Matt Drudge is lighting up Rand Paul over a comment he made on drones. On Fox News, Senator Paul said:
"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 fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."
The Ron Paul crowd is bashing the Rand Paul crowd and everyone seems to be going after Rand Paul.Did they not listen to him in the filibuster? To be sure he started by saying, "no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court," but then he kept talking.And in the course of that talk and on what imminent harm is and when a drone could be used in an "imminent harm situation," Senator Paul said . . . well . . . he said pretty much the same thing then as now.So why all the outrage?Were people too busy going blind to his filibuster to actually listen to it?