Blaming Eric Holder for Rand Paul’s Words

As you might recall, I flipped out on Greenwald and law professor Ryan Goodman for attacking Eric Holder for a phrase that was coined by Rand Paul: “engaged in combat.” Quick recap — Paul asked Holder whether the president had the authority to kill American citizens on American soil “not engaged in combat.”

Well, here’s a writer at Salon (fancy that), Falguni A. Sheth, marketing in the same misleading claim:

Given the untrustworthiness of the Obama administration in anything having to do with the Global War on Terror, Holder’s answer should not be reassuring to Americans. What does it mean to be “engaged in combat” on American soil? Does it mean protest? Dissent? Being Muslim and loud? Standing within 50 feet of the White House with a critical sign? In a world where the mainstream media refuses to be critical watchdogs and whistle-blowers are treasonous and betrayers of national security, Holder’s answer may have made Rand Paul happy. But the rest of us, especially if we are remotely critical, should be terrified.

Three words: Ask Rand Paul! The phrase is his!

Talk about untrustworthiness. Why the deliberate deception on this pretty significant detail?

Incidentally, I learned of the Sheth post via David Sirota’s Twitter feed. Not a shocker there. Speaking of which, here’s a fantastic exchange between Goldie Taylor and David Sirota that was sparked when Taylor linked to Chez’s column yesterday. Hilarious.

  • mrbrink

    Chez’s hilarious. He obliterates Sirota’s and Greenwald’s number one defense– “the flag of ultimate, dispassionate intellectual honesty”– with all the piss and fury of a guy stuck waiting 20 more minutes for a bus because Sirota and Greenwald are laying down in the street in protest of bus accidents.

  • bphoon

    Greenwald, Sirota…idiots who don’t deserve a second of my time.

  • jjasonham

    The Goldie Taylor feed was hilarious. This is the second time in a week I’ve seen critics of people who misrepresent the whole drone situation called “privileged elites”. I had never heard that term in this context until I was blocked from shakesville for pointing out their exaggerations and discrepancies around Holder’s words regarding drones.

    • i_a_c

      Projection. I think “privileged elites” might be a better description for those who put Rand Paul on a pedestal with no regard for his regressive policies that hurt the poor.

      • i_a_c

        Also, I’ve been linking this everywhere lately because of the sudden infatuation with Rand Paul, but Tim Wise wrote a piece a year ago about certain “progressives” extolling the virtues of Ron Paul. Just replace “Ron” with “Rand” and it works just as well today.

  • i_a_c

    When you’ve resorted to parsing words to justify your paranoia I think you’ve lost the argument.

    And… “combat” means protest and dissent? What the fuck are these people on?

    • i_a_c

      To add to this, Greenwald is saying that Holder “didn’t disclaim” the power to bomb Americans on US soil based on the same word parsing. Good grief. What else does Holder need to disclaim? The power to intern the Japanese?

    • jjasonham


    • GrafZeppelin127

      It’s related to that masturbatory-hero-worship I’ve been writing about today. These people desperately need to cast themselves as, and feel like, mythic heroes, and worship their own heroism. They want to be Beowulf, Gilgamesh or Odysseus; they need a Grendel, a Bull of Heaven or a Poseidon.

      • i_a_c

        They’re pure, you know, or at least they want to appear as though they are. They’re white knights (emphasis on “white”) for the cause of DRONEZ; if you disagree you’re a party apparatchik who refuses to see the Really True Wisdom of Greenwald and Sirota. They are this country’s Great White Hopes (there’s that word again) speaking Really Truth to power. Now jump on board and fear for your lives lest this country turn into a fascist police state.

  • drsquid

    Goldie Taylor is awesome.

    That is all.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Frankly, after 11+ years, I’m getting a little tired of being constantly told, from all sides and all quarters, that I “should be terrified.”

    I don’t want to be terrified. I’m not going to be terrified. You be terrified if you want. Maybe it’s me, but I think being terrified all the time would kind of suck.

    I’m at the point where I don’t care if I get killed by a drone, or an AR-15 for that matter. Bring it on. I refuse to be terrified.

    • KanaW

      If I could rec this comment a dozen times, Graf, I would. I agree entirely. I’m so very, very tired of the fearmongering.

      I flew to visit family in England the month after the first 9/11, and many people asked me with horror, “Aren’t you afraid to fly?”. My response was a shrug, and, “No.” They were even more horrified.

      I’m not sure any more whether it’s cowardice or deliberate manipulation, or some combination of the two, but It sickens me.