Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2013, 10:36:04 AM
-
He's right. She should have been fired.
Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton: 'I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post'
The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson Posted: 01/23/2013 11:39 am EST | Updated: 01/23/2013 12:12 pm EST
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility," said Paul. "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 Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable," he said, referencing Clinton's comments that she had not read all of the documentation surrounding the attack.
"I think we can understand you're not reading every cable," Paul said. He added that he didn't suspect Clinton of "bad motives" but said that it was a "failure of leadership."
Clinton responded, "I am the Secretary of State. And the [Accountability Review Board] made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the Assistant Secretary level and below."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) rebuked Paul in the next exchange. "If some people on this committee want to call this tragedy the worst since 9/11, it misunderstands the nature of 4000 plus Americans lost in the War in Iraq under false pretenses."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-hillary-clinton_n_2534120.html
-
These leftist thugs never take responsibility for their failures.
The families of the dead will never get answers from this cabal in DC
-
He's right. She should have been fired.
Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton: 'I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post'
The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson Posted: 01/23/2013 11:39 am EST | Updated: 01/23/2013 12:12 pm EST
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility," said Paul. "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 Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable," he said, referencing Clinton's comments that she had not read all of the documentation surrounding the attack.
"I think we can understand you're not reading every cable," Paul said. He added that he didn't suspect Clinton of "bad motives" but said that it was a "failure of leadership."
Clinton responded, "I am the Secretary of State. And the [Accountability Review Board] made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the Assistant Secretary level and below."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) rebuked Paul in the next exchange. "If some people on this committee want to call this tragedy the worst since 9/11, it misunderstands the nature of 4000 plus Americans lost in the War in Iraq under false pretenses."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-hillary-clinton_n_2534120.html
He's 100% right. Good for him for saying it.
-
-
What a savage.
-
why no outcry for the embassy's raped under bush, multiple ones? this teamster issue is the problem. You can't cherry pick what attacks you will care about depending on which way you lean politically.
-
why no outcry for the embassy's raped under bush, multiple ones? this teamster issue is the problem. You can't cherry pick what attacks you will care about depending on which way you lean politically.
We can't hate Bush and Obama? ???
-
why no outcry for the embassy's raped under bush, multiple ones? this teamster issue is the problem. You can't cherry pick what attacks you will care about depending on which way you lean politically.
Maybe because that's not a current issue? Newsflash - Bush isn't in office, and he hasn't been for almost half a decade. Just because he was a shit ass President doesn't somehow excuse the current crop in office of their fuckups.
-
why no outcry for the embassy's raped under bush, multiple ones? this teamster issue is the problem. You can't cherry pick what attacks you will care about depending on which way you lean politically.
If you were a little brighter you might understand that the mere fact it was attacked is not the sticking issue.
-
rand paul pres hahahahahahahahaa yeah ok he's doing a little wishful thinking
-
rand paul pres hahahahahahahahaa yeah ok he's doing a little wishful thinking
Yea....like anyone is going to prevent any embassy from being attacked. Terrorists don't play by rules...they attack schools, churches, funerals, children....etc. Rand Paul is a dickhead
-
Yea....like anyone is going to prevent any embassy from being attacked. Terrorists don't play by rules...they attack schools, churches, funerals, children....etc. Rand Paul is a dickhead
LOL!!!!!
Yet you are the same moron calling for gun control here as if criminals play by the rules! LOL!!!! Criminals dont play by the rules, they attack homes, old people, children, funerals.
Obama and that C U N T Hitlery are dickheads.
-
Yea....like anyone is going to prevent any embassy from being attacked. Terrorists don't play by rules...they attack schools, churches, funerals, children....etc. Rand Paul is a dickhead
Prevention is not the issue being disputed; it's the RESPONSE we're criticizing.
-
Prevention is not the issue being disputed; it's the RESPONSE we're criticizing.
Shh. We don't like your logic around here.
-
paul seems to be back peddling a bit
"Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Clinton said. "What difference, at this point, does it make? It our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
Paul concurred.
