Rand Paul

Sen. Paul Says Clinton's Benghazi Response Should Prevent Her From Holding Office Ever Again

|

Reason

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has said that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response to the storming of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last year should prevent her from holding public office ever again. Paul made the comments during a speech at the Spirit of Reagan Award Ceremony hosted by the Missouri Republican Party last week.

From TheRun2016:

Sen. Rand Paul said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response to the deadly attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya last fall should prevent her from ever holding public office again.

The Kentucky Republican made the remark last week in a speech to the Missouri Republican Party, which just released a full video of his address in a fundraising appeal Tuesday morning.

During a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing earlier this year, Paul told Clinton that he would have relieved her of her position because she didn't read the cable communications requesting additional help and security in Libya.

Watch Paul's speech at the Spirit of Reagan Award Ceremony below:

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.


NEXT: Cop Shot by Cop Shooting at Dog

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I agree.

    1. If only this were said about so many more politicians.

      1. It can be shouted from the rooftops, but you folks are crazy if you think the Clinton machine can’t bury this by 2016.

        Mistakes were made, procedures have been corrected.

        1. It’s truly bizarre that she’s considered a strong candidate. I’m still flabbergasted that she got a Senate seat.

          1. For some reason that is completely beyond my ability to comprehend, lots of people love her.

            1. It’s the same reason guys at a bar love the trashy girl there:

              She possesses a vagina.

              1. but with the trashy girl, there is the chance for a few laughs and some fun. No one has said that about Hillary.

                1. The rationale for why having a vagina is important in difference in the two cases. But the presence of it is sufficient for the attention in both.

                2. No one has said that about Hillary.

                  Unfortunately, all too many people have said that about Hillary, and if you doubt it, you are a sexist mysoginistic pig.

                3. Definitely no chance for any “fun” with Hillary.

                  1. Unless, of course, you’re some sort of masochist.

            2. It’s because she is a woman and no woman has been president yet. Cosmic justice demands it. Really doesn’t matter who it is (well as long as she isn’t some kinda tea bagger!).

              Hil has the right credentials, namely, that D next to her name.

              1. In other words, as long as she isn’t Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.

        2. “Mistakes were made, procedures have been corrected.”

          And she didn’t do anything wrong and she won’t do it again.

        3. ….but you folks are crazy if you think the Clinton machine can’t bury this by 2016.

          Plan on hearing….What difference does it make….over and over and over again.

          She’s done.

      2. Anyone who wants to be a politician is unfit to be a politician.

        1. Should definitely just start picking randoms out of the phone book; resulting legislation would be far less depressing.

        2. I’ve said this about the Presidency for years: Never vote for anyone willing to run. It would be great if we could draft an unwilling candidate.

          I think you could also make the same case for the police force.

      3. It is a distinctly odd sensation.

  2. At this point, what difference does it make?

  3. A shot across the 2016 bow.

    1. With Joe Biden fired from the cannon!

  4. He just doesn’t want to run against her in 2016.

  5. If it does turn out to be true that the military was available and could have rescued those people but Hillary told them to stand down, I think her career might be done. The other Democrats will use it against her in the primaries.

    The other disturbing but unsurprising thing to come out of this is that Obama was apparently not even called. Hillary and the various White House staff made these decisions. That says about all you need to know about Obama’s own people’s opinion of his intelligence and competence. Clearly, they didn’t think calling the President in would have brought anything to the table. Wow.

    1. Or maybe they were instructed not to call him, because they already knew his agenda, and also needed to provide plausible deniability.

      1. It was right before the election.

      2. I thought of that. But plausible deniability of what? For that to be the case, the plan all along was to not send the military in and let those people die and they didn’t call the President because they didn’t want him getting blamed for it.

        Possible. But why would that be the plan? It seems more likely that they just panicked and were afraid of the risks of sending in a rescue mission and having it fail. So they did nothing and hoped for the best. They didn’t call the President because the President is an idiot and a figurehead and not the person you call in an emergency.

        1. It seems more likely that they just panicked and were afraid of the risks of sending in a rescue mission and having it fail.

          Says a lot about the character of the people involved; I was always told that trying and failing was better than failing to try.

          1. I was always told that trying and failing was better than failing to try.

            and most sane people would agree. I get that mistakes get made periodically despite the best intentions and best planning. By and large, the country tends to be forgiving when bad consequences are not intentional.

