Hillary Clinton | Libya | News | Rand Paul

Rand Paul Tells Hillary Clinton He Would Have Fired Her: VIDEO

Paul_clinton

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) laid into Hillary Clinton over the Benghazi attack, telling the Secretary of State that she would no longer have a job if he was in charge of her:

“Ultimately, I think with your leaving, you accept culpability for the greatest tragedy since 9/11...Had I been President at the time and I found out you had not read the cables...I would have relieved you of your post."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Earlier...
Hillary Clinton Rips Into Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) Over Benghazi Attack: VIDEO [tlrd]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. He should have said 9-11 one more time.

    Posted by: David | Jan 23, 2013 12:46:25 PM


  2. Damn, I wish she could have answered, "I would've never considered working for you."

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 23, 2013 12:47:56 PM


  3. Bagger....Please!

    Posted by: mymy | Jan 23, 2013 12:50:39 PM


  4. I would fire Rand Paul for being an idiot

    Posted by: Steve | Jan 23, 2013 12:56:09 PM


  5. I'm sure he practiced that line over and over again in front of the mirror.

    Posted by: jht | Jan 23, 2013 12:57:35 PM


  6. Rand Paul proves he's a loser once again!

    Posted by: SFshawn | Jan 23, 2013 12:57:55 PM


  7. @Derrick

    Woman: if you were my husband, I would poison you.
    Man: Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it.

    I agree. She would never have worked for him. Fortunately,
    he will never be President.

    Related thought: if Hillary becomes President, Bill should be
    Secretary of State.

    Posted by: Gr8guyca | Jan 23, 2013 12:58:35 PM


  8. Nobody with more than half a brain cares what Rand "my daddy got me this job" Aqua-Buddha-effing Paul thinks about Clinton, Benghazi, or anything more important than his navel.

    Posted by: ntb | Jan 23, 2013 12:59:20 PM


  9. The greatest tragedy since 9/11? While Benghazi was certainly awful and not to be minimized, only four people died. Any number of shootings in the US have taken far more lives in the interim, but I don't see him making a big deal of those.

    Posted by: ChicagoR | Jan 23, 2013 1:00:25 PM


  10. I am not a 'neocon'

    I am not a 'teabagger'

    I am not a Republican 'wingnut'

    I agree with Rand Paul on this case; she should have been fired, and should have actually resigned and publicly admitted she held ultimate responsibility for the negligence that led up to the ambassador's and security men's death.

    And the president himself share some of the blame,also. If this were Bush the same people on here who routinely give Obama and his government and cabinet a pass for pretty much everything would be SCREAMING for his head on a platter and demanding his SOS resign or be fired. It's almost like tye wanted something provocative like murdering a U.S. ambassador to happen so they can justify more military action.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jan 23, 2013 1:02:57 PM


  11. It's tragic how this incident is turned into a political football, but that's the way Congress behaves nowadays.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jan 23, 2013 1:12:03 PM


  12. Rand Paul is a punk.

    And Bush has done worse and had worse happen on his watch and nothing happened.

    Necon/Teabagger sockpuppets don't keep track of those things.

    Posted by: Polyboy | Jan 23, 2013 1:14:37 PM


  13. I am not a 'neocon'

    I am not a 'teabagger'

    I am not a Republican 'wingnut'

    But ya are Blanche, ya are!

    Posted by: Mawm | Jan 23, 2013 1:15:16 PM


  14. RATBASTARD: the difference with Obama and Bush....if God forbid you criticized Bush you would have been branded a traitor or against America by Republicans. At least you can criticize this president and not worry that the bullies are going to come after you like the GOP did in the Bush "bring up 9/11 whenever we are critized for cover" Bush years. These Republicans seem to forget that.

    "It's almost like tye wanted something provocative like murdering a U.S. ambassador to happen so they can justify more military action." Who did?? Republicans? If that is the case why do you back them up when this is clearly just a political excercise?

    Posted by: DAN | Jan 23, 2013 1:16:36 PM


  15. @ ratbastard: "So they can justify more military action." Hunh?
    Obama has gotten us out of Iraq and disengaging us from Afghanistan.
    More military action does not seem the purpose.

