Up | March 09, 2013
>>> the proposition being debate debated, is this is some changing of the guard ? some fissure within the conservative coalition ?
>> i don't think so. i think what's really important to note here, i think your point about political grandstanding is in part right. so while i agree with laura, very much so it's been critically important to have this information surface. and that there's no question that the filibuster helped it to surface because the administration's not been sufficiently transparent which is a problem. but at the same time, you know, the issue was whether brennan should be cia chief. and, you know, i think as kiron said, he got a pass. we kind of got deflected on this highly hypothetical issue which we should debate. by the way, congress has many mechanisms to debate, short of a filibuster that actually takes on both the constitutional questions and the questions of the war powers act . and things that actually we should be discussing.
>> what i would say, the paul -- i thought the rand paul filibuster was at its best when he got to the broader issues about how long should we be in the war on terror . he actually, to rand paul 's credit, introduced something in the senate to repeal iraq authorization of military force . in the house, barbara lee has introduced a bill to repeal the 2001 use of military force which is of course, cited in the white paper that we got for targeted killing . it was cited throughout. i would like to see rand paul follow up on this rhetoric by introducing a bill in the senate.
>> if alal awlaki were sitting in a cafe.
>> he does move within the party, the bounds of permissible decent. in 2002 , 2004 , as a conservative in good standing, i and my boss bob know vac opposed the iraq war . my boss got called unpatriotic by doing it. twitter provides this immediate feedback mechanism , all the republican senators say, wait a second, this is seen as unpopular. some of them on the floor said, you should see what's happening on twitter. so now it's acceptable at least.
>> can i just say this in the olympics of disingenuousness, we have the silver and gold and bronze here. michele bachmann . jennifer reuben who basically thinks that ahmadinejad is hitler. and we should, essentially, support preemptive war against iran. rand paul 's big moment, 12 hours 51 minutes worth. why he and rubio stand above the crowd. and laura ingraham , mr. president, it's not food poisoning . give me a break.
>> wait a minute, there's nothing against grandstanding. barack obama does it. every politician does it. there's nothing wrong with it but what we've been trying to do for five years, at least, at the aclu, is to get the government to release the olc memos to tell us what the rationale is for targeting an american citizen . and his 16-year-old son. who was killed. who is not accused of any wrongdoing. what are the internal checks and balances. what is the policy based on.
>> sure. and i'm supportive of that throughout.
>> i know. but if rand paul didn't have that filibuster, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.
>> first of all -- factually, i don't think that's true in so far as, the agreement came from d.o.j. to let the members of the senate intelligence committee see the memos heretofore released. that happened before the rand paul filibuster. zbrp b
>> i know. but i'm saying the public awareness of that would not exist.
>> i think what's going on here is really important. when you have someone from the aclu who is basically in concert with the stance that rand paul took. i think it suggests that we're going to see a different kind of coalition arising in the united states about issues of war. how we execute wars. you've got human rights activists who are also asking some of the same questions that rand paul in his best, during the filibuster, if you take the grandstanding away there were some important philosophical issues that he was asking.
>> and it opens up the public debate . it doesn't matter who does it. the fact that we're now talking about how long we're going to be in the long war. are we in a war with terror. what does that mean. it wasn't happening to the administration that had said we are really going to scale back.
>> i just want to be clear on my issue. i've been talking about the issue since we got the show. i absolutely 1,000% agree. they haven't been transparent. i don't think we should be in war everywhere all over the globe, killing people. i absolutely agree with you. this has brought focus to it. so all of that is true substantively. i'm in the both end camp. i don't want to be overly sanguine about what this means for american politician . a lot of this is just opportunistic opposition. opportunistic opposition can have incredible salli you tore implications. and let's not forget who controls the political establishment in both parties which is still absolutely 1,000% to the status quo. let me just say, the thing you need to know brennan vote enknow rand paul voted for brennan after this whole thing.
>> when rand paul tried to move that, nonbinding resolution to say it's unconstitutional to kill american citizens on american soil, didn't get their objective. we will not allow a vote on this nonbinding resolution .
>> i agree with you.
>> i think it gives the democrats too much credit. i think they're just as much pro- targeted killing as a --
>> oh, that is absurd. with udall on the senate intelligence committee asked for these documents.
>> but if the administration --
>> leahy signed a letter with grassley, asking for the documents saying these raise grave constitutional concerns.
>> he voted against brennan , too, i should say.
>> and wyden is talking about the due process caucus. including the democrats and republic republicans. so a new caucus is forming. i don't think the democrats were missing in action at all.
>> it misses the point this is in context of filibuster. i don't think we can miss the fact if i were a democrat i'd be sitting here thinking i agree with the way we have this debate and i don't think this is the way we should have it. i think it's oversimplistic to say because they didn't stand and do grand stand --
>> i just want the space to open up. i've just been cynical about whether or not in fact the space is opening up. two examples, one is john mccain and lindsey graham on the floor. two ways to interpret it. one, you can interpret it as their reasserting control over what people think about the issues. and the other is, they're actually kind of threatened. we're going to take a break and we'll come back. graham and paul on the floor. [ watch ticking ] [ engine revs ] come in. got the coffee. that was fast. we're outta here. [ engine revs ] [ female announcer ] research suggests cell health plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day women's 50+ is