Wow, there are some mentally ill racists in the posts

im kinda drfunks ans srtuff

plues the modmins are smtr and the he jnow whweree to putmsrtuff

SkinnyHead: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," is too little - far too late.

Why would Obama try to deny something that was "self-evident" in the first place?

When did he deny it?

He should've come out as the attacks were happening and claimed terrorism instantly even with all the other protests happening across the region. Seems reasonable.

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," is too little - far too late.

Why would Obama try to deny something that was "self-evident" in the first place?

When did he deny it?

Don't you follow the news? They repeatedly denied it. They were telling everyone that it was all just a spontaneous protest over a "disgusting and reprehensible" video. Obama tried to blame a filmmaker for those deaths rather than accept responsibility for his own failure.

Interesting that in all that bluster you couldn't find a direct quote. I mean, it was supposedly all over the news right?

Additionally, you do realize that the protests and the AQ attack are two separate things, right?

Oh who am I kidding of course you don't.

So you mean you took a few days to make sure you had the guilty party right before shooting your mouth off in public about a touchy situation?

Damn you Nobama for being a quality leader. Damn you to hell! We want a rootin shootin cowboy back, someone that spouts off unconfirmed nonsense or just repeats what the Neocons and Likud want him to repeat!

President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney led the way by denouncing those who dared state the obvious version of what had happened in Benghazi, Libya - that it was about terrorism and not about the anti-Mohammad film.

When did this happen? Quotes?

cman: There are times when Obama shows that he has balls. There are other times that Obama shows that he has a vagina. I would rather see him more oft show the former over the latter. Unfortunately, he cannot always do that. FA is one of those where one must walk a thin line. Plus, our Intelligence agencies arent really that intelligent. Incompetency is something that dogs the Federal Government on all levels

If only I knew what the Prez went thru.

This coming from the party that still thinks there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

HotWingConspiracy: President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney led the way by denouncing those who dared state the obvious version of what had happened in Benghazi, Libya - that it was about terrorism and not about the anti-Mohammad film.

When did this happen? Quotes?

[Loud Howard] NO ONE AT CHURCH GETS MAD WHEN I CALL THE DIRTY STINKING MUSLIMS WHAT THEY IS! IT'S OBVIOUSLY A COVERUP!

Why DID it take so long?

I mean, jumping to immediate conclusions and bombing the shiat out of people in response has been such a winning strategy before.

Saying at the time that they had no direct evidence that it was terrorism != that they did not suspect terrorism at that time.

The 9/11 protests were used as cover for the assassination plot by terrorist groups.

The questions of who precisely whipped up those mobs in all those places and how and why has not been answered to anyone's satisfaction yet but the fact remains that RW blowhards like the Koran burning Pastor and his Christian Sharia law cohorts added to the chaos and so I kindly invite Scott "the Right Politics" Paulson to print out a dozen copies of his shiatty "bad news for Obama" blogpost here, crumble those copies into a largish, ball shaped mass and then cram the entire thing up his ass as rapidly as possible.

That is all.

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: Obama administration blurred that distinction. They tried to say that killings in Libya were the result of spontaneous protests against a film rather than a premeditated terrorist attack. They said, don't blame us for those deaths, blame that filmmaker.

Wait, whose responsibility were the attacks?

Oh, sure, 0bama can use his time machine to alter his birth certificate but he cannot make a simple phone call to warn the embassy? he had to have known this was going to happen, just look at the news it is everywhere.

Yeah, because the smartest thing to do in response to an attack in an unstable and sensitive culture is label them terrorists.

I mean, it's not like we have proof that hatred for American and terrorist recruitment was fueled by the conception that Americans hate Muslims and view them all as terrorists. It's not like Osama bin Laden WANTED us to be at war with "Islam" rather than "Al Qaeda".

Damn you Obama for not shooting first and aiming later.

ghare: Wow, there are some mentally ill racists in the posts

I've noticed a trend on nearly every website I visit that has comments. Generally, the comments are pretty right leaning, fairly racist, and pretty ignorant. I guess this is what Republicans do when they are unemployed.

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," is too little - far too late.

Why would Obama try to deny something that was "self-evident" in the first place?

When did he deny it?

Don't you follow the news? They repeatedly denied it. They were telling everyone that it was all just a spontaneous protest over a "disgusting and reprehensible" video. Obama tried to blame a filmmaker for those deaths rather than accept responsibility for his own failure.

Ready, Fire, AIM!

Best bumper sticker sound bite in a while, and it applies in spades here, so to speak.

Fareed is on CNN now talking about how the musilms were bound to riot from time to time due to their own societal problems, regardless of who is President... well thanks we knew that.

Anyway - if the deaths of our people in Libya constitute a 'failure' for the Obama administration, then your standard is way too high. I'm surprised there isn't a lot more violence towards U.S. interests every day.

There could be other reasons besides domestic political consumption for either downplaying the terrorism or conflating the deaths in Libya with the more widespread protests - maybe Obama thought by blaming the deaths on the video-riots, it would shame the larger mobs into calming down.

I wouldn't trust anything said by any politician or talking head here in America. All of it is spin and half truths at best, when it's not outright propaganda. I do listen to the reports from the reporters overseas who actually travel around the middle east and talk to people on the street.

Generation_D: So you mean you took a few days to make sure you had the guilty party right before shooting your mouth off in public about a touchy situation?

Damn you Nobama for being a quality leader. Damn you to hell! We want a rootin shootin cowboy back, someone that spouts off unconfirmed nonsense or just repeats what the Neocons and Likud want him to repeat!

This. Did we not learn from the WMD debacle in Iraq that maybe it's better to get all the facts first than to just start spouting off and send a bunch of troops in? And there were several other protests in that part of the world like Egypt that were specifically against the video. Libya was the exception, not the norm, during the Middle East protests.

**Yawn**

Same old shiat, spewing from yet another asshole.

Generation_D: So you mean you took a few days to make sure you had the guilty party right before shooting your mouth off in public about a touchy situation?

Damn you Nobama for being a quality leader. Damn you to hell! We want a rootin shootin cowboy back, someone that spouts off unconfirmed nonsense or just repeats what the Neocons and Likud want him to repeat!

Obviously the right is frustrated by Obama's capacity to learn from his mistakes. He passed judgement too quickly early in his administration during that whole stupid Cambridge cop thing. Little farther down the line he tells a reporter that he wants to get all the facts in before saying anything. And now...he's getting all the facts in before saying anything. That's evolution--hence why the right is upset.

Big Dave: Anyway - if the deaths of our people in Libya constitute a 'failure' for the Obama administration, then your standard is way too high.

The thing that gets me is how they blame what happened in Egypt on Obama.

Obama didn't do a farking thing in Egypt, the Egyptians are doing all of this stuff on their own.

So what exactly did they want Obama to do in Egypt instead?

Mrtraveler01: Big Dave: Anyway - if the deaths of our people in Libya constitute a 'failure' for the Obama administration, then your standard is way too high.