        2. They didn’t call the President because the President is an idiot and a figurehead and not the person you call in an emergency.

          You’re supposed to fire two blasts from the shotgun and call 911.

          1. And a lawyer.

      3. If it does turn out to be true that the military was available and could have rescued those people but Hillary told them to stand down,

        If the Secretary of State was somehow inserted into the military’s chain of command then the Obama administration is about 10 times more jacked up than I previously thought it was. The actual stand down order would have to come from someone with command authority, which is what makes me believe that the president was in on this.

        1. damn..

        2. But he wasn’t.

          All he did was field one phone call on his way to a campaign event.

          1. Sort of tells you a lot about the division of labor at the White House doesn’t it?

        3. Wait, was it 3:00 in the morning?

          1. Fuck! I must’ve had the phone on vibrate again!

    2. If it does turn out to be true that the military was available and could have rescued those people but Hillary told them to stand down,

      If the Secretary of State was somehow inserted into the military’s chain of command then the Obama administration is about 10 times more jacked up than I previously thought it was. The actual stand down order would have to come from someone with command authority, which is what makes me believe that the president was in on this.

      1. I think that that is what totally happened. The military was taking orders from the White House that was in turn taking orders from Hillary and maybe a couple of other top people.

        It can’t be said enough here that even though a US embassy was under attack and a US Ambassador was injured and perhaps dying, they never called the President. The shit hit the fan and Hillary and a few other important people got together and decided what to do about it.

        Yeah, the Obama Administration is completely dysfunctional.

        1. I read a report (can’t remember where now), that Obama met with Panetta when trouble started brewing and basically told Panetta to do whatever needed to be done to take care of things. Obama then headed for the CA fund-raiser.

          So BHO delegated authority & the delegatees screwed the pooch. As John notes, even if that is the truth, it’s still dysfunctional. The president hears about an attack on a US embassy then does a Pontious Pilate.

          1. It is pretty astounding. And remember these same people thought Bush was incompetent because upon hearing about 9-11, didn’t immediately leave a group of first graders and run out of the room in panic.

            How does someone hear about a US embassy being attacked and think “hey Leon, you handle this one I have some grip and grin photos to do”? I don’t think Obama even likes being President.

            1. I don’t think he likes the minutiae & I really don’t think he likes having to explain himself to the common people.

            2. No way. He loves, loves being President. He just doesn’t like doing the work that comes along with it.

              1. No way. He loves, loves being President. He just doesn’t like doing the work that comes along with it.

                This.

                He likes the frequent rounds of golf with celebrities, and the lavish vacations he and his family take around the globe on a near monthly basis, and the various parties.

                But what he likes the best is endless campaigning. He’s a campaign junkie. He wants so badly to re-capture that high he got via the open fawning and worship thrusted upon him on election night in 08.

    3. Look, he probably had a long hard day golfing and rubberstamping drone doubletaps on weddings. The man’s carrying the entire country on his back. Leave Obama alone! LEAVE HIM ALONE!

      1. how pissed do you think we has that Saxby Chamblis hit a hole-in-one.

    4. I want to believe this. I really do. My fear, though, is that Hillary could order a nuclear strike on St Louis while singing the North Korean national anthem and decapitating the winner of the “America’s Most Adorable Puppy” competition on live national television and it really wouldn’t matter.

      Nothing she or Obama does will ever amount to a scandal. Nothing.

      Benghazi should have been a crippling blow for Obama in 2012, but it wasn’t. Americans died while the president slept and … nobody cared.

      When a few people suggested, rather reasonably, that maybe it did matter, her laughable response of, “what difference, at this point, does it make,” somehow worked. The American people actually said, “well, innocent, dead Americans. Sad, but I guess it’s water under the bridge.”

      Abandon hope, John. It’s over. The zombies won.

  6. I’ll bet that Paul has enough balls to actually use it against her in an election too.

    The most confounding mystery of the last election is why Romney chose to completely ignore this travesty. It’s almost enough to make me suspect that he didn’t actually want to win.

    1. Romney was lambasted as being insensitive for even mentioning it. Did you watch the same election I did? The media covered for Obama to get their Golden Boy re-elected.

    2. It is not a mystery. Romney didn’t want to do something that would cause the media to think bad things about it. He would rather have lost with the knowledge that the media will still be friends with him and think well of him in the future than run and offended their sensibilities.

      That is the only explanation I can see. Romney, whatever his faults, is not a stupid person. He had to have known how damaging this was to Obama. But he chose not to use it.

      1. See my post below, John. Romney did respond to it, and he was savaged in the media for it.

    3. The most confounding mystery of the last election is why Romney chose to completely ignore this travesty

      He didn’t.

      It was the ONLY fucking thing that Romney said during his entire 27 month campaign that had teeth in it, and the ObamaOp media referred to it as a ‘gaffe’.

      It tells you just how uphill any candidate hasd against Obama. Luckily, the media won’t be quite so plucky in their defense of Biden in 2016.

  7. I am still convinced that absolutely nothing will come of this. The media can’t see a tree fall unless it’s a Bush.

  8. It was her first 3am call. Let’s cut her some slack.

  9. I’ve said this before, but my guess is that the incompetence is light years beyond what we think it is. That the reality makes Veep look like a drama. The bumbling and total lack of a clue is probably beyond anything we can comprehend. I mean, haven’t we all gone into a company that was horribly mismanaged and gone “I can’t believe how terrible this is”? Just imagine what people with zero consequences are doing. It just stands to reason that it’s ten times worse.

    1. I still think that that is most likely as well. No nefarious scheme, just plain incompetence and stupidity.

    2. ^^THIS^^

      What has Hlllary ever managed? What big decision has she ever made? It is one thing to spend your life as a political hack. It is quite another to be in a actual position of responsibility and make life or death decisions.

      These people come from a world where there are never any consequences to their actions. And we are surprised they froze up and screwed the pooch the first time they had to make a hard decision?

    3. I think the best light they could put on this is to say that they were afraid of how it would look if an aircraft opened fire on “protesters”.
      Of course that’s a tacit admission that they value the lives and safety of Americans less than those of the people who try to kill them.

  10. Yes it should but it won’t stop her from running.

    It was just an low level ambassador, some dude, and 2 mercenaries. What difference does it make?

    1. Yeah, it’s not like they were Boston Strong or something.

  11. What really grinds my gears were the plaudits and cheers she received from State Dept employees on her last day. They turned out in force to applaud her in the lobby. This after several of their own fucking colleagues were killed in a terrorist attack that was mishandled and covered up by Herself. Disgusting.

    1. Well a lot of them are true liberal believers to which Hillary is a quasi religious figure and the rest of them just love power.

      1. I just don’t get that. As much as I like my boss, if he ever did something that caused death or injury to any of my colleagues, I would hate him with the fore of 1000 burning suns. Because if he does something that injures my colleagues, he could do the same to me. You’d think State Dept employees would be able to figure this out. Especially FSOs who are put in the line of fire, as it were.

        1. As much as I like my boss, if he ever did something that caused death or injury to any of my colleagues, I would hate him with the fore of 1000 burning suns

          Congratulations! You’re not a sociopath! Unfortunately, you’re in the minority…

        2. I am the same way. But you and I have a sense or morality and duty. These people have a sense of commitment to the ideological cause and to their own personal careers.

          1. “these people have a sense of commitment to the ideological cause and to their own personal careers.”

            Which they view as having a sense of morality and duty.

        3. Imagine what a piece of shit you’d have to be to be so cavalier about those men’s lives. I don’t make life or death sort of commands for my employees, but if one of them got hurt off something I told them to do I’d feel terrible and apologetic forever. If I got one of them killed, I’d be inconsolable. I’d never forgive myself.

          Hilary gets called to an accounting and she says “So fucking what?”

          1. And don’t forget, she met the family of one of the dead guy’s at Dover to pick up his body and lied to their faces telling them “we are going to get that son of a bitch who made that movie”.

            Not only did she let those people die, she didn’t feel bad about doing so. You have to be a pretty serious sociopath to let someone die and then a few days later stand in front of their family and lie to them.

            1. And don’t forget, she met the family of one of the dead guy’s at Dover to pick up his body and lied to their faces telling them “we are going to get that son of a bitch who made that movie”.

              Well she didn’t lie….they got the guy that made that movie.

    2. They turned out in force to applaud her in the lobby

      It’s like the triumph given to the incompetent, trigger happy cops on Arsenal St in Watertown.

      Americans are pretty much socialized to adore and fellate the master class. IF Hitler were alive right now, he’d have no problem taking over the U.S.

