[Video] Rand Paul on CNN w/ Erin Burnett discusses Hillary Clinton and Benghazi

[Warlord]

Rand is truly fearless.

Sorry to say "our" congressmen have disgraced themselves.

Ron would be appalled.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I think Rand did a superb job.

He stuck with the substance of what we know, and when he was speculating on weapons being shipped to Syria via the CIA Annex in Libya, he said "I can't prove this, but I wonder,"

The way he handled himself was such that no one could say, "This guy is making stuff up, he's crazy, he's whatever." He was very reasonable and reasoned in everything he said. The only thing I didn't like was that the segment was way too short.

 

[Warlord]

Yes they obviously edited it. Fuckers.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Well they had to make room to show the story about the girl raising the dog to be a guide dog for the blind; that was so important it couldn't wait until tomorrow. So, I guess that's enough from Rand.

 

[supermario21]

What I like about Rand is that he is very sound when it comes to his argumentation. Sometimes Bachmann types or even Cruz get too animated whereas Rand is more cautious and substantive.

 

[FriedChicken]

Rep to whoever gets the tube first.

+1 ... waiting ... reps-a-waiting ... tooooooobie toob toob.

 

[asurfaholic]

still nothing. I have it on TIVO but tv unavailable

 

[jct74]

tube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeukZcPJS1k

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Your the man Jct.

 

[PatriotOne]

Rand needs to be a vicious attack dog and not be gentle -- she is after all his competition come 2016 if he wins the GOP nomination.

As a female, I like his style. Reminds me of a "speak softly and carry a big stick" kind of guy. Infers strength to me if he doesn't become manic.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Good point about Aspin. Hadn't heard that used yet.

Criticism and final days in office

In September, General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aidid's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of two U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot (see the Battle of Mogadishu). In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops. In an appearance before a congressional committee to answer questions about the Somalia disaster, Aspin made an unfavorable impression and appeared weak in response to the detailed probing and criticism of his performance. The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin's resignation.

On 15 December 1993 President Clinton announced Aspin's resignation, for personal reasons. Given the problems that Aspin encountered during his short term, most obviously the losses in Mogadishu, observers assumed that the president had asked him to step down. Speculation in the media centered on the Somalia embarrassment and on Aspin's differences with the Office of Management and Budget over how much the Defense budget should be cut. The secretary's health problems, of course, may well have also been a factor. One news magazine stated that Aspin's major handicap was "neither his famously unmilitary bearing nor his inability to discipline himself or the enormous Pentagon bureaucracy; it is his politician's instinct for the middle ground on defense issues." Aspin continued to serve as secretary of defense until February 3, 1994, when William J. Perry took office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aspin

 

[J_White]

It's going to get much worse trust me

She's not going to survive if Boehner gives in and appoints the special committee which will haul her ass back to Congress to explain herself.

There are also other whistleblowers yet to come forward and the families of the dead are furious with her.

She is under tremendous pressure.

i m truly hoping this will happen. more people need to come out.
maybe someone from the military (though unlikely) needs to directly contest the official version that no help was available.

 

[devil21]

Rand just sold me with that interview. I was sorta ready for him to play talking points that were critical of Hillary but not much about what's really going on in Benghazi. I think I had a Randgasm for the first time when he speculated about CIA gun running. The beauty of his speculation is that it's pretty much record already but not covered widely by the msm. Great interview.

 

[Warlord]

Rand just sold me with that interview. I was sorta ready for him to play talking points that were critical of Hillary but not much about what's really going on in Benghazi. I think I had a Randgasm for the first time when he speculated about CIA gun running. The beauty of his speculation is that it's pretty much record already but not covered widely by the msm. Great interview.

Yes, it's very interesting because he's going a lot further than the GOP dog and pony show in the House by asking those questions.

It shows you that unlike the others he's not following the script and willing to talk about CIA operations and actually provide oversight when most congressmen and senators dont think the CIA exists.

Believe me it does. We see their $100 bills every month!

That's another thing he should ask about: The CIA cash drops in my country. We've been screwing you for 12 years!!

 

[PSYOP]

And this interview is why I'm voting for Rand in 2016 -- he has the balls to call out the CIA for their bull shit.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Comparing this to Somalia is a stroke of genius.

 

[FriedChicken]

I'm continually impressed by Rand. He seems to somehow become the leader of every major issue and as such has sway on the direction of the conversation and he is putting some very important notes in this particular discussion.

bravo.

 

[whippoorwill]

bump.

 

[WD-NY]

And this interview is why I'm voting for Rand in 2016 -- he has the balls to call out the CIA for their bull shit.

Rand just sold me with that interview. I was sorta ready for him to play talking points that were critical of Hillary but not much about what's really going on in Benghazi. I think I had a Randgasm for the first time when he speculated about CIA gun running. The beauty of his speculation is that it's pretty much record already but not covered widely by the msm. Great interview.

Yes, it's very interesting because he's going a lot further than the GOP dog and pony show in the House by asking those questions.

It shows you that unlike the others he's not following the script and willing to talk about CIA operations and actually provide oversight when most congressmen and senators dont think the CIA exists.

Believe me it does. We see their $100 bills every month!

Ace of Spades had a great post on this a few weeks back (copied below) which underscores juts how ballsy/brilliant Rand's interview with Erin Burnett (and positioning towards Benghazi) was/is.

