had a questionable slip up but the rest aren’t even ashamed of their ongoing opinions and actions.

Sad state of affairs..

celt on April 25, 2013 at 8:44 PM

His shtick about not treating the country as a battlefield is limited to the narrow case of a U.S. citizen here at home who’s suspected of planning an attack but who hasn’t acted (yet).

Actually, that isn’t his ‘shtick’ at all. Read the AUMF. The battlefield is not anywhere in the world, including the US, where terrorists are. The AUMF, specifically, limited the authorisation for the President to use military force to the original al Qaeda involved in 9/11 and those individuals, entities, and countries that harboured them. It doesn’t give the President the authority to use military force on Chechen or French or American terrorists, who happen to share the same ideology. It doesn’t give the President the authority to drone teenagers, who join AQIM, for example.

If the world, including the US, is the battlefield, then the Constitution is irrelevant because military law applies. In that case, the President could order the military to takeout a white supremacist terror group in Idaho before it does anything other than maybe, sorta plan to attack something or someone in the future.

There is NO authorisation for the President to use military force except ‘to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy’ AND ONLY IF it (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.’ A President cannot use military force an individual, who is planning to attack the United States, at all or a conspiracy that is planning an attack unless the state or other government agency refuses to act.

Paul’s position on the use of force to stop crimes in process is completely consistent with current criminal law. NO REASONABLE PERSON HAS EVER ARGUED THAT A POLICE OFFICER CANNOT KILL A PERSON HOLDING A GUN TO THE HEAD OF ANOTHER. There WAS great consternation on the Left about the idea that Bush could’ve ordered the hijacked planes shot down on 9/11 although doing so (before the planes hit the WTC or Pentagon or Capitol or whatever) would have been analogous to the police forcing a car involved in a high-speed chase off the road. Yes, innocent people on the planes would have been killed, but so might innocent people in a car being driven by a suspect on a LA freeway at 100mph that hits police nail strips that blow out the tyres.

I realise that the point of your post isn’t Paul’s position on ‘the battlefield,’ but calling his concerns/arguments about the subject ‘shtick’ does a great disservice to the issue and civil rights. It doesn’t make you look real ‘smaht’ either. Sorry.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I suppose it depends on what you mean. Those groups will continue to not like each other but the idea of anyone breaking off to form their own nation or that people will get organized and start shooting at each other is nuts. N-V-T-S nuts!

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Pretty much. This isn’t like the North-South cultural split of the Civil War.

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 8:49 PM

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 8:43 PM

It all depends on what the military does. If (as will probably happen) they follow orders until a few days before the end like good soldiers, the liberals win. After a few towns get droned or cruise missiled or otherwise flattened, that’s that.

If most of them break off to, say, an offer of employment frm Texas as the start of a new nation, the right might have a fighting chance.

And if it’s about even, then things get REALLY interesting.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Pappys son Rand. Dudes got quite a following here at HA. Balancing between grassroots Conservatives and Ronulans. Quite a feat. The primaries would be interesting, and IMO, Rand would be one of the first to drop out. That would be interesting times here at HotGas. lol

tommy71 on April 25, 2013 at 8:54 PM

IMO, Rand would be one of the first to drop out. That would be interesting times here at HotGas. lol

tommy71 on April 25, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Yeah, the end of our nation is real funny, isn’t it?

Even IF Rand wins there’s no way he can save the nation as a whole barring outright divine intervention. That ship sailed in ’08 and is gone over the horizon.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

It all depends on what the military does. If (as will probably happen) they follow orders until a few days before the end like good soldiers, the liberals win. After a few towns get droned or cruise missiled or otherwise flattened, that’s that.

If most of them break off to, say, an offer of employment frm Texas as the start of a new nation, the right might have a fighting chance.

And if it’s about even, then things get REALLY interesting.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:52 PM

No towns will get droned or cruise missiled or anything else of the sort, nor will any of them break off to seek employment from any rebellious state (because for starters there won’t be any).

Your use of terms like “fighting chance” and “REALLY interesting” clues me into the fact you don’t know anything about what life is like in a contemporary society where people are shooting at each other. It would pretty much be the worst thing most of us have ever experienced.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Your use of terms like “fighting chance” and “REALLY interesting” clues me into the fact you don’t know anything about what life is like in a contemporary society where people are shooting at each other

So you’re taking near meaningless phrases (BTW “interesting” is sarcasm, dumbsh!t) and extrapolating based on the three brain cells you have.

It would pretty much be the worst thing most of us have ever experienced.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Ya don’t say???

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

More than I’ve run into you in the past and had my expectations for what you think calibrated downward. Better to assume the worst and be pleasantly surprised when someone’s not quite as dumb as I feared they were! :-D

alchemist19 on April 25, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Quite simply one of the dumbest videos I’ve ever seen. Why not just show footage of 9/11? Or was the “War on Terror” won and then it started back up again?

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2013 at 9:32 PM

To watch this, you’d think Paul was opposed to shooting back at terrorists on U.S. soil when, not two days ago, he was telling Neil Cavuto he’s okay with using drones to take out an armed man suspected of robbery.

Go back and watch Rand’s original statement. He didn’t say anything about a “suspected” robber. He said:

If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

He was talking about a person wielding a weapon — an imminent threat. There’s no suspicion at play here. He was talking about a person who is clearly committing a crime and clearly a deadly threat.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2013 at 9:35 PM

I am not a Rand Paul fan, but this is an unfair attack.
He’s been entirely consistent with his position/argument.
I guess it doesn’t take much to set some off.
It’s irrational to claim he said something different than he did before.

verbaluce on April 25, 2013 at 9:41 PM

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Permawar“?

