Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists[W:130]

Slyfox696 · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

mac said:
Let's see.

She ignored indications that more security was necessary

It was lost in the bureaucracy of government, but yes, you're not wrong about this in general.

denied more security

She didn't, that's been established. Furthermore, Stevens twice refused security.

failed to respond to an attack

That's not her job. Secretaries of state don't engage active military personnel. Furthermore, the attack WAS responded to. The 4 man team from the Annex (and the Libyan security team) responded to the attack at the consulate and the 6 man team from Tripoli responded to the situation as well.

lied about the info concerning the attack, gave a fake reason for the attack

She repeated what the intelligence had initially told her, which we now know was wrong.

sent an underling to the lions to face questions about the attack

This is just a lie, and such an obvious one I don't know why you said it. The whole "what difference does it make" quote came from her Congressional testimony.

and isn't much interested in figuring out why the attack happened or who attacked us.

Except we all know now who and why, so it would seem kind of stupid at this point to still be asking questions.

Like I said, you obviously have no ability to be objective on this issue.

Yeah, it's my objectivity that is in question.

It is, as evident by this very post.

CalGun said:
I'm certainly not interested in your partisan opinion as "truth."

You don't seem to understand that context is not opinion, it's truth. You've already admitted you're proudly ignorant of the context, so the only one being partisan here is you.

To, honestly, that makes you dangerous.

No, people who willfully ignore context in order to push their political agenda, regardless of the facts, are the dangerous ones. People who parse words and meanings accurately and as they were intended are the ones who preserve the liberty in this country.

Anyone who believes their opinion is the "fact" (a word you use routinely along with "truth") is someone I wish to have nothing to do with on an anonymous forum.

I'm not passing my opinion as fact, I'm passing facts as facts. Just because you're ignorant to them, it doesn't make them any less true.

By the way, you still haven't apologized. Does this mean you lied when you said you would?

Gill said:
You should read the transcript you linked to:

Clinton knew she was lying when she said this. The State Department sent emails to the Libyan government within hours of the attack informing them that Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.

You are 100% wrong.

Yes he did, which is another injustice. The man went to jail for a petty parole violation because he accessed a computer.

It's an injustice he violated the law and was punished in the manner he knew he'd be punished?

You don't really understand things very well, now do you?

We all know he actually went to jail because the administration insisted he be punished one way or the other.

Most likely. Doesn't change the fact he was the one violated the law. :shrug:

Yes, primarily by Clinton and Obama, yet they've not lifted a finger to actually do anything.

Wait, wait, wait...let's go back...You said:

Gill said:
What about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ??

And now you're saying Clinton has promised them that! :lamo

Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.

It is obvious who the untruths came from here.

Yes, yes it very much is. It came from the person who falsely attributed to Hillary something she didn't say and then later tried to criticize Hillary for something you now say she's done.

You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.

Gill · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.

You are 100% wrong.

So you are now claiming she wasn't even talking about the Benghazi attack at a memorial service for the victims ???? That's funny.

It's an injustice he violated the law and was punished in the manner he knew he'd be punished?

You don't really understand things very well, now do you?

Most likely. Doesn't change the fact he was the one violated the law. :shrug:

I know you libs don't mind using anything available to get back at people that disagree with you, but it's really quite disgusting that you admit that the Obama administration used this man as a scapegoat, yet don't see anything wrong with it.

I guess you see nothing wrong with Clinton, Kerry, and Obama not lifting a finger to keep hundreds of murderers and child molesters from being deported either and then simply releasing them.

Wait, wait, wait...let's go back...You said:

And now you're saying Clinton has promised them that! :lamo

Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.

Yes, yes it very much is. It came from the person who falsely attributed to Hillary something she didn't say and then later tried to criticize Hillary for something you now say she's done.

You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.

You need to actually read what was written instead of what you want it to say, because your comments make no sense. Clinton promised to jail the American that posted a video, but nothing about getting the ones responsible for killing four Americans. True to her promise, the Californian went to jail, while the men responsible for the actual murders sat in a coffee shop giving interviews to American television stations.

Pitiful. Twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend this travesty is not flattering.

Hicup · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

BWG said:
I think a lot of people share your stance.