The thing that gets me is how they blame what happened in Egypt on Obama.

Obama didn't do a farking thing in Egypt, the Egyptians are doing all of this stuff on their own.

So what exactly did they want Obama to do in Egypt instead?

In general? Stop apologizing, appeasing, bowing, etc., etc.
Spedifically? They got nothin'.

Mrtraveler01: Big Dave: Anyway - if the deaths of our people in Libya constitute a 'failure' for the Obama administration, then your standard is way too high.

The thing that gets me is how they blame what happened in Egypt on Obama.

Obama didn't do a farking thing in Egypt, the Egyptians are doing all of this stuff on their own.

So what exactly did they want Obama to do in Egypt instead?

The exact opposite of what he did. Unless he did that, in which case they'd have wanted him to do what he really did.

The Right Wing would rather persist in creating a fictional, inept Obama for their own consumption instead of getting real about their candidate's pathetic and doomed campaign. That's not surprising in the least.

Right-wing media to the rescue. I'm sure the family and friends of our fallen ambassador are deeply concerned with the political motivation behind his killing.

Does calling it a terrorist attack really change the facts about the incident?

Personally, I think labeling it a terrorist attack makes Obama look better. If it were a result of a populous riot then it would invalidate assisting the Libyans in their civil war. Calling it a terrorist attack means it was a small, isolated group; possibly Kaddafi loyalists.

DarwiOdrade: WHITE: I've admitted nothing.
MUSTARD: Well, you paid the blackmail. How many husbands have you had?
WHITE: Mine or other women's?
MUSTARD: Yours.
WHITE: Five.
MUSTARD: Five.
WHITE: Yes, just the five. Husbands should be like Kleenex. Soft, strong, and disposable.
MUSTARD: You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies!
WHITE: Flies are where men are most vulnerable.
MUSTARD: Right!


Terrorism is just a red herring.

Generation_D:
So you mean you took a few days to make sure you had the guilty party right before shooting your mouth off in public about a touchy situation?

That's exactly the opposite of what happened. They started off with "it's the fault of that filmmaker," doubled down with "yes, it's really all his fault," brought him in for "questioning," and then, after almost a week, finally admitted that they were wrong about every single thing they said over the first few days.

Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, went on all of the Sunday talk shows and repeated, adamantly, that it was all because of that film.

I don't really understand. Why do the shiatstains keep repeating the same lie, and why does the press fall for it? The statement that so offended the mouthbreathers was a statement released by embassy staff in Egypt who were worried that a protest there would get out of control. Obama didn't issue that statement, and it wasn't in response to Libya, where the actual terrorist attacks occurred.

Then, when the bodies of the dead ambassador and consular staff were returned to the United States, Obama spoke out about terrorism.

I know I shouldn't want to smash some heads over political bullshiat, but damn if motherfarkers don't make it hard. It's just straight-up lies.

cman: There are times when Obama shows that he has balls. There are other times that Obama shows that he has a vagina. I would rather see him more oft show the former over the latter. Unfortunately, he cannot always do that. FA is one of those where one must walk a thin line. Plus, our Intelligence agencies arent really that intelligent. Incompetency is something that dogs the Federal Government on all levels

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that the CIA/DIA/any other intel organization farks up from time to time---they totally do----but I always think it's important to cut them a little slack for two reasons.

First, their job is ENORMOUS. There are too many people, states, organizations, etc. that need to be tracked at all times. If you tripled the CIA's funding and personnel, you might have a big enough organization for the job.

Second, we don't hear about them getting things right often, because that's the very nature of the mission. If they prevent a terrorist attack, how do we know? It's not like we have a video we can watch about what today would've been like if the CIA hadn't arrested that Al-Qaeda messenger. Sometimes the intelligence community might be aware of a success, but it might be classified, so only the appalling fark-ups actually make it into the papers.

Just playing devil's advocate, but I tend to think that it's tough for regular citizens like us to judge the CIA since we ultimately know so very little about it.

jso2897: In general? Stop apologizing, appeasing, bowing, etc., etc.
Spedifically? They got nothin'.

I figured as much. I was just curious if there was some talking point they came up with in response to that question.

gilgigamesh: ghare: Wow, there are some mentally ill racists in the posts

Daniel Martin Gray • 19 hours ago • parent −
candidviews: WHY?
Obvious, really:
Because FEAR LEADER and his corruptocrat criminal cronies are INEPT, LYING TRAITORS to our CONSTITUTION.
And because they KNEW it would happen, and planned to USE the UNintended consequences of "Progressive" CRISIS to PUSH US farther FORWARD toward their 100-year dream of CONTROL.
"Imagine" that!

I've read this three times now and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.

Can anyone here translate Derp?

"Stewardess, I speak Jive..."

Unfortunately, i don't speak Derp...

I remember them saying it looked like terrorism the first day, but they were looking for proof. Evidence, how does it work? Let's invade Iraq again, it was obviously their fault.

Mrtraveler01:
The thing that gets me is how they blame what happened in Egypt on Obama.

I've been trying to watch more Fox News to see what they've been up to, and that organization has conflated the terrorism in Libya with the protests in Egypt in a blatant move to blame Obama for "deadly riots across the middle east". They'll sit there and one by one condemn the deaths in Libya and then go on to talk like every embassy is under siege by huge mobs led by terrorists.
As a mostly-rational person, I was alternately laughing and sputtering in shock at these segments.

culebra: The Right Wing would rather persist in creating a fictional, inept Obama for their own consumption instead of getting real about their candidate's pathetic and doomed campaign. That's not surprising in the least.

It helps people like Skinnyhead forget they're rooting for a cultist Mormon and allows them to sleep at night.

as opposed to most republicans, who never admit they're wrong?

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The curtain drawn to reveal the smoke and mirrors. Put that at the end of your progressive spoon and enjoy your naked lunch.

Why didn't the Obama administration immediately jump to a conclusion? It doesn't matter which conclusion was reached so long as it was made without any thought or consideration.Then we could accuse them of jumping to conclusions. Why won't the Obama administration give us the ammunition we demand so we can use it against them? Why won't Obama resign and the Democratic Party dissolve itself so we can have what is rightfully ours?

Still waiting for anyone from the Bush administration to admit they farked up...

The retards seem to forget that there WERE protests going on at the time. Protests about the anti-Muslim video, in fact. What the dipshiats don't seem to want to admit is:

1. The portests were already occurring.

2. There are terrorists in Libya.

3. Due to a recent major overthrow of the long time dictator in Libya, a LOT of high-powered weapons are in places other than government armories.

As a result, it is entirely feasible to believe that these WEREN'T long-planned, coordinated attacks, but could have been a moment of opportunity seized upon by terrorists who had planned enough to be ready if an opportunity presented itself. Not sure why this is so hard to fathom. Maybe it's because we have a Democrat in the White House?

I honestly thought that was their position from the beginning. That this wasn't a riot but an actual attack, given that it happened on September 11th. If they did know that and were just holding back, then that makes sense. They wouldn't want to tip off the enemy. At the same time, if that's the case, now is the time to come out and say that they knew this from the beginning, but this was about national security and they needed to not blab about everything they knew. Now is the time for the White House to come on out and say that was the plan.

At least, that's what I hope. I mean, we Farkers figured that it was an attack pretty quickly, so I'd hope that the actual White House would know that, too.

Well, first, waiting for quotes from the White House which say the attacks were not terrorism.

Second, whether planned or spontaneous, whether due to being 9/11 or in response to a stupid film, physical attacks on our consulate are terrorism.

Third, maybe keeping quiet about what we know, like, who did the attack, is a smart thing to do in order to lull them into complacency so we can get them.

Fourth, no one has explained how in the hell we are supposed to know about every single planned attack that may occur all over the world. Compared to the attacks under Reagan, Clinton and Bush II, we're doing pretty damned good.

Fifth, the Libyans have already arrested 50 people in connection with the attack, they allow us to park two warships in their waters, they allow us to fly drones all over their airspace, the Libyan government is cooperating so completely that I expect they would give Obama a blow-job if he asked.

Sixth, the Libyans themselves have attacked and driven out the terror group suspected of being involved. Maybe not treating all Muslims like terrorists helps us gain the trust of moderate Muslims.

Seventh, the only other option at this juncture is to put into office a guy who said it was not worth moving heaven and hell to get the guy who was responsible for killing 3000, and I'm supposed to expect him to go after the people who only killed 4?

Eighth, the reason we are getting so much love from the Libyan people is because we helped topple Qaddaffi. If you think the Libyan people are going to be help us in the future if they see the people who wanted Qaddaffi to remain in office back in power over here, you're nuts.

Oh boy, are the Fark independents going to be so mad when Libya starts executing the terrorists responsible for the attack right before the election. If the Fark independents hate one thing, it's terrorists being caught and killed.

Mrtraveler01: Big Dave: Anyway - if the deaths of our people in Libya constitute a 'failure' for the Obama administration, then your standard is way too high.

The thing that gets me is how they blame what happened in Egypt on Obama.

Obama didn't do a farking thing in Egypt, the Egyptians are doing all of this stuff on their own.

So what exactly did they want Obama to do in Egypt instead?

Attack Iran, of course.

You mean to tell me that the obama administration waited to confirm that it was terrorism, rather than wetting their pants and screaming "omg terrorism!!" right away?!?!?

Truly not very presidential.

Dan the Schman: Yeah, because the smartest thing to do in response to an attack in an unstable and sensitive culture is label them terrorists.

I mean, it's not like we have proof that hatred for American and terrorist recruitment was fueled by the conception that Americans hate Muslims and view them all as terrorists. It's not like Osama bin Laden WANTED us to be at war with "Islam" rather than "Al Qaeda".

Damn you Obama for not shooting first and aiming later.

 

Pretty much sums up the argument.

It was all a big smokescreen to make everyone forget he was in Vegas instead of being a leader, which he never has or will be.

gilgigamesh: ghare: Wow, there are some mentally ill racists in the posts

Daniel Martin Gray • 19 hours ago • parent −
candidviews: WHY?
Obvious, really:
Because FEAR LEADER and his corruptocrat criminal cronies are INEPT, LYING TRAITORS to our CONSTITUTION.
And because they KNEW it would happen, and planned to USE the UNintended consequences of "Progressive" CRISIS to PUSH US farther FORWARD toward their 100-year dream of CONTROL.
"Imagine" that!

I've read this three times now and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.

Can anyone here translate Derp?


There are three key parts
First is "UNintended consequences of "
Clearly this is a pun on "UN" and is in reference to the UN taking away all of our guns.

Second is the "LYING TRAITORS to our CONSTITUTION."

IF you look back, in the constitution. Originally, blacks were 3/4 of a man, and certainly could not vote or be president


Now the other key part is "100 year-dream of control"

Now martin lurther king had a dream and he was black
Obama is black

Clearly, This is about the black man being president and taking away guns from good white christians, which goes against what the ORIGINAL constitution wanted.


This reminds me, I need to start stocking up on ammo today. Because when Obama win, those farking people are going to freak out and drive the price through the rough. Hell, I bet by March, .357 rounds will be worth twice their weight in gold.

Was the purpose of the attack to sow fear among a civilian population?

Answer to subby's question:
Cause responsible government wait until the facts are in before throwing the terrorism card around. Unlike kneejerk reaction news and throw-it-all-at-the-wall pundits.

armoredbulldozer: It was all a big smokescreen to make everyone forget he was in Vegas instead of being a leader, which he never has or will be.

So what was Obama supposed to do again?

gilgigamesh: I've read this three times now and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.

Can anyone here translate Derp?

Basically, Obama dropped the ball by being specifically warned that terrorists planned to attack personnel at the embassy in Egypt on 9/11.

So when personnel at the consulate in Libya died, you can see this is clearly Obama's 9/11... LITERALLY.

SkinnyHead: The filmmaker was not to blame.

Yeah, a total innocent bystander besmirched by the LIEberal lamestream LSM media, Amirite or amirite?

You're so bad at this it's funny! ^_^

I cannot admit to being wrong because that would abrogate my 5th amendment rights.

Mrtraveler01: So what was Obama supposed to do again?

How too many people view the office of the presidency and what his day looks like



See, there on the left, that green graph shows a spike in terrorists attacks. He should have clicked on the "anti terrorists program" button.

/hot

Mrtraveler01: armoredbulldozer: It was all a big smokescreen to make everyone forget he was in Vegas instead of being a leader, which he never has or will be.

So what was Obama supposed to do again?

With tears streaming down his face, announce his resignation, Joe Biden's resignation, and the dissolution of the Democrat party. Glenn Beck would then crown Sarah Palin Empress of the Known Universe, and big screens would rise behind her to show Mecca and various other foreign places being nuked as our national anthem played in the background.
That would have been acceptable, anything less is American weakness.

Arkanaut: Still waiting for anyone from the Bush administration to admit they farked up...

Bet if you waterboarded a few of them it would. Since its not torture, shouldn't be a problem.

Start with Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's hard for the Administration to simultaneously claim (in an election year) how much of a badass they are on terrorism and foreign policy and also admit that they lost control of an Embassy to four car loads of armed nuts.

This article we just read is an Opinion Editorial

The death of the Ambassador and his security is horrible and tragic.
The FBI is on the ground now investigating.

Libya is a fragile place that's been kept in the dark about everything for over 30 years.

I'm all for finding out all the details of the attack,
but the claims the right wing is making is not supported by facts just anger and an attempt to build a case against Obama from this terrorist attack. 

What exactly would the right wing do differently? 
Send in troops? Start bombing? Have the ships in the Mediterranean launch missiles at tin huts?