      1. It’s like the triumph given to the incompetent, trigger happy cops on Arsenal St in Watertown.

        That made me almost as sick as all the booze that I drank after they stopped threatening me to stay inside.

      2. Sometimes you cheer when someone leaves to let them know you’ll miss them, and sometimes because you’re glad they’re leaving.

    3. There were people all over the internet that applauded her handling of the situation and of the hearings that followed. One of them even had “that’s right girl! tell it like it is!” to say about HRC’s “what does it matter” comment.

      These people are so blinded and subservient to TEAM that they can’t see that her incompetence and indifference cost human lives. I guess they just weren’t the “right” human lives.

      1. If you fuck up at your job and get four people killed, what does it matter? You can’t bring those people back to life now. Why not just move on?

      2. I’m no SOF expert, so I don’t know how long it takes to spin up a rescue op. But based on how long it takes to generate an AF sortie, I seriously doubt they could have gotten there in time.

        My assumption is that there are units on call. Don’t know if there is transportation sitting alert for these units? They would have needed a jet to jump out of (C-17?) to keep the transport time down. And that bird would need to be on alert, loaded and ready to launch.

        From what I understand, they first heard of the situation at 2330 and the retired SEALs were killed at 0530. Six hours. There would need to be actionable information from the start. It would take maybe an hour to figure out what was going on and make a decision to do something. So wake guys up, get them in (an hour?). Brief them, come up with a plan (minimum an hour) based on sketchy info. Fly them there (3 hours from Germany). Drop them nearby, get them together, find the action and get the team to it (god knows how long?). I doubt it.

        Not to mention you’d have no idea what you’d be dropping them into. You going to get a SOF team shot to shit based on an unforeseeable outcome for the embassy folks?

        I really don’t think a rescue was doable.

        The real story is the cover up.

        1. Rescue might not have been doable but two F-15Es (legality aside) flying over at 100 ft above the roof line might have given some of the participants pause.

          1. Air interceptors sit alert loaded in an air-to-air configuration. Strike Eagles don’t.

            You could have launched the C model F-15 or F-16s but the only ordinance they would have had was the gun. And you aren’t going to strafe a crowd of people without a FAC on the ground telling you who’s who.

            Yeah, you could provide a show of force by flying over, but at night they wouldn’t even know it was us. Not sure where the nearest fighter on alet was? Probably Aviano in Italy, two hours away. Then you’d need to set up tanker support for any kind of presence. Not to mention air defenses.

            I know people like to think we can respond immediately, but it’s not like there is worldwide immediate coverage.

            1. All good points Fransisco. But the story I have heard was that there were armed drones in the area that could have provided air support and were told to stand down.

              I think part of what happened is they never dreamed the two retired SF guys would make the greatest last stand since the Alamo. Think about what must have happened.

              It is 10:30 and they hear that the compound is under attack by mortars and some sort of coordinated, company level attack. There are two security guys there. What did they rationally conclude? That the people in the annex are screwed because they will never hold out long enough to get anyone there. So they told the military to stand down thinking any rescue mission would be poorly planned, risky and not do any good anyway.

              What they didn’t count on was those guys holding out for so long. It turned out they were wrong. The compound wasn’t doomed to fall in an hour. It held out until 5:30 the next morning. And yes, they could have gotten some air power or a SEAL team in there before 5:30 am and saved them. Remember, they wouldn’t have needed much. A couple of drones sending hellfires at specific targets might have been enough and certainly a a squad or a platoon would have done the trick.

              1. I heard there was a drone. I heard nothing of an armed drone. I seriously doubt we had an armed drone in a sovereign’s airspace. If they had, they’d have used it.

                a squad or a platoon would have done the trick.

                From where? Was there a Carrier in the Med? Where in the Med?

                1. There was a carrier in the med right off of Libya. That is where the admiral who got relieved was located. And there were other special OPS teams in Libya within a pretty short flight.

                  That is another reason why they might not have wanted to launch a rescue mission. We were not supposed to have “boots on the ground”. Of course that was a complete lie and we had special ops people all over Libya. How exactly do you think the Air force acquired targets?

                  Neither of us know the full facts. But think about this Fransisco. The whistle blowers are all very upset over the fact that the military was told to stand down that night. If there had been no assets in the area and a rescue mission impossible, why would so many people be angry about the military being told to stand down? If the military didn’t have anything to stand down, then telling it to stand down isn’t really much of an outrage is it?
                  My guess is they are angry because there were assets available.

