27
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Remember when ex SOS Hillary Clinton asked why America let Palestine hold an election? And why we didn't make sure that we already knew who the winner was before letting them?

She was talking about this agency fixing the election

Current SOS Blinken is also super pro-Israel and as SOS has control of this agency.

So while it's "good" at what it does (stamping out democracies) what it does is not "good".

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 months ago

This agency that has zero foreign assets or any function beyond analyzing raw intelligence gathered by other agencies? They were going to fix an election?

Did you read the article? Ham-handedly manipulating foreign elections is clearly stated as within the jurisdiction of the CIA.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Bruh...

The INR was literally created to be the oversight to the CIA and other intelligence agencies...

They report directly to SoS and are featured heavily in the presidents daily briefings...

Are they the ones stuffing ballot boxes?

No, because they're a higher level than that. They advise on where to stuff the ballot boxes, what gets stuffed into them, and the amount that gets stuffed.

Like, you're acting like all they do is book reports, they're an instrumental part of how America controls other countries.

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

You stated that the INR would have rigged an election. That is just as false as saying the FBI rigged a foreign election, that’s not what those agencies do.

Does the US fuck with the domestic affairs of other nations? Of course. Does the INR play a role in that behavior? Sure. Does that role include rigging elections? Absolutely not. They might suggest it, but the CIA would most likely do the dirt, the same way the CIA may be involved with armed insurrectionists but it’s going to be spec ops operators doing the training.

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Nothing that you’re saying about INR is remotely true. They’re academics and specialists who produce long form research and in depth studies. They’re not “in charge” of anyone.

Up until the post-9/11 shuffle, the US intelligence community (IC) was led by the director of the CIA, and the IC comprised CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, INR, defense branch agencies, and others. CIA and DoD were the ones with operational branches alongside analysts, the rest were pretty much analysis-oriented or technical (eg cryptography). Although there is some overlap, the individual agencies largely have complementary missions.

Foreign actors were already at work in the Palestinian elections. Netanyahu spoke about how his administration was supporting Hamas as the best way possible to avoid having to establish a two state solution with a stable Palestinian government in Gaza and the West Bank.

Instead of arguing why you seemingly want to lay all of this at the feet of INR, due to some hatred towards Hillary Clinton you’re trying to get out of defending your assertion by criticizing IS foreign policy as a whole. That’s not arguing in good faith, and you’d be better off just acknowledging that you didn’t read the article and have no idea what you’re talking about.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

She was talking about this agency fixing the election

Citation?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Sure

Regarding the election, in which Hamas beat Fatah by 74 to 45 seats, Clinton said "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Recording-released-of-Clinton-suggesting-rigging-2006-Palestinian-election-471129

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

That's no where near a citation for the statement.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Wait...

You're not disputing that Hillary casually said we should have rigged a foreign election?

You wanted a source that when the Secretary of the State said "we" she meant the state department?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Your original statement is not supported.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Your original statement is not supported.

I'm legitimately trying to help here...

But you need to tell me what you're actually asking for.

Do you need Hillary explicitly saying she wanted the INR (the intelligence agency she controlled when making the statement) because if she meant something like the CIA then somehow her comments aren't a big deal?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

She didn't say that in the citation provided. Something other than fantasy would be good.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

that

Why can't you just say what you mean?

She said:

And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.

She literally said "we" should have rigged the election...

While in a discussion about the actions of the State department...

That's what rigging an election means, determining who would win it rather than letting the votes determine it.

The only way I can possibly think you have a valid compliant, is if you're saying that her "we" meant American intelligence agencies in general (no idea how that makes a difference) and not "we" as the head of the state department meaning the state department and their own intelligence agency...

And if your argument is that pedantic, it makes sense why you won't just say it, but not why you keep replying.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 5 months ago

I think this is out of context as this was the election where a big issue was armed political parties. Its easy to link to an article that cherry picks parts of a conversation and say. see this was said when the rest of the conversation may explain it a bit. Its only the hisotrical context which lets us know a bit more context around the issues in that election. Many people expressed issues with armed groups being able to run as a party.

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

She said it in 2006, when she was a senator, not the Secretary of State. So I’d argue she absolutely did not mean “we” as “the state department.” She likely meant “we” as “the United States Government.” Either way, at the time she would not have been in a position to tell anyone to rig the election, being a democratic senator with a republican in the White House.

[-] bobburger@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago

You wanted a source that when the Secretary of the State said "we" she meant the state department?

From the article:

The quote is from a 2006 interview between Clinton and Eli Chmosky of the Jewish Press during her campaign for reelection to the US senate, and was part of a previously un-aired portion.

She wasn't the secretary of state when she said it, and probably had no idea that she would ever be secretary of state. I'm not sure why you would think the "we" is the state department.

Additionally there's no context around this quote so it's a pretty significant leap to infer that "Hillary casually said we should have rigged a foreign election". Her next sentence could have very well have been "But we didn't, and we never will because that isn't how we operate". Or it could have been "We actually did try, but we failed because we ran out of funding". Or "That's what I'm hearing from the leaders of Fatah anyway".

Hillary is a pretty big POS and it's pretty easy to find shit she did that is horrible but this quote doesn't match up with what you're trying to show.

this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
27 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4759 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS