As you might recall, I flipped out on Greenwald and law professor Ryan Goodman for attacking Eric Holder for a phrase that was coined by Rand Paul: “engaged in combat.” Quick recap — Paul asked Holder whether the president had the authority to kill American citizens on American soil “not engaged in combat.”
Well, here’s a writer at Salon (fancy that), Falguni A. Sheth, marketing in the same misleading claim:
Given the untrustworthiness of the Obama administration in anything having to do with the Global War on Terror, Holder’s answer should not be reassuring to Americans. What does it mean to be “engaged in combat” on American soil? Does it mean protest? Dissent? Being Muslim and loud? Standing within 50 feet of the White House with a critical sign? In a world where the mainstream media refuses to be critical watchdogs and whistle-blowers are treasonous and betrayers of national security, Holder’s answer may have made Rand Paul happy. But the rest of us, especially if we are remotely critical, should be terrified.
Three words: Ask Rand Paul! The phrase is his!
Talk about untrustworthiness. Why the deliberate deception on this pretty significant detail?
Incidentally, I learned of the Sheth post via David Sirota’s Twitter feed. Not a shocker there. Speaking of which, here’s a fantastic exchange between Goldie Taylor and David Sirota that was sparked when Taylor linked to Chez’s column yesterday. Hilarious.