SkinnyHead: The Obama administration tried to use the movie as a cover for those attacks. But there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate in Benghazi.

Got a citation for that?

My recollection was that fairly soon after the rocket attacks, the government announced that it was likely to be unrelated to the demonstrations. I spent 5 minutes doing a Google News search over a specific date range (9/11/2012 through 9/12/2012) and immediately found these stories from 9/12/2012.

In them, the US government is stating that the attack was highly coordinated and unlikely to be related to the demonstrations, and was likely to be the result of a terrorist attack:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/u-s-libyan-attack-may-be-terroris m- 1.3997648

http://www.kens5.com/news/world/US-eyes-terrorist-link-to-deadly-Lib ya -attack-169537676.html

Where in the world is anyone getting the idea that the US government tried to deny it was terrorism? And not only denied it, but kept denying it until recently?

EngineerBoy: My recollection was that fairly soon after the rocket attacks, the government announced that it was likely to be unrelated to the demonstrations. I spent 5 minutes doing a Google News search over a specific date range (9/11/2012 through 9/12/2012) and immediately found these stories from 9/12/2012.

In them, the US government is stating that the attack was highly coordinated and unlikely to be related to the demonstrations, and was likely to be the result of a terrorist attack:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/u-s-libyan-attack-may-be-terroris m- 1.3997648

http://www.kens5.com/news/world/US-eyes-terrorist-link-to-deadly-Lib ya -attack-169537676.html

Where in the world is anyone getting the idea that the US government tried to deny it was terrorism? And not only denied it, but kept denying it until recently?

Those links don't count.

Everyone knows that Newsday and KENS5 are tools of the lieberal MSM lamestream media.

Remember kids, protests and clashes were just signs of "growing pains" in the ME, as they slowly learned to embrace democracy. Until Fartbongo usurped our country, then just one single protest in the ME is overwhelming proof of his Commander in Failureship!

mat catastrophe: I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that it's hard for the Administration to simultaneously claim (in an election year) how much of a badass they are on terrorism and foreign policy and also admit that they lost control of an Embassy to four car loads of armed nuts.

This is another thing that get's me - it was a consulate that was attacked, and those are now by definition much less secure than an embassy. Unless we're supposed to gather all of our people overseas into protective bunkers on 9/11 or any time the middle east is rioting, there are going to be opportunities to attack our citizens.

Ambassadors have to strike a balance - they cannot provide good advice to the president if they travel from one compound to another in armed convoys with air cover, even in Libya. They have to be able to listen to local people and that requires a certain amount of exposure. AND this ambassador did have at least two former SEALs with him for protection, in addition to the compound staff.

cman: There are times when Obama shows that he has balls. There are other times that Obama shows that he has a vagina. I would rather see him more oft show the former over the latter. Unfortunately, he cannot always do that. FA is one of those where one must walk a thin line. Plus, our Intelligence agencies arent really that intelligent. Incompetency is something that dogs the Federal Government on all levels

Just curious, why are balls better than a vagina? Is that your personal preference, or do you really think testicles make someone a more capable human being?

Glenford: Dan the Schman: Yeah, because the smartest thing to do in response to an attack in an unstable and sensitive culture is label them terrorists.

I mean, it's not like we have proof that hatred for American and terrorist recruitment was fueled by the conception that Americans hate Muslims and view them all as terrorists. It's not like Osama bin Laden WANTED us to be at war with "Islam" rather than "Al Qaeda".

Damn you Obama for not shooting first and aiming later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300] 

Pretty much sums up the argument.

I think you would have to issue bullets first before you could shoot. We buy record amounts for the IRS agents now maybe borrow a few from them. Or we could send the security detail that we sent with Valerie Jarrett to take her vacation to Martha's Vineyard, bet they had ammo.

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: The Obama administration tried to use the movie as a cover for those attacks. But there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate in Benghazi.

Got a citation for that?

CBS News reported that.

And yet you didn't post a link.

You are asking an adminstration that categorized the Fort Hood murders as "workplace violence"?

The same administration who arms the Cartels with their Fast and Stupid program?

Cuz I'm human?

Yet Americans are supposed to have faith in them, their judgment, trust their words and actions - and sit idly by as they denounce anyone who dares to try to challenge their words. Additionally, with extreme words, they denounce anyone who tries to challenge them for their power and positions.

SVR

EngineerBoy: My recollection was that fairly soon after the rocket attacks, the government announced that it was likely to be unrelated to the demonstrations. I spent 5 minutes doing a Google News search over a specific date range (9/11/2012 through 9/12/2012) and immediately found these stories from 9/12/2012.

In them, the US government is stating that the attack was highly coordinated and unlikely to be related to the demonstrations, and was likely to be the result of a terrorist attack:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/u-s-libyan-attack-may-be-terroris m- 1.3997648

http://www.kens5.com/news/world/US-eyes-terrorist-link-to-deadly-Lib ya -attack-169537676.html

Where in the world is anyone getting the idea that the US government tried to deny it was terrorism? And not only denied it, but kept denying it until recently?

Did you see 0bama on Letterman?

thamike: adamgreeney: Just curious, why are balls better than a vagina? Is that your personal preference, or do you really think testicles make someone a more capable human being?

Anybody who bends over backwards to fit "more oft" into a Fark post has scrotum for eyelids.

What about "whilst?"

Farker Soze: culebra: The Right Wing would rather persist in creating a fictional, inept Obama for their own consumption instead of getting real about their candidate's pathetic and doomed campaign. That's not surprising in the least.

It helps people like Skinnyhead forget they're rooting for a cultist Mormon and allows them to sleep at night.

oh good, more religious bigotry.
you are okay with a cultist Christian, but not a cultist Mormon?

SkinnyHead: Don't you think it's ugly to see Obama administration blaming a filmmaker for those deaths?

I recall the administration strongly distancing itself from the views expressed in the film that caused the riots, and claiming to be neutral towards all religions (dog-whistle!), but not the "Obama administration blaming a filmmaker for those deaths". Source?

So, does this mean that the elections have been canceled and Romney is now Presidente for Life?

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: The Obama administration tried to use the movie as a cover for those attacks. But there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate in Benghazi.

Got a citation for that?

CBS News reported that.

And yet you didn't post a link.

Have you been sleeping all last week? would make sense since you sound tired.
You seem willfully ignorant of what is going on and yet you are so confident when you post. Funny that.

here is a link from the ultra right wing Huffpo, so go ahead and discount it.

linky

there is a link there that refers to the earlier CBS reporting

Obama missed the opportunity to use this as a pretext to attack Iran, in other words.

Satanic_Hamster: whidbey: Yet Americans are supposed to have faith in them, their judgment, trust their words and actions - and sit idly by as they denounce anyone who dares to try to challenge their words. Additionally, with extreme words, they denounce anyone who tries to challenge them for their power and positions.

SVR

Stevie Vaughan Ray?

Noticed that too and thought I had seen a ghost

MurphyMurphy: HOW IS YOUR IRISH SPRING WORKING OUT FOR YOU NOW MR (NOT MY) PRESIDINT????!!!!!????!!!!

In lieu of a "Manly, yes, but I like it too" button I gave that a Funny.

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: The Obama administration tried to use the movie as a cover for those attacks. But there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate in Benghazi.

Got a citation for that?

CBS News reported that.

And yet you didn't post a link.

Have you been sleeping all last week? would make sense since you sound tired.
You seem willfully ignorant of what is going on and yet you are so confident when you post. Funny that.

here is a link from the ultra right wing Huffpo, so go ahead and discount it.

linky

there is a link there that refers to the earlier CBS reporting

Ha you sure got them! Obama's administration would love to hide what they've said but there is no way they can deny that there were no protests now.

neenerist: SkinnyHead: Don't you think it's ugly to see Obama administration blaming a filmmaker for those deaths?

I recall the administration strongly distancing itself from the views expressed in the film that caused the riots, and claiming to be neutral towards all religions (dog-whistle!), but not the "Obama administration blaming a filmmaker for those deaths". Source?

Did you see 0bama's appearance on Letterman?

tenpoundsofcheese: Have you been sleeping all last week? would make sense since you sound tired.
You seem willfully ignorant of what is going on and yet you are so confident when you post. Funny that.

I've just been working all week so I can help pay for the welfare you red state deadbeats mooch off of people like me. ;)

So when did Bush admit to farking up after the 13 terrorist attacks against Embassies during his administration?

Because investigations take time.

electronicmaji: So when did Bush admit to farking up after the 13 terrorist attacks against Embassies during his administration?
Why are you bringing this up, it is unpatriotic of you to attack the ex-president during a time of war. The GOP needs your full support in these times.

It was ROMNEY(and his defenders) who made headlines and associated the film with Benghazi in the first place. Citizens and the press can speculate all they want with few consequences for being wrong. Obama doesn't get that much slack.

tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see 0bama's appearance on Letterman?

Some of it, no recollection of the Prez saying 'that guy killed them'.
Did you see the FBI couldn't get investigators on the ground until days later? Sovereign country in chaos and all that rot....

tenpoundsofcheese: Derp...derp...derp...

cman: There are times when Obama shows that he has balls. There are other times that Obama shows that he has a vagina. I would rather see him more oft show the former over the latter. Unfortunately, he cannot always do that.


"Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding."

~Betty White.

EngineerBoy: Where in the world is anyone getting the idea that the US government tried to deny it was terrorism?

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

Mind you, she's not in the best position to know, but there were a few conflicting statements by a couple of officials.


And not only denied it, but kept denying it until recently?

They were holding their cards tight to their chest, and didn't state their position with any certainty till Wednesday. This isn't the same as denial, but we are dealing with the reality-challenged community.

cirby: Generation_D:
So you mean you took a few days to make sure you had the guilty party right before shooting your mouth off in public about a touchy situation?

That's exactly the opposite of what happened. They started off with "it's the fault of that filmmaker," doubled down with "yes, it's really all his fault," brought him in for "questioning," and then, after almost a week, finally admitted that they were wrong about every single thing they said over the first few days.

Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, went on all of the Sunday talk shows and repeated, adamantly, that it was all because of that film.

They brought him in for violating probation, i.e. breaking the rules of a conditional release.

Uhm, I'll go with Fog of War?

These guy don't want to go off half cocked until they've got the facts.

/or we could just invade Iraq.

tenpoundsofcheese: there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate in Benghazi.

There were protests over this film in several countries. If nothing else the terrorist group who carried out the attack on the consulate took advantage of American security forces being stretched thin in response to that. Not sure how this sound byte is supposed to achieve any traction. If it was an attack of hardcore terrorists blending in with a traditional MEern "Death to America" protest then you could at least try to blame Obama I suppose for not doing more in the wake of that warning and if it was an attack out of the blue as it now appears that's supposed to make it worse somehow? Walk me through this.Bad news for Obama? How's that supposed to work?

/I know I should at least be happy you guys have stopped saying Embassy instead of consulate. 

Thank God this was a terrorist attack by a small band of Kadafi supporters. I was worried this was an anti-American riot by the people the US supported during the Libyan Civil War.

so what? they found out new info and changed the statement. what's the big deal here?

quatchi: If nothing else the terrorist group who carried out the attack on the consulate took advantage of American security forces being stretched thin in response to that.

It was an attack by a terrorist group who hates the freedom and democracy the US help build in Libya.

They hate us for our freedom.

coco ebert: cman: There are times when Obama shows that he has balls. There are other times that Obama shows that he has a vagina. I would rather see him more oft show the former over the latter. Unfortunately, he cannot always do that. FA is one of those where one must walk a thin line. Plus, our Intelligence agencies arent really that intelligent. Incompetency is something that dogs the Federal Government on all levels

You mean a vagina like Margaret Thatcher had?

As much as I appreciate your pithy and effective destruction of cman's drivel, argh, the mental image, coco. The mental image!

Why cant you shoot then aim like your predecessor?

We demand that you tell us what to think about a complex event on the other side of the planet, that involves 28 different factions and we clearly have no information about. Whats wrong with you? The other guy could come up with an uninformed sound bite in half the time. How can we trust anything you say if you have to stop and think about it first???

Ftfa: "The militant 9-11 attackers"

Aaand that's where I stopped reading.

Seriously? Let's set aside the absolute stupidity of that guy's crappy blog (which has the spelling, punctuation, grammar, and fact checking of a YouTube comment). There was immediate speculation from people in the government that it was alqaeda, we sent predator drones within an hour, and yesterday CIA agents worked with allied local militia to attack and kill the militia leaders responsible for the attacks.

It was clearly terrorists, and we clearly have a lot of special forces and intelligence agents on the ground to destroy those farkers. But apparently the derpers want Obama to stand in front of a mission accomplished banner and give speeches or something.

How about this: If you're upset about the bad information that your favorite 24 hour "news" channel put on the air without confirmation or analysis, complain to them. Don't blame Obama.

Muta: quatchi: If nothing else the terrorist group who carried out the attack on the consulate took advantage of American security forces being stretched thin in response to that.

It was an attack by a terrorist group who hates the freedom and democracy the US help build in Libya.

They hate us for our freedom.

Ooh, meta!

In point of fact we do not even really know who did this or why or whether or not the anti-Islamic hate film played any sort of factor in that decision. Trolls ITT trying to pretend that taking a week to officially label the action "terrorism" is bad policy or that WH speculation on that day got something wrong and it's a BFD is simply petty partisan whining at it's worst.

I remember the WH calling this a terrorist attack like a week ago. Is there something I'm missing? Cuz I ain't clicking the link.

tenpoundsofcheese: You are asking an adminstration that categorized the Fort Hood murders as "workplace violence"?

The same administration who arms the Cartels with their Fast and Stupid program?

Oh, Tori. Look, you've made a mess of yourself again.

quatchi: In point of fact we do not even really know who did this or why or whether or not the anti-Islamic hate film played any sort of factor in that decision

True, fortunately the locals support the USA:

Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the US ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building yesterday.

In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.

Obama's administration has handled this exactly the right way from the beginning. They didn't make snap judgements or put the Libyan and Egyptian governments on the defensive, or try to make those fledgling government look inept. In fact, Obama essentially empowered those governments to step up, and they did. The Libyans are dismantling militias as we speak and they are using their police and legal channels to investigate and hold the perpetrators responsible.

More Libyans died than Americans during the attack, some while trying to protect the guests in their country.

The way Obama is handling this is the way toward long term stability for these countries and maintaining good relations with the new governments.

Would someone please link to the tape that shows the Obama administration denied this was a terrorist attack? I simply don't remember that happening.

DeaH: Would someone please link to the tape that shows the Obama administration denied this was a terrorist attack? I simply don't remember that happening.

DeaH: Would someone please link to the tape that shows the Obama administration denied this was a terrorist attack? I simply don't remember that happening.

He did, but then he used his magick time machine to cover it up. The evidence is sewn in one of Sarah Palin's speech jackets.

cman: There are times when Obama shows that he has balls. There are other times that Obama shows that he has a vagina. I would rather see him more oft show the former over the latter. Unfortunately, he cannot always do that. FA is one of those where one must walk a thin line. Plus, our Intelligence agencies arent really that intelligent. Incompetency is something that dogs the Federal Government on all levels

SkinnyHead: RadioAaron: I remember the WH calling this a terrorist attack like a week ago. Is there something I'm missing? Cuz I ain't clicking the link.

When you deliberately bury your head in the sand, you're apt to miss a lot.

Oh Wow.

Skinny, you're killing today.

Keep it up, could be a little something something extra in your paycheck soon, I mean with the election this close, all your higher ups have to be taking note of the work you do here.

SkinnyHead: RadioAaron: I remember the WH calling this a terrorist attack like a week ago. Is there something I'm missing? Cuz I ain't clicking the link.

When you deliberately bury your head in the sand, you're apt to miss a lot.

Your own huffpo link earlier specifically cited the white house calling it a terrorist attack "a week ago". Which would seem to be exactly in line with what RadioAaron said.

In this case I'm afraid you got hoist by your own retard.

mrshowrules:
Although he handled it well, he is also responsible for the safety of US diplomats. To extent this could have been prevented, Ambassador Stevens murder represents a failure of the Obama administration.

/however, I have no doubt Americans and US officials would face greater risks and losses under a Romney administration

To the extent something can be prevented, sure. Do remember, Stevens died not at the embassy but when he left the safety of the embassy to help evacuate the consulate. My guess is that in most countries we are in, Americans probably have some lesser presences than the embassy that wouldn't withstand rockets very well and we probably don't have large amounts of troops in every building that might house Americans. That's life. There's risks. It sucks when people take advantage to destroy our feeling of trust and safety, but all we can do sometimes is deal with the aftermath in the best way possible. I think Obama has done that. And from the outpouring of sadness I saw from Libyans for the Americans who died, I'd say Obama and Chris Steven's way of dealing with things is superior to anything the Republicans might pull out of their asses these days.

SkinnyHead: RadioAaron: I remember the WH calling this a terrorist attack like a week ago. Is there something I'm missing? Cuz I ain't clicking the link.

When you deliberately bury your head in the sand, you're apt to miss a lot.

but enough about yourself

Muta: quatchi: In point of fact we do not even really know who did this or why or whether or not the anti-Islamic hate film played any sort of factor in that decision

True, fortunately the locals support the USA:

Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the US ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building yesterday.

In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.

Ooh, noice. Heartening is that.

Militants initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site.

[ILOL'D]

No deaths were reported in the incident, which came after tens of thousands marched in Benghazi against armed militias.

Even better. Message sent and received without undue carnage on either side.

Meanwhile, Muslim outrage over depictions of Mohammed erupted into fierce street clashes that killed at least 18 people in Pakistan.

Muslims marched in at least a half-dozen countries, with some burning American flags and effigies of President Obama.

Too big, too well orchestrated to be a two man agit-prop hit job.

Someone's intelligence service is helping out here.

Maybe more than one for different reasons.

*adjusts tinfoil chapeau to a jaunty angle*

Babelfish needs a DERP to English translator for those comments.

A Dark Evil Omen: [i246.photobucket.com image 302x501]

Carefully. Apparently thread shiatting is A-OK, but pictures of animals pooing can be a bannation.

Were you paid to post that? Then don't think you'll win a fight with someone who is!

/(Still not buying that)

gilgigamesh: MaudlinMutantMollusk: gilgigamesh: ghare: Wow, there are some mentally ill racists in the posts

Daniel Martin Gray • 19 hours ago • parent −
candidviews: WHY?
Obvious, really:
Because FEAR LEADER and his corruptocrat criminal cronies are INEPT, LYING TRAITORS to our CONSTITUTION.
And because they KNEW it would happen, and planned to USE the UNintended consequences of "Progressive" CRISIS to PUSH US farther FORWARD toward their 100-year dream of CONTROL.
"Imagine" that!

I've read this three times now and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.

Can anyone here translate Derp?

I understand common Derp, but that's one of the more frothy dialects

Yes, to my untrained eye it appears to be Hill Derp. I wonder if the commenter is from Tennessee.

Close! This is classic 'Holler Derp', so more W. VA. Rare, these days.

So this is the talking point they are going with on the Sunday shows.

/Pathetic

SkinnyHead: DemonEater: SkinnyHead: RadioAaron: I remember the WH calling this a terrorist attack like a week ago. Is there something I'm missing? Cuz I ain't clicking the link.

When you deliberately bury your head in the sand, you're apt to miss a lot.

Your own huffpo link earlier specifically cited the white house calling it a terrorist attack "a week ago". Which would seem to be exactly in line with what RadioAaron said.

In this case I'm afraid you got hoist by your own retard.

I didn't cite huffpo, but I did read it. You see, I'm not afraid to click on links and read articles, like some people around here. And the huffpo article says that Obama administration gave out "confusing and conflicting statements." They said that the attack arose spontaneously from anti-film protests. Then it says that "CBS News first reported earlier in the week that there may have not been a protest outside the consulate at all."

If there was no anti-film protest going on, the administration was lying about how the attack arose spontaneously from anti-film protests. They were trying to blame a filmmaker for the death of Americans, even though the film had nothing to do with it.

A top Republican on the House Intelligence committee said Sunday that he has "seen no information" that there was a separate protest going on outside the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, before an attack that ultimately killed the U.S. ambassador and three other staffers.

FTFL:

"I have seen no information that shows that there was a protest going on as you have seen around any other embassy at the time," Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "State of the Union." "It was clearly designed to be an attack."