The bolded is what the Republican congress should be convening a committee on, instead of the umpteenth witch hunting expedition and raising political contributions on the deaths of these honorable Americans.

What do you call it when the "hunt" reveals that there really are witches?

Tim-

Slyfox696 · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Gill said:
So you are now claiming she wasn't even talking about the Benghazi attack at a memorial service for the victims ???? That's funny.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

I know it sucked to see just how wrong you were, but your transparent attempt at a strawman was pathetic. You said Clinton, in front of the four caskets (at the memorial) claimed their deaths was the result of the video. I proved direct evidence Clinton said no such thing. Clinton clearly separated out the attack in Benghazi from the hate and violence over the video which was seen at various embassies. Anyone with a modicum of honesty would see the difference.

Just admit what we both already know. You were wrong. Just say it, it'll feel good.

I know you libs

I'm not a lib. I'm just someone who cares about the truth. Out of curiosity, why don't you care more about the truth?

don't mind using anything available to get back at people that disagree with you, but it's really quite disgusting that you admit that the Obama administration used this man as a scapegoat, yet don't see anything wrong with it.

What's disgusting is when you "non-truthers" make claims which are obviously false, because you hate the fact you're wrong.

I never said it was right to make someone a scapegoat for something they weren't. What I have said is the man DID break the law and DID pay the penalty for breaking the law. Regardless of whether he had ever made a movie or not, he broke the law, he should pay the consequences, regardless of why he was brought to the front of media attention. Furthermore, this man DID create a video which offended people in the Middle East and which did incite riots, so it's not like he's an innocent victim being the scapegoat either. It's simply that his video doesn't appear to be the motivation behind this particular attack at the consulate.

I guess you see nothing wrong with Clinton, Kerry, and Obama not lifting a finger to keep hundreds of murderers and child molesters from being deported either and then simply releasing them.

I guess you don't know what it means to stay on topic, even when you're making provably false statements.

You need to actually read what was written instead of what you want it to say, because your comments make no sense. Clinton promised to jail the American that posted a video, but nothing about getting the ones responsible for killing four Americans. True to her promise, the Californian went to jail, while the men responsible for the actual murders sat in a coffee shop giving interviews to American television stations.

Pitiful. Twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend this travesty is not flattering.

Oh Gill, once more it's YOU who needs to read what is actually written. I'll help you out, because you obviously need it. Here were the posts regarding this particular exchange.

Gill said:
What about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ?

Slyfox696 said:
Hasn't that promise been made by all sorts of people already?

Gill said:
Yes, primarily by Clinton and Obama, yet they've not lifted a finger to actually do anything.

You know, it's one thing to be blatantly partisan to the point where you post provably untrue things, it's something else all together to be incapable of following a thread of discussion and then falsely criticize another for reading comprehension issues.

Gill · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I know it sucked to see just how wrong you were, but your transparent attempt at a strawman was pathetic. You said Clinton, in front of the four caskets (at the memorial) claimed their deaths was the result of the video. I proved direct evidence Clinton said no such thing. Clinton clearly separated out the attack in Benghazi from the hate and violence over the video which was seen at various embassies. Anyone with a modicum of honesty would see the difference.

Just admit what we both already know. You were wrong. Just say it, it'll feel good.

What sucks is your lazy attempt to emulate your other idol, Billy. Want to debate the meaning of "is" now ??

Very sad.

One last point on your lie.... who is in charge of U.S. Consulates ??? Could it be the State Department. Who was in charge of the State Department.

A consulate is part of an embassy. The consul in a country reports to the Ambassador. An embassy is located in a country's capital, consulates are scattered around the country. Your attempt to claim she was not talking about Benghazi in a memorial for the Americans killed in Benghazi is disgusting.

I'm not a lib. I'm just someone who cares about the truth. Out of curiosity, why don't you care more about the truth?

then why don't you start by telling the truth.

I never said it was right to make someone a scapegoat for something they weren't. What I have said is the man DID break the law and DID pay the penalty for breaking the law. Regardless of whether he had ever made a movie or not, he broke the law, he should pay the consequences, regardless of why he was brought to the front of media attention. Furthermore, this man DID create a video which offended people in the Middle East and which did incite riots, so it's not like he's an innocent victim being the scapegoat either. It's simply that his video doesn't appear to be the motivation behind this particular attack at the consulate.

