Just keep talking, Sen. Rand Paul
Barb Shelly
The response to Hillary Clinton’s testimony before Congressional committees on the Benghazi terrorist attack is a textbook illustration of the finely honed ability amongst our political factions to interpret the same event in completely different ways.
Democrats will tell you that Clinton dismantled GOP critics and ate the lunch of Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who pressed on the question of why the administration initially characterized the attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city as a spontaneous mob outbreak sparked by an Internet movie.
“What difference, at this point, does it make?” Clinton asked angrily. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”
Republicans will tell you that Clinton was obviously trying to evade responsibility. Johnson went so far as to say that Clinton’s plan all along was to become emotional so she wouldn’t have to answer questions.
Obviously, we must make our diplomatic facilities more secure. Clinton says that is being done and there is no reason to doubt her. Beyond that, I think we will just have to disagree on the significance of the Benghazi attack in the grand scheme of global events and leave it at that.
Just one postscript, though. GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky made some news by telling Clinton that, had he been president, he would have fired her over Benghazi. He then proceeded to trot out a conservative conspiracy theory about the U.S. somehow being involved in moving weapons out of Libya into Turkey.
“It’s been in news reports…” Paul said. Which is only correct if you consider anonymously sourced rumors on Fox News and conservative web sites to be news reports.
Prediction: Rand Paul will never be in a position to fire a secretary of state. But if he wants to run for president, and word is that he does, Clinton and the Democratic National Party would love to see him muck up another Republican primary.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 3 weeks agoAs a yellow-dog Democrat, I stand ready to make the firat contribution ot the Rand Paul for President Campaign. And since it will only be a buck, I don’t think he has to use my name in his disclosures — and embarrass us both!
PLEEEEEEZE, proceed, Senator. Make the mistake of confusing the Rush/FOX paranoid talking point of the hour with actual facts.
Most GOP Senators (like Blunt) are smart and don’t really believe the manure they are forced to shovel to survive their primaries. Paul is not dumb, but is a true believer. Even Paul Ryan has gotten over that sophomoric Ayn Rand nonsense — but RAND (!) Paul is still caught in it.
Won’t the 2016 GOP Debates be FUN!
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoBarb, you said we have to just disagree and leave it at that. In other words, do nothing. No, that’s not how it works. It should matter to you that the WH told us things that were not true and now they are saying it doesn’t matter that what they said wasn’t true. Do you really agree with that? Really?
Steven Fetter
66223
3 months, 3 weeks agoNo big deal US ambassadors and elete marines are killed every day. No story here, just suspend disbelief on your doubts and move on.
The Fourth Estate died 4 years ago with a collective thrill going down their respective legs.
Matt Henry
3 months, 3 weeks agoI really do think that it is impossible at this point for people not to realize that there was a politically motivated coverup of what happened in Benghazi. The question is does it matter or are you more motivated by politics? There was an election coming that was tight and a foreign policy embarrassment for the President could have tipped the balance, so they covered it up as long as they could until it fell apart. No surprises here.
What Hillary was saying when she said “what difference does it make at this point” was in reference to how this cover-up relates to improving security in the future. That’s true enough. But the cover-up is part of this story, and if her department and the White House colluded to cover up the true nature of the event for political reasons, is that not an element worth investigating? We’ve been told for all the years since Watergate (a blip of a dumb little crime the President didn’t even know about) that the cover-up (which Nixon did in spades) is just as bad or worse. Heck, Nixon resigned over the cover-up of something much, much less terrible. Now we are supposed to turn our heads and look away.
The obviousness of this cover-up and the shallowness of the defense (the rose garden “terrorist” thing for example, which was totally lame) is a litmus test for me. If you think it’s no big deal, you are so partisan that you are willing to be complicit in a cover-up, and your opinion is not to be trusted.