We’re now back in the dualing Universes things, on the Benghazzi hearings. \u00c2\u00a0Simply put, I think America is willing to accept a certain amount of mistakes and a certain amount of initial ass-coverings in the course of human events. \u00c2\u00a0But partisans are watching, chaffing at the bit on this one, and, from my Internet forum-land I get a comment on the hoped for Impeachment of Obama.<\/p>\n
Benghazi. I’m hearing heavy things from my “inside source” guy. It’s a far bigger deal than the media is projecting. The gun thing<\/a> is mostly a diversion tactic. Lots of Water Gate type scrambling going on. The “White House tapes” may well be in the form of emails this time<\/em>.<\/p>\n I’ll have to shift through the past to see what other items “Inside source guys” has given out in the past. \u00c2\u00a0I don’t really believe in such a thing as “inside source guy” — Intelligence agencies are full of retired ideolouges. \u00c2\u00a0From a political stand-point, I don’t think a President can be impeached without his \u00c2\u00a0whatever controversy hypothetically taking him down being pulled down into the 30s… and you have to understand that the surest way to ensure a President’s approval ratings stabilize above that is to bring attacks to the level of partisan grand-stander.<\/p>\n Pushing all this aside, my big take-away comes from confrontations with… Rand Paul of Kentucky. \u00c2\u00a0Rand Paul is Ron Paul if we remove the redeeming features. \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0Special to CNN, the author of a positive biography of Pat Buchanan sells it as a “Clash of the Titans”<\/a>.<\/p>\n Given that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was participating, it felt at moments like an audition for 2016 — and\u00c2\u00a0Rubio’s staff put the video of his questions up on his website\u00c2\u00a0with remarkable speed. I like the “have to watch it to get the full effect” line. \u00c2\u00a0Yes, I see… a grand-standing clown… angling to win the hearts and fill joy in the likes of the author of a positive biography of Pat Buchanan. \u00c2\u00a0And, for most of the rest, ending up closer to \u00c2\u00a0“it wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t intimidating but funny<\/a>” — better to say, an eye-roll.\u00c2\u00a0 But at least the “I would have relieved you of your post” has some logic in it, even if it’s transparent politicking. \u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0But it gets a bit weirder from there<\/a>… as Rand Paul goes into the conspiratorial tracks of the right and its echo chamber that hasn’t lept into the mainstream.<\/p>\n Paul, a new member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wasted no time in making a mark on the proceedings. After informing Secretary Clinton that he would have fired her for her role in the response to the attack, Paul came seemingly out of nowhere to ask Clinton about Turkey. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d he asked.<\/em> Well… as Reason’s blogger puts it… Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clington — Campaign 2016 Begins?<\/a> Actually I guess we can say this as a hypothetical across all the Senators on the committee. \u00c2\u00a0Marco Rubio is the favorite, Rand Paul gets the chalk because he’s Paul, and we throw in Rob Johnson because he’s from Ohio and thus is a permanent vice-presidential candidate.<\/p>\n Here’s a Democratic Partisan’s reaction: \u00c2\u00a0Hillary Clinton 69, Rand Paul 10<\/a>. \u00c2\u00a0Basically he’s assigning the favorable ratings of the Republicans in Congress and attaching it to Rand Paul. \u00c2\u00a0Not really a decent exercise, but …<\/p>\n
\n<\/em>But the most impressive performance by far was from Rand Paul. He delivered a cool, withering statement that climaxed in this devastating paragraph\u00c2\u00a0(and you have to watch it to get the full effect<\/strong>):\u00c2\u00a0“I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9\/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador (Christopher) Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.”
\n<\/em>This performance might be — and should be — remembered well by the Republican base when the primary campaign of 2016 starts. Ever since the last president election,\u00c2\u00a0Rand Paul hasn’t set a foot wrong.\u00c2\u00a0From his bridge-building visit to Israel to his opposition to the fiscal cliff deal, he seems well placed to become the tea party candidate<\/em>.<\/p>\n
\nA clearly confused Clinton responded to the best of her ability. […]<\/em>
\n\u00c2\u00a0Clinton responded that Paul would have to take up his question with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the agency running the annex,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d an oblique reference to the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency was\u00c2\u00a0operating out of the building\u00c2\u00a0in question. Paul\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s inquiry about Turkey seems less odd if you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re familiar with Glenn Beck-inspired\u00c2\u00a0conspiracy theories\u00c2\u00a0that have been circulating among right-wing websites since the attacks in Libya<\/em>.<\/p>\n
\nAnd indeed, basically every article has to posit the possibility. \u00c2\u00a0Even though… anyone out there really see Rand Paul winning the Republican nomination in 2016?<\/p>\n