Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Merkava]

Oh Ive already addressed issues with you in the past. You ask for evidence...it's provided then you nitpick and play word games so that you aren't wrong. Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time know the games you play. Just like you're playing them now with the "Similar Attacks" wording...You want identical events....so that you can claim victory due to semantics.

Once more...You do not argue in good faith.

"Similar" attacks isn't my wording. It's Endus'. And I never said identical. Instead I hit on three major components of the Benghazi attack and why it's separate from all the other attacks. If you don't think factors like "Loss of American lives," "Complete destruction of a diplomatic coumpound," and "State Department failure to provide adequate security," are worth using when defining the severity of an attack and whether a response is proportionate, then you're the one not arguing in good faith.

[Endus]

There are no similar events.

Because you arbitrarily set your standard on "similarity" at "identical in every respect", so that you can dismiss every other embassy attack as "different for some reason that I'm stating is important without having a rational explanation as to why."

Yes, there are different circumstances and outcomes in every attack. That's always going to be the case. It is not a declaration that these other attacks aren't comparable to the Benghazi attack.

The simple reality is that there's been investigation after investigation, and while there were some failures in decision-making, there's nothing actionable behind it. Hindsight is always 20/20. There's nobody you can point your fingers at to bear the blame, other than the attackers themselves. Not even Clinton. It's a ridiculous witch hunt, and it always has been.

That doesn't mean we can't improve things, to try and prevent that kind of tragedy in the future, but that's still not Clinton's fault. People act like she was rampaging through Benghazi with an AK-47 herself.

[Merkava]

Because you arbitrarily set your standard on "similarity" at "identical in every respect", so that you can dismiss every other embassy attack as "different for some reason that I'm stating is important without having a rational explanation as to why."

Yes, there are different circumstances and outcomes in every attack. That's always going to be the case. It is not a declaration that these other attacks aren't comparable to the Benghazi attack.

It's not arbitrary. And it certainly doesn't have to be identical. And I've clearly told you why. I gave you three key differences between the Benghazi attack and every other one you listed. Why isn't the Orlando nightclub shooting on the list? Well I would say it's because the State Dept had no responsibility for securing that facility. Just like they had no responsibility for securing roadside bombs outside the Green Zone, hotel parking lots in Pakistan, or residences in Riyadh.

Simple question; How many of those attacks you cited resulted in a State Department review board finding that the attacks were the result of State Department security tasked with defending the target that was grossly inadequate?

[Captain N]

"Similar" attacks isn't my wording. It's Endus'. And I never said identical. Instead I hit on three major components of the Benghazi attack and why it's separate from all the other attacks. If you don't think factors like "Loss of American lives," "Complete destruction of a diplomatic coumpound," and "State Department failure to provide adequate security," are worth using when defining the severity of an attack and whether a response is proportionate, then you're the one not arguing in good faith.

Nah you're the one who wants Identical to mean similar so you can hand-wave it and strut around like the pigeon who shit over the chess board and declare yourself the victor when there isn't completely identical situations between the attacks. When are you going to get to it that nine investigations later your years of conspiracy theories on this forum don't add up to reality?

[Merkava]

Nah you're the one who wants Identical to mean similar so you can hand-wave it and strut around like the pigeon who shit over the chess board and declare yourself the victor when there isn't completely identical situations between the attacks. When are you going to get to it that nine investigations later your years of conspiracy theories on this forum don't add up to reality?

You think I'm blaming Hillary for Benghazi? I've never done that.

I want similar to mean similar.


Simple question to you. Same one I posed to Endus. You think the reaction to Benghazi is disproportionate to other attacks? Then find me another attack where the State Department itself found it's own lack of security to be "grossly inadequate" to the threat posed.

[Blur4stuff]

grossly inadequate to the threat posed

wouldn't you have to know the future in order to prevent all possible attacks?

[Tijuana]

Because you arbitrarily set your standard on "similarity" at "identical in every respect", so that you can dismiss every other embassy attack as "different for some reason that I'm stating is important without having a rational explanation as to why."

