General Discussion

doxydad

(1,363 posts) Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:21 PM Jun 2014

Rand Paul on Hillary Clinton: 'We will make her answer for Benghazi'

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul weighed in Sunday on the two hot-button issues for the GOP at the moment: Iraq and Hillary Clinton.

Paul, a possible candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, had some strong words for Clinton, a potential Democratic choice in 2016.

"We will make her answer for Benghazi," Paul said of the former secretary of state. "She will have to explain how she can be commander in chief when she was not responsive to multiple requests for more security in the six months leading up [to the attack]."

Clinton, Paul pointed out, had approved millions in expenditures not related to security in the months before the assault.

"Meet the Press" host David Gregory asked Paul if Benghazi should disqualify Clinton as a candidate.

"I think so," Paul said. "[The] American people want a commander in chief that will send reinforcements, that will defend the country, and that will provide the adequate security. And I think in the moment of need — a long moment, a six-month moment — she wasn’t there."

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-on-dick-cheney-obama-gop-160221478.html

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rand Paul on Hillary Clinton: 'We will make her answer for Benghazi' (Original Post) doxydad Jun 2014 OP

Thank goodness you can always count on Republicans Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #1

political grandstanding RobertEarl Jun 2014 #2

after the news this week, you'd think they would stop beating the Benghazi drum. . . B Calm Jun 2014 #3

And then we will make Congress answer as to why funding was cut for security of our American Thinkingabout Jun 2014 #4

Rand, you elitist, raised-spoiled, self-certified eye doctor rustydog Jun 2014 #5

can't wait vadermike Jun 2014 #6

Benghazi was a covert CIA operation under the direction of Gen. Petraeus - why doesn't Rand want to blm Jun 2014 #7

+1. A true investigation of Benghazi would probably be MORE problematic to Rethugs riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #8

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)

1. Thank goodness you can always count on Republicans

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:23 PM

Jun 2014

to beat a dead horse. If their candidates were any less clownish, I might actually worry about the 2016 WH race. As it stands, I think any Dem candidate that goes up has the general as long as he or she can keep his/her mouth shut and just let Republicans keep on talking.

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

2. political grandstanding

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:29 PM

Jun 2014

Paul hates the US. Like Bush hated the us. Bush sat there and LIHOP - 9/11, 2001.

LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose

B Calm

(28,762 posts)

3. after the news this week, you'd think they would stop beating the Benghazi drum. . .

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:31 PM

Jun 2014

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)

4. And then we will make Congress answer as to why funding was cut for security of our American

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:34 PM

Jun 2014

Facilities.

rustydog

(9,186 posts)

5. Rand, you elitist, raised-spoiled, self-certified eye doctor

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:56 PM

Jun 2014

What "we" are you referring to? I never see a photograph of you with someone standing within 20-feet of you. It appears even republicans keep their distance from Rand Paul. You are a snide, mean, privileged snot, and those are your good points.

Your statements, like your daddy's presidential ambitions, just sink slowly, painfully into a deep dark gully never really taken seriously by anyone.
Please join your statements in that gully and ease our pain of hearing your drivel.

vadermike

(1,415 posts)

6. can't wait

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 07:09 PM

Jun 2014

Can't wait to hopefully see Hillary eat this douche alive...!!

blm

(112,996 posts)

7. Benghazi was a covert CIA operation under the direction of Gen. Petraeus - why doesn't Rand want to

Reply to doxydad (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 08:03 PM

Jun 2014

discuss the problems there with him, especially since Petraeus had dozens of his operatives on the ground at Benghazi before, during, and after the attack.

Funny, how no Republican wants to even acknowledge that fact. They would rather pretend Clinton drugged Petraeus, put him in a coma for months while she took over the covert operations there.

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)

8. +1. A true investigation of Benghazi would probably be MORE problematic to Rethugs

Reply to blm (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 08:19 PM

Jun 2014

if the truth were to ever come out.

Honestly,, I'd love to really know what the backstory is on this CIA station and why Chris Stevens was even there. I just don't want to hear the manufactured outrage about 'delayed responses" or "lack of $$ allocated for security".

Petraeus' convenient disappearance from the global stage just as the Benghazi question heated up have always troubled me. This was his operation and just when Chris Stevens is killed, Petraeus is discredited and isn't called to testify.

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Reply to this discussion