Brennan confirmed

| March 7, 2013

So, Senator Rand Paul spent thirteen hours filibustering the Senate confirmation of John Brennan yesterday. Today, the Attorney General, Eric Holder decided he’d answer Rand Paul’s questions;

Dear Senator Paul:

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.


Eric Holder

So Brennan was confirmed;

Still, Brennan passed relatively easily on a bipartisan vote of 63 to 34.

I guess the Obama Administration was thinking that Paul was getting too much good press from his theatrics yesterday and decided that they needed to nip it in the bud and finally answer the questions.

Thanks to MCPO USN (Ret.) for think to the letter.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Breaking News

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. USMCE8Ret says:


  2. FatCircles0311 says:

    Because a racist, gun running incompetent’s word should be believed.

  3. Eagle Keeper says:

    Holder: “The answer to that question is no.”

    Doesn’t mean he won’t try/support it.

    Or, “What FatCircles said.”

  4. MCPO Targets USN (Ret.) says:

    “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill a US citizen who is engaged in combat against the US in the US?” The answer to that question is HELL YES.

  5. EX-PH2 says:

    Yes, because ‘not engaged in combat’ can be construed as ‘not in a firefight with the police or BATFE’on American soil at this moment.

    I do not doubt there is more to come in this.

  6. DaveO says:

    The main story will become how Senators McCain and Graham went to the White House, had an excellent supper, and then called out Senator Paul as a punk after Paul ended the filibuster.

    Time to invest in popcorn. Shit just got interesting.

  7. brat says:

    Surely, every reader here KNOWS that the answer may well be “NO” to the question “Does the President have the authority…?” but evidence in this admin’s history proves that means exactly NOTHING.

  8. Just an Old Dog says:

    Holder got bitch-slapped and the Administration got called out for their arrogance. They just want to sweep it under the rug now and pretend they never said it.

  9. Bam Bam says:

    He actually got very little press.

  10. EX-PH2 says:

    @8 – That’s the problem with the internet. Once it’s posted some place, it’s there forever.

    No rug, no broom, no sweeping. Can’t take it back.

    Is this how the term ‘numbnuts’ comes into being? Do/say stupid things, win stupid prizes? The cloud of excessive stupidity and laziness shown by the dopes in DC gets bigger by the day.

  11. DaveO says:

    #10: that can change with the imposition of “Net Neutrality.”

  12. ohio says:

    I will be very happy when the GOP is a footnote to history. They are nothing but suck ups to Bath House Barry.

  13. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    So, that ‘hypothetically speaking’ original response from Holder was indeed a game. Days ago, he could have given the same answer he did today. He knew darn well what Rand was asking. Of course, now that the admin is on record with the latest answer, it means nothing. If obamaman wants to use armed drones against the citizenry, there will be the exigent circumstance that nullifies the constraint. That’s how it works.

  14. oh no….I think I hear a drone outside….

  15. Oleman, says:

    2/17, you’re exactly correct. The question could have been answered days ago but whatever comes out of their mouths means nothing.