Yes, there are different circumstances and outcomes in every attack. That's always going to be the case. It is not a declaration that these other attacks aren't comparable to the Benghazi attack.

The simple reality is that there's been investigation after investigation, and while there were some failures in decision-making, there's nothing actionable behind it. Hindsight is always 20/20. There's nobody you can point your fingers at to bear the blame, other than the attackers themselves. Not even Clinton. It's a ridiculous witch hunt, and it always has been.

That doesn't mean we can't improve things, to try and prevent that kind of tragedy in the future, but that's still not Clinton's fault. People act like she was rampaging through Benghazi with an AK-47 herself.

To me, the silly thing about the whole Benghazi "scandal", is the notion that the Secretary of State is in command of the military, instead of the Secretary of Defense. If I were a marine, and Hilary Clinton ordered me to do something, I would tell her to get bent because that is not how the chain of command works.

[Endus]

It's not arbitrary. And it certainly doesn't have to be identical. And I've clearly told you why. I gave you three key differences between the Benghazi attack and every other one you listed.

Without justifying them, even when asked to.

Why is "4 Americans" the line you want to draw at? Why is 1 American dying not "enough"? Why do the fatalities even have to be American for it to "matter"?

Why does the "complete destruction of the compound" even matter in the least? Is heavy damage not "bad enough"?

And for most of these attacks, you could argue that a failure of intelligence and security was to blame. Same goes for Benghazi.

Simple question; How many of those attacks you cited resulted in a State Department review board finding that the attacks were the result of State Department security tasked with defending the target that was grossly inadequate?

See, this is what I mean.

The ARB was specifically convened to investigate the Benghazi attack. It's not an ongoing measure, or a recurring one. It isn't standard procedure. The lack of such in prior attacks is not a demonstration of anything, other than they did not seize the public outrage enough to warrant an official response like that.

The ARB report did not state that decisions made during the attack cost American lives. It said the explicit opposite: "The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

Clinton wasn't one of the officials they targeted as having dropped the ball. And most of the issues identified were due to multiple bureaus being involved and cross-talk causing confusion and inefficiency.

[Narwal]

wouldn't you have to know the future in order to prevent all possible attacks?

No, it's listening to your intelligence and acting upon it. The State Department was saying that the possibility of an attack and the threat that was present was indicative of more defense needed at the outpost. Would more defense stop the attack? No. Would it have aided in a better outcome for the embassy in case of attack? Probably.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, the silly thing about the whole Benghazi "scandal", is the notion that the Secretary of State is in command of the military, instead of the Secretary of Defense. If I were a marine, and Hilary Clinton ordered me to do something, I would tell her to get bent because that is not how the chain of command works.

True. That's why there are so many investigations. Trying to figure out why the chain of command was broken, who broke it? If it wasn't broken, who's order was it?

[porgig]

So you want voters to be ignorant and believe anything that Fox News and the right wing blogosphere perpetrates instead of the truth? Do you realize how fucking retarded this sounds?

It only has no bearing on the expanding conspiracies to the people that weren't going to vote for her anyway.

Why are you so angry? There's no need to insert words into my mouth. I don't want anything, I don't even care who wins this election. I just respect good showmanship when I see it.

The fact is that it doesn't matter if some of this stuff is true or not, voters still see it and it does sway their votes. Most of this stuff comes from, and gets exposure from, places like twitter or facebook. Far more people, of all political stripes, see this stuff floating around these two websites than they do on Fox or the "right wing blogosphere". It doesn't help calm these conspiracies either, when videos leak out of you being dragged unconsciously into a van.

[Edge-]

True. That's why there are so many investigations.

No, the investigations were a pure witch hunt to try to pin this on Hillary. Hell, Republicans even came out and flat out stated that was the goal on more than one occasion, before quickly realizing it and trying to backtrack.

[Breccia]

You edited out my main point. Convenient. Show me an attack that was a result of a failure of State Department leadership tasked with providing security that resulted in an American Embassy or Mission or Counsalate being over run and ending with 4 Americans dead including an Ambassador.