                  1. There was a carrier in the med right off of Libya. That is where the admiral who got relieved was located. And there were other special OPS teams in Libya within a pretty short flight.

                    If that proves to be true, there may be a case to be made.

                    We’ll see.

                2. “I seriously doubt we had an armed drone in a sovereign’s airspace.”

                  blank stare…

                  open mouth…

                  blink-blink…

                  HA_HAH-HAH-HA!

                  You almost had me going for a second. That is some fine trolling!

                  1. Yeah, that was a dumb statement. I retract that portion.

                    But, JUST BECAUSE there was a drone in the area doesn’t mean it was armed. Many aren’t even capable of carrying munitions.

                3. I seriously doubt we had an armed drone in a sovereign’s airspace.

                  We were in the nonkinetic war in Libya remember? Sure Kadafi was dead by then. But we were still all over the country. Just what exactly where those retired SF CIA employees doing there? Yeah, we had a drone there Fransisco. And why they didn’t use it, I don’t know.

              2. The request for additional security came before the actual festivities began, so the potential existed to have a reaction force prepped and ready.

                1. The request for additional security came before the actual festivities began

                  I don’t put much stock in that claim either.

                  The same can be said for every government establishment in existence. I doubt there is a military base anywhere who hasn’t asked for additional security in the last year. But there is only so much money and it gets allocated based upon the threat potential. You cannot give everyone everything they ask for.

                  That said, I don’t know the specifics of the claim. Did they ask for more security in general, or was the request based upon a specific threat? I have no idea.

                  Without seeing the actual request, I don’t know if it’s a legitimate claim or just right wing spin.

                  1. Fransisco,

                    But Libya was not just any embassy. It was an embassy in a country that had just completed a civil war, was crawling with jihadists and had no effective government. You act like a request from there is the same as getting one from Paris.

                    If security at the embassy was not a primary and ongoing concern, the DOS was criminal negligent regardless of what the request said.

                    1. But Libya was not just any embassy. It was an embassy in a country that had just completed a civil war, was crawling with jihadists and had no effective government.

                      Come on John. You’ve been in the military. You know how this goes. There is NEVER enough ANYTHING to satisfy a facility CC.

                      Regardless of the fact Libya just had a civil war and is a shithole, at some point the embassy has ENOUGH security. Or at least its fair share. And the facility commander will ask for yet more.

                      AND regardless how much security you put in an embassy, with a big enough crowd, it will still be overrun. Do you propose we build a full up military base to house our embassies in every shit-hole nation we have embassies in?

                      At some point you must operate on assumed risk, as there isn’t enough money in the world to be totally safe.

                    2. Regardless of the fact Libya just had a civil war and is a shithole, at some point the embassy has ENOUGH security. Or at least its fair share. And the facility commander will ask for yet more.

                      Sure. And the security at that annex, where the Ambassador was working, consisted of two CIA employees who didn’t even work there but showed up from next door when trouble started.

                      You think that was a reasonable arrangement? Your point only makes sense if there had been some security there. But there seemed to have been almost no security there. So the question isn’t, did they have enough security. The question is why did they leave a compound where the ambassador was working out of basically undefended in that environment.

                      Come on Fransisco. Think about it.

                  2. But there is only so much money and it gets allocated based upon the threat potential.

                    Source, please.

            2. A single shot need not have been fired in anger……the mere presence of aircraft overhead….would have probably changed the dynamic on the ground significantly.

              1. the mere presence of aircraft overhead….would have probably changed the dynamic on the ground significantly.

                I agree. If they had done a few low flying passes, just to let the attackers know that there was air support in the area, some of the attackers may have scattered. It would at least have given them pause and hurt morale.

                The sound of a military jet at near supersonic speeds just over your head is a hell of a thing.

        2. The real story is the cover up.

          Well, that’s what’s really got everyone up in arms. The fact that no attempt was even made to assist or rescue is deplorable, but it’s efficacy could be debated. If they had come out and immediately said “terrorists attacked our mission in Libya, we’re working to find the responsible group and bring them to justice”, there would have been little to no controversy.

          However, they came out swinging with the protest story and even went as far as to send the feds to bust a guy who made a video. Then, they continued to lie about what happened for over a week and when their story was exposed, they made up other lies and excuses.

