{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/27/2013 10:54:50 PM
27
The full quote:
[quote]What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.[/quote]
The partial quote is incredibly misleading.
English
-
And part of that is figuring out [i]why[/i] they did it. Yes, figuring out what happened is very important, but even more important than that is figuring why these militants were inspired to conduct the attacks. There are dozens of terrorist organizations, each one has differing motives in most cases. Figuring out why they did it is crucial to finding out what group affiliated with Al-Qeada is responsible for the attack. Furthermore, at the end of the clip, Clinton says that finding out why they did it is less important than finding and preventing it from happening again, as if the why is not a prerequisite for doing those two things in the first place.
-
I think her point is that the most important thing is making sure that we are not vulnerable to that type of attack again, and that while asking why is a part of that, people should stop trying to turn it into a political sideshow.
-
Can we agree that she meant that people need to stop placing so much emphasis on the 'Why'?
-
I think we can agree that she thinks people need to spend less time trying to sort out the details of what caused the attack in Benghazi and more time finding those responsible.
-
Edited by Diplomat: 1/27/2013 11:25:49 PMAfter over a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, most American officials now know that the most crucial aspect of preventing more Americans from dying in the first place is understanding why terrorists attack us. As I said in my post, this is why military commanders in Afghanistan have ditched just blowing up terrorist enclaves, and have instead focused on placing emphasis on answering the 'why': the societal, economic, and political conditions that motivate the terrorists to fight. If we don't know this, then it is impossible for us to effectively prevent future attacks from occurring.
-
I think the why that secretary Clinton was talking about was the exact circumstances in the hours leading up to the attack (addressing the original question), not what motivates terrorists. Also, in the context of security at an embassy, what matters is how to immediately protect diplomats, be it from a riot or a planned terrorist attack.
-
[quote]I think the why that secretary Clinton was talking about was the exact circumstances in the hours leading up to the attack (addressing the original question), not what motivates terrorists. Also, in the context of security at an embassy, what matters is how to immediately protect diplomats, be it from a riot or a planned terrorist attack.[/quote] And even if she had meant that, you can't secure future embassies from attack if you don't understand the security flaws that exist in the first place.
-
Which is exactly what she was saying needed to be addressed. She is saying that instead of arguing about what exactly happened we should be examining weaknesses in our diplomatic security.
-
they know what happened, but they dont want to admit it
-
When there is a terrorist attack in a part of the world with absolutely no government and conflicting reports of what happened it can be incredibly confusing. They tried to pass information along, and once they were able to tell us more definitively what happened, they did. All that the house Republicans are trying to do now is score political points by manufacturing a conspiracy.
-
still, an americain embassy is U.S. Territory, they should've sent aid no matter what was going on. We probably had numerous drones in the area, you cant tell me that the president couldnt sit down in the situation room and see for himself that there was no protest.
-
actually, no it isn't.
-
because wikipedia is such a reliable source and no one an go in and edit the information on the site.
-
Actually, yeah. Tampering is dealt with extremely quickly now (within minutes) and the articles are now written and checked by people actually knowledgeable in the field. Check the reference if you don't believe me and stop making up excuses to discount facts because of your own bias.
-
Actually we sent all the aid that we could on short notice (from a CIA station nearby). Our closest armed drone operations are in Somalia, several thousand miles away. Despite what you may think we do not have armed drones constantly patrolling the entire planet.
-
The fact is, there were MASSIVE security failures at Benghazi. We were relying on a local militia to provide for the defense of the consulate, who were on strike due to payment issues they were having. In a country which is extremely unstable due to the aftermath of a civil war, we should have had trained Marines on station to provide for the defense of those at the consulate.
-
The fact is that Ambassador Stevens never should have been in Benghazi, since diplomats should never go into areas where the local government is unwilling or unable to protect them. The majority of the blame for what happened resides on the shoulders of whoever made the decision for him to go in. And yes, there were massive security failures, and a large part of our reaction should be figuring out exactly what these failures were and how to address them.
-
[quote]The fact is that Ambassador Stevens never should have been in Benghazi, since diplomats should never go into areas where the local government is unwilling or unable to protect them. The majority of the blame for what happened resides on the shoulders of whoever made the decision for him to go in.[/quote] Then that falls on Clinton, the head of the State Department, who oversees the various U.S. missions to other countries.
-
While it was known that security at the Benghazi consulate was lacking, it appears that the memo was not passed to secretary Clinton. So yes, somebody screwed up, and while they were under secretary Clinton's direction, it is hard to say that what happened was a failure of secretary Clinton's.
-
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/politics/clinton-benghazi/index.html]Clinton has repeatedly taken responsibility for the security failures at Benghazi.[/url]
-
Which is all very buck stops here-esque, but I'm saying that what happened in Benghazi doesn't actually represent a failure on Clinton's part.
-
You mean to tell me that the failure of Clinton to actually recognize the instability and order a Marine Embassy Detail to protect the facility wasn't her fault?
-
I mean that the security at a consulate is probably not something that is generally dealt with by the secretary of state, and by my understanding concerns about security in Benghazi were not brought to her attention, so the real mistake was made by someone under her.
-
[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no]Apparently, neither of us is correct. Clinton reportedly asked Obama for more security, but was denied.[/url]
-
Well, I guess that settles that. Thank you for a very enjoyable discussion.
