When I filibustered over domestic drone use, critics said that I was being ridiculous. They said that no American had been killed by a drone on American soil and that no one was likely to be anytime soon. President Obama responded that he hadn’t killed anyone yet and didn’t intend to — but he might.

 

That wasn’t the point. The filibuster was about the limits of power. It was about how much authority the president imagined he had. Lincoln wrote that nearly any man can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power.

 

PAUL: A staggering abuse of power - Washington Times

 

Thoughts?

I love Rand Paul. He makes too much sense for the idiots in Washington though.

Rand Paul trolling for votes.

 

My key question in all these issues is this - how culpable is a President for what happens in government under his administration? If something wrong happens, is it the President's fault? For example, when we had incidents of wrong doing by military personnel in Iraq, should Bush be held personally responsible? He was the Commander-in-Chief.

 

I am sure discussion of my question above will run down party lines but hopefully we can have some rational reasoning and thought in the posts that follow.

Rand Paul trolling for votes.

 

My key question in all these issues is this - how culpable is a President for what happens in government under his administration? If something wrong happens, is it the President's fault? For example, when we had incidents of wrong doing by military personnel in Iraq, should Bush be held personally responsible? He was the Commander-in-Chief.

 

I am sure discussion of my question above will run down party lines but hopefully we can have some rational reasoning and thought in the posts that follow.

 

Are you really trying to rationalize the blatant violation of basic American rights?

Rand Paul trolling for votes.

 

My key question in all these issues is this - how culpable is a President for what happens in government under his administration? If something wrong happens, is it the President's fault? For example, when we had incidents of wrong doing by military personnel in Iraq, should Bush be held personally responsible? He was the Commander-in-Chief.

 

I am sure discussion of my question above will run down party lines but hopefully we can have some rational reasoning and thought in the posts that follow.

 

I think if it can be determined that the Commander-in-Chief had something to do with the wrongdoing then he should suffer the consequences. If people in his administration were going "rogue" or just inept then I don't see why the Commander-in-Chief should be held responsible for anything other than poor choices when assigning roles in his administration.

Are you really trying to rationalize the blatant violation of basic American rights?

 

What I am trying to figure out is when is the President himself is accountable for actions that happen.

I think if it can be determined that the Commander-in-Chief had something to do with the wrongdoing then he should suffer the consequences. If people in his administration were going "rogue" or just inept then I don't see why the Commander-in-Chief should be held responsible for anything other than poor choices when assigning roles in his administration.

 

I have a hard time believing he wasn't aware of the handling of the Bengazhi attacks or about the phone record seizures. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that the IRS issue was something he was in the dark about. Still appointing people with this poor of judgement and respect for the American people, to me, shows a severe lack of leadership. JMO.

I have a hard time believing he wasn't aware of the handling of the Bengazhi attacks or about the phone record seizures. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that the IRS issue was something he was in the dark about. Still appointing people with this poor of judgement and respect for the American people, to me, shows a severe lack of leadership. JMO.

 

 

I don't disagree. I was just trying to answer the question with no allegiance to party lines or anything specific that has taken place. Generic answer on my part.

Rand Paul trolling for votes.

 

My key question in all these issues is this - how culpable is a President for what happens in government under his administration? If something wrong happens, is it the President's fault? For example, when we had incidents of wrong doing by military personnel in Iraq, should Bush be held personally responsible? He was the Commander-in-Chief.

 

I am sure discussion of my question above will run down party lines but hopefully we can have some rational reasoning and thought in the posts that follow.

 

You say you want rational reasoning and thoughts and the first sentence of your post is nothing more than the typical attempt to downplay Senator Paul's words as nothing more than sticking to the party line....:lol:

You say you want rational reasoning and thoughts and the first sentence of your post is nothing more than the typical attempt to downplay Senator Paul's words as nothing more than sticking to the party line....:lol:

 

Yes, I thought about taking that line out of my post because I figured some people would see that comment as partisan. It's not. Do you disagree that Paul is trolling for votes?

Yes, I thought about taking that line out of my post because I figured some people would see that comment as partisan. It's not. Do you disagree that Paul is trolling for votes?

 

It's nothing more than a partisan shot and makes the rest of your post irrelevant IMO.

 

No, I think he's proven he's not afraid to stand up for American rights, regardless of party affiliation. He clashed with quite a few Republicans over his filibuster, not just Democrats.

It's nothing more than a partisan shot and makes the rest of your post irrelevant IMO.

 

No, I think he's proven he's not afraid to stand up for American rights, regardless of party affiliation. He clashed with quite a few Republicans over his filibuster, not just Democrats.

 

Fair enough. If it detracts from the conversation, then I will edit the post. Let's talk on the issue. When is a President accountable? How much power does the President really have in these day to day management issues in our bureaucracy?

Fair enough. If it detracts from the conversation, then I will edit the post. Let's talk on the issue. When is a President accountable?

 

There's no way he wasn't made aware of the Bengazhi incident or the AP records seizure. Just not believable. As I said earlier, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in regards to the IRS issue, however, I think as C-I-C, it's your responsibility to appoint people of high character and respect to positions that will have oversight of various areas. To fail in that regard, IMO, reflects towards poor leadership and judgement.

Fair enough. If it detracts from the conversation, then I will edit the post. Let's talk on the issue. When is a President accountable?

 

If he is going to take credit and play the bin Laden card, should he not be held responsible for Benghazi?

 

Someone gave the stand down order. Was it him? Be nice to have the answer to that question.

There's no way he wasn't made aware of the Bengazhi incident or the AP records seizure. Just not believable. As I said earlier, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in regards to the IRS issue, however, I think as C-I-C, it's your responsibility to appoint people of high character and respect to positions that will have oversight of various areas. To fail in that regard, IMO, reflects towards poor leadership and judgement.

 

I agree that Benghazi is the one that Obama's involvement needs to be examined the most closely. That is where he may have actually had some part in decisions made and actions taken.

 

On the other two items, if people who made the poor decisions were appointed by Obama, then I think he has to share some of the blame and it is a reflection on him. Were the decision makers in those two situations appointed by Obama? I am asking because I don't know the answer.