Some fireworks at the Benghazi hearing today. Senator Paul began his remarks to Secretary Clinton saying, “One of the things that disappointed me most about the original 9/11 was that nobody was fired. … Had I been president at the time [of Benghazi], and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”
Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton
Posted in Politics.
33 Responses to Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton
-
Rob says:
Mike says: “Sounds like another Paul will be running for President in a few years…”
I suspect, unlike his father, Rand Paul could actually carry a state primary or caucus. But he’s still not getting the nomination.
-
pattyirish says:
Rob- you are clueless and as for your ‘follow the polls mentality’ … look where it got the Republican Party.
Rand Paul’s ‘true’ conservatism is very inspiring for those demographic groups the Party needs if its going to have any relevancy in the future. -
Manfred Arcane says:
So the question remains, who would Rand Paul have fired after the first 9/11? Condi Rice? CIA or FBI?
-
Michelle says:
Paul was being a pompous ass, more interested in inflating his own stock than getting down to the facts of the matter. His preening was exceeded only by that of Sen. McCain, who is still rehashing his bitterness at losing the 2008 election in public. Clinton handled them both beautifully.
-
Floridan says:
“Rand Paul’s ‘true’ conservatism is very inspiring for those demographic groups the Party needs if its going to have any relevancy in the future.”
Rand Paul’s “true conservatism” is the GOP’s problem, not its salvation.
-
Chad says:
I really hope conservatives weren’t heartened by Senator Paul’s performance.
-
Clint says:
Obviously Manfred, Senator Rand Paul would have fired Michael Scheuer’s CIA superiors.
“Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) Osama bin Laden unit, told the U.K. Daily Telegraph in a recent interview he was prevented from capturing or killing the terrorist by his superiors on at least 10 separate occasions”.
-
Mike says:
Democrats everywhere are hopeful that Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee in 2016.
-
Conversely, Democrats everywhere can experience buyers’ remorse if Hillary is their nominee in 2016.
-
Lacking coherence, eloquence, or indeed the least amount of dignity, Rand Paul is an embarrassment.
-
Sombrero says:
About time someone called BS on the bar-none most inept Secretary of State in our history. Hillary has been out of her depth from the start, buoyed only by sympathetic cooing ginned up by her husband’s far-flung famiglia. But from East Asia to India and the Middle East to our own hemisphere, it’s been one foetid botch after another. A rich menu of disaster, my personal favorite being the pathetic UN vote on Palestine that left us holding the bag with Israel and a few our own Pacific dependencies.
Time for Obama to turn the page – quickly, for God’s sake.
-
Linda says:
Hillary said during the House Hearing that the State Department receives more than a million cables a year and most are addressed to Hillary.
President Bush was briefed several times on intelligence that a 9/11 type attack by Bin Laden could happen in the near future. But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. Making a decision with conflicting information has to be difficult. It is easy to judge decisions after the fact.
Several House Republicans beat to death the Susan Rice comments, even though they have previously been given evidence that Rice was using the Intelligence Agency’s’ talking points. Hillary referenced an independent report that said the cause of the attack was still not clear and the FBI is still investigating the cause. The report found no fault by Hillary, but at lower levels of the State Department.
Rand Paul should have read the report; however, it was clear from Paul and other House Republicans that their agenda was political.
Hillary provided very interesting information. She agreed to implement the recommendations in the independent report (89?). In addition, she has started other initiatives to improve the State Department and coorindation with other government divisions.
It is no wonder she did not want a second term. It is an overwhelming and extremely stressful job. She has worked extremely hard and has many accomplishments during her time at State.
-
Chipotle says:
J. Raimondo’s comment is unsubstantiated invective.
-
reactionary says:
Linda, you say Clinton worked extremely hard, you know this how exactly ??? Lets be honest here, she was a disaster, the bungling in the Middle East is bad enough, but the decline in relations with both Russia and China cannot be ignored. She has been the worst ever, can’t think of any previous person (Democrat or Republican) who left a worser legacy.
-
Sombrero says: “Time for Obama to turn the page – quickly, for God’s sake.”
Despite Rand Paul’s statement that Hillary Clinton is leaving her job at the State Department because of disgrace over Benghazi, she make it clear before Benghazi that she was quitting at the beginning of Obama’s second term.
-
amspirnational says:
Michelle says:January 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm”Paul was being a pompous ass, more interested in inflating his own stock than getting down to the facts of the matter. His preening was exceeded only by that of Sen. McCain, who is still rehashing his bitterness at losing the 2008 election in public. Clinton handled them both beautifully.”
I wonder if Michelle also believes Hillary handled beautifully her vote to allow Bush to attack Iraq based on already exposed lies about Saddam’s non-existent WMDs.
It’s why she’s sitting there rather than in the Oval Office.
-
Bob Jones says:
As someone who has supported the senator’s father for a number of years, I find myself in agreement with Raimondo here. Rand Paul has shown himself to be nothing more than a pandering Party-Man.
This incident is just another of his ill-informed pandering attempts. Rand is not interested in uncovering truth or identifying options for administrative improvement, rather he simply wants to score points for his re-election bid next year and a possible Pres. run on 2016.
In 2011 I had the opportunity to work on a project, which would have changed how the DOS plans their embassy and consular facilities, as well as the security for those facilities. The feasibility phase of the project made some concrete recommendation that could have benefited the mission in Benghazi. However, the project was cancelled, because the Republicans (including Senator Paul) refused to approve the funding for it. Maybe instead of sitting pompously in judgement over other for things that may well have been outside of their control, he should reflect on his own culpability for refusing to fund the necessary improvements that might have prevented or mitigated this mess.
I guess accountability if something Senator Paul sees only for others and not for himself.
-
Victory over Eurasia says:
As a life-long dem and a supporter of the current administration I can only hope that we’ll see Rand Paul/Paul Ryan on the GOP ticket for 2016. Ryan’s domestic policy dishonesty with Paul’s ignorance in foreign policy…… A dream team!!
-
Mike says:
Rand Paul blocked the necessary funding for increased embassy security that may have saved the lives of thoses four Americans. While Paul blocks critical funding needs for US embassies, his state of Kentucky receives $1.83 in federal benefits for every $1.00 it pays in taxes. I don’t hear him voting to reduce this welfare funding to Kentucky.
-
@reactionary:
How about Condi Rice?? Would you rather have her back at DOS. Or maybe at NSA, where she basically left the barn door open for Al Quaida to walk in.
My how quickly we forget how incompetent the previous administration was.
-
Dan Phillips says:
“Lacking coherence, eloquence, or indeed the least amount of dignity, Rand Paul is an embarrassment.”
Justine, do you know of any non-interventionist candidates contemplating a run? You can’t beat something with nothing.
-
DavidT says:
FWIW, Public Policy Polling shows Hillary beating Rand Paul in 2016 *in Kentucky*! http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/kentucky-hillary-clinton-would-beat-paul-rubio-in-2016.html
(Before you protest that they’re “biased Democrat pollsters,” please recall that their final poll showing Obama leading Romney by three points actually *underestimated* Obama’s winning margin by one point…)
-
Nick K. says:
I like Rand Paul, but it seems like he was just sharpshooting here. Kind of unbecoming.
-
William Dalton says:
There are many reasons, exposed frequently on the pages of TAC, to find the Obama foreign policy and its implementation by Secretary Clinton foolhardy and even criminal, to chide the Administration for policies that skirt the law and damage the true national interests of the United States. But castigating the Secretary for not reading every cable that comes into the Department is absurd. Presumably every person holding the post of Ambassador to a foreign country should have the privilege of communicating directly and personally with the Secretary when they deem it so important. It is not a privilege they should abuse, but they should have it. Were any of the cables coming from Libya about embassy security directed to Clinton’s personal attention? Doesn’t she have an entire staff whose job it is to assess these needs and allocate resources accordingly? For all such requests to come to her personal attention would represent the failure of the system, not its optimal fulfillment.
Philip Giraldi has explained in these pages that there is a balance to be struck in every diplomatic outpost between the desire for the personal security of our officers and staff and the fulfillment of their diplomatic responsibilities. It is possible to put every ambassador in an armed fortress and never let them out where they might come under attack. It would also make it impossible for them to do their jobs. These jobs, particularly those in countries, like Libya, in which the United States has recently been involved in violent “regime change”, are inherently risky.
Ron Paul never wasted his or the taxpayers’ time complaining about embassy security when it is clear the dangers there confronted are ones which were created by our own foreign policies. He focused his criticism on those very policies. Rand Paul should do the same, or he will quickly become as irrelevant as every other would be Republican presidential candidate.
-
Bob Jones, Rice might not have had the usual media types in Europe or America (same thing actually) swooning over her, but in her position as Secretary of State (thats what is being discussed here after all) the damage she inflicted in foreign dealings is way less than that of Clinton.
-
Do Your Homework, Mikey.
“According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations, overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008.”
-
Bryan says:
I still wish he would have asked her how it felt to be pelted with rotten vegetables on her last Imperial Walk-Through of Egypt.
Although I’m suspicious of the dynastic implications of Rand’s candidacy and election, I have to laugh when people who clearly want Republicans to Lose No Matter What offer advice on who would make a good or bad nominee.
Routine perusal of the usual-suspect leftist media outlets lately makes clear that Chris Christie is being subtly pushed by ardent Democrat ideologues as the Sensible Republican Choice. Not some crazy extremist like Paul. Oh, they claim with ominous triumphal glee, the Democrats would “love it” if the GOP were so foolish as to nominate an Extremist like Senator Paul. They’d also “love” to run against that sick whacko Bobby Jindal.
Riiiight. The Sensible Republican Choice is another “moderate” governor of a Northeast Blue State. That’ll work. That’ll work for Democrats just fine. Then they can pretend to kind-of sorta like him at first while of course continuing to push their favorite narrative: that the GOP is nothing but fat old white guys. Then when Christie all but acquiesces to only, say, 80% of standard Liberal dogma they will paint him as The Most Evil Man Since Romney for not being a loud and proud Leftist ideologue.
But if some Radical Extremist like Senator Paul were to be nominated, the Democrats would have to resort to their usual Campaign Finishing Touch, shrill personal attacks, right from the beginning, which might expose the utter bereftness of their position. Why, if Bobby Jindal were to nominated it ruin their whole All Dark-Skinned People and Immigrants Are Helpless Victims narrative. That won’t do at all!
I have in my possession a copy of National Review from 2005 wherein Ramesh Ponnuru boldly asserts that Bush’s re-election could well mean The End of Liberalism. Such triumphalism seems to be willful historical ignorance induced in some folks by over-immersion in Party Boosterism. Advice from people wallowing in such self-indulgence–including those who now claim that with Obama’s re-election The GOP is Finished Unless They Do What Liberals Say–should not be taken too seriously.
-
pattyirish says:
January 23, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Rob- you are clueless and as for your ‘follow the polls mentality’ … look where it got the Republican Party.
Rand Paul’s ‘true’ conservatism is very inspiring for those demographic groups the Party needs if its going to have any relevancy in the future.Try not to insult my Irish literary heritage since it seems that you did not read my comment.
I said nothing about the merits of Rand Paul running for the presidency or his fitness for the office or even his principles. I noted that the Republicans will not nominate him. While there are rare moments–Wilkie, Goldwater come to mind–the Republicans usually pick a safe nominee who has run for the presidency before. The GOP generally does not back mavericks. They’d rather nominate safe losers–Dewey, Ford, McCain, Dole, Romney–than advance a principled candidate.
-
Chris Mallory says:
David T, PPP also showed Wrongway Conway beating Paul by a landslide in 2010. PPP is worthless in Kentucky.
As for the comment from Mike about Federal spending in Kentucky. You are more than welcome to remove the military bases, finish cleaning up the nuclear waste in Paducah, pull the Coast Guard and the Corps of Engineers from the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and give the property stolen by TVA back to it’s original owners. Other than that, the biggest Federal expense in Kentucky is Social Security.
-
Matt says:
Forget firing her, how was she ever hired? Is not Secretary of State a job that one ought to have some relevant qualifications for? Are all Senators magically qualified to do it?
-
Ralph Raico says:
To the commenter who wrote, “J. Raimondo’s comment is unsubstantiated invective”: Justin has substantiated his comment numerous times on the website antiwar.com. Don’t speak on matters on which you know nothing.
-
KJL says:
Bryan – your points are well taken. As someone who finds the analysis and commentary around here to be excellent yet nevertheless for the most part wishes to see Democrats elected, I would be happy to see Rubio, Rand Paul or Paul Ryan face off against Clinton in 2016 since I can’t foresee there being any contest.
Christie vs. Clinton, though, is an unsettling thought, not only because I believe Christie would be a very formidable challenger but also because he in many respects would be my own preferred candidate. He does represent a Republican populism that I could live with, whereas the Democratic embrace of big business and Wall Street under both Bill Clinton and Obama, which would certainly continue under Hillary, is extremely distasteful to me.
That last is also incidentally why I would have voted for Ron Paul. Rand Paul though? He’s just a stick-to-the-talking-points GOP hack, with some minor libertarian flourishes.
This may be food for thought for folks here. I’m a lifelong Democratic voter who would have chosen Ron Paul over Obama in 2012 and would have to think very long and very hard before choosing between Clinton and Christie in 2016. This is why I think people like Christie and Ron (not Rand) Paul could be the future of the GOP: they could win over Democratic leaning voters like myself in perhaps large numbers.
Sounds like another Paul will be running for President in a few years…