I guess you don't know what it means to stay on topic, even when you're making provably false statements.

Another denial.

Oh Gill, once more it's YOU who needs to read what is actually written. I'll help you out, because you obviously need it. Here were the posts regarding this particular exchange.

You know, it's one thing to be blatantly partisan to the point where you post provably untrue things, it's something else all together to be incapable of following a thread of discussion and then falsely criticize another for reading comprehension issues.

You should really try reading the posts instead of contorting them to meet your political wishes. I said Clinton told the parents that she would make sure the video author would be taken care of. She never told them directly that day that she or anyone else would bring the murderers to justice. Of course, both her and Obama made empty promises AFTER the memorial that the murderers would be taken care of, then never lifted a finger to actually do it.

Slyfox696 · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Gill said:
What sucks is your lazy attempt to emulate your other idol, Billy. Want to debate the meaning of "is" now ??

That doesn't make sense. You were wrong, just own up to it. In her speech, Hillary did not say the attack on Benghazi was the result of the video. You were 100% wrong.

Very sad.

What's sad is how you won't admit you were wrong, when it is indisputably clear you were.

One last point on your lie

A lie? Do you even know what that word means? Only a blind partisan would say providing direct evidence is a lie.

.... who is in charge of U.S. Consulates ??? Could it be the State Department. Who was in charge of the State Department.

What does that have to do with anything? You're used quite a few of fallacious arguments already in this thread. I guess there's nothing quite like a red herring in the afternoon.

A consulate is part of an embassy.

But a consulate is NOT an embassy.

The consulate was attacked. Embassies around the Middle East were the target of hate. This is EXACTLY what Hillary said. Attempts to spin are sad.

Your attempt to claim she was not talking about Benghazi in a memorial for the Americans killed in Benghazi is disgusting.

Why would you bother repeating a lie I've already disproven? Is that really the dishonest tactic you wish to employ to try and get around the fact you're wrong?

I never said she wasn't talking about Benghazi as the focus of her speech. What I DID say is she never said Benghazi was attacked because of the video and to prove it I showed where she clearly separated out what happened at the consulate in Benghazi and what happened at other embassies.

then why don't you start by telling the truth.

Says the person tossing out strawman arguments, red herrings and repeating lies already disproven. :roll:

Another denial.

Another lie.

You should really try reading the posts

I did read the posts. I even put them in order for you. How can you still not understand, when I even repeated them in order?

I said Clinton told the parents that she would make sure the video author would be taken care of.

And then went on to ask why she didn't promise to go after the real perpetrators. I responded to that by saying (paraphrase) "hasn't enough people already done so" and you replied (paraphrased) "yes like Clinton and Obama".

You're drowning in this argument and no amount of directionless flailing will bring your head above water on this one. The evidence is clear right before you.

She never told them directly that day that she or anyone else would bring the murderers to justice.

Good try, but once again you're wrong.

Hillary said:
Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the president’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197780.htm

Of course, both her and Obama made empty promises AFTER the memorial that the murderers would be taken care of, then never lifted a finger to actually do it.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

So once again you admit she has said she'd go after the real murderers! Holy crap, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone torpedo their own argument as much as you've done in this thread.

At the end of the day you were provably wrong about her blaming Benghazi on the video when she gave the memorial speech, you're wrong when you claim I said her memorial speech wasn't about Benghazi (and just where in the world you came up with that ridiculous assertion is beyond me), you're provably wrong when you said Clinton never said anyone should go after those responsible and you've contradicted your claim she's never promised to go after the real killers.

I know there are certain people in this world who don't give a rat's rear end about facts and the truth, so long as it promotes their political agenda. Right now, it appears you're one of those people, by making statements which unbiased evidence proves false. How about you do the honorable thing and admit you've been wrong on so many of the things you've stated?

mac · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
It was lost in the bureaucracy of government, but yes, you're not wrong about this in general.

She didn't, that's been established. Furthermore, Stevens twice refused security.

That's not her job. Secretaries of state don't engage active military personnel. Furthermore, the attack WAS responded to. The 4 man team from the Annex (and the Libyan security team) responded to the attack at the consulate and the 6 man team from Tripoli responded to the situation as well.