Wow, you have a curiously specific form of "similar" in mind. Again, I literally linked all of them under Bush. In fact, why isn't the fact that there were so many of them, with so many American deaths total, not an outrage to you? Doesn't a long string of fatal attacks, including Americans of course, imply more about the failures of diplomacy than one action?

But since you asked so foaming-at-the-mouthly for more than four deaths:
On Jan 31, 1968, the Viet Cong overran the Saigon embassy, killing 5 American soldiers. David Rusk was not brought up before Congress because of this.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber took out our embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Oh, sorry, forgot. Killing 17 Americans. George Schultz was not brought up before Congress because of this. Ambassador Robert Dillon was in the building, but survived. So, I guess that doesn't count?
On August 7th, 1998, Al Qaeda blew up our Nairobi embassy killing two hundred thir...dammit! I meant, twelve Americans. Madeline Albright was not brought up before Congress for this.

Course, I can play this game too, if I wanted. *ahem* Show me the part where Trump's Foundation donated to charity "similar" to how Clinton's does. And by "similar" I mean "gets HIV/AIDS drugs to over eleven million people in Sub-Saharan Africa".

But I would never do something that specific. That would deny the Trump Foundation's charitable contributions to medicine in ...um...Okay, too specific. How about any charitable donations at all?

[Orbitus]

Why are you so angry? There's no need to insert words into my mouth. I don't want anything, I don't even care who wins this election. I just respect good showmanship when I see it.

The fact is that it doesn't matter if some of this stuff is true or not, voters still see it and it does sway their votes. Most of this stuff comes from, and gets exposure from, places like twitter or facebook. Far more people, of all political stripes, see this stuff floating around these two websites than they do on Fox or the "right wing blogosphere". It doesn't help calm these conspiracies either, when videos leak out of you being dragged unconsciously into a van.

I am not angry, unless it is to people that show their ignorance of reality and do superhuman jumps to conclusions based on nothing but pure speculation.

[Venant]

Wow, you have a curiously specific form of "similar" in mind. Again, I literally linked all of them under Bush. In fact, why isn't the fact that there were so many of them, with so many American deaths total, not an outrage to you? Doesn't a long string of fatal attacks, including Americans of course, imply more about the failures of diplomacy than one action?

But since you asked so foaming-at-the-mouthly for more than four deaths:
On Jan 31, 1968, the Viet Cong overran the Saigon embassy, killing 5 American soldiers. David Rusk was not brought up before Congress because of this.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber took out our embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Oh, sorry, forgot. Killing 17 Americans. George Schultz was not brought up before Congress because of this. Ambassador Robert Dillon was in the building, but survived. So, I guess that doesn't count?
On August 7th, 1998, Al Qaeda blew up our Nairobi embassy killing two hundred thir...dammit! I meant, twelve Americans. Madeline Albright was not brought up before Congress for this.

Course, I can play this game too, if I wanted. *ahem* Show me the part where Trump's Foundation donated to charity "similar" to how Clinton's does. And by "similar" I mean "gets HIV/AIDS drugs to over eleven million people in Sub-Saharan Africa".

But I would never do something that specific. That would deny the Trump Foundation's charitable contributions to medicine in ...um...Okay, too specific. How about any charitable donations at all?

There is a difference between bombings and a 13 hour attack during which military assistance could have been provided but was not. The theory is that the Obama administration thought it would be a bad political move to send troops in to fight off the attack, and therefore they allowed those 4 Americans to die. Keep in mind, this is the same Obama administration that sent troops into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden, even though that operation was extremely risky, but once again the decision was likely based on political calculations.

As far as your second point goes, you should also include Haiti in the discussion of the Clinton's charitable work.

[Merkava]

To me, the silly thing about the whole Benghazi "scandal", is the notion that the Secretary of State is in command of the military, instead of the Secretary of Defense. If I were a marine, and Hilary Clinton ordered me to do something, I would tell her to get bent because that is not how the chain of command works.

She was still in charge of a Department who was tasked with providing security for the compound, security that the State Departments own review board said was grossly inadequete.

[Kyriani]

Depends on why you're seemingly in opposition.

Take marriage for instance in which I'm not in favor of homosexuals being married in a Catholic church.

1 - Marriage (in my example opinion) is a religious institution and should be exclusively the prerogative of such.
2 - Marriage licenses should be just civil unions, no priests or pastors able to sign off on them, because 1st Amendment demands separation of church/state.
3 - Any two adults can enter into a civil union for tax purposes, benefits, etc etc from the government.
4 - Religions can set their own rules for how and who and why people can marry according to their traditions.

This puts me in opposition to an aspect of homosexual marriage, but doesn't specifically put me against them having all the benefits of a civil union nor does it address hatred of them given the reason for opposition is the Catholic position on homosexuality. Religions are freely believed in or ignored and not the realm of the government.

If that all gets distilled into "you're a homophobe!!" then that person really is quite stupid.

No religion is forced to marry people. If it goes against their faith, they have no legal obligation to perform a ceremony. Marriage equality being passed does nothing to change this. Also:

1) Marriage is NOT a religious institution. Marriage existed long before Christianity ever got involved with it and will continue to exist long after the fairy tales are finally laid to rest.

2) Marriage licenses are dispensed by the state. A marriage performed in a Church means absolutely NOTHING legally speaking, until the STATE provides the marriage license. Churches do not have any authority over who can get a marriage license or not. They only have the authority to determine who they will and will not perform ceremonies for. A marriage ceremony means exactly squat without the state issued license.

3) Civil Unions are just marriage by another name and wholly unnecessary because we already have marriage. Separate but equal is never equal.

4) Religions already have this right. What they don't have is the right to determine who can and can't get legally married.

You're also forgetting that many religions, including several Christian denominations, approve of same sex marriages and are happy to perform them. Are you going to tell those religions/denominations that their marriages aren't legal and must be civil unions instead? No, that doesn't fly.

Your religious beliefs are a guideline to how YOU live. They do not give you the authority to determine the rights of others. Religion in general and Judeo-Christian faiths in particular, have no authoritative claim to marriage. It predates recorded history, including the bible. But the truth is that early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. A legal contract to create kinship. Nothing more and nothing less. Shockingly enough, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring so that alone invalidates the bullshit claim some people try to push saying marriage is for procreation. Heck it was around as recently as around 250 years ago that the whole idea of marriage being based on love and possibly sexual desire even gained traction.

[Merkava]

Without justifying them, even when asked to.

Why is "4 Americans" the line you want to draw at? Why is 1 American dying not "enough"? Why do the fatalities even have to be American for it to "matter"?

Why does the "complete destruction of the compound" even matter in the least? Is heavy damage not "bad enough"?

And for most of these attacks, you could argue that a failure of intelligence and security was to blame. Same goes for Benghazi.



See, this is what I mean.

The ARB was specifically convened to investigate the Benghazi attack. It's not an ongoing measure, or a recurring one. It isn't standard procedure. The lack of such in prior attacks is not a demonstration of anything, other than they did not seize the public outrage enough to warrant an official response like that.

The ARB report did not state that decisions made during the attack cost American lives. It said the explicit opposite: "The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

Clinton wasn't one of the officials they targeted as having dropped the ball. And most of the issues identified were due to multiple bureaus being involved and cross-talk causing confusion and inefficiency.

I never said Clinton was personally responsible. I never said she dropped the ball. That's a deflection. I never said the response was inadequate either. For what it's worth here's my position on that;

I don't know if you know what my opinions on Benghazi are. My thoughts on Benghazi, I would hope, are pretty mainstream. I don't think there were any stand down orders. No one "let Americans die." I don't know what the CIA was doing there. I don't think Hillary Clinton did anything wrong personally that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. I think the Clintons are pretty awful people, politically and personally, but I'm sure she is genuinely horrified by what happened, and she has my sympathy for what must have been an absolutely gut wrenching experience for her, the same way that I felt sorry for Zbigniew Brzezinski when I heard him say that Desert One wasn't just the worst experience of the Carter administration, but the worst experience of his life. Which is why I'm quick to defend Obama for both having the courage to make the decision on the Bin Laden raid, and the competency for getting it right. But back on topic, I do think that Hillary should bear the majority of the administrative blame for the shortcomings in the State Department.