"I think she has a little bit of a valid point," he said in an appearance on CNN. "It's not so important whether or not it was movie or what it was. I think what's important, though, in going forward is it not happen again and I think the review board still doesn't get it. I think that we need to have a military commander. We need a Department of Defense in charge of security for embassies in a war zone and nobody has recommended that and I think that's where the ultimate failure is. She has a point about the movie and all of that."
-
paul seems to be back peddling a bit
"Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans?" Clinton said. "What difference, at this point, does it make? It our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
Paul concurred.
"I think she has a little bit of a valid point," he said in an appearance on CNN. "It's not so important whether or not it was movie or what it was. I think what's important, though, in going forward is it not happen again and I think the review board still doesn't get it. I think that we need to have a military commander. We need a Department of Defense in charge of security for embassies in a war zone and nobody has recommended that and I think that's where the ultimate failure is. She has a point about the movie and all of that."
Leftists will defend any lies coming from their slave masters.
-
urban
dictionary
1.
Foxbot
Someone whose mind has been programmed by Fox News and all they can do is regurgitate hyperbole.
Bill is all liberal this and liberal that
-
Hillary Clinton to Rand Paul.
and just who are you?
oh, thats right.
a weeny.
-
Hillary Clinton to Rand Paul.
and just who are you?
oh, thats right.
a weeny.
Hillary has been a lying snake and a con woman her entire life.
-
If John McCain Knew About Benghazi Security Issues WHY DIDN'T HE SAY OR DO SOMETHING?
During the Senate hearing into the Benghazi attack, Senator John McCain grilled Hillary Clinton about cables she read, when she knew they needed more security, and what the administration was doing during the attack and after, why the President didn’t disclose sensitive information to the public regardless of what the Intellgience asked for, etc. In the midst of this questioning, John McCain says that he knew Chris Stevens well, and that on July 7th, Stevens expressed to McCain his “deep and grave” concerns over security in Libya.
Senator McCain: “You knew Chris Stevens very well. I knew him very well. I knew him on July 7th when I went to Libya to observe the elections and at that time, on July 7th, he expressed to me his deep and grave concerns about security particularly in Benghazi. He continued to communicate with the State Department and I don’t know who else as proven in those cables of his deep concern about the security there and the need for additional assistance.”
Why didn’t McCain do something about this information? He certainly knows Hillary Clinton well enough to have sent an email. He knew the House Republicans were holding up funding for security in Libya. Why didn’t McCain say anything then?
House GOP Was Warned Their Obstruction on Libya Would Embolden Our Enemies
http://www.politicususa.com/fy-republicans-truth-obama-libya-undermined-american-interests.html
Conservative policy makers were so alarmed by House Republicans’ actions that they wrote them a letter, warning them that they were emboldening the enemy. They summed their letter up with this, “To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests.” Surely McCain remembers his friend Lindsay Graham (R-SC) saying House Republicans obstructed Libya because Obama was President. Should McCain not be held to the same standards to which he’s holding the Secretary? It’s not like McCain is not on the Sunday talk shows almost every other weekend. Certainly if McCain had information he thought was relevant, he could have raised a fuss on TV. He could have brought attention to the matter. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even brought up the congressional holds to aid to Libya and the House holds on bilateral security assistance:
Hillary Clinton:
“With respect to helping the Libyans, and that also goes to the question Sen. Rubio asked, we will provide a list of everything we were doing and were attempting to do, but I will also tell you that since March 2011 congressional holds have been placed for many months for aid to Libya. We’ve had frequent congressional complaints. ‘Why are we doing anything for Libya? It is a wealthy country. It has oil.’ Disagreement from some sources that we should have never been part of any UN mission in Libya. Currently, the House has holds on bilateral security assistance, on other kinds of support, for anti-terrorism assistance. So we gotta get our act together between the administration and the congress.”
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/john-mccain-admits-chris-stevens-expressed-deep-concerns-benghazi-security.html
-
The ambassador begged for more security many times and was denied by State Dept. FACT
-
Shh. We don't like your logic around here.
