Posted on 04/23/2013 5:27:43 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was surprised by former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons sworn testimony in a Senate hearing in which she claimed that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.
It was Paul who asked Clinton the question during the hearings. His inquiry focused on alleged weapons shipments out of Benghazi to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assads regime.
Speaking on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New Yorks WABC Radio, Paul was reacting to Clintons testimony in light of a New York Times report last month that claimed that since early 2012, the CIA has been helping Arab governments and Turkey obtain and ship weapons to the Syrian rebels.
The plan mirrors one the Times reported in February as being proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels via Turkish and Arab cut outs.
The New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had concocted the plan, which called for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.
If Clinton knew about the arms transfers, she may have committed perjury during her Benghazi testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They would just represent the party.
Look at the latest appointments... Schatz from Hawaii has just completely sold himself to the party as soon as he got there (granted, it was for campaign cash)
I take your point but governors like Christie aren’t going to appoint conservatives and it’s also subject to backroom deals being done i.e one party gets a senate seat, the other gets the 2nd and you let my bill/reform get through the State house.
Also the kinds of people you find appointed will be the most corrupt and worse people in the state like former majority whip’s and speaker of state houses...
BTW it takes over 20 million dollars to run for the Senate so money talks and Senators know that. However if state legislators elected Senators the cost of running would be pizza and beer for the legislators.
Governors did not appoint Senators prior to the 17th, they were elected by state legislators. State legislators are elected by the voters in their states. It was a very wise system that preserved the interests of the states at the federal level. Which is why the 1900’s progressives did away with it. 1900s progressives wanted an all powerful federal government, like we have now.
For reinforcement she could add " What difference does it make"!
I’m sympathetic but not sure what kind of people we’d get...
Well most state legislators are more conservative then most Senators so right off the bat we would get a more conservative Senate! Plus the Senate would not be beholden to special interest or big money since getting elected did not require appeasing special interest for big money. This is really a no brainer, doing away with the 17th would reduce the power of the federal government which is a good thing.
Hey, as a huge fan of WB cartoons don’t insult Porky like that!
That’s all folks.
Whirled Nut Daily!
Ron Paul fans furious over Rand Paul’s drone flip-flop
Foreign Policy | April 23, 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 04/23/2013 4:18:10 PM PDT by BfloGuy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3011536/posts
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
LATimes.com | March 19, 2013 | Michael A. Memoli
Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3010596/posts
Precisely...we should be helping both of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.