The ARB found

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

That's dissimilar to any of the other attacks you listed. Listen carefully, whenever there's an attack, the first question is who's responsible. The next question is "could we have done anything to prevent it?" In regards to Benghazi you have a situation where the shortcomings of an American agency contributed to the disastrous nature of the attack. That's undeniable. And that's a key contrasting point to the other attacks you listed. If you don't see that, then you don't see anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, you have a curiously specific form of "similar" in mind. Again, I literally linked all of them under Bush. In fact, why isn't the fact that there were so many of them, with so many American deaths total, not an outrage to you? Doesn't a long string of fatal attacks, including Americans of course, imply more about the failures of diplomacy than one action?

But since you asked so foaming-at-the-mouthly for more than four deaths:
On Jan 31, 1968, the Viet Cong overran the Saigon embassy, killing 5 American soldiers. David Rusk was not brought up before Congress because of this.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber took out our embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Oh, sorry, forgot. Killing 17 Americans. George Schultz was not brought up before Congress because of this. Ambassador Robert Dillon was in the building, but survived. So, I guess that doesn't count?
On August 7th, 1998, Al Qaeda blew up our Nairobi embassy killing two hundred thir...dammit! I meant, twelve Americans. Madeline Albright was not brought up before Congress for this.

Course, I can play this game too, if I wanted. *ahem* Show me the part where Trump's Foundation donated to charity "similar" to how Clinton's does. And by "similar" I mean "gets HIV/AIDS drugs to over eleven million people in Sub-Saharan Africa".

But I would never do something that specific. That would deny the Trump Foundation's charitable contributions to medicine in ...um...Okay, too specific. How about any charitable donations at all?

Simple. Like I told you before. Read your links. Research them. There's not a similar level of outrage because there wasn't a similar level of governmental responsibility or accountability. And they weren't failures of diplomacy. That's something entirely different.

I'm not foaming at the mouth, and I know how to read. You simply haven't provided anything similar to the Benghazi attacks. You're Googling things, trying to learn as you go and attempting to stay one step ahead of me. None of the attacks you've cited answer the question that I posed to you, that you quoted me on. In none of those attacks were systemic failures at the State Department to provide security a contributing factor. If you think they were, then show me.

And listen, stop trying to strawman in a Trump analogy. That doesn't work on me. I'm not a Trump supporter. I can provide plenty of proof of that as well.

[Gray_Matter]

PS - Your whataboutism with Powell holds no water, and your entirely nonexistent knowledge/experience of sensitive materials, military classifications, etc is showing. Better to attack other points than this... you look foolish.

Clinton sent and received tens of thousands of emails over an email server that wasn't controlled by the state department. The GOP pushed for an investigation. Powel sent and received tens of thousands of emails over a server that wasn't controlled by the state dept. Why didn't they push for an investigation there?

[cubby]

Clinton sent and received tens of thousands of emails over an email server that wasn't controlled by the state department. The GOP pushed for an investigation. Powel sent and received tens of thousands of emails over a server that wasn't controlled by the state dept. Why didn't they push for an investigation there?

Because the GOP was on a witch hunt. FBI exonerated Hillary and they still won't shut up about it.

- - - Updated - - -

None of the attacks you've cited answer the question that I posed to you, that you quoted me on. In none of those attacks were systemic failures at the State Department to provide security a contributing factor.

I actually have a real question for you about this - despite our past history of dialogue on this particular topic. What is your response to people pointing out that it was a GOP led Congress and Legislation that stripped a lot of security funding (hundreds of millions of dollars) for the State department that many people believe directly led to this incident?

(p.s. I just saw your summary re Benghazi - very succinct - thanks for reposting it, I had missed it before)

[Lenonis]

I can't believe this has turned into another of Merkava's Benghazi threads. Hasn't that poor horse corpse been through enough?