So outside of this guy from the House Intelligence Committee, is there anyone else in a credible position saying this?

Bush still can't think of one mistake he made while in office (remember that interview) the same one where he said no one could have imagined people using planes as missles.

/just half of Hollywood and "fiction" writers
//and all the warnings he was getting in his daily security briefings

blastoh: Mrtraveler01: So what was Obama supposed to do again?

How too many people view the office of the presidency and what his day looks like

[www.allamericanpatriots.com image 500x333]

See, there on the left, that green graph shows a spike in terrorists attacks. He should have clicked on the "anti terrorists program" button.

/hot

Replace the computers and monitors with advisers who are supposed to be experts in their fields and you are correct. He has entire departments devoted to analyzing this sort of thing and they are supposed to be able to give him up to date information. Sometimes they have to do this quickly because a fast response is essential. So one of several things happened:

1. The terrorism experts did not give him good information, which means they failed in their job.
2. The terrorism experts did not give him ANY information, which means they failed in their job.
3. Obama received the correct information, but chose to ignore it.
4. Obama didn't allow the terrorism experts to give him the information or didn't bother to ask them.

So who's fault is it? Ultimately, Obama. If he has incompetent people in those positions, he needs to fire them immediately. If he chose to ignore valuable intelligence, he is incompetent. The captain of the ship is responsible for everything that occurs on his ship. It's a tough rule, but it is necessary. Obama is the captain of the USS Whitehouse. He's in charge and he is responsible.

Muta: quatchi: In point of fact we do not even really know who did this or why or whether or not the anti-Islamic hate film played any sort of factor in that decision

True, fortunately the locals support the USA:

Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the US ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building yesterday.

In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.

It is that action that makes me hope we are soft on Libya. But fark Pakistan. They should never get another penny of our money.

simplicimus: OgreMagi: blastoh: Mrtraveler01: So what was Obama supposed to do again?

How too many people view the office of the presidency and what his day looks like

[www.allamericanpatriots.com image 500x333]

See, there on the left, that green graph shows a spike in terrorists attacks. He should have clicked on the "anti terrorists program" button.

/hot

Replace the computers and monitors with advisers who are supposed to be experts in their fields and you are correct. He has entire departments devoted to analyzing this sort of thing and they are supposed to be able to give him up to date information. Sometimes they have to do this quickly because a fast response is essential. So one of several things happened:

1. The terrorism experts did not give him good information, which means they failed in their job.
2. The terrorism experts did not give him ANY information, which means they failed in their job.
3. Obama received the correct information, but chose to ignore it.
4. Obama didn't allow the terrorism experts to give him the information or didn't bother to ask them.

So who's fault is it? Ultimately, Obama. If he has incompetent people in those positions, he needs to fire them immediately. If he chose to ignore valuable intelligence, he is incompetent. The captain of the ship is responsible for everything that occurs on his ship. It's a tough rule, but it is necessary. Obama is the captain of the USS Whitehouse. He's in charge and he is responsible.

Give me a break. Under Bush we lost a lot of people who spoke Arabic, cause a lot of them were gay. It takes time to rebuild that infrastructure.

Yes, that was stupid to dump skilled translators because of teh ghey. But that does not excuse Obama.

SkinnyHead:

Don't you follow the news? They repeatedly denied it. They were telling everyone that it was all just a spontaneous protest over a "disgusting and reprehensible" video. Obama tried to blame a filmmaker for those deaths rather than accept responsibility for his own failure.

My impression were that the protests were largely about the movie. The violence was an intentional and planned strike that coincided with the protests (as a cover) and 9/11.

Also, it's 99% more likely that the President knew exactly what was happening and downplayed the idea of a 9/11 attack so that average Joe didn't freak the fark out thinking that we had another 9/11/2001 coming. In fact, since it was the State Department that released the info suggesting it was a planned Al Queda attack.. it's probably more than 99%.

Barfmaker: gilgigamesh: ghare: Wow, there are some mentally ill racists in the posts

Daniel Martin Gray • 19 hours ago • parent −
candidviews: WHY?
Obvious, really:
Because FEAR LEADER and his corruptocrat criminal cronies are INEPT, LYING TRAITORS to our CONSTITUTION.
And because they KNEW it would happen, and planned to USE the UNintended consequences of "Progressive" CRISIS to PUSH US farther FORWARD toward their 100-year dream of CONTROL.
"Imagine" that!

I've read this three times now and I still can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.

Can anyone here translate Derp?

He said he'll have the fish.

I dunno, looks like southern md derp to me.
somd.com 's political forums read exactly like this.
It's sad. I go to discuss, and all they really want is an echo chamber.
I'm not sure if they'll kick me off yet- but I used to argue there 17 years ago, and it hasn't gotten any better.

OgreMagi: 1. The terrorism experts did not give him good information, which means they failed in their job.
2. The terrorism experts did not give him ANY information, which means they failed in their job.
3. Obama received the correct information, but chose to ignore it.
4. Obama didn't allow the terrorism experts to give him the information or didn't bother to ask them.

So who's fault is it? Ultimately, Obama

Of course it is. Nevermind the shiatload of citations you owe us.

Zoomaster: /just half of Hollywood and "fiction" writers

And Tom Clancey, who wrote a novel in which terrorists crash a plane into the Capitol during the State of the Union to assassinate the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., leaving Jack Ryan as PotUS.

I know Clancey is a really popular author in conservative circles, so there's no way someone on Bush's team hadn't read that book.

Dwight_Yeast: Zoomaster: /just half of Hollywood and "fiction" writers

And Tom Clancey, who wrote a novel in which terrorists crash a plane into the Capitol during the State of the Union to assassinate the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., leaving Jack Ryan as PotUS.

I know Clancey is a really popular author in conservative circles, so there's no way someone on Bush's team hadn't read that book.

Probably gave them the idea.

*coughs*

Ah, the old "you took too long" argument. One of the weakest and easiest attacks.

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Additionally, you do realize that the protests and the AQ attack are two separate things, right?

Obama administration blurred that distinction. They tried to say that killings in Libya were the result of spontaneous protests against a film rather than a premeditated terrorist attack. They said, don't blame us for those deaths, blame that filmmaker.

Actually, since they're trained diplomats, what they were saying was more like: "Look, folks, we've got about a decade here of us sticking our dicks in the Middle East. This film reminded everyone of that, since folks over there honestly can't understand why the government didn't yank the vid, or even what the First Amendment is (seriously, they have a really different culture), and so the riots happened. It's complicated, and like most nightmarish situations, the result of a full decade of policy problems. The video, however, was a nasty spark, and we'd like to condemn the asshole who, for no apparent reason, decided to pull this shiat to begin with."

/Isn't a basic education, including a tidbit or two from history and political science, wonderful?

whidbey: Dwight_Yeast: Zoomaster: /just half of Hollywood and "fiction" writers

And Tom Clancey, who wrote a novel in which terrorists crash a plane into the Capitol during the State of the Union to assassinate the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., leaving Jack Ryan as PotUS.

I know Clancey is a really popular author in conservative circles, so there's no way someone on Bush's team hadn't read that book.

Probably gave them the idea.

*coughs*

You know, I intentionally refrained from making that joke to keep the Truthers quiet, but no, you had to go there, and now someone will post the Loose Change video and this thread will go to hell in a handbasket.

Does anyone apart from foxnews and ilk actually think the detail of when and how the administration decides whether to classify this as a terrorist attack is even a news story at all, let alone a news story worthy of dominating a week's coverage with?

The attack yes, but almost ALL of the coverage on that side has been about what the white house will call it. Its drivel.

OgreMagi: blastoh: Mrtraveler01: So what was Obama supposed to do again?

How too many people view the office of the presidency and what his day looks like

[www.allamericanpatriots.com image 500x333]

See, there on the left, that green graph shows a spike in terrorists attacks. He should have clicked on the "anti terrorists program" button.

/hot

Replace the computers and monitors with advisers who are supposed to be experts in their fields and you are correct. He has entire departments devoted to analyzing this sort of thing and they are supposed to be able to give him up to date information. Sometimes they have to do this quickly because a fast response is essential. So one of several things happened:

1. The terrorism experts did not give him good information, which means they failed in their job.
2. The terrorism experts did not give him ANY information, which means they failed in their job.
3. Obama received the correct information, but chose to ignore it.
4. Obama didn't allow the terrorism experts to give him the information or didn't bother to ask them.

So who's fault is it? Ultimately, Obama. If he has incompetent people in those positions, he needs to fire them immediately. If he chose to ignore valuable intelligence, he is incompetent. The captain of the ship is responsible for everything that occurs on his ship. It's a tough rule, but it is necessary. Obama is the captain of the USS Whitehouse. He's in charge and he is responsible.

9/11/2001:

Before the second tower has even fallen, Donald Rumsfeld writes a staff memo calling for war on Iraq.

Fark you, subby.

Trapper439: Before the second tower has even fallen, Donald Rumsfeld writes a staff memo calling for war on Iraq.

I'll keep mentioning this every time it comes up: Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice had meetings about invading Iraq BEFORE the election. It was going to be the centerpiece of their foreign policy. 9/11 threw everything out of wack for them and they had to come up with some way to use the momentum they had to do what they wanted to do.

Watch the Frontline documentary "Bush's War" which covers the run-up to the war better than anything I've seen. It's available on their website.

soporific: I honestly thought that was their position from the beginning. That this wasn't a riot but an actual attack, given that it happened on September 11th. If they did know that and were just holding back, then that makes sense. They wouldn't want to tip off the enemy. At the same time, if that's the case, now is the time to come out and say that they knew this from the beginning, but this was about national security and they needed to not blab about everything they knew. Now is the time for the White House to come on out and say that was the plan.

At least, that's what I hope. I mean, we Farkers figured that it was an attack pretty quickly, so I'd hope that the actual White House would know that, too.

They said from the beginning that the attack was being investigated. They didn't know if it was spontaneous or planned yet so they were waiting until they had more evidence.

Since it was the Obama administration this was seen as them covering up the truth or something...

Manufactured outrage?
or
Comprehension gap?

gilgigamesh:
Can anyone here translate Derp?


Excuse me stewardess, I speak Derp.


"HERP DAP DERPA HERPILY DOO SOSHULISM HERPA DERPA MOHAMMAED JIHAD.


"HERPA DERPA DERP DIP DO FEDERAL RESERVE TERROSISM KENYAN USURPER."


"DERP DA HERP HIPPITY HOP BARBEQUE TERRORIST FIST BUMP." 


"HERP DERP SOROS DERPA DIDDILY DAP LIBRUL MEDIA"
 

"DERP DA HERP!" 

Does America win a prize if it states it believes the attack was terrorism more quickly? Do we get a rebate or something?

I'd rather they be right than shoot first and aim later. I think there's probably a 'no take backs' rule if we accuse someone of terrorism and then turn out to be wrong.

Because they didnt jump to conclusions until they had all the evidence they needed, however "obvious" it might have been?

Mitt Romney made the mistake of jumping the gun and looking the fool. I mean, they are really grasping at straws here. I'm SO SO happy that the person that wrote this article doesnt have a say in foreign policy.

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com

All you had to say.

I heard a radio commentator on the way to work tonight. He's calling it a "terrorist attack on American soil", which is what he's referring to the Embassy. I guess technaclly it is, but really, they're grasping for straws badly.

Hey! I have an idea! Let Romney bring the head of the Mormon "church" and have him resurrect the people that died. That would be like Reagan getting the hostages released, only better.

Lando Lincoln: Obama is welcoming attacks on Americans in foreign lands, and Mitt Romney's magic underwear would protect us from harm. That's all you really need to know this election.

Any mention of Mitt Romney's underwear, magic or otherwise, also protects me from masturbation for the evening. Thanks a lot man.

SkinnyHead: DemonEater: SkinnyHead: RadioAaron: I remember the WH calling this a terrorist attack like a week ago. Is there something I'm missing? Cuz I ain't clicking the link.

When you deliberately bury your head in the sand, you're apt to miss a lot.

Your own huffpo link earlier specifically cited the white house calling it a terrorist attack "a week ago". Which would seem to be exactly in line with what RadioAaron said.

In this case I'm afraid you got hoist by your own retard.

I didn't cite huffpo, but I did read it. You see, I'm not afraid to click on links and read articles, like some people around here. And the huffpo article says that Obama administration gave out "confusing and conflicting statements." They said that the attack arose spontaneously from anti-film protests. Then it says that "CBS News first reported earlier in the week that there may have not been a protest outside the consulate at all."

If there was no anti-film protest going on, the administration was lying about how the attack arose spontaneously from anti-film protests. They were trying to blame a filmmaker for the death of Americans, even though the film had nothing to do with it.

What's the difference between that and your attempt to blame the "death of Americans" on Obama personally?

/and I'm heartened at your concern for the "death of Americans" - snork. As if the "death of Americans" isn't something you find wonderful, as long as you can make some attempt at a case - no matter how much of a stretch - that they were essentially personally killed by Obama himself.

Yeah, we definitely should keep the anti-Mohammed video out of the discussion, because that has had no repercussions in the Muslim world in the last couple weeks. None whatsoever.

DarwiOdrade: WHITE: I've admitted nothing.
MUSTARD: Well, you paid the blackmail. How many husbands have you had?
WHITE: Mine or other women's?
MUSTARD: Yours.
WHITE: Five.
MUSTARD: Five.
WHITE: Yes, just the five. Husbands should be like Kleenex. Soft, strong, and disposable.
MUSTARD: You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies!
WHITE: Flies are where men are most vulnerable.
MUSTARD: Right!

And the double negative is PROOF POSITIVE!

Sigh. Another thread.