Rand Paul: The moment of responsibility for Hillary Clinton

[jct74]

PAUL: The moment of responsibility for Hillary Clinton
Her fatal mistakes mirror the disaster at Mogadishu

By Sen. Rand Paul
Friday, May 10, 2013

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.

...

Too many questions remain unanswered. Now, there are too many new questions. The evidence we had in January already suggested that Mrs. Clinton ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. The new evidence we have today — and that continues to mount — suggests that at the very least, Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again.

read more:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

[Warlord]

Love it. The pressure is really building now. Hopefully he follows up in Iowa tonight


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqFtEtpy9G8

[Aratus]

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.

...

Too many questions remain unanswered. Now, there are too many new questions. The evidence we had in January already suggested that Mrs. Clinton ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. The new evidence we have today — and that continues to mount — suggests that at the very least, Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again.

[Mr.NoSmile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...b_3246847.html

While yes, it's from the Huffington Post, here's the counter-argument that many would present to just add credence to the belief that this Benghazi-gate business is, in the eyes of many, a Republican witch hunt. If Clinton were to be hammered for this, I honestly believe it would have been handled by now. Having it done solely by Fox News and folks on the right makes it seem like a witch hunt.

[FSP-Rebel]

One of the main problems here is that the Senate committee, ran by dems, didn't put Sec. Clinton under oath because she likely would've perjured herself when testifying. The 3 aides that testified yesterday were put under oath and that's when many more facts came out that looks damaging to the State dept and Clinton/Obama. Anytime any of these people are called to task over corruption/cover up, "witch hunt" is the commonly used term for the media to use to demagogue the ordeal by portraying the potential guilty parties as victims. It's clear that the MSM writ large doesn't want to investigate nor report on the damning evidence that is and was cultivated during the hearings, just "witch hunt".

[Warlord]

They can't ignore this. They will have to start covering it more fairly as the facts come out.

The BBC are saying this is damaging to Hillary and they're pretty lefty:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...-Libya-Matters

The rest of the US networks will catch up soon

As for Clinton they can call her back, subpena or have Boehner setup a special committee... it's coming.

[jkr]

GOT TREASON?

Why,yes! Yes, i do....

[economics102]

One of the main problems here is that the Senate committee, ran by dems, didn't put Sec. Clinton under oath because she likely would've perjured herself when testifying.

According to Judge Napolitano, the charge of "lying to Congress" carries the same penalties as perjury and it therefore doesn't actually make a difference whether a witness is under oath or not.

[Warlord]

Yeah but the DOJ is not going to pursue a charge against her even if she told outright lies to Congress so it's irrelevant.

Just exposing her and Rice as a liar covering up their tracks is enough to finish her off.

It damages her credibility and prospects of winning an election and if she runs she can expect to get hit with this endlessly along with the families of the dead.

She'll probably re-think running when the GOP is done with her.

Which leaves us with easier meat of Biden. He's reliably dumb and will be easy to defeat plus tainted by whatever else this incompetent administration does

[thoughtomator]

Putting Hillary under oath would simply make a mockery of the oath.

[liberalnurse]

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.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2T4hbnaeT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Nice.

[Warlord]

Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton: I'm Glad You Accept Responsibility For Benghazi


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjuhdDpapH8

[economics102]

[SIZE=3]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjuhdDpapH8

What's kinda funny about this video is Hillary is all smiles at the beginning and probably imagined Rand would be polite and friendly like his father was when he questioned her in the house in the past. And boy was she wrong...

[The Northbreather]

Schooled her down like a bad puppy!

Awesome moment but I had trouble focusing on Hillary with that dark haired woman in view behind Rand

[jtstellar]

clinton articles are almost getting the same comment size

as abortion..same crowd of stay at home women and feminists. it would also be interesting if there is a sharp comment drop off after 5pm

[phill4paul]

Putting Hillary under oath would simply make a mockery of the oath.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are allowed in measures of national security.