Gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't see a problem with those statements? If she believes that the purpose of the hearings/investigation is "to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again", isn't determining the motivations of those who attacked us kinda important? Her statements are nonsensical.
The motivation behind the attack wouldn't be the starting point of the conversation,it would be closer to the end as we already know that they are terrorists. Just think if someone got on a plane with an M16 and started shooting people. The first question to answer is how that individual got on a plane with an M16. Why that individual did it is secondary background noise, as it will most certainly fall in the "crazy" category.
I see no problem with her statement.
Gbaji wrote:
The point being that by attempting to spin the cause of the attack for political reasons during an election campaign the Obama administration was not just being dishonest with the American people, but also making it more likely that we'll suffer similar attacks in the future because people like Clinton are now forced to follow along with the narrative. That's why this is a problem. She's covering for the administration, and in so doing refusing to even allow discussion of the key purpose she herself states the investigation should focus on. Why did this happen? Kinda important, right? But she has to paint this into some kind of partisan political thing, which then turns the entire subject toxic. End result is that we don't learn from our mistakes and will likely repeat them again.
This is all political. It is impossible to take you seriously when you try to pretend that it's not. The Obama administration downplayed the event because of the election while the Republicans were trying ramp it up because of the election.
Gbaji wrote:
To be fair, I don't really blame Clinton for this. She was put in an impossible position because of this. That's why I said earlier that the Obama administration basically sabotaged her. I'm not even saying this was deliberate. She just happened to be in that position when one of the administrations many lies required her to say something completely ridiculous and damaging to her own career. She's not the only person that's been thrown under the bus in this manner, and if Obama's recent interview on 60 minutes is any indication, will not be the last (really? Blaming the intelligence agencies for not seeing ISIS? Lol!).
It's not the White House sabotaging Clinton, it's the Republicans attacking her for political gain. It's really that simple.
Gbaji wrote:
Huh? Why can't we be concerned about all of those things? I'm not saying that the only thing that matters is "why". I'm saying that it's wrong to insist that the "why" doesn't matter at all. Which is what Clinton was claiming.
It can very well include the why, but at that point of the hearing, the focus is on the disaster. Going back to the mass shooter scenario. That would be like FOX News saying that the shooter killed everyone because of reason x, but later found out that it was because of reason y. People would primarily be concerned on how the individual got an M16 on an aircraft and less on the why.
Furthermore, the talking points don't neglect the why!!! So, if the consensus is that the attack weren't due to the video, but a well planned executed attack, then isn't that YOUR ANSWER? Why then are people asking why she said what she said when she said it, if we found out the truth, UNLESS your point was to attack one's character as either incompetent or as a liar?
Gbaji wrote:
Huh? What facts? She said "What does it matter <why we were attacked>?". WTF? It's right there in the **** quote.
Correction, let me rephrase that, "not if you can read". My mistake. Are you seriously suggesting that Senator Clinton, during a hearing (which she apparently faked an injury only to later have "brain damage") said that it doesn't matter that we got attacked as opposed to the fact that the motive of a terrorist attack is irrelevant? What is this? Dr. Phil? You want to have an interview with the terrorists and ask their feelings and get an understanding on why they want to kill us?
Gbaji wrote:
Wow is that not the point. She doesn't need *any* knowledge about the attack to know that determining why the attack happened does, in fact, matter.
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?