Timeline for Did Hillary Clinton refuse to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organisation when the FBI, CIA and the Justice Department asked?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2016 at 14:57 | comment | added | rougon | @Sklivvz I only mentioned that I tend to look for non-partisan sources first as a general rule. I never said anything about the source being unreliable. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 14:11 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @rougon did you mean that you found it accurate? An unreliable source can be accurate occasionally, whereas a reliable source must be accurate predictably. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 11:04 | comment | added | rougon | @Sklivvz My point was that I normally try to avoid mediamatters, since it is a liberal group but found it reliable in this case. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 10:32 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @rougon in that case, it is preferable on this site to include the references you found reliable in the answer, and provide relevant citations. For example, wikipedia often is a source of good references, however we don't allow it as a reference just because of that. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 14:51 | comment | added | rougon | @user5341 I absolutely agree and try to always avoid websites like that. I included it because it referenced and quoted a lot of other sources, which I thought were trustworthy. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:55 | comment | added | Christian | @Henry : The sentence starts with a qualifier. In general a politician is considered responsible for the decision that are made under their watch. Whether they made the decision directly through personal involvement or whether they choose the policy and people who made the decision doesn't change that they are responsible in their role as head of the department. To the world outside of a department the head of a department is responsible for it's actions. For the same reason we allow Obama to claim he captured Bin Ladin. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:54 | comment | added | user5341 | @CPerkins - there's no requirements that the claim in question source be unbiased, nor any point to it. There is a clear deficiency in an answer on Skeptics that uses a clearly biased source as a source of info/truth, especially without disclosing the bias. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:37 | comment | added | user5341 | FYI, "Media Matters" is a hard left website with an overt political goal. Taking anything it says as a gospel truth or an unbiased resource on a politically polarizing question is... not necessarily a best approach. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | Henry | @Christian: "Hillary Clinton refused ..." in the claim suggests a personal decision. The evidence in the links suggests that was not the case. "The State Department, which was then led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, did not ..." might carry a different implication, but there are an infinity of things the State Department did not do. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:46 | comment | added | Christian | The question doesn't ask whether she did it personally but whether she did it as Secretary of State. A Secretary of State is responsible for the actions of their departments. The quoted article doesn't claim personal involvement in the specific decision, or whether she set the policy under which the decision was made. Basically that her state department run under the policy that an attack that kills 180 people isn't big enough to warrant a classification as a terrorist organisation if what rougon is saying is true. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:28 | comment | added | Christian | The second paragraph seems to provide a justification for a decision but that's pretty irrelevant for the claim at hand. The question is about whether there was a refusal to classify as terrorist organisation not about whether such a refusal was justified. If it's was policy of the State Department to not fight small unaffiliated terrorist groups as you imply that's interesting. I would like it if your answer actually addresses the points of when the FBI, CIA and Justice Department asked for a classification and whether the Justice Department under Clinton refused. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:16 | comment | added | rougon | @Oddthinking thanks for pointing that out. Edited for consistency. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:16 | history | edited | rougon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:00 | comment | added | ReasonablySkeptical | Good point. So the breitbard claim is false or unsupported on all counts. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 13:39 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | I did. For example, the reference says "did not involve Clinton personally" but the answer suggest that she, personally, "declined to label it". I don't think the two match, which is a shame, given the reference seems to contain all the answers. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 13:07 | comment | added | ReasonablySkeptical | @Oddthinking keep scrolling down past the recitation of the claims. You'll get to the fact-checker part. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 12:03 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | That's a great reference, but I am not sure your summary of what it says in accurate. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 11:54 | history | answered | rougon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |