• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 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

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 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?

        • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 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.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

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

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                6 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 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.

        • bobburger@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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.