Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
The Moment of Responsibility for Hillary Clinton
Sen. Rand Paul
May 13, 2013
When I took Hillary Rodham Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, I told her that if I had been president at the time, I would have relieved her of her post. Some politicians and pundits took offense at my line of questioning.

During those hearings, I reminded Mrs. Clinton that multiple requests were sent to the State Department asking for increased security measures. I asked if she had read the cables from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens asking for increased security. She replied that she was busy and had not read them. I find that inexcusable.

Four months later, we are hearing that Mrs. Clinton allegedly withheld information from a counterterrorism bureau during the response. We are hearing new allegations that Special Forces wanting to respond during the attacks were told, "You can't go" by superiors. Ambassador Stevens' deputy, Gregory Hicks, testified this week that he spoke with Mrs. Clinton on the night of the attack, when these orders were given. We are hearing that Mr. Hicks was initially told by the State Department not to meet with congressional investigators.

We are, again, hearing allegations that contradict the White House's story.

Benghazi security was a life-and-death matter that resulted in the latter. The notion that high-ranking government officials are somehow beyond reproach, as some suggested during my criticism of Mrs. Clinton, is dangerous and wrong.

The secretary of state's responsibility is to protect our diplomats. Mrs. Clinton should have been relieved of her post for denying pleas for additional security. Almost 20 years ago, President Clinton's secretary of defense was relieved of his post for a similarly bad decision.

In early October 1993, a battle between US forces and Somali militia in Mogadishu left 18 Americans soldiers dead, 80 wounded and two American helicopters shot down. Today, this is remembered as the Battle of Mogadishu or more popularly, "Black Hawk Down," thanks to a subsequent movie of the same name.

A month earlier in September, then-Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Colin L. Powell requested soldiers, tanks and armor-plated vehicles to reinforce the mission in Somalia. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin denied these requests. The Associated Press reported the following on Oct. 8, 1993, just days after the Battle of Mogadishu: "Defense Secretary Les Aspin today brushed aside calls for his resignation as 'the politics of Capitol Hill,' but conceded that in light of recent casualties, he shouldn't have rejected a request to send more armor and troops to Somalia last month."

Two months later, after less than a year of service, Aspin resigned as secretary of defense.

Though Mr. Clinton cited personal reasons for Aspin's resignation, it was reported widely that he had asked him to step down. Aspin did ultimately accept responsibility for his decisions, saying, "The ultimate responsibility for the safety of our troops is mine. I was aware of the request and could have directed that a deployment order be drawn up. I did not, and I accept responsibility for the consequences."

By refusing to grant requests for weapons and reinforcement in Somalia in 1993, Aspin made a bad decision, admitted his bad decision, accepted responsibility and eventually left his position as a result of it.

When Ambassador Stevens, Libya's site-security team commander Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and others made repeated requests for increased security and resources in Benghazi, those requests were ignored. No one denies that these requests crossed Mrs. Clinton's desk. But virtually everyone involved has denied that they should accept responsibility for the tragedy in Benghazi.

Now there are new allegations, accusations that arguably bear more significance on how this tragedy unfolded. It is imperative that we continue to ask: Who was responsible?

My job as a US senator and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to be part of the confirmation process for high-ranking national security positions as well as review the performance of officeholders. When Aspin made bad decisions in 1993, he testified before the Senate, which examined his job performance, and many gave him a bad review.

Mrs. Clinton was never above a similar job-performance review. When I asked her in January if her resignation meant that she was finally accepting responsibility, the answer never came.

Will the answers ever come? Don't the victims' families deserve them? Shouldn't we do everything in our power to leave no rock unturned in order make sure such bad decision-making doesn't happen again?

Aspin resigned over Black Hawk Down. The same precedent should have applied apply to Mrs. Clinton. To date, no one has ultimately taken responsibility for Benghazi.

My office is currently seeking out the witnesses and survivors of Benghazi to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. To date, the Obama administration has refused to let them testify.

Too many questions remain unanswered. Now, there are too many new questions. The evidence we had in January already suggested that Mrs. Clinton ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. The new evidence we have today -- and that continues to mount -- suggests that at the very least, Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again.

This article was originally published at WashingtonTimes.com. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server