Lizzie Warren to Ax Hillary?Follow

To answer your question, the answer "why" is the same reason why they attacked all of the other embassies under President Bush. Funny how that why isn't important..

Want to know what's different between all those other attacks and the one in Benghazi? Bush didn't lie about why they happened to the American people.

Right, Saddam was softening us up for his nuclear missile attack. Couldn't have been more clearly communicated at the time.

Gbaji,

So, let's assume that the reason why were the video. What actions would differ if it the reason why were due to a random attack, a planned attack or a combination of all three?

Admittedly, it reads funny. Let me rephrase it, so you can stop avoiding the question.

What actions should we do if the reason for the attack were based on the video?

What actions should we do if the reason for the attack were a planned attack?

What actions should we do if the reason for the attack were just a random angry mob.

What actions should we do if the reason for the attack were a combination of all the above.

Don't try to change the subject. Regardless of what you were saying with others, this is what YOU responded to ME with. This is what WE were discussing. You argued that the "why" is more important to know IN GENERAL. I argued that the WHY is secondary to "how they were successful", especially when dealing with terrorists. The "why" for terrorists usually involve terrorizing.



So you admit that all of this Benghazi outcry has nothing to do with the embassy being attacked, it's security or the deaths that occurred, but what was SAID AFTERWARDS. If not, then please provide actions that would correlate with those scenarios (based on video, planned attack, angry mob, combination of all of the above) that would assist preventing the embassy being attacked, enhancing the security and/or preventing deaths.


Edited, Oct 10th 2014 9:30am by Almalieque

Lies don't hurt politicians politically. I know there is an eight year period you had your head stuck in the sand, but that's just the way it is.

Given the fact that her approval rating was still through the roof until her book tour, I will say that the fickle minds of the population are as capricious as expected. SQUIRREL!

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

It's my subject. I brought it up. I get to say what it's about. I'm the one telling you why I think Hillary's statement is damaging to her career. I'm not changing the subject. You keep insisting on arguing about something I'm not talking about.

You responded to me. Regardless of what your point was with others, you can't pretend that I got off on a tangent when 'twas YOU who made that argument with ME. You simply decided to change topics when it wasn't going the way you wanted.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

No. I said it's more important in the context of why her statement "what does it matter? is damaging to her career. For the love of God, can you please at least try to follow a simple train of thought? While I'm sure there's a whole bunch of other things about Benghazi which we could discuss, in this specific case, I'm talking about her statement "what does it matter?", which, as I've already provided a complete quote in context for you, was in response to a line of questioning, not about the security decisions prior to the attack, and not about the response during the attack, but about Susan Rice's incorrect statements to the media 5 days after the attack.

That's what I'm talking about. Period. You're free to have a conversation with yourself about something else if you want, but "we" are not having that conversation. Get it? If you want to respond to my point, then you are free to do so, but actually respond to the point I'm making. Ok?

This is EXACTLY what you said. The state department deals with diplomacy and the Defense Department deals with defense, as a result the "why" is of paramount importance. That is generally speaking. This is what I'm countering because it's what you said to me.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Nope. I'm just talking about her "what does it matter?" statement. I'm sure there's a bunch of other things to be upset about with regard to Benghazi, but I'm not actually talking about any of those right now. Do you understand this yet? Her statement wasn't in response to a question about any of those other things, so bringing them up is "changing the subject". Her statement was in response to a question about how Rice ended out on TV telling the media false information. That's it. Try to stay on topic.

It's not changing the subject because you said "knowing 'why" we were attacked is of paramount importance". So, if that's true, I'm asking you how the "why" would change any actions by the state department. Given the fact that you are unable to answer, only proves the point that the "why" is completely irrelevant. Given its complete irrelevancy, focusing on "why" during a hearing after such a travesty is a waste of time. Hence, why Hillary Clinton said "What difference does it make", because the "why" is completely irrelevant. Because of that, she will not be politically damaged. So even with your pitiful attempt to change the topic, it still counters your argument.

