Most popular dog breeds in America
These guys are happy because their little brains literally can't grasp the concept of global warming.
In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., set the stage for a potential 2016 match-up against Hillary Clinton by attacking her handling of the Benghazi attacks, writing that “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.”
Paul referenced his contention at a Senate hearing earlier this year that he would have ”relieved her of her position” if he was in office and learned that she did not read cables asking the State Department for more security at the U.S. consulate in Libya:
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.
“Too many questions remain unanswered,” Paul writes. “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.”
Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email her at email@example.com.More Jillian Rayfield.