Seriously, hardly anyone on this board can DIRECTLY defend a topic. They'll oppose a viewpoint, but their following defense regards something different. :-\
-
Prevention is not the issue being disputed; it's the RESPONSE we're criticizing.
the response was perfectly fine when you look at similar events as a measuring stick. Of all previous embassy attacks this one was actually quickly dealt with in relative terms.
What I think is going on is that the right are creating a scandal where none exists. I think what is being asked for is an impossible especially when you compare it to similar events, there is nothing out of the ordinary. My point about bush was that when similar things, sometimes worse have occurred no one seemed to care, at least not to this degree.
I'm not condoning anything just saying this is clearly teamster politics
-
Prevention is not the issue being disputed; it's the RESPONSE we're criticizing.
We've been responding for 13 fucking years....or maybe we don't have enough Predator drones in the sky. My issue is that the GOP are blaming Hillary for the attacks as if she had joined the Taliban and opened fire on them.
Its not about getting answers....its just partisan politics as usual
-
We've been responding for 13 fucking years....or maybe we don't have enough Predator drones in the sky. My issue is that the GOP are blaming Hillary for the attacks as if she had joined the Taliban and opened fire on them.
Its not about getting answers....its just partisan politics as usual
::)
Well obvious the communist democrats were not seeking answers either right?
-
Seriously, hardly anyone on this board can DIRECTLY defend a topic. They'll oppose a viewpoint, but their following defense regards something different. :-\
We've been responding for 13 fucking years....or maybe we don't have enough Predator drones in the sky. My issue is that the GOP are blaming Hillary for the attacks as if she had joined the Taliban and opened fire on them.
Its not about getting answers....its just partisan politics as usual
Quod erat demonstrandum.
-
Quod erat demonstrandum.
He's not the quickest on the uptick.
-
He's not the quickest on the uptick.
I like Vince. He's a good-hearted guy without a mean bone in his body. But, his post perfectly illustrates my point. We're not talking about any other embassy attacks; just this one, and the circumstances surrounding it.
-
The ambassador begged for more security many times and was denied by State Dept. FACT
It was voted down by republicans because it would mean more spending :P
-
It was voted down by republicans because it would mean more spending :P
Bullshit.
-
Bullshit.
I know.
But if it was on vote they would have voted it down.
Remember the Sandy relief?
-
I know.
But if it was on vote they would have voted it down.
Remember the Sandy relief?
I do remember that pork laden waste. Yes.
-
I do remember that pork laden waste. Yes.
Is there a bill without pork?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/hurricane-sandy-relief-bill/60486/
-
I like Vince. He's a good-hearted guy without a mean bone in his body. But, his post perfectly illustrates my point. We're not talking about any other embassy attacks; just this one, and the circumstances surrounding it.
Hell yea. They'll start yapping about Bush, Reagan, and any other dumb ass thing to distract the subject.
-
“By lip-synching the national anthem, Beyoncé has cast a dark cloud over the President’s second term,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). “The only way President Obama can remove that cloud is by resigning from office at once.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/obama-urged-to-resign-over-beyonc-scandal.html#ixzz2IvwGVWHS
-
“By lip-synching the national anthem, Beyoncé has cast a dark cloud over the President’s second term,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). “The only way President Obama can remove that cloud is by resigning from office at once.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/obama-urged-to-resign-over-beyonc-scandal.html#ixzz2IvwGVWHS
-
:P
-
:P
:D :D :D
-
the response was perfectly fine when you look at similar events as a measuring stick. Of all previous embassy attacks this one was actually quickly dealt with in relative terms.
What "similar events" are you talking about? "Similar" means a sustained terrorist attack on an American embassy, that lasted for hours (about seven hours in this instance), resulting in the murder of four Americans, including an American diplomat.
-
lol
-
“By lip-synching the national anthem, Beyoncé has cast a dark cloud over the President’s second term,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). “The only way President Obama can remove that cloud is by resigning from office at once.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/obama-urged-to-resign-over-beyonc-scandal.html#ixzz2IvwGVWHS
Cool story.
If it's not a big deal then why is this DEMOCRAT still upset about it?
Beyonce has yet to apologize to Chuck Schumer for lip-syncing at inauguration
By TARA PALMERI and TODD VENEZIA
Last Updated: 8:50 AM, January 28, 2013
Posted: 1:48 AM, January 28, 2013
Her phony warbling made Chuck Schumer look like a fool — but she hasn’t apologized to him for it.
The New York senator angrily admitted yesterday that the pop queen has not called him to say sorry after she turned last week’s inaugural bash into an unexpected Milli Vanilli concert by lip-syncing “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
“I have not heard from her before, during or after,” a testy Schumer told The Post after he was asked if Beyoncé had called him to give a musical mea culpa. “She did not talk to me at all. I didn’t say any words to her, period.”
(http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2013/01/28/news/web_photos/28.1n015.beyonce--300x300.jpg)
-
“Sen. Schumer promised Beyoncé, but he delivered Milli Vanilli instead,” quipped one Republican congressional aide last week.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So, Beyonce is white, now?
-
When I took Hillary Rodham Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, I told her that if I had been president at the time, I would have relieved her of her post. Some politicians and pundits took offense at my line of questioning.
During those hearings, I reminded Mrs. Clinton that multiple requests were sent to the State Department asking for increased security measures. I asked if she had read the cables from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens asking for increased security. She replied that she was busy and had not read them. I find that inexcusable.
Four months later, we are hearing that Mrs. Clinton allegedly withheld information from a counterterrorism bureau during the response. We are hearing new allegations that Special Forces wanting to respond during the attacks were told, “You can’t go” by superiors. Ambassador Stevens‘ deputy, Gregory Hicks, testified this week that he spoke with Mrs. Clinton on the night of the attack, when these orders were given. We are hearing that Mr. Hicks was initially told by the State Department not to meet with congressional investigators.
We are, again, hearing allegations that contradict the White House’s story.
Benghazi security was a life-and-death matter that resulted in the latter. The notion that high-ranking government officials are somehow beyond reproach, as some suggested during my criticism of Mrs. Clinton, is dangerous and wrong.
The secretary of state’s responsibility is to protect our diplomats. Mrs. Clinton should have been relieved of her post for denying pleas for additional security. Almost 20 years ago, President Clinton’s secretary of defense was relieved of his post for a similarly bad decision.
In early October 1993, a battle between U.S. forces and Somali militia in Mogadishu left 18 Americans soldiers dead, 80 wounded and two American helicopters shot down. Today, this is remembered as the Battle of Mogadishu or more popularly, “Black Hawk Down,” thanks to a subsequent movie of the same name.
A month earlier in September, then-Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Colin L. Powell requested soldiers, tanks and armor-plated vehicles to reinforce the mission in Somalia. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin denied these requests. The Associated Press reported the following on Oct. 8, 1993, just days after the Battle of Mogadishu: “Defense Secretary Les Aspin today brushed aside calls for his resignation as ‘the politics of Capitol Hill,’ but conceded that in light of recent casualties, he shouldn’t have rejected a request to send more armor and troops to Somalia last month.”
Two months later, after less than a year of service, Aspin resigned as secretary of defense.
Though Mr. Clinton cited personal reasons for Aspin’s resignation, it was reported widely that he had asked him to step down. Aspin did ultimately accept responsibility for his decisions, saying, “The ultimate responsibility for the safety of our troops is mine. I was aware of the request and could have directed that a deployment order be drawn up. I did not, and I accept responsibility for the consequences.”
By refusing to grant requests for weapons and reinforcement in Somalia in 1993, Aspin made a bad decision, admitted his bad decision, accepted responsibility and eventually left his position as a result of it.
When Ambassador Stevens, Libya’s site-security team commander Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and others made repeated requests for increased security and resources in Benghazi, those requests were ignored. No one denies that these requests crossed Mrs. Clinton’s desk. But virtually everyone involved has denied that they should accept responsibility for the tragedy in Benghazi.
Now there are new allegations, accusations that arguably bear more significance on how this tragedy unfolded. It is imperative that we continue to ask: Who was responsible?
My job as a U.S. senator and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to be part of the confirmation process for high-ranking national security positions as well as review the performance of officeholders. When Aspin made bad decisions in 1993, he testified before the Senate, which examined his job performance, and many gave him a bad review.
Mrs. Clinton was never above a similar job-performance review. When I asked her in January if her resignation meant that she was finally accepting responsibility, the answer never came.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/10/the-moment-of-responsibility-for-hillary-clinton/#ixzz2SuUaqOv1
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
When I took Hillary Rodham Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, I told her that if I had been president at the time, I would have relieved her of her post. Some politicians and pundits took offense at my line of questioning.
During those hearings, I reminded Mrs. Clinton that multiple requests were sent to the State Department asking for increased security measures. I asked if she had read the cables from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens asking for increased security. She replied that she was busy and had not read them. I find that inexcusable.
Four months later, we are hearing that Mrs. Clinton allegedly withheld information from a counterterrorism bureau during the response. We are hearing new allegations that Special Forces wanting to respond during the attacks were told, “You can’t go” by superiors. Ambassador Stevens‘ deputy, Gregory Hicks, testified this week that he spoke with Mrs. Clinton on the night of the attack, when these orders were given. We are hearing that Mr. Hicks was initially told by the State Department not to meet with congressional investigators.
We are, again, hearing allegations that contradict the White House’s story.
Benghazi security was a life-and-death matter that resulted in the latter. The notion that high-ranking government officials are somehow beyond reproach, as some suggested during my criticism of Mrs. Clinton, is dangerous and wrong.
The secretary of state’s responsibility is to protect our diplomats. Mrs. Clinton should have been relieved of her post for denying pleas for additional security. Almost 20 years ago, President Clinton’s secretary of defense was relieved of his post for a similarly bad decision.
In early October 1993, a battle between U.S. forces and Somali militia in Mogadishu left 18 Americans soldiers dead, 80 wounded and two American helicopters shot down. Today, this is remembered as the Battle of Mogadishu or more popularly, “Black Hawk Down,” thanks to a subsequent movie of the same name.
A month earlier in September, then-Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Colin L. Powell requested soldiers, tanks and armor-plated vehicles to reinforce the mission in Somalia. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin denied these requests. The Associated Press reported the following on Oct. 8, 1993, just days after the Battle of Mogadishu: “Defense Secretary Les Aspin today brushed aside calls for his resignation as ‘the politics of Capitol Hill,’ but conceded that in light of recent casualties, he shouldn’t have rejected a request to send more armor and troops to Somalia last month.”
Two months later, after less than a year of service, Aspin resigned as secretary of defense.
Though Mr. Clinton cited personal reasons for Aspin’s resignation, it was reported widely that he had asked him to step down. Aspin did ultimately accept responsibility for his decisions, saying, “The ultimate responsibility for the safety of our troops is mine. I was aware of the request and could have directed that a deployment order be drawn up. I did not, and I accept responsibility for the consequences.”
By refusing to grant requests for weapons and reinforcement in Somalia in 1993, Aspin made a bad decision, admitted his bad decision, accepted responsibility and eventually left his position as a result of it.
When Ambassador Stevens, Libya’s site-security team commander Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and others made repeated requests for increased security and resources in Benghazi, those requests were ignored. No one denies that these requests crossed Mrs. Clinton’s desk. But virtually everyone involved has denied that they should accept responsibility for the tragedy in Benghazi.
Now there are new allegations, accusations that arguably bear more significance on how this tragedy unfolded. It is imperative that we continue to ask: Who was responsible?
My job as a U.S. senator and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to be part of the confirmation process for high-ranking national security positions as well as review the performance of officeholders. When Aspin made bad decisions in 1993, he testified before the Senate, which examined his job performance, and many gave him a bad review.
Mrs. Clinton was never above a similar job-performance review. When I asked her in January if her resignation meant that she was finally accepting responsibility, the answer never came.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/10/the-moment-of-responsibility-for-hillary-clinton/#ixzz2SuUaqOv1
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Good commentary. I think the comparison to Les Aspin is spot on. Ironic too.