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.

"as long as he claims a higher moral cause"

In other words, choose the "lower moral cause" and you'll do just fine. Ugh.

meekandmild's picture

WSJ unsuitable to be news media.


The simple answer is that

The simple answer is that Snowden was following the higher of two conflicting laws, the US Constitution.

That is exactly what Daniel Ellsberg said

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden didn't take an "oath of secrecy." He swore "to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S...

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

I have a problem with that

We hear this a lot, that Snowden swore and oath to the Constitution, especially from people in the liberty movement.

But, didn't Snowden work for a private contractor, a private company? I doubt he had to make an oath at all, much less to the Constitution. I could be wrong, but seems logical. I am a Snowden fan, and I think he was looking out for the Constitution and our rights, I just don't like misinformation being part of an argument.

"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

You are correct

As a private contractor, there is no oath taken at Booze Alan. I believe Snowden did work for the CIA directly before where he would have taken this oath. I think. Not sure what they do over there.

I think this is a more ideological oath than and actual one that he is keeping to. Just like many of people here who are involved in this movement hold to the ideological oath.

Then again, I am Canadian so WTF do I know.

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



WSJ Only fit for parrot droppings.


Free includes debt-free!

my parrot won't even sh_t on that rag

my parrot won't even sh_t on that rag

Don't worry...I will.

Don't worry...I will.

Doesn't the American People agree with Rand Paul's position?

So, in other words, agreeing with the American People on issues of national security renders a candidate unsuitable for the office of President?

This is probably the reason that the WSJ

has it's panties in a bun:

Rand Paul Moves to Repeal Iraq War Law

(Not to mention that now he's got a beard.)

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.