Quantcast

«

»

Jan 24 2013

Senator Paul, you are no Barack Obama

Republicans finally got their show trial with Hillary Clinton on Wednesday. It’s more than a day late and a dollar short, most of us have forgotten how the crazy spiel even went. If memory serves, democrats, led by evil mastermind Barack Hussein Obama, covered up the possibility of Al Qaeda linked terrorists behind the attack in Benghazi that left two diplomats and two bodyguards dead. The purported motivation driving the cover up? I’m actually chuckling as I write this part: anything hyping Al Qaeda as a deadly terrorist organization hell bent on killing innocent Americans would have been so bad for a President’s public approval rating that Obama had to have it suppressed (WE all remember how Bush’s numbers nose dived after 9-11 right?). Things didn’t go quite like conservatives fantasized:

Link – Citing a report by the department’s Accountability Review Board on the security failures that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, during an attack last year, Clinton said the board is pushing for an increase in funding to facilities of more than $2 billion per year.

“Consistent shortfalls have required the department to prioritize available funding out of security accounts,” Clinton told the Senate this morning, while again taking responsibility for the Benghazi attack. “And I will be the first to say that the prioritization process was at times imperfect, but as the ARB said, the funds provided were inadequate. So we need to work together to overcome that.”

IOW, you teaparty idjits and your small government mythology is not just ignorant and duplicitous, it’s fatal for people who depend on emergency government resources to survive. Expect a lot more people to die because of it. Like state department staff serving in lawless and notoriously hostile regions of the world.

The Benghazi conspiracy was cooked up during election season, but it never really caught wind and sailed under its own power. Republicans still went through the motions, they had to after pitching it so hard last year, but you can tell watching the video, most of them just weren’t that into it any more. Think of a super low budget porn clip of poorly paid, talentless, bored actors and actresses trying to sell excitement and passion on the 35th take and you get the idea. There were a few stand outs though, this gift from Sen Rand Paul might have been my fave:

WaPo — “Had I been president at the time” and known that Clinton had not read cables from Libya asking for more security, “I would have relieved you of your post,” Paul said. “I think it’s inexcusable.” Paul has said he is interested in running for president in 2016.

Buahaha! Oh, poor Rand Paul. Is it possible he really doesn’t understand? Paul never had a chance to be President of the United States, and now the closest he will ever come was the few feet separating him from Hillary Clinton on the day he almost topped Dan Quayle’s national televised idiocy: Senator Paul, you are no Barack Obama.

10 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    New England Bob

    Rand Paul is the IQ challenged son of the odious Ron Paul who ran for president.

  2. 2
    Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew

    Ron Paul is an interesting guy. he pays homage to more traditional GOP nonsense than some of his acolytes would like to admit. He pretends or actually believes in some real nuttiness. But he also sometimes makes a hell of a lot more sense than the average Republican, even on real sensitive subjects, and seems open to new ideas more than his peers. Alas, his demon spawn son is way more teaparty grifter Paul and way less one in a million indy Paul.

  3. 3
    Gretchen

    Indeed. Regardless of what else you could say about Ron Paul, he’s a wonderful embarrassment to Republicans who support the war on drugs and war in general while declaring themselves to be pro “small government.”

  4. 4
    busterggi

    Would Rand Paul have fired Condi Rice for lying about wmd?

    Would Rand Paul have fired Brownie for doing “a heckuva job”?

    Of course not, no Rethug would have or even raised the possibliby.

    Just playing politics badly.

  5. 5
    Hermit Ladee

    “Paul never had a chance to be President of the United States, and now the closest he will ever come was the few feet separating him from Hillary Clinton on the day he almost topped Dan Quayle’s national televised idiocy”

    Your name should be Zinger instead of Zingularity. That was a heck of a Zinger right there! You really nailed it. Thanks!

  6. 6
    M can help you with that.

    I wonder if Rand Paul follows his father in all the positions that the supposedly-not-reactionary Ron Paul fans never want to mention…

  7. 7
    Reverend PJ

    I’m not sure when it’s acceptable to indicate you’re considering a run for president, but the week of inauguration seems a bit early.

  8. 8
    tacitus

    But he also sometimes makes a hell of a lot more sense than the average Republican, even on real sensitive subjects, and seems open to new ideas more than his peers.

    And yet, if he were ever to become President he would wreak more havoc on the Executive branch of the Federal Government than any normal (using the term loosely) Republican would ever do.

    At most, most bog-standard Republicans who run for President don’t believe that the Federal government does much good. Ron Paul, on the other hand, believes it is actively working against the interests of the American people. He would be somewhat hamstrung by the legislature and the courts, but if you thought the laissez faire approach of Bush II was bad, it would be nothing compare to what Ron Paul would try.

  9. 9
    Hershele Ostropoler

    @7:
    Christie’s been indicating it for a while, though.

  10. 10
    dmcclean

    The part where Paul made the ludicrous claim that the Benghazi attack was the “worst tragedy since 2001″ was even more over the top.

    I could easily list dozens of worse tragedies from the top of my head, and with a bit of research could probably list several hundred.

Leave a Reply