Paul wanted, all along, the official stance from the White House regarding the use of drone strikes within US borders.
The White House clarified their stance.
If he then went on and asked about drone strikes outside the US, the chicken gallery would be clucking stuff about "moving the goal posts" and such. Maybe, one day, Paul will pull another stunt like this and ask for official policy on overseas drone strikes.
Agreed, Bob. I personally think the drone use internationally is terrifying too, but Paul asked for clarity on the specific issue of drone strikes on Americans, which would violate due process. Assuming he's even remotely like his dad, Paul would be a fierce Constitutionalist, so while his view may be hurray international drones, or boo international drones, his request for clarification was on how the feds could apply drone strikes to US citizens, in the United States. You can lament him for not using the same filibuster to take on big oil, health care, or even ongoing international conflicts, but his point was regarding a specific issue, and one that Holder finally had to clarify, pretending like his first letter already did that, when it clearly did not.
I just don't get usickme's point (?) that we shouldn't celebrate Paul fighting for clarification, because that means he tacitly approves international drone strikes. I haven't seen anyone accuse him of that politically, in the news, or anywhere else, beyond usickme.
It's not fair to say Paul used the filibuster for just a sliver of good, so therefore his efforts. Any good from it is a win, especially considering our Congress was involved, and a member of Congress actually achieved a positive goal. That's a rarity these days.