Rand Paul’s Irrelevant Response to Texas Shootings

In the wake of the attack on a Draw Muhammad event in Garland, Texas, Republicans are offering all kinds of blame (it’s Obama’s fault, of course) and all manner of solutions (vague ones that they already supported, of course). But Rand Paul misses the mark completely:

Paul, May 5: Absolutely, it’s terrorism. I think it’s an example of how we do need to secure our border. I’m not sure where they came from but we do need to secure our southern border.

Van Susteren: They’re Americans.

Paul: We still need to secure our southern border. The other thing I would say, though, is we also need to secure who visits us in the country. And apparently, one of them had already been investigated over time. Maybe those who have been investigated need to be followed a little more closely.

Both men were born and raised in this country. This is perhaps the George W. Bush habit applied to domestic policy. We were attacked by Saudis? We better invade Iraq. Two born-and-raised Americans acted violently? We better close off the borders. NASA spend money on something you didn’t like? Better cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture. Genius.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Trebuchet

    But they had dark skin, so not real Americans.

  • eric

    Maybe those who have been investigated need to be followed a little more closely.

    The US government needs to spend more time and effort investigating suspicious activity by American citizens? How very libertarian of you.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    No price is too high to pay to Keep Us Safe®, no matter how many people we need to watch who aren’t me. Sure, other people, some innocent, will no doubt be caught up in a Kafkaesque web of government opacity and incompetence, but as long as those people continue to not be me (and, besides, those “innocent” people who get spied on must be guilty of something, on account of them raising suspicion of themselves in the first place) I firmly stand behind Our Security State, who can do no wrong as long as they don’t look at me.

     

    I’m still going to complain about airports, though, but I’m going to blame it on unions for some reason. Even Newark Liberty, which is a terrible airport for multiple reasons beyond the TSA.

  • Synfandel

    He was talking about people visiting the country across its southern border with Phoenix, Arizona.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    At least he didn’t use it to justify tax cuts for the rich. Yet.

  • blf

    At least he didn’t use it to justify tax cuts for the rich.

    The 1% are the only TruAmericlans and the rest are all invading scum to be exploited and expelled. It says so in Teh Real Conchristian! Written by King “Jesus” James — in Olde Americane — himselves!

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    “At least he didn’t use it to justify tax cuts for the rich.”

    He doesn’t have to. EVERYTHING justifies tax cuts for the rich.

  • busterggi

    I predict that Rand Paul will be the next Ron Paul.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ busterggi : I predict he won’t even be that good!

  • StevoR

    We were attacked by Saudis? We better invade Iraq.

    In fairness, actually the USA was’nt attacked by Saudi’s – it was attacked by Al Quaida many of whoem (but not all* – were Saudi nationals but who were also fighting against Saudi Arabia – rather staggeringly because the Saudi’s weren’t extreme enough and were allied with the USA.

    Also there were a number of reasons for the invasions on Iraq mainly the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s which turned out to be false and his tyranny over the Iraqi people and the regional threat he posed.

    Or as the relevant wikipedia page puts it :

    The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove “a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.”[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: “to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it.”[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was “the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations”.[3]

    Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

    Now, okay, harbouring and supporting terrorists is there but not any definite statement about 9-11 although that is kinda implied and I do suspect that had 9-11 NOT happened the invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have occurred so .. anyhow, just saying its not actually that simple. It certainly didn’t work out as planned and was a huge mistake in hindsight and as many anti-war activists argued at the time.

    But let’s try to get facts right shall we please?

    * The leader of the 9-11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta was Egyptian, two were from the United Arab Emirates and one was from Lebanon. (Wikipedia)

  • StevoR

    NASA spend money on something you didn’t like? Better cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture.

    Actually NASA’s earth science budget is to be gutted if the repubs get their way ..

  • StevoR

    See :

    A passel of anti-science global warming denying GOP representatives have put together a funding authorization bill for NASA that at best cuts more than $300 million from the agency’s current Earth science budget.

    At worst? More than $500 million.

    Source : http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/30/nasa_budget_gop_committee_wants_to_slash_and_burn_earth_sciences.html

    They may well be cutting the budget of the Department of Agriculture too -but NASA and especially its climate science related projects are definitely directly getting slashed and attacked as well.

    NB. I am broadly in agreemnet with the main gist of the OP here and with Ed Brayton generally but being pedantic and pointing out a few salient facts that I think need noting here as well.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    At least he didn’t use it to justify tax cuts for the rich.

    Did he say anything about spending more money to “secure our southern border,” or “secure who visits us in the country” or investigate people who are already being investigated?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Also there were a number of reasons for the invasions on Iraq mainly the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s which turned out to be false and his tyranny over the Iraqi people and the regional threat he posed.

    That “belief” you speak of was not “mistaken,” it was pure fiction, based on long-obsolete information and sources the warmongers knew (or should have known) were not credible. Also, the “tyranny” and “regional threat” arguments were no less applicable to MANY other countries, not just Iraq.

    The “reasons” for the Iraq war were pure bullshit, long before subsequent experience proved them wrong. Get your head out of your ass and drop the tired neocon rationalizations already.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #14

    Also, the “tyranny” and “regional threat” arguments were no less applicable to MANY other countries, not just Iraq.

    Especially Israel, right Bee?

  • StevoR

    @14. Raging Bee : So you think its bullshit that Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN Resolutions and a monstrous tyrant who committed appalling crimes against his own people – to say nothing of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs also living in Iraq under his rule? Interesting, if predictably historically inaccurate of you there Raging bee.

    (I know you can’t read that well, Raging Bee and thus probably suck at research but do you really know absolutely nothing about who the Late and unlamented Saddam Hussein was and how he behaved to so many people?)

    As for not being credible, well, I guess that’s why leaders all around the world accepted it as true then I suppose including Tony Blair, John Howard (Australia’s then PM) and, well, plenty of others all around the world?

    PS. Incidentally it most certainly was “mistaken” unless you care to explain where the WMDs actually are and how come you (& seemingly you alone now) know that as you are apparently suggesting otherwise and thereby saying that Bush II was right all along!

  • StevoR

    PPS. Before the Iraq War started, Raging Bee, Saddam Hussein was offered the opportunity to flee into exile with his sons and avoid the whole mess also saving his life. He didn’t take that opportunity – any great insight on your part into why and thoughts on what would’ve happened had he done so? (Don’t worry I won’t expect too much of you!)

  • Kermit Sansoo

    StevoR: PS. Incidentally it most certainly was “mistaken” unless you care to explain where the WMDs actually are and how come you (& seemingly you alone now) know that as you are apparently suggesting otherwise and thereby saying that Bush II was right all along!

    .

    Raging Bee seems pretty clearly to be claiming that Bush et al were lying (“pure fiction”) rather than making an honest mistake. How do you conclude that he was therefore agreeing with Dubya?