Oh. You mean like bombing Libya without any congressional authorization?

Like sending SOCOM troops to Yemen and a half-dozen other African nations – to fight?

Like shipping weapons (NOT “non-lethal” assistance) to Syrian “rebel” groups – comprised, in the main, of alQueda groups and run by the muslim brotherhood?
And getting our ambassador and three other Americans killed in the process?

THAT “permawar”?

Solaratov on April 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Selling out for some sort of nebulous gain is not exactly without precedent. The most notable incident that comes to mind was the Catholic Center Party voting for Hitler’s Enabling Act in return for a guarantee of Catholic rights that was still being negotiated.

If Republicans support the amnesty bill I fear the ultimate result will be the loss of our rights in exchange for their privileges. Given history it shouldn’t surprise us to see how cheaply a great nation can be sold.

claudius on April 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Neocons are really worried about the direction of the party, eh?

Clark1 on April 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM

“Permawar“?

THAT “permawar”?

Solaratv on April 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM

ESPECIALLY that permawar!!!

I have to admit I honestly thought Obama would bring the troops home from everywhere until people were making Ron Paul comparisons, which he would have done to nationwide worship.

What I didn’t count on was him being as weak as he is stupid – I originally had him figured for a smiling version of Malcom I’m-too-good-for-my-last-name. The military lobby and weapons makers walked over him so much you can almost see the bootprints when he makes a public appearance.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM

He was talking about a person wielding a weapon — an imminent threat. There’s no suspicion at play here. He was talking about a person who is clearly committing a crime and clearly a deadly threat.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2013 at 9:35 PM

The only explanations remaining for this obvious fact being lost on half the !@#% site is willful ignorance or the liberal stereotypes having more than a little truth.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Let’s see: by my calculation, we are down to Ted Cruz and company. All the possibilities have been trashed by the “my way or the highwayers”. Lose again in 2016.

AReadyRepub on April 26, 2013 at 12:54 AM

Let’s see: by my calculation, we are down to Ted Cruz and company. All the possibilities have been trashed by the “my way or the highwayers”. Lose again in 2016.

AReadyRepub on April 26, 2013 at 12:54 AM

I refuse to support the GOPe any more, because no one in the GOPe wants to win. Been beat up, attacked and defamed enough by the “refuse-to-win” liberal RINO base.

Hilary’s victories in 2016 and 2020 are a fait accompli.

Myron Falwell on April 26, 2013 at 5:29 AM

For all those on the Left who tout for ‘peace’, there is a simple way to end ‘Bush’s Wars’.

Tell Obama to get a PEACE TREATY with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Done!

Wars over!

We have left Iraq, but the CAUF is still in place.

Where is the peace treaty and the Presidential acknowledgement that the conflicts are over per the CAUF’s involved? Can’t he even get a couple sentence treaty together to ask the Iraqi and Afghani leadership to just sign off on? That is the job of the President, is it not? To execute wars until they are over and inform Congress they are over. That is why you on the Left ELECTED THIS GUY, isn’t it? End those horrible wars AND all the junk that came in with them. That is what I heard in 2007-08, so now that we are ‘out’ of Iraq, where is the Peace Treaty that officially ENDS THE CONFLICT? He can tell Congress its over as far as any temporal power can ever do, so just make it ever so official-like. Plus you get a sweet treaty, too! Isn’t that great? And then you can call for an end to droning aQ, get rid of the Patriot Act and all the other things you complained about as reasons to elect Obama.

So howzaboutit on the Left?

Why are YOU so pro-war? Like all that death and mayhem, do you? Those brown people overseas, well, do yo or don’t you care about making war on them? Because, right now, if you back Obama you are now, de facto, pro-war, pro-interventionist and anti-brown people.

Yeah, there’s a list of you backers out there, so where is the pro-peace concept NOW? Love war so much NOW and ‘evolved’ on the topic, have you? Death and mayhem overseas NOW your cup of tea? Forget blaming the right on this, Obama is in the position and with the power to END THE WARS. Heck he could even send off a treaty to NoKo to end that war, too! Wouldn’t that be great? Obama ending the last of the 20th century wars the US was in and the first two 21st century wars! All you have to do is start sticking it to him via e-mail, letters, YouTube videos, and sending dupes to your Congresscritters… letting them all know its time to go back to normal.

Because if you don’t the campaign slogan that last won against a pro-war Democratic President who couldn’t figure out how to end the controls of a war-time economy faced this as a slogan: A Return To Normalcy. Because these Bush-Obama wars suck and stopped serving a useful purpose to the Nation some years ago… as you on the Left pointed out. So either do as you said should be done or shut the hell up about war and peace as they are just a means to an end NOW if you don’t do a thing to get these wars ended under someone you supported and sent there to do just that. If you can’t elect someone competent to do these simple things, then you will face that as the minimal barrier to entry in 2016, and the discredit for the inability of Obama will stick to all his cronies with a stench you cannot believe.

ajacksonian on April 26, 2013 at 7:08 AM

Yeah…Allah is either getting lazy, or there’s a narrative being pushed here.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I’m sorry — he lost me two seconds in when he wiped his nose.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Oddly enough, WWII had the effect of restoring freedoms to the American people that had been lost in the FDR years.

Count to 10 on April 25, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Only to the extent that the stresses of war almost certainly killed Roosevelt…

JohnGalt23 on April 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM