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”.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment