Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton: 'I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post'

[Beach Bum]

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

[333386]

These leftist thugs never take responsibility for their failures.   

The families of the dead will never get answers from this cabal in DC

[Fury]

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.

[James]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHh52PRLIcI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHh52PRLIcI</a>

[Shockwave]

What a savage.

[Necrosis]

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.

[P.I.P]

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?

[Shockwave]

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.

[Skip8282]

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.

[blacken700]

rand paul pres hahahahahahahahaa yeah ok  he's doing a little wishful thinking

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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

[333386]

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. 

[Montague]

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.

[Shockwave]

Prevention is not the issue being disputed; it's the RESPONSE we're criticizing.

Shh. We don't like your logic around here.

[blacken700]

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."
 

[333386]

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. 

[blacken700]

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

[chadstallion]

Hillary Clinton to Rand Paul.

and just who are you?
oh, thats right.
a weeny.

[333386]

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. 

[blacken700]

 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
 

[333386]

The ambassador begged for more security many times and was denied by State Dept. FACT

[Montague]

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.

[Necrosis]

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

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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

[333386]

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?