 |
| "Let me get this straight! We're STILL talking about this?" |
Courtesy of
National Memo:
Just days after C-SPAN began its Road to White House 2016, frontrunners for the GOP presidential nomination Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have begun blasting the woman they fear they may have to face in less than four years – Hillary Clinton.
While House Republicans are intent on using the tragedy in Benghazi to engage in their ritual witch-hunt of any Democratic president who wins a second term, Paul and Rubio — along with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney – are intent on destroying the reputation of America’s most popular politician, likely in hopes of dissuading her from running.
Desperate, uncontainable fear of a Hillary candidacy is one of the few Republican policies that makes sense.
Last month, Clinton was leading Rubio by a 6-point margin — in Kentucky. Kentucky! Kentucky’s state bird is any bird that’s pooping on a Democrat. In the same poll, Clinton was tied with Rand Paul, who is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.
ABC’s Jon Karl, who reported the revisions, told Politico, “There’s no evidence that Hillary Clinton was aware of what was going on, or in any way tried to direct what was in these talking points.”
So to make a case against Clinton, Paul is blasting the former Secretary of State because she didn’t not respond personally to requests for more security. Based on Paul’s standard, Republicans in the House who cut nearly half a billion from State Department security shouldn’t hold office either.
In my opinion one of the startling things about this Benghazi brouhaha is how nakedly partisan and opportunistic it is, and that either the Republicans don't see that or they don't care that it's so obvious.
In other words they are willing to stick the knife in Hillary's back in broad daylight, and risk being seen doing so, just on the off chance the knife will take her out permanently.
On Sunday former
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Bob Schieffer HE would have responded to the attack on Benghazi in precisely the same manner:
"And, frankly, I've heard, 'Why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare them with the noise or something?' Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."
Gates pointed out that others had suggested that the military could have sent in Special Forces or some other small group.
"Based on everything I've read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous," the former defense secretary observed. "And personally, I would not have approved that."
"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that."
I think "cartoonish impression of military capabilities" just about sums up the Republican party's entire misunderstanding as to how to deal with national security and conflicts in other countries.
It is almost as if they view the military as being made up of a bunch of Chuck Norris clones, with a shirt unbuttoned to their belt line, an Uzi in each hand, and the preternatural ability to dodge every incoming bullet while taking out complete battalions with nary a hair falling out of place.
Perhaps somebody should remind these assholes that the last guy who thought war was just like all of those John Wayne movies damn near destroyed the country while starting one in every place that dared to look at us sideways.
Just another reason why the NEXT occupant of the White House should be a reality based pragmatist and NOT another gung-ho, GI Joe lunchbox carrying, Rambo wannabe.
Yeah, I mean you.
Update: By the way just for shits and giggles perhaps you would like to be reminded of how
the Bush administration responded to calls for a 9-11 commission.
I don't think the word "hypocrisy" does nearly an adequate job of describing he Republican party.
Update 2:
According to Public Policy Polling this Benghazi thing is NOT doing what the GOP is hoping it will do:
PPP's newest national poll finds that Republicans aren't getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton's +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.
Voters think Congress should be more focused on other major issues right now rather than Benghazi. By a 56/38 margin they say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important than continuing to focus on Benghazi, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales should be a higher priority.
Oops that smells like backfire to me.
