23 Jan

Rand Paul to Hillary: Let’s face it, you should have been fired over Benghazi

Allahpundit @ Hot Air:

Via Gateway Pundit, I figured he might be the boldest Republican questioner but I had no idea how bold. The key line: “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility because no one else is.” He’s taking dead aim at the insulting charade of buck-stops-here bravado among American politicians who are happy to “show leadership” by admitting to their failures on the condition that they’ll suffer no consequences for them. Accountability’s a smart theme for a populist would-be presidential candidate to take up. And telling a Clinton to her face on TV that she should have been fired for negligence, which is true, is a smart, splashy way to do it. It’s a dual critique, superficially a reprimand to Obama’s secretary of state but more broadly an indictment of how Washington tends to do business. I’ve always assumed there’s no way he’ll leapfrog Rubio and Ryan as a frontrunner among grassroots conservatives in 2016 but it’s getting harder to believe that every day.

And now that he’s demanded accountability from the most popular Democrat pol in America, he must pay:

https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/statuses/294121464066605060

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

80 Responses to Rand Paul to Hillary: Let’s face it, you should have been fired over Benghazi

  1. GREG
    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? WE SAW THE VIDEO
    OF BENGHASI FIRE, OF THE AMBASSADOR BEING DRAG
    FROM INSIDE TO OUTSIDE LOOKING DEAD AND BLOOD ON HIM
    HIS SHIRT HALF GONE OUT OF HIS BODY AND MOB LOOKING AT IT,
    WE HAD A GOOD SHOT OF THE INSIDE BURNING, OF THE BLOOD DRIP OVER HIS BED,
    OF HIS BLOODY FINGERS MARK ON THE WALL, WHICH STRIKE ME
    TO LOOK LIKE THE OBAMA LOGO LINES I THINK THEY ARE ALSO THE SAME COLOR,
    DID STEVENS WAS GIVING HIM A MESSAGE? WELL IT CAME TO MY MIND ALSO.
    THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

    ReplyReply
  2. GREG
    MAYBE FOX DID NOT MENTION THAT ONE,
    BUT WE SAW WHAT WE SAW,
    SOMEONE AT THE TIME MENTION A DRONE THERE,
    MAYBE IT WAS GIVING THE PICTURE,
    SOMEONE MENTION, IS IT ARMED OR JUST THERE TO MONITER,
    Ican tell you that FOX WHERE GIVING ALL THEY GOT TO US.

    ReplyReply
  3. retire05 says: 53

    @Greg:

    Listen to the first 20 seconds of the FOX News report: “One of Hillary Clinton’s subordinates, Charlene Lamb, who was charged with security at the consulate, said they listened to the attack unfold with open lines to the agents on the ground. Yesterday Mrs. Clinton made no mention of that fact.”

    The second video is part of Secretary Clinton’s testimony on the previous day–ironically, from FOX’s own live coverage of the hearing. Beginning at minute 1:45 Rep. Dana Rohrabacker makes the allegation that there was live, real time monitoring at the State Department as events in Benghazi unfolded. Clinton directly responds to that allegation. There was no live, real time monitoring.

    Greggie: from Charlene Lamb’s testimony which you can find on the SoS website:

    “When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center, immediately activated the Immenent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex US quck reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th Febrary Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatiuc Secureity Command Center in Washington. From that point on I could follow what was happening in almost real time.

    Do you want to retract that there was “no real time monitoring” when Charlene Lamb testifed there was? Oh, are you going to rest your laurals on the “near” part of her statement? Well, let me tell you what “near” real time is, Greggie. It is the same as the TV shows you watch that are in “near” real time because they have a three second delay. Charlene Lamb knew EXACTLY what was happening at every moment of the attack.

    And let’s not ignore the fact that Lamb testified that the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington, D.C. was notified almost immediately. So where was Hillary while one of the compounds that fell under her jurisdiction was under attack?

