Gbaji wrote:
Fixed that for you.
Gbaji wrote:
He didn't. But even if he had, it doesn't change the facts about what was said 5 days after the attack.
Gbaji wrote:
Now you're bringing in a totally new issue. I'll point out that I never mentioned how long it took for Obama to label the attack a terrorist attack. While I'm sure we do disagree on that, it's also not the point I'm making. I am talking only and entirely about Clinton's response to a line of questioning during a hearing about why 5 days after the attack, with plenty of time to determine at the very least that the attack did *not* occur as a result of a protest over a video, her surrogate went to multiple talk shows and told the media that this was precisely what had happened. Not just said this, but refuted the correct reports that this was an unrelated planned attack and insisted that it was related to the protests in Cairo.
She "corrected" the correct story with a false one. That's well beyond just being wrong. It was a fair line of questioning, and Clinton's answer was terrible. It showed a lack of care about the information the government provides to the people about events like this at the very least, and suggests the possibility of a coverup of a deliberate attempt to lie. So yeah, that's harmful to her as a potential presidential candidate. Even if it doesn't harm her in your eyes, it does in many other people's.
She "corrected" the correct story with a false one. That's well beyond just being wrong. It was a fair line of questioning, and Clinton's answer was terrible. It showed a lack of care about the information the government provides to the people about events like this at the very least, and suggests the possibility of a coverup of a deliberate attempt to lie. So yeah, that's harmful to her as a potential presidential candidate. Even if it doesn't harm her in your eyes, it does in many other people's.
Gbaji wrote:
No. The reason saying "what difference does it make?" is a bad answer is because if we actually adopted policy based on that assumption, we would spend resources looking at the wrong things. Thus, she is either incompetent and actually thinks that it doesn't matter why we were attacked *or* she said that to help cover up a lie. Thought I was clear about this.
Gbaji wrote:
Um... But it suggests that she doesn't care about lying. Get it? People care about the government lying. She say's "what difference does it make", when asked to explain something that looks a lot like the government lying. You really don't get this?
Gbaji wrote:
You have such muddled thinking, it's hard to follow. WTF? This doesn't make any sense at all.
Gbaji wrote:
Because no one would believe the lie. But if they had, then the concern would be realistic, right? So... If we start out assuming that people usually attempt to lie out of the hope that people will believe those lies, then the concern is realistic. Had they succeeded in convincing people that the attack really was just an outgrowth of a protest over a video that got out of hand, then it could have resulted in resources being wasted looking in the wrong direction.
If someone shoots at you, but misses, you don't discount the danger of being shot at because he missed. You try to stop him from shooting at you because he might hit you the next time. Similarly, we should take attempts to lie to us seriously because they might succeed next time. Get it?
If someone shoots at you, but misses, you don't discount the danger of being shot at because he missed. You try to stop him from shooting at you because he might hit you the next time. Similarly, we should take attempts to lie to us seriously because they might succeed next time. Get it?
Gbaji wrote:
The correct word is "and". Not "but". See the struck out portions earlier in this post to see where you keep doing this. You are the one insisting that we talk about one thing instead of the other. You are the one responding to the issue I'm talking about by insisting we talk about something else, and then claiming that they can't be talked about at the same time (apparently because one is so much more important than the other), therefore we should just ignore the initial issue entirely. That's kinda ridiculous. Actually, it's completely ridiculous.
Gbaji wrote:
Keep believing that. Heck. Support Clinton for president. Please. Trust me, this will bite her if she ends out running. You really don't get how even small things can kill political careers? Huge deals were made out of Romney's freaking dog carrier. You don't think her on video saying "what difference does it make?" will be used to effect in a political campaign? You're insane. Of course it'll be used. Over and over. It's opposition gold. Campaign managers dream about the opposition saying something like this.