They're playing it as a reversal of Eric Holder's statement, in which he responded to a question in a hearing earlier this week, saying that the administration could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so."
A today's press briefing, Jay Carney read out a statement from Holder to Rand Paul, saying:
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."This is not a flip-flop. Read the two statements. There's no contradiction. 'An American engaged in combat on American soil' obviously would be in the category of 'extraordinary circumstances' -- like going to war in actual armed combat against our own government here at home.
Seems to me that the two statements are quite compatible. Move along, folks; there's nothing to see here. Unfortunately, the anti-Obama circus barkers think this straw man they created is a big story that will pull in the crowds, so they'll hype it a while longer.
Ralph
Welcome. Hope you will post more comments.
ReplyDeleteRalph
What a contrast between Rand Paul's talking filibuster, which actually presented an argument and talked about it (even though it turned out to be a non-problem) and the silent filibuster that is only obstructing -- without presenting any argument -- the nomination of a highly qualified nominee for an appeals court judicial appointment.
ReplyDeleteFilibusters to extend debate is one thing; filibusters to simply obstruct without even making a statement should be eliminated.
Harry Reid blew it when he had the chance and when he actually said he was going to do it; and then he settled for some minor changes in a handshake agreement with Aunt Minnie McConnell.