    Posted by: Gr8guyca | Jan 23, 2013 1:17:07 PM


  16. Rand Paul is an ugly clown who is not to be taken seriously. The man is just your basic fool.

    Posted by: Justin | Jan 23, 2013 1:20:25 PM


  17. Ratbastard: Starting your post with caveats is the same as shouting "I am what I say I am not".

    Posted by: AggieCowboy | Jan 23, 2013 1:21:36 PM


  18. "It's almost like tye wanted something provocative like murdering a U.S. ambassador to happen so they can justify more military action." Obama? Really? How does that fit in to the GOP talking points that liberals are wimps and soft when it comes to military action? That makes no sense either. The most liberal president in history (their words) wants more military action? Come on!

    Posted by: DAN | Jan 23, 2013 1:24:05 PM


  19. The Obama government's policy and that of other allied and friendly governments is to control access to energy supplies and raw materials, blocking China and Russia [from making $ on the commodities market] where possible. This has always been the real reason why we and the Brits, French, Euros,Japanese have been involved in M.E. conflicts, everything else is a sideshow. The U.S government must also starve off the end of U.S. dollar dominance as long as possible, that means being the dominant force in the M.E. and controlling energy resources. Obama is just as war-like and aggressive as Bush or any other president. Our allies and friends [and enemies] aren't any better, some just talk a better game.

    *****************

    Dan,

    I've MANY TIMES criticized Republican governments for doing the exact same thing, and for Republican neocon shills and true believers for behaving exactly like 'Progressive' shills and true believers in trying to censor truth when their people are in charge

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jan 23, 2013 1:27:01 PM


  20. What a pisher...

    Posted by: Elsewhere | Jan 23, 2013 1:28:10 PM


  21. By the way Ratbastard...4 months later and what military action has their been?

    Posted by: DAN | Jan 23, 2013 1:28:39 PM


  22. "Obama is just as war-like and aggressive as Bush or any other president. Our allies and friends [and enemies] aren't any better, some just talk a better game."

    Seriously, what planet are you living on because it is clearly not the same one we live on? How many wars has Obama started? More importantly, how many unnecessary wars
    has Obama started? How many wars has Obama cleaned up/ended from the previous administration? More importantly, ow many unnecessary wars has Obama cleaned up/ended from the previous administration?

    You are a tool Ratbastard.

    Posted by: DAN | Jan 23, 2013 1:33:49 PM


  23. "If this were Bush"

    But this is Bush. And Obama. And Clinton. And Bush I. And the Senate. And the House.

    This is America's approach to security at our embassies and consulates for decades. There is no money or political will to make them the fortresses some Republicans suddenly seem to think they should be.

    Posted by: BobN | Jan 23, 2013 1:34:43 PM


  24. RatB, MAWM & Aggie seem to know you better than you know yourself. Seriously.

    Posted by: antb | Jan 23, 2013 1:34:59 PM


  25. When the U.S. dollar ceases officially to be the world's reserve currency, and this is fast approaching...all major world powers are devaluing their currencies and there's a major currency 'war' going on, because they know at top levels of government and business that the situation with the world's economy is worse than being reported, then the sh*t will really hit the fan. U.S. and other's foreign policy are primarily concerned with this more than anything else. The real reason we've been involved in the M.E. with one conflict after another in recent history is because the control of access to energy resources is incredibly important, even more-so for the Euros since they rely heavily on Russia and outside oil supplies, while the U.S has ramped up energy production and will soon become the world's number one oil producer and energy super power again. The U.S at least has a lot of natural resources of it's own or next door in Canada...the Euros are very poor in natural resources over-all, which one of the main reasons they started their empires.

    Energy resources and the U.S dollar's final collapse from dominance as the world's reserve currency are the real #1 issues, and from this will be more conflicts, wars, economic stagnation, the whole nine yards.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jan 23, 2013 1:36:55 PM


  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «GLAAD Calls on National Geographic Channel to Denounce the Boy Scouts' Anti-Gay Policies« «