Hunting Hillary

By Max J. Castro

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives held hearings last week purportedly to get at what really happened last year at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where an attack by Islamist extremists killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. The Republicans charge that the Obama administration deliberately misled the public by issuing false information as part of a cover-up to prevent political damage to the president amid an electoral campaign.

There is no question that the Benghazi tragedy resulted from a number of major screw-ups by American officials. But the Accountability and Review Board, appointed to investigate the incident, already had reached that conclusion several months ago. Headed by distinguished retired ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the U.S. Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, the Board’s report, released in December, found that “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department resulted in a level of security that was “inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” In an interview with National Public Radio, Pickering said he believed that at least one senior official lost his job as a result.

So what are these hearings really about? That would be Clinton, as in Hillary. Never mind that the Pickering-Mullen report concluded that the decisions that led to the Benghazi debacle were made at levels far below that of the former Secretary of State, who nevertheless took full responsibility for the failure. That was before the president himself stepped up, and as commander-in-chief, he took full responsibility.

Although the general election is two and a half years away, there is a high degree of consensus among both pundits and politicians of both parties that Clinton would be a prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination if she decides to run. Her popularity, confirmed by extensive polling, is based in part on her performance as Secretary of State, generally considered stellar. Moreover, Hillary would be a formidable candidate in the general election against any Republican candidate. The Republicans, in contrast, have no obvious frontrunner or charismatic star, with the possible exception of Marco Rubio.

But all the possible Republican candidates, including Rubio, have at least two major obstacles. One is that the demographic groups that support the Democrats are growing fast while those who vote Republican are waning. Clinton appeals to the same groups that made up Obama’s winning coalition, including Latinos, regardless of whether Rubio is the Republican candidate. And Hillary will almost certainly do significantly better than Obama with the biggest constituency of all: women.

The other problem for the GOP in 2016 is that all the Republican hopefuls are on record in support of what amounts to the gradual destruction of Medicare and cuts in Social Security, deeply unpopular stands. It doesn’t help that such policies are in large part motivated by the desire to maintain or even reduce ridiculously low tax rates for the very rich. These realities make it imperative for Republicans to pierce Hillary’s halo and to damage Clinton as much as possible by any means necessary.

Clarence Thomas, while undergoing questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings famously called the process “a high tech lynching.” The Benghazi hearings evoke a different deadly ritual, the bullfight. The fighting bull is a magnificent animal, much bigger and stronger than his adversary. Before he can be killed, he must be bled, tired out, weakened. That’s the role of the picador who, mounted on a horse, wounds the bull in the back with a long lance. Then there are the men who stick their sharp banderillas on the bull, further zapping the animal’s strength. All this time the bull is running and fighting to protect himself. It is only than that the matador moves in to taunt the bull with his cape, further tiring him. Now, if the bullfighter is skilled and lucky, he kills the bull.

Thus expect the Republicans to drag out their investigation of Benghazi as long as possible and to look into every nook and cranny hoping to uncover anything they can try to hang on Hillary. After all, they almost succeeded with Bill. After investigating numerous pseudo scandals, from “Whitewater” to “Travel Gate,” they finally stumbled on Monica Lewinsky and parlayed extramarital oral sex into an impeachment. Clinton survived the subsequent trial in the Senate by the skin of his teeth but not unscathed.

Scandalmongering, like thinly veiled racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating is one of the few courses left to a party swimming in money but with barely a handful of policy ideas, all of which favor the interests of at most 10 percent of Americans.

But the Benghazi affair doesn’t have legs. When people as prestigious as Pickering, Mullen, and Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates contradict the damning narrative the Republicans are trying to concoct regarding Hillary Clinton’s role on Benghazi, the credibility of the whole inquiry is called into question.

The preemptive strike the GOP is trying to carry out against Hillary Clinton’s 2016 probable electoral campaign will fade and ultimately fail. The Republicans need a new bag of tricks. The old ones are not working. They also need a new matador for the other side already has one with a very sharp blade.