Foley should expect better of Obama
March 22, 2013 12:00 AM | 834 views | 6 6 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

Columnist Kevin Foley was not pleased with the bipartisan reaction to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster (“Straw-man Rand droned on and on,” March 15 MDJ). Foley’s faith in the good intentions of our president misses the point entirely. Paul was questioning the cult of the presidency. The questioning of executive power is something which does and should appeal to decent citizens of the entire political spectrum, but is frequently ignored by the media and politicos of both major parties.

Our first president, George Washington, initially declined to serve, concerned no man should have so much power. In the time since, the power of the executive branch has only expanded. Presidents of both parties are guilty of these power grabs, and the minority party has rarely served as a check on the aggression. Consider President George W. Bush’s decision to attack Iraq; Democrats in Congress protested and slowed the process only long enough to state on the record their desire to invade was as strong as Bush’s. Congressional Democrats didn’t bother to meet the constitutional requirement to declare war.

Rand’s objections are a rare example of the checks and balances our founders envisioned.

Foley seems to justify unilateral drone strikes because one of Obama’s targets, Anwar al-Awlaki, publicly advocated terrorism. Ignoring the fact these statements are not due process, let us focus on due process for other citizens. Two weeks after killing al-Awlaki, another Obama drone strike killed the alleged terrorist’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The teen, a U.S. citizen, was killed, according to Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs, for not having a “more responsible father.” If that is how our president decides whom to bomb, millions may be in his sights. Almost three years prior to the Newtown school shootings, Obama killed more children in one day via drone strikes. (A December 2009 strike in Yemen killed 14 women and 21 children, one more than Newtown).

Foley is ready to shred our 2nd Amendment to address the Newtown event, but he cannot even tolerate one man speaking out about the issue of presidential authority to address the more deadly event? These excessive and extra-constitutional acts by the president strongly suggest Rand is right to question his intentions.

Foley may think it a straw man when the president kills brown children in a far away land, but we should all expect better of our president, regardless of who fills that office. For this, I stand with Rand.

Russ Wood

Powder Springs
Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Kevin Foley
|
March 28, 2013
@ Russ Wood - Please show us all the letter of protest you wrote to the MDJ when Bush established the drone policy. You sound like you were against the Iraq invasion too, so you no doubt spoke up in protest back in 2002.

The tea party crowd is a joke. Nothing you "stand for" is going to see the light of day. Your "outrage" over drone strikes is transparent. Good policy when it was Bush. Bad policy when it's Obama. Please.

Nettie Stemm
|
March 22, 2013
Kevin, how can you call it preposterous when hte questions was answered, "Yes, under some circumstances he would."

Ypur column sounds more like sour grapes over the dfact that Paul showed the administration up for what it is. "A bully administtration which will try to get it's own way. unless the American people challenge it.". Rand was challenging it.
Kevin Foley
|
March 22, 2013
With regard to Democrats supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq, which produced an enormous body count, see my column today.

The question Paul put to the president wasn't whether he had the authority to strike enemies with drones in terrorist hideouts. That policy has been in place for ten years. Right wingers were for it until there was a Democrat in the White House. Now, suddenly, it's a bad policy.

Paul wanted to know if the president had legal authority to hit American citizens with drones on U.S. soil, a preposterous question. Paul's silly filibuster was nothing more than showboating.

Russ Wood
|
March 23, 2013
Kevin,

It was wrong for the neocons to establish this drone precedent. And it is wrong now for Obama to expand on the drone killing program.

The difference between then and now, is that Democrats put up no fight to Bush, but Senator Paul is standing up to Obama now.

misterbill
|
March 22, 2013
Russ,

Spot on. As for me, I have come to expect nothing good from this President. --or Foley, for that matter!
Here here
|
March 22, 2013
Excellent rebuttal and refutation of Foley's pathetic attempt at logic.

Please keep on writing Mr. Wood.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides