15 votes

WSJ: Rand Paul ‘Unsuitable To Be Commander In Chief’

The Presidential election is heating up! New York Times hits Christie WSJ hits Rand.

- - -

Via The Blaze, because the WSJ's content is locked, unless you have a subscription:

Scathing editorial in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, regarding Sen. Rand Paul‘s (R-Ky.) defense of admitted NSA leaker Edward Snowden:

As President, Mr. Paul couldn’t behave like some ACLU legal gadfly. He’d be responsible for setting standards for the entire security bureaucracy. To offer Mr. Snowden leniency on such terms would send a signal that any federal employee could leak any secret as long as he claims a higher moral cause. …

If Mr. Paul wants to make that case, he can do so in the GOP primaries. We don’t agree, and we doubt the courts or the American public will either. But arguing that Edward Snowden is some kind of national hero shows an unseriousness about national security that would make him unsuitable to be Commander in Chief.

Continue at The Blaze or the Wall Street Journal.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm sure this makes the Arab-hating Glenn Beck VERY happy...

...and he's happy to relate the article.

Whoever WROTE it is UNSUITABLE to be a writer with any credibility.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

IMO

The ethical fault of the WSJ's argument is that it places a higher moral value on government protocol, rather than the divinely endowed yet violated conscience of the individual

WSJ: Rand Paul ‘Unsuitable To Be Commander In Chief’

...and Obama IS suitable?

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

The WallStreet Urinal.....

Nuff said.

Is that your? It's great

Is that your? It's great

The big picture....

Even if certain words or actions of Rand are wrong, at least he is giving attention to the right issues.

The simple fact that these things are in the news is a victory.

To the Wall Street Journal....

....OH REALLY????...So then since obama is the current president,we can assume from his actions,that it is ok to shoot a police officer 5 times,killing him?????

Politically speaking...

It's a legitimate argument; one that Rand will have to address. I am confident he is working on it right now. They have not come up against someone as intelligent and principled as Rand.

It depends on who you talk to.

I don't think so.

Séamusín

Sad State of US Journalism

Unfortunately, the WSJ is not the only source of journalism that thinks diddly squat about American popular opinion. I watched a discussion on Obama's 2013 foreign policy legacy among journalists and an ambassador that aired on PBS Newshour on Christmas. Each person was upset that Obama did not attack Syria, even though Americans were against it. Their greatest fear was that the US was losing diplomatic power because we did not attack. I couldn't believe my ears. I wonder who these journalists are actually serving? The Military Industrial Complex? Below is a link to the segment I'm talking about.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/237309991.html

I am coming to believe our Military Industrial Complex has the power only comparable to the worst dictators of the 20th Century. Our nation desperately deserves a person like Rand Paul as our president who will set humanitarian and civil liberty standards on this evil institution.

But, but I thought the WSJ was a "reputable" news source?

Are they a part of the corporate-run media too? Say it ain't so WSJ! Say it ain't sooo!

/sarcasm

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

News Corp is owner

Same company that owns Fox.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Noooooooooo....

...kidding :)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Rand

ain't Ron.

And that is a GOOD thing! He

And that is a GOOD thing!
He will be trying to win an election, not just educate. Ron was not trying to win, he was trying to open peoples' eyes.

Formerly rprevolutionist

Sounds like a good idea to me, and it's about time

"He’d be responsible for setting standards for the entire security bureaucracy"

Isn't it time they had standards?

SteveMT's picture

Rand has specifically avoided saying that Snowden is a hero.

Rand should aggressively seek a retraction from WSJ. They must see Rand as a real threat to disrupt their current status quo of tyranny. Ergo, manufactured lies.

WSJ has lost any and all

WSJ has lost any and all credibility it ever may have had. this "news"(and yes i use the term loosely)paper is a disgrace to America.

I thought everyone was upset

I thought everyone was upset that Rand wanted to "put Snowden in jail"? Now they're trying to say 'Rand wants leniency for Snowden, and isn't suitable for President'?
1) Divide
2) Conquer

Apples to Oranges

I, and many others here, are upset that Rand Paul wants him to face trial at all and wants to put him in jail, just not for life - how nice.

But, that is a different group of people all together. Your comparison is flawed - sorry.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I think the only way for the

I think the only way for the entire truth to come out is to have a fair trial. I have faith the system will prove Snowden to be a hero. It's already become to big to just sweep under the rug. I'm sure Snowden will have the best legal defense, the truth and liberty movement can afford, to help his cause.

I think that is the problem

There is no way in Hell the fascists that control the government will let the trial be "fair". They'll probably torture him first like they did with Bradley Manning. He'll be treated as a hero by being disappeared into a prison for a long time. The only thing that would be acceptable is for the Obama Justice Department to issue a Whistleblower pardon. Short of that, no way.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

What's an official, "Whistleblower pardon", worth?

When fraudulent audacity has reached this loud a voice, it takes the voices of many to sound as One loudly enough to cancel their lonely proud proclamations.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

OK, back at ya

When troubled masses have extinguished their voice, it is the few, calling loudly to the moon, to carry the voice back.

(Yeah - I don't know what that means either)

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Just asking about your remedy

"The only thing that would be acceptable is for the Obama Justice Department to issue a Whistleblower pardon. Short of that, no way."

Justice from a Department so corrupt would never give a pardon unless there was either some blackmail-leveraged threat, or the reward of their much-needed restoration of some public trust and good will. Their way or no way is usually the way they roll.

Enough of a voice being heard from many, might help them choose good will, but its less than likely in their current hubris maximus!

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Can you tell me what is the

Can you tell me what is the difference between clemency and Snowden going to trial? Will a clemency "gag" Snowden from ever speaking about what he did, what he revealed, or what he learned? Would it prevent him from testifying in front of Congress in the future? Can you imagine what kind of information or how much information would have to be made available to the courts? How much of the leaks would be put into the court as evidence? If you believe in rule of law, how can you tell me that Snowden did not technically break the law? This very article is the reason Rand said what he said about Snowden the way he said it. In the political media circus you will face backlash about the minuscule of details. Do you think Rand is really going to use Snowden as a part of his class-action lawsuit and then just kick him to the curb. You would have to be politically gullible to think the situation or Rands' comments are as black and white as people want to make them to be. This is an obvious divide and conquer move being played out.

SteveMT's picture

Thanks, Mohusk. You repeatedly remind me of our roots.

When I think of what this place and our standards were not so long ago, I'm aghast. You remind me of our days when nothing got a free pass and everything got scrutinized; there was crystal clarity.

My two favorite cynics

Cynics have the hardest time getting along with each other, and very often fail against a common enemy of faith.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Amazing what people

will do for money. I think the majority of American's side with Rand. Fortunately, very few people read the WSJ or care what they think. And, after this hit piece, fewer will read the WSJ.

WSJ=Fox=Rupert Murdoch/Saudi

WSJ=Fox=Rupert Murdoch/Saudi Arabia/Israel=Propaganda

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed