If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The new GOP super-secret "October Surprise" plan to defeat Obama is out and online. In true GOP fashion they fail at the whole "super-secret" part as well as the "surprise" part. Hey, at least it IS October   (salon.com) divider line 647
    More: Dumbass, October Surprise, GOP, Obama administration, human beings, President Carter, Bob Corker, Dan Senor  
•       •       •

11701 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 6:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



647 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-01 02:17:26 PM
They vastly overestimate their chances.
 
2012-10-01 02:18:37 PM
1. Smirk at dead Americans
2. Smirk harder
3. ?????????????
4. Inauguration
 
2012-10-01 02:22:07 PM
Somehow "chortling with glee" over the death of an American ambassador doesn't seem very Presidential to me.
 
2012-10-01 02:26:30 PM
Huh, get back to me on how that one works out for you. I'm going to suggest "not very well" or "not as well as you had hoped".
 
2012-10-01 02:28:55 PM
Yes. Let us discuss previous Presidents.
 
2012-10-01 02:29:23 PM
Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?
 
2012-10-01 02:29:35 PM
He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?
 
2012-10-01 02:31:53 PM
Gov. Romney, after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, I don't recall Al Gore, Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat calling a press conference to criticize President Bush and pour salt on the country's open wounds. I don't recall seeing anyone smiling that day. Maybe we were all thinking more about our country and the men and women we had just lost than our own selfish ambitions.
 
2012-10-01 02:33:05 PM
Of course, Romney won't say his source should he do this, which will let the Democrats create a narrative in which Romney, out of sheer desperation, lied to the American people and used the deaths of four people for his political benefit.
 
2012-10-01 02:38:46 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?


Seal Team 6, acting on retroactive orders from George W Bush, based on the policies of George W Bush, in whose name I swear.
 
2012-10-01 02:44:23 PM

Aarontology: Of course, Romney won't say his source should he do this, which will let the Democrats create a narrative in which Romney, out of sheer desperation, lied to the American people and used the deaths of four people for his political benefit.


Perhaps they could suggest that in Romney's desperation to appear Reaganesque he armed the people who attacked our consulate. If treason was enough to win one for the Gipper why not try it again?
 
2012-10-01 02:46:11 PM
i50.tinypic.com

yes, republicans, keep focused on foreign policy. it can only help you win in november.
 
2012-10-01 02:49:29 PM

TwoHead: Aarontology: Of course, Romney won't say his source should he do this, which will let the Democrats create a narrative in which Romney, out of sheer desperation, lied to the American people and used the deaths of four people for his political benefit.

Perhaps they could suggest that in Romney's desperation to appear Reaganesque he armed the people who attacked our consulate. If treason was enough to win one for the Gipper why not try it again?


Oh man. Can you imagine the craziness if that happened?
 
2012-10-01 02:50:20 PM

Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.


Perhaps it is you that are misunderestimating them.
 
2012-10-01 02:53:50 PM

GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?


No, that's not what it is. That's not what it is. Except, yes, that's exactly what it is.
 
2012-10-01 02:55:33 PM
So, they got nothing then?
 
2012-10-01 02:56:06 PM

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?

No, that's not what it is. That's not what it is. Except, yes, that's exactly what it is.


It is not currently necessary for us to Whip Inflation Now. We can Ford that stream when we come to it.
 
2012-10-01 02:57:11 PM
That is the best they can come up with? I almost feel sorry for our recently silent Fark Independents. Well I would if they weren't such tools.

Its just sad that this is considered a serious campaign.
 
2012-10-01 02:58:39 PM

NowhereMon: So, they got nothing then?


Well, they still have Mitt's list of memorized "zingers", so they...yeah they've got nothing.
 
2012-10-01 03:01:50 PM
"My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."


Wait, what?
 
2012-10-01 03:15:18 PM
As we all know, there's nothing the GOP hates more than a president who fails to act on actionable intelligence regarding terrorist attacks on US soil.
 
2012-10-01 03:17:42 PM
www.wnd.com

Look at him. This is probably the same face he had when he ordered the weapons distributed outside the consulate.
 
2012-10-01 03:23:03 PM

Quasar: As we all know, there's nothing the GOP hates more than a president who fails to act on actionable intelligence regarding terrorist attacks on US soil.


whee!
 
2012-10-01 03:26:58 PM

FlashHarry: Quasar: As we all know, there's nothing the GOP hates more than a president who fails to act on actionable intelligence regarding terrorist attacks on US soil.

whee!


And we're off to the races!
 