    You see, Greggie, we live in a day of immediate communication. That means that as soon as the Imminent Danger Notification was sounded in Benghazi, there would have only been a few second delay in notifying Washington, D.C. An event such as that would have demanded the immediate involvement of the Secretary of State.

    So who’se lying? Was Charlene Lamb, who testified that she listened to the entire attack in near real time lying? Or was Hillary lying? It can’t be both.

    Now, are you just going to come back with more spin or are you going to answer my questions?

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 54

    @retire05, #53:

    So who’se lying?

    The right wing media has been lying. One such lie has been the repeated suggestion that people at the State Department and/or the White House watched the entire incident at Benghazi unfold in real time on video monitors, when what actually happened was that someone at the State Department had an open phone line to someone at the CIA Annex, which was nearly a mile from the consulate compound. How accurate, detailed, and timely do you imagine that stream of information was? Something short of what you’d get with the imaginary live video feed, I suspect.

    The right wing media and blogosphere have propagated so much speculation, misinformation, and deliberate disinformation regarding Benghazi for political purposes that those who rely on it as their sole source of news can no longer separate fact from fiction, or reality from fantasy.

    ReplyReply
  5. retire05 says: 55

    @Greg:

    So who’se lying?

    The right wing media has been lying.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just blatantly stupid, Greggie?

    Who is lying, Hillary or Charlene Lamb?

    Are you so dimwitted you are incapable of answering a simply question?

    ReplyReply
  6. Greg says: 56

    @retire05, #55:

    Who is lying, Hillary or Charlene Lamb?

    Are you so dimwitted you are incapable of answering a simply question?

    When you frame a question so that the answer involves a choice between two bogus alternatives, you shouldn’t expect to get the sort of answer you want. Such questions are invalid because they’re built on a logical fallacy. They pose a false dichotomy—two false alternatives. In this case the truth is actually the unstated third possibility:

    Neither was lying.

    Charlene Lamb’s real time comment was in reference to an open phone line to the CIA Annex. That comment played into speculations that there had been real time video monitoring throughout the entire event—a story which evolved from the report that a surveillance drone had been dispatched to Benghazi. Memories of the live video feed during the execution of Operation Neptune’s Spear no doubt lent the story a certain currency in some circles, even though there was no truth to it.

    Hillary Clinton’s comments were a flat, unequivocal denial that any such real time video feed from Benghazi had been available.

    There was an open phone line between a State Department employee and someone at the CIA Annex, who was nearly a mile away from the consulate compound. That’s the full extent of your real time monitoring.

    Are you so dimwitted you are incapable of answering a simply question?

    It might be worth noting that no one ever won a rational debate based on personal insults. The keyword here, of course, being rational.

    ReplyReply
  7. retire05 says: 57

    @Greg:

    So what you are saying is that we had a CIA annex in Benghazi, along with a comp0und used by the Ambassador, and we did not have functioning security cameras that were linked to the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington, D.C.? Is that the story you are trying to push? Or that we did have security cameras that were linked to the DSCC but somehow they were not functioning properly that night? Or maybe the “attackers”, who Charlene Lamb refused to call terrorists, disabled the video security system somehow?

    How damn stupid do you think Americans are, Greggie? We can spend millions of dollars in foreign nations for “green” programs, but not a comprehensive security system that cannot sustain a violent attack so that our FSOs are reduced to using a common cell phone? Oh, but wait, you admitted that Lamb, et al, were monitoring the situation via a land line between the annex and the compound. So we had that technology available, but not for video technology?

    And what about the drone that flew over just minutes after the onset of the attack? Is our State Department, and our White House, so inept that they would send a drone without video capacity?

    Buck up, man. Admit that this was a major cluster f*ck on the part of Hillary, Charlene Lamb, and their ultimate boss, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. They left those four Americans hanging out to dry.

    ReplyReply
  8. Greg says: 58

    And what about the drone that flew over just minutes after the onset of the attack?

    There are four reference points on the Benghazi timeline that are relevant to that assertion:

    9:42 p.m. — Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

    9:59 p.m. — A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed.