Edited, Oct 11th 2014 2:36am by Almalieque

Of course I do, that's why you're unable to change the subject to your needs. You claim that the "why" is of importance, but you're unable to provide a realistic scenario on when it would provide anything important.

I think it's a bad comma between "buildings" and "which".

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? How about when an official representative of the State Department goes on 5 different talk shows and tells the American people that "why" the attack in Benghazi happened was the result of a protest over an offensive video that got out of hand. She told us the wrong "why". She did so days after it should have been abundantly obvious that the version of "why" she was telling us was wrong. Yet, she did so anyway.

When Hillary was asked about this, she responded with "what difference does it make <why we were attacked>?". There's your context. WTF? Do you even understand the sequence of events here? A member of the state department gave the American public directly false information about an attack on our embassy buildings, which resulted in 4 American deaths, including our ambassador *. Dismissing this false information by basically saying that it doesn't matter is ridiculous. If it didn't matter, why did every single interviewer ask the question? Why did Rice have a prepared answer? And not just a prepared answer, but she actively told the interviewers that the correct reason was wrong, and the wrong reason was correct.

Someone clearly thought that "why" was important enough to lie about at the time.


EDIT * It just occurred to me that someone might just be stupid enough to think that I'm saying that giving the American public false information resulted in 4 American deaths, including our ambassador. So just in case (and for the grammatically absurd), let me clearly state for the record that it was the attack on our embassy building which resulted in those deaths, not the false information said about it later. Just covering all the bases here.

Your inability to differentiate the public's curiosity from the actual attack is not an answer to the question. Please provide a scenario where the reason why the terrorists attacking the US embassy would make a difference.

Wait! You're seriously asking this question? Um... Ok, how about this scenario:

There's a group of "bad guys"(tm) who are engaging in an evil plot to destroy the US by attacking and destroying our embassies around the world. They've been growing their organization and are ready to begin their evil master plan. The US intelligence services have gotten a few bits of information about this group and that it has this goal, but nothing super concrete in terms of operational capabilities. Then, this group orchestrates a planned attack on one of our embassies, killing our ambassador. As it happens, the US is in the middle of an election and the current president is already viewed as weak on foreign policy and doesn't want the public to view this attack as a (further) failure of his foreign policy approach. As luck would have it, on the same day the attack on this embassy occurred, there was a protest at another embassy in response to an offensive video that someone in the US made. The administration decides to try to convince the public that the attack also was in response to that offensive video rather than planned as this would make it less about foreign policy and more about hate speech.


How does this make a difference? Because if we actually succeed in convincing everyone that the attack was in response to a video, then we're going to spend our efforts in legal actions against the guy who made it instead of spending them trying to find out more information about the group that attacked us. In order to maintain the lie, the government would have to direct its response in ways that would significantly increase the odds of another attack happening. And in fact, had you lifted your head out of the liberal echo chamber on this one, you might have heard about how, when the father of one of the SEALs killed in the attack was met by Clinton when the body of his son arrived home, she leaned in to him, presumably to comfort him and told him "We're going to make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted". Not "We're going to get the guys who killed your son", but "We're going to get the guy who said something that pissed off the guys who killed your son". That's outrageous and offensive already. But, when you add in the fact that the attack quite obviously had nothing at all to do with the video, then the question of whether Clinton knew this at the time and was lying, or was herself just mislead becomes somewhat critically important.


I know that liberals hate this comparison, but Watergate started with a far less problematic event. It was the coverup that got Nixon, not the event. Similarly, in this case, while the failure to prevent the attack is bad, it really is all the false information about the attack, and the the attempt to cover up where that false information came from that is the problem here. Liberals love to say that Benghazi is old news and sweep it under the rug, and it's entirely possible that they're right in terms of its effect on Obama (largely due to a massive willingness of most of the media to just look the other way), but if Clinton runs for president, this whole thing will once again be front and center. And I just don't think the media will go to bat for Clinton in the same way they will for Obama.