Sorry, I believe Barack would have been against drone attacks on Americans overseas, especially when innoncents, like the traitor's children are innocent victims.
Barack is finding out there is a difference between an idealist and a pragmatist, for example his original plan to give Gitmo prisoners trials.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
It is funny to watch the left squirm over this. They are having a hard time with it because if this had come from their side, they would have been cheering. Instead, they have to resort to name calling and belittling anyone who does cheer for someone speaking FOR our rights. Funny how the tables can be turned by one clever Senator.
towermonkey wrote: It is funny to watch the left squirm over this. They are having a hard time with it because if this had come from their side, they would have been cheering. Instead, they have to resort to name calling and belittling anyone who does cheer for someone speaking FOR our rights. Funny how the tables can be turned by one clever Senator.
I have been unable to find any indication that Paul spoke out against the illegal assassination of al-Awlaki, a US citizen guaranteed the right to due process, regardless whether overseas or here. He didn't stand up for US citizens' rights then and I 'm supposed to believe his motivation is legitimate now? No. This was theater. He's protesting something that's never happened. US citizens already are protected against such actions by the aforementioned right to due process (at least when they're not Muslims). Paul's demand was redundant and he knows it. He was just so darned delighted with himself...over nothing.
Brennan's confirmed. Obama (and future admins) still reserve the right to use drones domestically against anyone engaged in 'combat' against the US. Nothing's been affected by this "fool-a-buster", but we're all talking about Paul, and that was the real goal.