2012-10-01 03:36:27 PM
So if I have this straight the POTUS has shown weakness in the Libya attacks because the administration did not call it terrorism for 8 days. Maybe the POTUS didn't have all the facts and did not want to make a statement. Or maybe just maybe they kept that card close to the vest. Why might they do that you ask? Well maybe, just maybe they knew it was terrorism and were/are planning on taking care of the threat and speaking about it publicly could jeopardize the mission. Presidents have this funny habit of keeping secrets about national security and military operations. If only we had some indication that was going on. Perhaps news reports 4 days after the attacks of the U.S. sending drones, Marines and CIA agents to the area. Link

It would be epic to see Rmoney play this card hard and heavy on the debate Wed night only to turn on the TV sometime next week to hear about a drone strike or ST6 raid that ended with the dead terrorist that pulled this off.

Now that my friends would be a true October surprise that makes they way Obama took the Donald down look like a tickling match.
 
2012-10-01 03:39:21 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?


And who is the other guy, who led the multi-decade effort that recently essentially wiped out one of the most devastating diseases in the entire African continent?
 
2012-10-01 03:41:57 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?


some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.
 
2012-10-01 03:57:49 PM
If they had anything useful why would they be sitting on it at this point. Even if it's made up BS swiftboating it's better to get it into play now. They got nothing.
 
2012-10-01 04:16:31 PM
The source described the Republicans as chortling with glee that the Obama administration "definitely had intel" about the attack before it happened.


Dead Americans make us chortle with glee!
 
2012-10-01 04:18:04 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Who killed Osama bin Laden again?


SEAL Team 6.

0bambi had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-10-01 04:22:16 PM
CRY HAVOC! AND LET SLIP THE DERPS OF WAR!
 
2012-10-01 04:24:36 PM
Even the most jaded Liberal has to admit that this strategy is probably the best one the GOP has. Problem is, no one can ever be worse than Carter (talking about leadership abilities here, not about political positions). Carter was a lovable man who was too good for Washington. He was a man of integrity, and integrity and politics are at most times opposite of each other. Because of his kindness and his refusal to play the political game, he got his ass run over by everybody.
 
2012-10-01 04:25:34 PM

GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?


I HAD A WOOT CANAWL
 
2012-10-01 04:27:00 PM

vernonFL: Marcus Aurelius: Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

SEAL Team 6.

0bambi had nothing to do with it.


Total uninformed, stupid mind dead DERP. He had absolutely everything to do with it as he is ultimately responsible for the failure of any mission. Those who give orders are responsible and face the scrutiny when all fails.

Remember Carter? Link 

/but nobody blamed him for the Iran fiasco I guess
 
2012-10-01 04:29:33 PM

ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.


He also changed the recommendations and insisted on the spare helicopter that ensured its success.
 
2012-10-01 04:31:53 PM
Bin Laden's still dead guys.

Plus he followed through with the Bush Administration plan to be out of Iraq.

I guess "weak on defense" means rattling the saber loud enough at Iran.
 
2012-10-01 04:32:13 PM

ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.


Sir, I did not. I was the one driving

/the limo to the hookers, yo
 
2012-10-01 04:43:26 PM
The source declined to reveal the names of the GOP operatives who were present. But he said, "These were the top guys in the party. It was a private, unguarded planning conversation." He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence... The source said that "there was quite a bit more" to the operation than simply revealing the intelligence regarding Libya. He declined to discuss what he described as the second phase of the operation. 
 
So according to an an anonymous source,  un-named people with high level security clearances are giving top secret intel to random rich civilians? Who was in charge of this meeting?
 
img.youtube.com
 
It's not news, it's political gossip on salon.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-01 04:46:28 PM

nvmac: vernonFL: Marcus Aurelius: Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

SEAL Team 6.

0bambi had nothing to do with it.

Total uninformed, stupid mind dead DERP. He had absolutely everything to do with it as he is ultimately responsible for the failure of any mission. Those who give orders are responsible and face the scrutiny when all fails.

Remember Carter? Link 

/but nobody blamed him for the Iran fiasco I guess


That's only if it goes wrong. Since bin Laden was killed it was totally because of Cheney and Bush.
 
2012-10-01 04:47:10 PM

dugitman: The source declined to reveal the names of the GOP operatives who were present. But he said, "These were the top guys in the party. It was a private, unguarded planning conversation." He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence... The source said that "there was quite a bit more" to the operation than simply revealing the intelligence regarding Libya. He declined to discuss what he described as the second phase of the operation. 
 
So according to an an anonymous source,  un-named people with high level security clearances are giving top secret intel to random rich civilians? Who was in charge of this meeting?
 
[img.youtube.com image 480x360]
 
It's not news, it's political gossip on salon.com


Anyway this isn't treason or some criminal offense?
 
