GOP Sen. Rand Paul Warns That For-Profit Drone Lobby Is Seducing Congress

in 3,....2,.....1....

Fuck Rand Paul; therefore, fuck legitimate concerns about the drone lobby!





http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

So he gets to make his fake "principled" stance for the public...

Yes, he has a point, but he's still a sanctimonious hypocrite of the worst type...If the drones were made in Kentucky he'd be the first one whoring for them...

I may happen to agree with Paul on a random issue, but I'll never, ever "side" with him...

water is wet and that bears shit in the woods?

I think that all his fellow Senators are not interested in the money spent on drones. This is playing into the cynicism that is rampant on both sides of the aisle. I would bet that even the most conservative Republican who supports increasing drone capacity is doing so based on the view that this technology achieves some military goals with less loss of American lives. For many, even a CERTAIN increase in non-American life would not change their support of something that saves American lives. (I am not arguing the morality here, but the fact that that is far different than what Paul is accusing them of.)

The REAL needed discussion on drones has to do with how they are used and whether the uses are for actions that Congress has approved and which are consistent with international law. I think that the point to start the questions on whether drones are a good part of the country's arsenal is to start this discussion accepting (for just this discussion) the country's military objectives. The question then is are they better or at least as good as the possible alternatives.

The questions then are things like do they really result in fewer attacks on the US or our allies and how precise the drone attacks are and a comparison of the amount of "collateral damage" with other alternatives. Lastly, no matter how precise the drones are, there is a question of how good the intelligence that triggers the use may be.

Rereading this - I need to add that I think there should be Congressional hearings that deal with both the specifics of places where we are at war or may go to war and hearings that are more general that attempt to relook at how America agrees to go to war. My point with drones - as it would be with any technology - is that the decisions on whether it is something that is ok to use should not be conflated with the question of whether we should be at war (or engaged militarily) at all.

counter-productive be an acceptable place to start, much less a "good" one?

Based on what evidence in action would one accept that most Senators are not interested in money, especially the far right when every damn thing they do is not only about money but ensuring that the wealthy few have all resource control and every possible cent goes into their pockets on an ideological basis, even if it is horrendous for our country?

Lack of cynicism when dealing with our corporately captured, cowardly, rich man's club, out of touch, wealth worshiping Congress is willful stupidity. Insufficient cynicism when considering the motives of the TeaPubliKlans is deadly foolish. Casual acceptance of their "hearts" being in the right place and avarice either personally or for the predator class at large is a sign of questionable sanity considering the outcomes of their policies and the ever increasing doubling down.

What we need to do is shut down the program and stop to the proliferation around the world and especially at home.

"Lack of cynicism when dealing with our corporately captured, cowardly, rich man's club, out of touch, wealth worshiping Congress is willful stupidity. Insufficient cynicism when considering the motives of the TeaPubliKlans is deadly foolish. "

...the reason teabagger Senator Rand Paul endorsed Mitt "I want war with Iran" Romney.

I'm sure Paul is really concerned with a "for-profit" lobby "seducing Congress"

Rand, like his father, is a fucking joke. In fact, the comparison might be an insult to his father.

with you.

Paul's motivations have nothing to do with a very obvious and valid concern but you'd rather focus on him than the concern and further use him as a deflection for those concerns and to make him the face of them so they can go into file 13 for Democrats effectively making us supporters of this bullshit program and the corporations who profit from it.

I don't give a fuck what Rand Paul's motivations are, how is his statement incorrect?

"I offered no defense or support of Rand Paul. Always with the personalities and avoidance of issues with you. I don't give a fuck what Rand Paul's motivations are, how is his statement incorrect?"

...I don't "give a fuck" about Rand Paul's statements.

I mean, the Kochs opposed the Iraq war, and I have no problem saying, "fuck 'em."

Opportunistic pieces of shits are what they are.

My point was that it is better not to conflate HOW and with what tools we fight the war with the decision of being at war itself. This was JUST to assess whether Paul's statement is fair or reasonable. The point was that many here do not agree with drones being used, but would also disagree with pilots flying bombing missions.

The lobbyists are selling a particular weapon. My point is that for many Senators the reason they would support them is that the alternative is more American soldiers die. (This is not all that different than the argument on the bomb being used on Japan - that it ended the war faster and Americans were saved.) I also did NOT say I agreed with this.

That's their job.

-- Mal

Is punished with lifetime imprisonment.

Sid

Turtle man must be filthy rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!