          A simple mea culpa right off the bat would have made this a non-issue. People would still be upset at the deaths, but all the attention would have been on the terrorists, not the pols.

          I don’t know if any politician will ever learn the lesson that a coverup makes everything worse.

          1. I don’t know if any politician will ever learn the lesson that a coverup makes everything worse.

            Only if you’re caught. There are probably literally 1000s of coverups on a yearly basis in DC that only the cover-uppers know about.

            1. Oh, I’m sure that there’s a lot of things that we never ever hear about, and never will. I was mostly talking about things like this that are big public events.

              Senator dipshit covering up his tax evasion or his prostitute can be covered up, because the events were in private. Unless someone blabs, no one would ever know about them anyway.

              Things like Benghazi were all over the news the moment it started. Within minutes, most of the population knew that there was some sort of attack going on. Trying to cover up such a public event is a fools errand, especially in the information age.

        3. I am confused on the timeline of the assault relative to that of the Cairo embassy attack. But didn’t the raid on Benghazi take place 12 hours or so beforehand? You’d think any QRT (or whatever abbreviation/code phrase they call it these days) would already be near transport (Pave Lows—assuming they aren’t all retired by now—MH-60s, Ospreys: anything that can get to a threatened embassy, land, and get people out) Moreover, getting high value personnel out of an embassy under fire seems like it’d be a mission a QRT would have already trained for, therefore they’d already have an ad hoc plan for it. There are news reports of a drone circling the battlefield, and they were in contact with the two ex-SEALs, who may have had some combat tac air controller training, so perhaps they didn’t need the whole forward air controller kit?

          Anyway, it’s only a little over 400 nm from Sigonella, and 300 nm from Heraklion, so I’d think you could get tactical air over the area, if you wanted to. You’d have to arm the strike package first, get deconfliction and the ROE hammered out (are you going to shoot any radar that lights you up? what about other A/c in the area? etc…), and get plenty of tankers ready, but again I’m assuming they had about 12 hours of warning to expect another assault. If they had a carrier nearby, it’d be a bit easier.

          If rumors are correct about the sacking of General Ham, he seemed to think a rescue attempt was viable.

          1. Edit; Not beforehand, idiot. 12 hours after the Cairo embassy riots.

            I still think any attempt was scrubbed because the political powers that be felt that it was: A) too likely to result in another Desert One—it definitely wouldn’t be easy, and seat-of the pants things like this can blow up badly (see, the multiple shot down helicopters in Anaconda), and B) dropping 500 lb’ers on a protest or rioters in a foreign country would look awful on T.V.

            I wonder if anyone kept the intercepts from the radio communications between: Benghazi and the U.S. outside bases/Pentagon, and the U.S. base and the White House?

          2. You may be completely correct on the timeline. My source was poor at best but it said 6 hours from notification there was a problem until the SEALs were killed. That may be complete bullshit.

            The other factor is the veracity of the information the decision makers had. Was it dribbling in a little at a time or was it hard and fast. Initial reports are nearly ALWAYS inaccurate. You don’t want to invade another nation unless you are damn sure of your facts. I wouldn’t second guess anyone in such a situation.

            The cover up, is an entirely different matter.

        4. SFO’s who were stationed in Libya could have made it in time to save some people (though not Ambassador Stevens). They were told to stand down.

          http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…..n-benghazi

  12. Republican attacks Democrat — thanks for bringing this to our attention!

    1. Wow! You’re “rolling your eyes,” you must be such a bad-ass!

    2. I guess since you are unable to understand the substance of anyone’s statement, you are forced to grasp onto the identity of the speaker.

    3. Partisan hack downplays his TEAM’s incompetence — thanks for having principles!

      1. They really don’t seem to have any talking points about this. Notice the usual sock puppets don’t show up on these threads. And when we finally gets one all he can say is “well that is just so partisan”. Kind of makes me wonder if this thing isn’t really going to hurt them.

        1. Their talking point is “Hey! Look over there! Three women who were abducted and raped for a decade!”

          1. Actually only one was a woman – the other two were little girls. If one of them had been my daughter, I’d be having a real tough time not plotting someone’s death.

            1. If one of them had been my daughter, I’d be having a real tough time not plotting someone’s deaths.

            2. Because having her father in prison for murder would really help your daughter.

              1. I get your point – but that doesn’t mean I still wouldn’t be having a real tough time.

        2. I’ve lost all hope that any idiotic thing the left does is going to hurt them. Their TEAM seems to be entirely blind cheerleaders. The other TEAM is entirely composed of fools.

