Rand Paul was against the use of drones before he was for the use of drones, but now he’s against them again. Or something.
In a statement released Wednesday, Paul said that his comments left a “mistaken impression” of his actual position on the subject.
“Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations,” he said. “They may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.”
Oh, really?
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him” -Rand Paul, yesterday
Paul couldn’t flip flop more if he was an Olympic diver.
We don’t know what he really thinks. All we do know for sure is that a certain element of the Left is incredibly gullible for having bought into his shtick.
Some of the responses I’ve seen to Paul’s latest remarks from those who engaged in hero-worship after his filibuster have been more dismissive than regretful, as if his latest position(s) are of no consequence to their prior support.
Maybe it’s fair to say that just because you support one position he has taken doesn’t mean you support every position he has taken, but you should understand that, in Paul’s case, women, people of color, and the poor may take offense to that and not necessarily care for your selective ideological petulance. And you should accept the consequences of deifying someone or branding them a “hero” after he reveals that he played you for a fool.
Paul raised $75,000 in less than 24 hours after his filibuster stunt.