Anyone else seeing similarities between the case Rand is steadily/carefully/incrementally building against Benghazi and the buildup of his case against drones, which eventually culminated in a "virtuoso" performance (re: filibuster) that turned the 'debate' on its head? Now, this obviously isn't leading towards a filibuster, but I am beginning to get the sense that Rand is working a longer game here that will, in the end, could be just as devastating to the pro-invasion/war establishment because several different voting blocks can't help but enthusiastically support some aspect of his position.

• Rand's pitch-perfect tone and the carefully nuanced way in which he introduces and frames his "questions" about gun running to Syria** makes it very difficult for the establishment (re: neocon/neolib/interventionists) to counter.
• Rand's re-framing of the narrative effectively increases the heat on both Clinton (re: "dereliction of duty") and Obama (re: illegal invasion of Libya + gun running op + drone strikes = FAIL, etc.) at both the micro (re: failure to provide security, cover-up, etc.) and macro (re: why did we illegally invade Libya and overthrown Gaddafi, why are we running weapons to terrorist groups, what's the end game?, etc.) levels. This brings the tea-party/conservative base & blogosphere squarely behind him (despite the fact that he's making the case against getting involved with Syria/Libya/etc.).
• Rand's anti-arming-of-rebels-in-Syria kneecaps encourages the anti-war-with-Syria left to also support his position (or at least not attack him for it).

**Before introducing the issue/question of Libya being a CIA gun/weapons running operation, he first establishes himself as 'reasonable/rationale' by focusing in on positions that are more or less incontrovertible to most everyone in the mainstream (e.g. 'I'm focused on what we know for certain... that requests for more security by Stevens were denied and that this unacceptable' <=> 'I support the use of drones against terrorists in the battle field to save American lives'). This helps inoculates him to the average viewer against any attempts by the anchor/"analysts" to paint him with the fringe brush after (or during) the interview.

Next, he introduces the issue of arms running as a story reported on by none other than FOX! the NYTimes and frames many of his points against establishment policy as questions which the viewer can easily answer and that leads them closer to Rand's position (e.g. "Was Benghazi/Libya being used to run arms to islamic extremists fighting in Syria? <=> "Can the president kill an american citizen on US soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court?").


via Ace of Space HQ (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/339387.php):

The Administration is knocking down this story, I believe, via an underhanded method. Here's the deal:

Everyone pretty much knows we were running weapons into Syria via our outpost at Benghzi. This is supposedly "a secret," but everyone and his mother's uncle knows it.

The Administration is keeping the media in line, I believe, by feeding them a fiction that they were required to lie about Benghazi to protect this secret.

Except it's not a secret. There is no one in the entire world who doesn't know this secret. And when I say "know," I don't actually know; I am not privvy to NSA documents. So let's say there is not a person in the world who does not strongly suspect that Syrian weapons were being facilitated by Chris Stevens.

And there's nothing wrong with that. One can disagree with that policy, but one cannot say the president doesn't have the power to order covert operations of this type. Certainly all former presidents have.

But what the White House is doing is claiming that they are only misleading, just a touch mind you, hardly a misrepresentation at all, really, in order to protect this secret -- which is no secret at all -- when in fact they are misleading people to keep the real secret, which their own incompetence, bad judgment, malfeasance, and subsequent lying about the same.

That's why you have people like David Gregory grandstanding by demanding that Republicans answer the question "What do you hope to prove?" He's attempting to bait them into saying something about the weapons-smuggling aspect, which Congressmen can't talk about, it being a state secret and all (except it's not a secret), and he's doing that because he's been spun that the Republicans just want to expose this secret (which is not a secret) and embarrass the president and compromise national security for shits and giggles.

No, that's not it all. Everyone knows what was going on in Benghazi and no one is making an issue of that.

I don't care that we were covertly running guns to Syria. I happen to agree with the policy. Even if I did not, I would concede the president has historically had the authority to conduct such covert missions.

That's not the question at all. I don't care about that. I'm completely willing to let the WH keep that secret (even though it's not a secret), and so are Congressional investigators.

But that does not give license to the Administration to keep Hillary Clinton's lethal fuck-up a secret as well.

The issue is: Given that you were running a covert operation out of Benghazi which everyone knew about, shouldn't you have put some goddamned security around your operatives, rather than leaving them to the wolves?

But the Administration will continue to lie to the press, that the only secret here is something unobjectionable (the covert arms mission), and that Republicans are Big Meanies for trying to expose that, in order to keep the press from asking about the realsecret, which is the egregious decision-making and lackadaisical attitude towards our diplomats' and covert operators' security.

Everybody Knows, Part II: By the way, here's another thing that Everybody Knows: Everybody Knows that every diplomatic mission and embassy and consulate all over the world is stuffed full of spies.

This is not a secret. Every country smuggles its spies into a target country by disguising them amidst a bunch of genuine diplomats.

Not a secret. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that our London Embassy does in fact have CIA officers in it. London knows that. And we know the British Embassy in DC has British spies in it.

It is not a secret. It just isn't. There is literally no one who knows anything about espionage who doesn't know this.

I mean, we do try not to talk about it, as we don't want to get Our Spies into trouble, but everyone knows we have spies in our embassies, just as our enemies -- and also, all of our friends -- have spies in theirs. This is how the business works. And Everybody Knows.

This fact does not give any administration a license to lie about all aspects of a bloody, stupid, thick-headed, arrogant deadly failure. Just because you are allowed to lie about one thing (covert operations) does not grant you carte blanche to lie about all things.

 

[devil21]

Rand's interview looks better each day as new details are allowed to come out. bump