• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rand Paul: "I WOULD HAVE RELIEVED YOU"

Mike

Well-known member
cont'd............."OF YOUR POST" To Hillary Clinton

She got very irate when questioned by Ron Johnson: "What difference does it make?" whether it was a planned attack or a spontaneous event.

Well...........why try to portray it as "Spontaneous" if it didn't matter.

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been negligent in conducting her job, and said that if he were president, he would have relieved her of her post.

Paul said that the fact that she was not aware of the requests of more security for the U.S. Embassy in Libya constituted “a failure of leadership” and said it was “inexcusable.”

“I think ultimately…you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11,” Paul said.

“Had I been president at the time and I had found that you had not read the cables from Benghazi, you had not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens,” he went on, “I would have relieved you of your post.”

Paul accused Clinton of being directly responsible for the loss of lives in the September 11, 2012 attacks.

“Not to know of the requests for security really, I think, cost these people their lives,” he said.

“I don’t suspect you of bad motives,” he said, but added that “it’s a failure of leadership not to be involved. It’s a failure of leadership not to know these things.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-to-hillary-clinton-if-i-were-president-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post-video/#ixzz2Ioyi0y00
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Rand Paul will have an especially big target on his back now, not that the Dems and media aren't set on destroying any potential future Presidential Nominees anyway.

Biden is likely peeing in his diaper over any damage possibly being done to Hitlery.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
TSR said:
Hopefully Rand Paul will run against the Dem's in the next presidential election.

Hate to pee on your parade, but it won't matter. Though the MSM will do their part and "libertarians" like OT will comb the internet looking for dirt on the pub nominee, donks will win the White House from here forward anyway.

I realize I can be proven right/wrong on this only once every 4 years, but I'll say it again anyway.....a conservative nominee for the presidency of the United States will never win that office again. The numbers don't add up today, and they'll only be worse tomorrow.
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
TSR said:
Hopefully Rand Paul will run against the Dem's in the next presidential election.

Hate to pee on your parade, but it won't matter. Though the MSM will do their part and "libertarians" like OT will comb the internet looking for dirt on the pub nominee, donks will win the White House from here forward anyway.

I realize I can be proven right/wrong on this only once every 4 years, but I'll say it again anyway.....a conservative nominee for the presidency of the United States will never win that office again. The numbers don't add up today, and they'll only be worse tomorrow.

You keep saying this like you know something. You are the same guy that said Newt would be president today. Politics is just one big pendulum as far as things swing to the left they will swing that far back to the right.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
Whitewing said:
TSR said:
Hopefully Rand Paul will run against the Dem's in the next presidential election.

Hate to pee on your parade, but it won't matter. Though the MSM will do their part and "libertarians" like OT will comb the internet looking for dirt on the pub nominee, donks will win the White House from here forward anyway.

I realize I can be proven right/wrong on this only once every 4 years, but I'll say it again anyway.....a conservative nominee for the presidency of the United States will never win that office again. The numbers don't add up today, and they'll only be worse tomorrow.

You keep saying this like you know something. You are the same guy that said Newt would be president today. Politics is just one big pendulum as far as things swing to the left they will swing that far back to the right.

I was yanking OT's chain when I said that about Newt, okay.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58370&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rush&start=12

Now, having said that, I DID believe that Romney (far from being a conservative) would beat Obama and I was dead wrong. That Romney didn't beat Obama, the most devisive president of my lifetime, opened my eyes to the fact that the make up of electorate has changed, FOREVER.

A conservative pub will win a Senate seat every once in a while from overwhelmingly conservative states, and plenty of conservative pubs and donks will win Congressional seats, but I am convinced that on a national scale, the country will never again see a conservative president.

There are just too many voters today who do not view conservative principles as matching their own, and their numbers are growing exponentially.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
smalltime said:
It's hard to have republicans without a republic.

Very good point smalltime.

Listen to most of today's "constitutionalists" like OT and you'll find that they embrace the idea of democracy much more readily. To most of them, it's hard to find fault with the concept of majority rule.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
smalltime said:
It's hard to have republicans without a republic.

