Why was it so hard to get an answer?

Were they trying to pull a fast one or were they just unwilling to answer Paul because he annoyed them? [Link]

The administration sparked a furor over the matter earlier this week when, in another letter to Paul, Holder said the administration could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so." Republican outrage peaked with Paul's hours-long filibuster of John Brennan's Senate confirmation to the CIA. The White House stayed mum throughout the filibuster, as did most Senate Democrats.

Carney said Holder's latest letter should ease the "great deal of confusion" over the president's authority over drones in the United States, which is ultimately regulated by the Constitution.

"The president has not and would not use drone strikes against Americans citizens on American soil," Carney said. "The legal authorities that exist to use lethal force are bound by, constrained by, the law and the Constitution. The issue here isn't the technology .... Whether it's a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way."

Paul said later that Holder's letter had satisfied his concerns and that he was prepared to let Brennan's nomination vote proceed.

"Hooray!" Paul said on Fox News, where he learned of the letter and its contents. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question. So there is a result and a victory. Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

Shortly after, Paul said during a CNN appearance that he is "quite happy" with Holder's response, and that he only wished it didn't take so long to get an answer.

"I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it," he said.