She repeated what the intelligence had initially told her, which we now know was wrong.

This is just a lie, and such an obvious one I don't know why you said it. The whole "what difference does it make" quote came from her Congressional testimony.

Except we all know now who and why, so it would seem kind of stupid at this point to still be asking questions.

Like I said, you obviously have no ability to be objective on this issue.

It is, as evident by this very post.
You don't seem to understand that context is not opinion, it's truth. You've already admitted you're proudly ignorant of the context, so the only one being partisan here is you.

No, people who willfully ignore context in order to push their political agenda, regardless of the facts, are the dangerous ones. People who parse words and meanings accurately and as they were intended are the ones who preserve the liberty in this country.

I'm not passing my opinion as fact, I'm passing facts as facts. Just because you're ignorant to them, it doesn't make them any less true.

By the way, you still haven't apologized. Does this mean you lied when you said you would?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.

You are 100% wrong.

It's an injustice he violated the law and was punished in the manner he knew he'd be punished?

You don't really understand things very well, now do you?

Most likely. Doesn't change the fact he was the one violated the law. :shrug:

Wait, wait, wait...let's go back...You said:

And now you're saying Clinton has promised them that! :lamo

Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.

Yes, yes it very much is. It came from the person who falsely attributed to Hillary something she didn't say and then later tried to criticize Hillary for something you now say she's done.

You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.

She was the head of the State Department. You need to learn a bit about command responsibility. Specially if you think she is qualified to be commander in chief. She's responsible for everything that happens in her department. Everything.

US Conservative · May 16, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

mac said:
She was the head of the State Department. You need to learn a bit about command responsibility. Specially if you think she is qualified to be commander in chief. She's responsible for everything that happens in her department. Everything.

And she has said as much-she says she takes full responsibility.

These Hillary supporters try to make arguments she herself wont make, isn't that remarkable.

mac · May 17, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

US Conservative said:
And she has said as much-she says she takes full responsibility.

These Hillary supporters try to make arguments she herself wont make, isn't that remarkable.

Yet, most of her supporters claim she wasn't responsible for anything in particular.

Funny.

US Conservative · May 17, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

mac said:
Yet, most of her supporters claim she wasn't responsible for anything in particular.

Funny.

There is a separation from reality amongst her supporters (and the Presidents).
In Hillarys own words this was unacceptable, she takes responsibility, and the events did not happen because any lack of funding.
And yet they continue to make those arguments. Its almost like they are on auto-pilot at this point, with the same discredited defenses.
Methinks its a tough time to be a liberal.

Navy Pride · May 17, 2014

jmotivator said:
Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists - The Daily Beast

"The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls."

More Hilary dithering that resulted in tragedy.

Hillary is clueless and God help us she could be our next president simply because she is a woman...They did interviews at George Washington university and they asked students would they vote for Hillary. Most said they would because it would be nice to have a woman president.....When asked is they could name one accomplishment she had as SOS they could name none...

THis could be our next presidentt????????????? God help us if she is.

Grant · May 19, 2014

Clinton Accepts Blame for Benghazi - WSJ.com

The matter of who was responsible for the Benghazi ineptitude and consequent cover-up seems to be clear, though it does does not absolve others in this Administration.

mac · May 20, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
This is just a lie, and such an obvious one I don't know why you said it. The whole "what difference does it make" quote came from her Congressional testimony.

This is not a lie, this is you not understanding context. She sent the Ambassador to the UN to face questions about the Benghazi attack at the Sunday shows. Please do not accuse me of lying again.

Slyfox696 · May 21, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

mac said:
She was the head of the State Department.

Which means she's in charge of people who are in charge.

You need to learn a bit about command responsibility.

I understand it just fine. You seem to struggle with it. You seem to think one person is capable of micromanaging every aspect of a large governmental division.

Specially if you think she is qualified to be commander in chief.

I've not affirmed or denied that. All I'm saying is people are being dishonest when they take her quote out of context.

She's responsible for everything that happens in her department. Everything.

That's just asinine and indicative of small minded thinking. I don't necessarily mean you, I'm speaking in society as a whole. One person does not run everything.

mac said:
This is not a lie, this is you not understanding context. She sent the Ambassador to the UN to face questions about the Benghazi attack at the Sunday shows. Please do not accuse me of lying again.

If you'd stop lying, I wouldn't have to accuse you of lying. Hillary Clinton has, multiple times, faced questions about the attack. You were 100% wrong.

Oh, and as for your snipe about "context", you didn't provide any. You provided no timetable for your quote and included everything from months before the attack to present day. So not only did you make a fictitious statement, your comment about context is laughable since you didn't provide any. What REALLY makes you comment laughable is how people are now so suddenly worried about context, when that's been my point this entire time.

You crack me up. Carry on with the blind hatred.

Grant · May 21, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
Which means she's in charge of people who are in charge.
I understand it just fine. You seem to struggle with it. You seem to think one person is capable of micromanaging every aspect of a large governmental division.
I've not affirmed or denied that. All I'm saying is people are being dishonest when they take her quote out of context.
That's just asinine and indicative of small minded thinking. I don't necessarily mean you, I'm speaking in society as a whole. One person does not run everything.
If you'd stop lying, I wouldn't have to accuse you of lying. Hillary Clinton has, multiple times, faced questions about the attack. You were 100% wrong.

Oh, and as for your snipe about "context", you didn't provide any. You provided no timetable for your quote and included everything from months before the attack to present day. So not only did you make a fictitious statement, your comment about context is laughable since you didn't provide any. What REALLY makes you comment laughable is how people are now so suddenly worried about context, when that's been my point this entire time.

You crack me up. Carry on with the blind hatred.

Are you not yet aware that Hillary Clinton has already taken full responsibility for Benghazi?

Ockham · May 21, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Grant said:
Are you not yet aware that Hillary Clinton has already taken full responsibility for Benghazi?

That sounds like, "Oops! I dropped a crumb on your carpet" kind of responsibility. It would help since she apparently took full responsibility, to have provided all those nagging questions that the GOP seems to still have. I'm sure a lunch, some wine and she could clear it all up in 30 minutes - tops.

Grant · May 21, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Ockham said:
That sounds like, "Oops! I dropped a crumb on your carpet" kind of responsibility. It would help since she apparently took full responsibility, to have provided all those nagging questions that the GOP seems to still have. I'm sure a lunch, some wine and she could clear it all up in 30 minutes - tops.

I think we all know what king of 'apology' it was. She simply wanted to express what a big person she is while at the same time blaming it all on others. This is an old political trick and one especially suited to the Clinton's.

Nonetheless she did accept responsibility and she needs to be taken, finally, at her word.

US Conservative · May 21, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Grant said:
I think we all know what king of 'apology' it was. She simply wanted to express what a big person she is while at the same time blaming it all on others. This is an old political trick and one especially suited to the Clinton's.

Nonetheless she did accept responsibility and she needs to be taken, finally, at her word.

Thats exactly it. Definitive politician behavior.

mac · May 21, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
Which means she's in charge of people who are in charge.

and responsible.

I understand it just fine. You seem to struggle with it. You seem to think one person is capable of micromanaging every aspect of a large governmental division.

like a country?

I've not affirmed or denied that. All I'm saying is people are being dishonest when they take her quote out of context.

It's not out of context. She was running scared...from he own failures.

That's just asinine and indicative of small minded thinking. I don't necessarily mean you, I'm speaking in society as a whole. One person does not run everything.

No, it isn't. That's what being in charge means.

If you'd stop lying, I wouldn't have to accuse you of lying. Hillary Clinton has, multiple times, faced questions about the attack. You were 100% wrong.

That doesn't negate the fact that she avoided the first real instance of being questioned on it. My statement stands, correctly.

You crack me up. Carry on with the blind hatred.

It doesn't take hatred to spot incompetence.

Slyfox696 · May 22, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Grant said:
Are you not yet aware that Hillary Clinton has already taken full responsibility for Benghazi?

I said it earlier in this thread. :shrug:

mac said:
and responsible.

Do you really not get it? Are you really this full of hate that you seem to think Hillary Clinton can personally manage the thousands, if not millions, of different decisions made by the State Department everyday?

Clinton is responsible because it happened under her watch and Americans have never been a big fan of true accountability in politics. We like to hold the public faces accountable, never the individuals we don't know. Sometimes that's appropriate, but most of the time it's just political nonsense.

like a country?

Exactly. Do you really think Barack Obama knows about every decision which is made under his administration? Of course not, no one can micromanage such a large system. The leader gets the biggest and most important things and delegates everything else to underlings, who then do the exact same thing.

This isn't rocket science, so I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with it.

It's not out of context. She was running scared...from he own failures.

:lamo

Nothing quite like biased partisan rhetoric. It is being used out of context, as I've proven multiple times now.

That doesn't negate the fact that she avoided the first real instance of being questioned on it.

So? That's not what you said, and even if it had been, so? It was immediately after the attack, I'm sure she had far more important things to do than work the morning show circuit to answer questions.

The amusing part is if Clinton HAD gone on TV shows, you would be sitting here today criticizing her for that, instead of doing her job. And how do I know that? Because you've made it patently clear you're not interested in facts, only political spin.

My statement stands, correctly.

No, it doesn't. You cannot alter a statement later when it's convenient for you to do so and then claim your original one was correct.

It doesn't take hatred to spot incompetence.

But it does take hatred to say the silly things you've said in this thread.

Grant · May 22, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
I said it earlier in this thread. :shrug:
Do you really not get it? Are you really this full of hate that you seem to think Hillary Clinton can personally manage the thousands, if not millions, of different decisions made by the State Department everyday

She seemed to think she could otherwise she should not have accepted the position. I didn't think she was up to task either.

Nonetheless she did accept responsibility for Benghazi so that debate is pretty much over. You can't "hate" people for being incompetent, but you needn't respect them either.

mac · May 22, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
I said it earlier in this thread. :shrug:
Do you really not get it? Are you really this full of hate that you seem to think Hillary Clinton can personally manage the thousands, if not millions, of different decisions made by the State Department everyday?

Clinton is responsible because it happened under her watch and Americans have never been a big fan of true accountability in politics. We like to hold the public faces accountable, never the individuals we don't know. Sometimes that's appropriate, but most of the time it's just political nonsense.

In any organization, there is a hierarchy. Each person in that chain is responsible to the person above them, all the way to the head of the organization. Each and every person in that chain has responsibilities and authority granted by the head of the organization. Each and every one of them is therefore acting in the name of the head of the organization. If a person messes up, the head of the organization must take the necessary actions to fix the problem. She didn't. Certain key things should be very much in the mind of the head of the organization. For example, the security of one's employees in a recently destabilised country. Are you so blinded by bias that you don't see that?

Simple.

Exactly. Do you really think Barack Obama knows about every decision which is made under his administration? Of course not, no one can micromanage such a large system. The leader gets the biggest and most important things and delegates everything else to underlings, who then do the exact same thing.

Do you understand the risks of delegation of authority? You delegate authority, not responsibility.

This isn't rocket science, so I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with it.

No, it isn't, you're right. What it is is you not understanding authority, responsibility, and leadership in general.

Nothing quite like biased partisan rhetoric. It is being used out of context, as I've proven multiple times now.

It's only your biased partisanship that keeps you from seeing the obvious.

So? That's not what you said, and even if it had been, so? It was immediately after the attack, I'm sure she had far more important things to do than work the morning show circuit to answer questions.

Yes, it was immediately after the attack. And why don't you look into why she didn't go herself.

The amusing part is if Clinton HAD gone on TV shows, you would be sitting here today criticizing her for that, instead of doing her job. And how do I know that? Because you've made it patently clear you're not interested in facts, only political spin.

I certainly would be. For her lack of leadership, not for her cowardice.

No, it doesn't. You cannot alter a statement later when it's convenient for you to do so and then claim your original one was correct.

You just contradicted yourself.

But it does take hatred to say the silly things you've said in this thread.

No, it takes an understanding of leadership and responsibility. Something you clearly don't grasp.

Slyfox696 · May 27, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Grant said:
She seemed to think she could otherwise she should not have accepted the position.

No one can. That's not what a reasonable person expects.

Nonetheless she did accept responsibility for Benghazi

Yes, I'm aware. She accepted the ultimate responsibility, but that does not mean it was her actions which caused the problem. This is not hard to understand.

mac said:
In any organization, there is a hierarchy. Each person in that chain is responsible to the person above them, all the way to the head of the organization. Each and every person in that chain has responsibilities and authority granted by the head of the organization. Each and every one of them is therefore acting in the name of the head of the organization. If a person messes up, the head of the organization must take the necessary actions to fix the problem. She didn't.

Uh, yes, she did. The "mess up" partly contributed to the deaths of 4 Americans and Clinton then stepped in and took actions to fix the problem, as she said during her testimony.

I'm going to try to read the rest of your post, but I know it's going to be full of blind partisan rhetoric. So if I don't make it through the rest, you'll have to forgive me.

Do you understand the risks of delegation of authority?

Do you understand it's unavoidable? Do you understand blaming the head for the actions of the underlings is asinine?

No, you don't. Unless maybe it was someone of a different party, I don't know. But obviously you don't understand it in this case.

No, it isn't, you're right. What it is is you not understanding authority, responsibility, and leadership in general.

I understand it just fine. You're the one who is acting like one person can do everything. You seem to have zero understanding of how delegation of duties work.

It's only your biased partisanship that keeps you from seeing the obvious.

:lamo

The person who has supported lies and untruths says that to the person who doesn't care one bit (like or dislike) for Hillary. Seriously, I honestly have zero feelings towards Hillary or Democrats. What I care about is the truth. The only partisanship in this thread are those who make provably false and stupid statements to support a narrative which makes them feel better in the team party outfits.

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. I'm sure it's full of the same asinine statements you've made all along. If you think you made a good point, feel free to repost it. But if you're just saying the same stupid things I've already proven false, don't bother. I grow tired of responding to nonsense.

Grant · May 27, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
No one can. That's not what a reasonable person expects.

Any responsible person should expect competence from their leaders. If you don;t expect it your voting patterns would seem clear.

Yes, I'm aware. She accepted the ultimate responsibility, but that does not mean it was her actions which caused the problem.

Then what does full responsibility mean?

This is not hard to understand.
Uh, yes, she did. The "mess up" partly contributed to the deaths of 4 Americans and Clinton then stepped in and took actions to fix the problem, as she said during her testimony.

Partly? She accepted full responsibility!

Do you understand it's unavoidable? Do you understand blaming the head for the actions of the underlings is asinine?

Unavoidable? Then why did the British and the Red Cross withdraw from the area?
.

I understand it just fine. You're the one who is acting like one person can do everything. You seem to have zero understanding of how delegation of duties work.

Who did Hillary Clinton delegate to be sure that staff in Benghazi are protected?

The person who has supported lies and untruths says that to the person who doesn't care one bit (like or dislike) for Hillary. Seriously, I honestly have zero feelings towards Hillary or Democrats. What I care about is the truth. The only partisanship in this thread are those who make provably false and stupid statements to support a narrative which makes them feel better in the team party outfits.

Good you appreciate the truth because the truth is that Hillary Clinton accepted responsibility for what happened in Benghazi.

mac · May 28, 2014

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Slyfox696 said:
Yes, I'm aware. She accepted the ultimate responsibility, but that does not mean it was her actions which caused the problem. This is not hard to understand.
Uh, yes, she did. The "mess up" partly contributed to the deaths of 4 Americans and Clinton then stepped in and took actions to fix the problem, as she said during her testimony.

I'm going to try to read the rest of your post, but I know it's going to be full of blind partisan rhetoric. So if I don't make it through the rest, you'll have to forgive me.

Do you understand it's unavoidable? Do you understand blaming the head for the actions of the underlings is asinine?

No, you don't. Unless maybe it was someone of a different party, I don't know. But obviously you don't understand it in this case.

I understand it just fine. You're the one who is acting like one person can do everything. You seem to have zero understanding of how delegation of duties work.
:lamo

The person who has supported lies and untruths says that to the person who doesn't care one bit (like or dislike) for Hillary. Seriously, I honestly have zero feelings towards Hillary or Democrats. What I care about is the truth. The only partisanship in this thread are those who make provably false and stupid statements to support a narrative which makes them feel better in the team party outfits.

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. I'm sure it's full of the same asinine statements you've made all along. If you think you made a good point, feel free to repost it. But if you're just saying the same stupid things I've already proven false, don't bother. I grow tired of responding to nonsense.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. :shrug:

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists[W:130]

Noblesse oblige