Very good point smalltime.

Listen to most of today's "constitutionalists" like OT and you'll find that they embrace the idea of democracy much more readily. To most of them, it's hard to find fault with the concept of majority rule.

Very true. Governing by "Polling", especially on fiscal issues is walking on shaky ground and got us where we are now.

In debt to the tune of "Unsustainable".
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
smalltime said:
iF OLDTIMER IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST,I'm young and good looking

Here ya go you good lookin' lad. :D

The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

OT, the gift that keeps on giving. :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
smalltime said:
iF OLDTIMER IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST,I'm young and good looking

Here ya go you good lookin' lad. :D

The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

OT, the gift that keeps on giving. :lol:

But remember, OT also said Bush has high moral character. :???:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Whitewing said:
smalltime said:
iF OLDTIMER IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST,I'm young and good looking

Here ya go you good lookin' lad. :D

The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

OT, the gift that keeps on giving. :lol:

But remember, OT also said Bush has high moral character. :???:

Well, yeah, though that was before Bush lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq, told banking regulators to take an 8 year vacation, pub lawmakers called for his arrest, and national polls told OT where his principles should lie.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
The Constitution gave Congress these powers as a way of oversight over the President- to keep us from ending up with another King George- but in many ways they have let the US people down....

:lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Mike said:
Whitewing said:
Here ya go you good lookin' lad. :D

The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

OT, the gift that keeps on giving. :lol:

But remember, OT also said Bush has high moral character. :???:

Well, yeah, though that was before Bush lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq, told banking regulators to take an 8 year vacation, pub lawmakers called for his arrest, and national polls told OT where his principles should lie.

OT's "good moral character" statement was well after we went into Iraq:

Topic: Our Disappearing Economy
Oldtimer

Forum: Political Bull Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:22 pm
As an Independent I voted for GW- wasn't much other choice-- still support him on many issues and am glad we have a President with good moral character....
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Finally some more are wakening to the reason I've been saying that GW needs to be challenged and jerked up short on his reign of secrecy and going around or totally avoiding existing laws and the Constitution.....

:lol:

Then you add in the questions they bring up about false leaks and falsehoods coming out of the Administration- along with some top members of the Administration putting out they are above any oversight (Congressional or Judicial as laid out in the Constitution as a check and balance) - its not hard to see why the poll ratings are where they are....

:lol:


The Judicial branch does not investigate-- they are the courts that intrepret and are the decision makers on the laws...

The investigative powers lie mostly in the Administrative [sic] branch- but when abused they are subject to oversight by the Legislative branch (Congress)......This is a duty Constitutionally given to Congress...

And if Congress finds criminal acts or illegallities against the Administrative branch their decisions are all appealable back to the Judicial-- checks and balances....


:roll:


This is the snidely way GW and the D.O.T are getting around the law- which I remember quite well when it was passed- and the intent was for them to stop the program....But like I said before--GW never has let the truth, or the law, or the Constitution stand in his way of doing what he wants..

:lol:

Well the conservatives must not trust GW- or whoever may follow him - as they are the ones raising the stink - and saying that treaties such as this need Congressional approval under the Constitution....
But we know GW threw the Constitution out the door long ago....


:lol:

True conservatives oppose giving the Federal government any more power- and realize the importance of maintaining the balances of power we now have- and the importance our founding fathers saw for them when they put them in our Constitution....

:lol:

Makes me wonder what the driving force of such a person is We've just survived 7 years of the most arrogant disregard to the publics voice, our legal history, and our Constitution that there has ever been- that has split this country apart and I don't think this country could survive another such "big corporate minded" neocon....

:lol:

Its being reported today that the Justice Dept has named a Special Counsel and the FBI is investigating this as an "obstructing justice" case...Be interesting to see how far up the ladder it goes before someone takes the fall- to protect the White House Boys--ala Scooter Libby style...
Its already being commented around D.C. and the blogs as that whoever indicted/convicted will be GW's next use of clemecy and pardons- as this President believes he is above the law- and has allowed that attitude to pervade thru all of the government ranks...

The day GW took office Lady Justice was blindfolded and all four corners of our US Constitution were set afire...


:lol:

Obama May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush

A Chance for our country to return to the Rule of Law and the Constitution that our forefathers set up over 200 years ago and that many brave men have died defending....

:lol:


AMEN--Couldn't have been any worse than GW...The day he swore his oath he forgot all his campaign promises, that we have a constitution, that we have laws of the land, that our country is/was a sovereign nation, or any of the fundamentals the Republican party was built on-- like little things like anti war mongering, nation building, drunken sailor type spending, states rights, smaller federal bureaucracy, etc. etc. etc.

:lol:

Funny reading this stuff, isn't it.

I'd look for quotes of OT blasting Obama for his abuses of the Constitution but I'm pretty sure there are none to be found. No, OT's powerful convictions and deeply-rooted principles about upholding the Constitution and following what our founding fathers wanted, pretty much vanished like a fart in the Montana wind when Obama was sworn into office.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Benghazi ?

4 dead ?


what about the 3,000 plus dead right here in the good old USA, Sept. 11, 2001, months before that slaughter happened, the White House was warned that an attack on USA soil was immanent, yet the warnings went ignored.

where is that outrage from the republican hypocrites there? oh, that's right, that was on their watch, so those 3,000 plus slaughtered Americans, of which the slaughter took place on American soil, they don't count do they, not in the eyes of the Republicans that were responsible for letting this slaughter happen.

let me tell you republican hypocrites something, you come back and talk to us on Benghazi and the 4 dead there, when you inform the American people, how and why, the Republicans sat and watched 3,000 plus Americans get slaughtered on their own soil, when they knew months before hand that this was coming, but yet did nothing. ...



The Deafness Before the Storm

September 10, 2012

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible....


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html



The Bush White House Was Deaf To 9/11 Warnings

Posted: 09/10/2012 11:25 pm Updated: 09/11/2012 10:00 am


The Bush administration was told, as early as May 2001, about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/bush-white-house-911-warnings_n_1872663.html



Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

Sunday, October 1, 2006


On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance -- Black called it an "out of cycle" session, beyond Tenet's regular weekly meeting with Rice -- would get her attention.

Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.

He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."


snip...


Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn't get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.

Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."



snip...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I'll take this bait.

First you make the assertion:

what about the 3,000 plus dead right here in the good old USA, Sept. 11, 2001, months before that slaughter happened, the White House was warned that an attack on USA soil was immanent, yet the warnings went ignored.

What evidence can you present that the warnings went "ignored"....that an attack happened?

You then go on to post information and stories that refutes your own assertion above.

Phrases such possibility of a Qaeda attack , could be “imminent, the time frame was flexible, threat of an attack , pepper the stories and opinion pieces you posted.

I'd imagine that every day, 365 days a year, under every president in modern day history, threats of harm to Americans has crossed the president's desk. They'll continue to cross the president's desk and I'd hope that any president will take them seriously and do what he can under the circumstances.

I suspect that most of the outrage of the right re what happened in Benghazi centers on two main points: 1) that in a post 9-11 era we put Americans in the heart of an anti-American region and left them woefully underprotected, and 2) that the president of the US later joked about, and made light of their deaths after misleading the American people for a week or two about the leading cause of the incident.

Where's that cartoon of the president in his golf cart calling them bumps in the road as he was driving over the graves of the 4 dead?
 

Mike

Well-known member
After the first World Trade Center bombing, and the Embassy bombing, Clinton treated Al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. He had several chances to get Bin Laden but didn't.

There was an election coming up and he didn't want to rock the boat.

Hank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.

"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."

The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.

Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html
 

hopalong

Well-known member
What Clinton did or did not do does not count!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thar does not fall into oldtimer,flipper,or kolo-jingo=lulu=allie's blame Bush :wink: :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top