    11:10 p.m. — The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

    11:30 p.m. — All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

    The dispatch of the drone occurred 17 minutes after the attack commenced. It took 71 additional minutes to arrive over the consulate compound. Evacuation of the survivors commenced 20 minutes later. In all probability the compound perimeter had been breached and the attack had succeeded before the drone–which had no attack capability—had arrived on the scene.

    How damn stupid do you think Americans are, Greggie?

    That depends entirely on which Americans we’re talking about. The population runs the gamut, from marginally intelligent to stunningly brilliant. It’s best not to generalize.

    ReplyReply
  9. GREG
    FOX WAS COMING WITH BRIBES OF WHAT WAS GOING ON VERY ACCURATE,
    SO IF YOU WHERE CONNECTED WITH FOX YOU HAD THE VIEW OF WHAT THEY COULD CAPTURE,
    FROM BENGHASI AND FROM EGYPT , AND ELSE WHERE THERE WAS A MOB MARCHING,
    AND THE EGYPT WOMAN AMBASSADOR WAS ACCUSING THE MOVIES OF AN AMERICAN AND SIZING WITH THE CROWD, GIVING THEM THE CREDIT FOR THEIR UPRISING,

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 60

    @Greg:

    11:10 p.m. — The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

    The dispatch of the drone occurred 17 minutes after the attack commenced. It took 71 additional minutes to arrive over the consulate compound.

    So within one hour and 28 minuts of the onset of the attack, there was live video feed from a drone about what was going on. Remind me again at what time Tyrone Wood and Glen Doherty were slaughtered. Or are we to assume that this administrations ability to use modern technology is as pathetic as the man who occupies the Oval Office himself?

    And don’t think your lack of response to my questions about a live video feed from the security cameras went ignored. You see, Greggie, you don’t respond when you don’t have some canned answer to throw back.

    You are less than useless.

    ReplyReply
  11. Greg says: 61

    Congratulations on the arithmetic. There’s hope that you might yet succeed in balancing your checkbook.

    Yes. One hour and 28 minutes after the attack began, a drone with a video camera arrived on the scene. Presumably the feed was watched in real time by a drone operator, who controlled the UAV from some undisclosed DoD location. It was later viewed by State Department officials, and still later by members of a congressional investigative committee.

    Now I see we’ve got a new allegation, that the consulate compound’s closed circuit gate security camera was also providing live coverage of Benghazi events back in the States.

    Why do you think the security camera footage wasn’t also viewed later?

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 62

    @Greg:

    One hour and 28 minutes after the attack began, a drone with a video camera arrived on the scene. Presumably the feed was watched in real time by a drone operator, who controlled the UAV from some undisclosed DoD location. It was later viewed by State Department officials, and still later by members of a congressional investigative committee.

    Let me see if I understand you correctly: we send a number of Americans to one of the most dangerous hot spots on the face of the earth, and you are saying that the drone video could NOT be watched at Diplomatic Security Command Central in Washington, D.C.? Is that what you are saying? Do you really believe that crap?

    And what exactly do you think the compound security cameras were doing? Showing re-runs of My Little Pony?

    Just how damn inept are Hillary and Obama?

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 63

    Greggie, a study was done on the news coverage of the Benghazi attack as reported by Hillary’s favorite news outlet, Al Jazeera and another Arabic news outlet, Al Arabiya.

    What did the study find?

    While Al Jazeera, based in Qutar, is well known in the West for its goal of providing an alternative, Arab-centric perspective on global events, Al Arabiya, a broadcaster based in Saudi Arabia, is less known. Yet both channels provide a clear contrast to Western news sources regarding the sources and impacts of the events. (the attack on Benghazi and other protests across the region on 9-11-2012)

    In fact, news coverage on both Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera attributed blame for the Libyan embassy attack to Al Qaeda as opposed to the obscure film “The Innocence of Mulims.”, unlike the majority of U.S. media outlets. Both also provided significantly more discussion on the specific subset of the North African populations that responded viiolently to the attacks and to the release of the film.