          1. Obama could be caught torturing people in the White House basement or fuck up and accidentally nuke an American city and liberals would excuse it. It is not a political movement. It is a religious cult.

    4. Nothing to say about the subject of the “attack”?

    5. Republican attacks Democrat

      But that’s just it, isn’t it.

      The administration knowingly engages in a very Big Lie, the media snores, and so some pissed off Republicans are the only thing left to raise questions about it.

      Honestly, I think this is perfectly orchestrated. My hat goes off to Obama. The coverup is genius.

      1. And the marks – or voting part of the population – have been chilled until after the election. Perfect con.

  13. The Washington Post commenters who want to defend the administration have nothing but name calling: Rubes! Wingnuts! Fox News! Darrel Issa is a bad person! They’ve even given up trying to defend it.

    1. *given up even trying

      God hates people who don’t proofread.

      1. It worked either way.

      2. Got your attention though and even coaxed you into a pithy response. Pretty cool.

  14. Quite frankly, I hard for me to even give a crap about Benghazi. Diplomats who have no business in other countries getting their asses handed to them? check. Government lying? OMG, WHAT A SHOCKER

    Nothing will change through traditional political means

    1. So you are saying we should close all of our embassies? Why did these diplomats have no business in Libya? Soldiers sure. But diplomats? Really?

      1. I gotta agree. Embassies provide valuable functions and diplomacy is one of the key things govt. should be doing.

        We didn’t need the Benghazi response to show that Clinton is a fuck-up. Sadly, while I applaud Sen. Paul’s efforts, I doubt what he’s saying will “stick” and negatively affect the power of the clinton machine

        1. DIAF you little bitch.

          That is all.

          1. Spread love, not hate! Love, baybee!

            Smooches…

  15. Boston loves its cops. Here’s one example of why. Cop jumps into freezing cold water and swims out into Boston harbor to save a woman’s life.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLaMBq4sUE

    The cop’s body temp dropped all the way down to 90degrees by the time he was treated in the ambulance. Just another working class hero, keeping it real.

  16. Charles Ramsey -definitely the hero of the week, saving kidnapped wimmins… while eating McDonald’s

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/…..index.html

    The police are not the first line of defense against crime. It’s everyday joe’s, willing to get involved.

    I love guys like this. Fills my heart with warmth to read stories like this.

    1. I love the excerpts from the 911 call.

      1. The dispatcher didn’t seem to believe her. I mean, someone calling in to report that they’re the blonde that’s been missing for a decade seems unlikely. The dispatcher just seems like she’s trying to get her off the phone. She says “Ok, talk to the police when they get there” a few times. Aren’t they supposed to keep them on the line until the police actually arrive?

        1. “Aren’t they supposed to keep them on the line[?]”

          Only if there is an ongoing or imminent threat, I believe. At this point there didn’t seem to be any risk to the caller.

          1. Yeah, it just seemed odd to me. I know they can’t let calls get personal, but the level of detachment seems a bit much. My guess is that the dispatcher just didn’t believe her. She probably thought it was a prank call and wanted to clear the line for a real emergency. If that’s the case, I bet she feels foolish now.

  17. The point that is being missed here is that NOTHING negative will stick to Hillary. Like Obama and the massive block of black voters, Hillary already has massive support from women voters. They want–no, need–a woman president, no matter how bad she is. She says “all the right things” and comes from the “right background”, so there is no reason not to elect her.

    And where the vagina goes, so goes the penis. Plenty of subservient (read: whipped) men will vote for Hillary just because their wives or girlfriends tell them it’s “THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE!!11!1”, or because they want to impress girls who think that way. I already know quite a few people who are becoming dissatisfied with Obama, but had Hillary won in 2008, well then, we would be in such a better place right now.

    1. Plenty of subservient (read: whipped) men will vote for Hillary just because their wives or girlfriends tell them it’s “THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE!!11!1”, or because they want to impress girls who think that way.

      The ballot is no longer secret?

      1. My brother-in-law doesn’t have a right to his testicles anymore, so he’ll be right in line with the rest of the pussywhipped Hillary loving eunuchs.

  18. Paul is absolutely right. But stopping a Clinton ego gone wild is akin to standing in front of a runaway freight train and yelling, HALT! Intentions are good, but…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.