    So Al Jazeera, Hillary’s favorite news channel, who was actually there in Benghazi filming the attacks, claimed it was due to Al Qaeda, NOT some obscure film.

    Both Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya attribute clear blame for the incident to an organization, rather than faceless masses, and both clearly ascribe responsibility to specific groups operating within North Africa.

    For example, in a story aired from Benghazi on Al Jazeera on September 12th, the reporter attributed the attacks to “an organization” (different from the unidentified mob theory discussed in the U.S. media and in the U.S. government) andprovided three theories of possible motives for the attack. The first was the theory that the armed attack on the U.S. consulate was in protest against the movie. A second theory proposed was that the attacks were orchestrated to avenge the killing of Abu Yahya, a Libyan leader in the Al Qaeda network killed in a U.s. raid in Pakistan. The third theor originating from Libya’s Ministry of the Interior was that the masterminds of the attack are former Ghadaffi regime loyalists.

    In conclusion, both Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, though differing in their coverage, provided nuance to these events that was quite lacking in American media. First, they iudentified an organization (Al Qaeda) and the subsets of Arabic movements that were responsible for the embassy attacks and for the broader demonstrations occurring in the region

    The American lapdog press, instead of doing their jobs, regurgitated what ever came out of the White House. You should be ashamed to have even thought that Americans would get the truth about Benghazi, but I suspect you have no shame when it comes to Obama. You have drank enough Obama-koolaid to create your own Jonestown.

    ReplyReply
  14. Greg says: 64

    “The American lapdog press?” You’re beginning to sound like an old-school Soviet propagandist.

    This whole “al Qaeda is back” angle seems very strange. Al Qaeda was never completely gone. This is why the drone strikes have continued and why the theater of operations has been expanded.

    So far as I know, it’s still an open question whether al Qaeda planners were directly involved in the Benghazi attack. If someone has all the facts needed to say with certainty, I’m not aware of it. There are plenty radical factions in Libya, and there’s plenty of room for speculation.

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 65

    @Greg:

    Greggie, why don’t you directly address what I have said? Is it because you have no response to simple logic?

    This whole “al Qaeda is back” angle seems very strange. Al Qaeda was never completely gone. This is why the drone strikes have continued and why the theater of operations has been expanded.

    But wait, didn’t Obama tell us Al Qaeda was on the run? Yeah, they were on the run alright. Running right toward Chris Stevens, and three other Americans, to kill them.

    Yes, the lap dog press that never seems to find fault with anything Obama does, even when Federal courts rule his actions unconstitutional.

    Like I said, you have drank enough Obama kool-aid to create your own Jonestown.

    ReplyReply
  16. Brian Winkler says: 66

    Benghazi was blowback.Plain and simple.The attack put the lie to the WH narrative that they had beaten AQ into tatters and the planned disengagement was on schedule.The State Dept. made a purely political decision to deny the Benghazi mission needed security.Powell did the same in 1993 and denied ac-130 and armored support for TF Ranger in Somalia and needless casualties resulted as they did in Benghazi.Whatever Stevens’ intrigues were, they invited the attack.We don’t have the truth as to what was afoot in the mission and annex.We have not yet heard one word from the survivors.Are they sequestered away from Congress?How can 30 people be muzzled without a coordinated effort being made to achieve that?There are so many failures in this at so many levels there should be a new wing added to Leavenworth,instead we are no closer to the truth and that was exactly what Madame Clinton desired.

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 67

    @retire05, #65:

    It was improper grammar the first time and hasn’t improved with repetition. I have drunk, or I drank—but never I have drank. And while were on the subject of improper English usage, it has never been “the democrat party.”

    ReplyReply
  18. retire05 says: 68

    @Greg:

    Oh, I see. Now you are the grammer expert?

    So why would you want to be the Grammer Police when there are questions you have not answered? Do you think that redirecting the subject will make you any less wrong?

    The fact is that the Obama administration has not been “tranparent” when it comes to Benghazi, just like they have not been transparent about Fast and Furious. For years, I heard nothing coming from you left winger except how Bush violated the Constitution, how secretive his administration was, how he was nothing more than a war monger, yet you give Obama a pass when he actually does violate the Constitution (as recently determined by a Federal court), when he actually is secretive about events that the public does have a right to know about, and he is certainly a war monger that doesn’t act in the best interest of the United States.

    Here is what I think happened: Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to facilitate the transfer of arms to Syria. I think that the Obama administration had supplied arms to the Libyan rebels, not really knowing, or not caring, that many of the Libyan rebels were Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda spinoffs. Call it Fast & Furious, Middle Eastern Style. We (Obama) had just taken out a AQ leader by drone attack. The attack on the Benghazi compound, and consequent killings of four Americans, was in retaliation for that drone attack.

    You pooh-pooh the Arab news medias reports of who facilitated the attack because it doesn’t agree with the meme put out by the White House. Yet, Al Jazeera was there, on the streets, filming as the attack happened. It’s their neighborhood and they are not in the pocket of this administration.

    Do I think we will ever learn the truth of Benghazi, or Fast & Furious? No, and it is because people like you are willing to accept any lie put out by the Oval Office. Benghazi had nothing to do with an obscure movie no one, or practically no one, ever heard of. It had everything to do with Obama’s failed Middle East policy. A policy that will see even more Americans dead for years to come.

    I’m tired of arguing with you. You think Obama can do no wrong, would never lie to the American people and you swallow everything that comes out of his lying mouth, hook, line and sinker. You are an enemy to this nation, Greggie, and to the very Constitution that allows you the right to be an idiot.

    ReplyReply
  19. Greg says: 69

    People have all sorts of crazy theories. If you want to think that the Obama administration is up to the sort of bizarre covert shenanigans republicans got up to with Iran-Contra, or whatever, you’re fully entitled to believe it. I’m not required to buy into it, however.

    ReplyReply
  20. retire05 says: 70

    @Greg: @<a

    I’m not required to buy into it, however.

    No, Greggie, and you’re also entitled to not to buy into things like dawn brings daylight, that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow, or that spring turns into summer. You see, you have the freedom to disbelieve, or believe, anything you choose.

    That doesn’t make you right. It just makes you a fool.

    Unfortunately for those of you who choose to believe a lying administration (Obama and Hillary) the State Department’s own Annual Security Report, 2012, that covered 2011 admits that we (our DS) trained the Libyan rebels. Do you really believe that we trained those rebels, but didn’t supply them weapons to take down Gadaffi?

    If so, you are the biggest fool to ever set foot on the face of the earth.

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 71

    Oh, I don’t know. I didn’t think Mitt Romney had the best interests of the average American as his highest priority. I wasn’t gullible enough to vote for George W. Bush, nor was I sufficiently delusional to believe that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    ReplyReply
  22. GREG
    SO YOU PICK THE WORSE TO BE SPITEFUL
    YOU SAID ANY ONE BUT THE OTHER,

    ReplyReply
  23. Aye says: 73

    @Greg:

    And while were on the subject of improper English usage, it has never been “the democrat party.”

    Au contraire mon frere.

    The term “democrat party” has been in use since 1834 and perhaps earlier. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it improper.

    Of course, I much prefer the term “dimocrat party” since it is more illustrative of the membership thereof.

    ReplyReply
  24. Aye
    nice to have you back,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  25. Greg says: 75

    @Aye, #73:

    There’s a long history of improper usage, but it seems to have taken George W. Bush to make that particular bit of fractured grammar widely acceptable. Unfortunately it still registers as a clinker to anyone brought up to speak correct English, suggesting something about a person’s background and the possibility of educational deficits.

    I suppose it’s all about impressions, and whether we think the image we project of ourselves as we speak matters. While Eliza Doolittle was no more intelligent after Henry Higgins tidied up her language than before, most people would likely agree that her range of possibilities had definitely been expanded.

    ReplyReply
  26. GREG
    if you come to judge a person intelligence by the grammar used,
    you are missing a lot, and limiting yourself, limiting your judgement, and limiting your perception, there is many stories to tell you the contrary, the grammar is learned
    by memory to take out the thought and share it with another human or animal for a purpose, it has not alter the thought which doesn’t use language to progress, the intelligence is a gift given by GOD, in the family of wisdom but there is also the two other in the family, which are tne negative thinking and the positive thinking which play a big part in
    the person holding that gift, to use it to do some destructive sentences for the sake of his own bad traits
    be it greed envy jealousy all those of the same family,
    but those who have both the intelligence and wisdom, they use it also for the many traits to do good
    to other in any way they find and on any one passing their way, those have the very positive personality
    and they even surprise themselves when they see their achievement go so far and get so productive,
    they believe the sky is the limit when they take on a idea to become a reality and alive out of their psyche,
    just thinking aloud

    ReplyReply
  27. GREG
    I must add to it, another truth, which I could never find the answer,
    while we are on that subject,
    some times ago I witness a person having a kind of a stroke she was in the hospital
    and lost her voice, which the doctor said to be permanent,
    but she recover her voice later and the thing I could never figure out is that she
    did not have her own voice, it was not her accent like coming from another country,
    I could not believe it, and was asking questions about what country I thought it was from,
    and to continue my surprise she was telling things of that country like she had lived there,
    I than told her , that she never lived in that country, she said no as a question,
    as if she was surprise of my statement, she went on for quite a bit with her accent, she had never used,
    and after a year or so she switch back to her own accent a bit at the time, SHE WAS TALKING LIKE SHE ALWAYS DID BEFORE THE STROKE,
    SO IF SOMEONE WOULD HAVE JUDGE HER THEY WULD HAVE MISS THE BOAT,
    SHE WAS MY BEAUTIFUL OLDEST SISTER.

    ReplyReply
  28. Greg says: 78

    All I’m saying is that it’s not a good idea to deliberately encourage poor grammar. Children are likely to have more success in the world if they speak their first language properly. It isn’t because they’re any smarter or any better of person because they’re well-spoken. They just make a better impression.

    I’ve known very smart people who used very poor grammar, just because that’s how they were brought up. Two of my own own grandparents were like that. It never stopped me from being proud of them, but it might have kept them from getting ahead.

    I admire people who speak a second language, btw, even if their grammar isn’t always correct. I’ve had great difficulty learning just a little Spanish. I have trouble understanding spoken Spanish, and even more trouble making myself understood.

    ReplyReply
  29. Greg
    and now we have to learn the new language of the internet,
    the school students know it more than there natural tongue,
    as if they want to have their own language separate from their parents,
    but there is always new words coming, even the computer go by there own language,
    wich change constantly.

    ReplyReply
  30. retire05 says: 80

    @Greg:

    I didn’t think Mitt Romney had the best interests of the average American as his highest priority. I wasn’t gullible enough to vote for George W. Bush, nor was I sufficiently delusional to believe that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    Which has what to do with the topic of Benghazi? Or is this just another one of your little attempts at redirection when you have no valid point?

    There’s a long history of improper usage, but it seems to have taken George W. Bush to make that particular bit of fractured grammar widely acceptable. Unfortunately it still registers as a clinker to anyone brought up to speak correct English, suggesting something about a person’s background and the possibility of educational deficits.

    Gee, I don’t know how you were raised, but I was taught that it was impolite to point out to people [what you consider] their shortcomings, assuming that [what you consider] their shortcomings were greater than my own. But wait, aren’t you a self-proclaimed liberal? I though liberals were considerate of the feelings of others, not assuming that something “suggests something about a person’s background.” I though you were the non-assuming segment of our society. Yet, you seem to do a whole lot of assuming.

    In some segments of our society, your statements “suggest” arrogance.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>