2012-10-01 04:49:23 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: "My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."


Wait, what?


They hate us for our intelligence? That sentence sounds like it was constructed by Ralph Wiggum or Sarah Palin.
 
2012-10-01 04:53:03 PM

Quasar: US soil


As an aside, Embassies and Consulates are not US soil. It's one of those false facts.
 
2012-10-01 04:55:57 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Quasar: US soil

As an aside, Embassies and Consulates are not US soil. It's one of those false facts.


Around here, we consider it a truefact.
 
2012-10-01 04:56:35 PM
i253.photobucket.comOH PLEASE OH PLEASE-PLEASE BE MOD BUDDY HACKETT!
 
2012-10-01 05:06:08 PM

Diogenes: DammitIForgotMyLogin: "My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."


Wait, what?

They hate us for our intelligence? That sentence sounds like it was constructed by Ralph Wiggum or Sarah Palin.


If there's one group responsible for launching multiple attacks on American intelligence, it's the GOP
 
2012-10-01 05:06:55 PM
The source described the Republicans as chortling with glee that the Obama administration "definitely had intel" about the attack before it happened.

That reminds me of a similar situation. Can't quite remember it though. And I was told never to forget it on many different occasions, too.
 
2012-10-01 05:23:37 PM

Lando Lincoln: The source described the Republicans as chortling with glee that the Obama administration "definitely had intel" about the attack before it happened.

That reminds me of a similar situation. Can't quite remember it though. And I was told never to forget it on many different occasions, too.


Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker, Chinese made of course, sold in the local iranian gas station, "Lest we remember".
 
2012-10-01 05:24:22 PM
So, the strategy is, "We haven't been able to beat him on foreign policy, so we're going to beat him on foreign policy?"

Brilliant strategy, guys.

/just because the press secretary doesn't say the word "terrorism" doesn't mean that the Administration is running around, crying like lost toddlers
 
2012-10-01 05:28:49 PM

GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?


www.todayscampus.com 
Yeah, remember the last time Republican had a plan for that?
/always felt sorry for Jerry Ford
//Our only non elected President. Got hit with Nixon Pardon, got hit with End of Vietnam inflation.
///Should not have Pardon Nixon.
 
2012-10-01 05:28:50 PM
This is as good a strategy as linking Obama to Vince Foster's 'suicide'
 
2012-10-01 05:30:56 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

Seal Team 6, acting on retroactive orders from George W Bush, based on the policies of George W Bush, in whose name I swear.


Yeah, the same guy who said "I don't care where Osama Bin Laden is...: 
But yeah, Seal Team 6 deserves the credit.
 
2012-10-01 05:35:58 PM
"So what do we usually run on?"
"We're better at foreign policy and growing the economy."
"How's that going this time?
"Nobody believes us."
"So what should we do now?"
"We should paint the administration that killed OBL, didn't start new wars, pulled us out of unpopular ones on schedule and generally restored America's positive image as being bad at foreign policy."
"Hm, I think it could work, but we'll need zingers."

Who the fark is in charge at Rmoney HQ?
 
2012-10-01 05:40:21 PM

manwithplanx: Who the fark is in charge at Rmoney HQ?


Eric Fehrnstrom and Stuart Stevens
And Mitt Romney--he is very hands on.

And yes, they are as dumb as they seem.
 
2012-10-01 05:41:34 PM

Darth_Lukecash: ///Should not have Pardon Nixon.


profile.ak.fbcdn.net

Agrees.
 
2012-10-01 05:42:21 PM

manwithplanx: "So what do we usually run on?"
"We're better at foreign policy and growing the economy."
"How's that going this time?
"Nobody believes us."
"So what should we do now?"
"We should paint the administration that killed OBL, didn't start new wars, pulled us out of unpopular ones on schedule and generally restored America's positive image as being bad at foreign policy."
"Hm, I think it could work, but we'll need zingers."

Who the fark is in charge at Rmoney HQ?


i39.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-01 05:42:26 PM

Hollie Maea: manwithplanx: Who the fark is in charge at Rmoney HQ?

Eric Fehrnstrom and Stuart Stevens
And Mitt Romney--he is very hands on.

And yes, they are as dumb as they seem.


Don't forget the Taiwanese dude whose name escapes me at the moment. He's a senior strategy advisor now.
 
2012-10-01 06:00:58 PM
Wonder if Romney will use the word "fetch" any time during the dabate?
 
2012-10-01 06:03:23 PM

DarwiOdrade: manwithplanx: "So what do we usually run on?"
"We're better at foreign policy and growing the economy."
"How's that going this time?
"Nobody believes us."
"So what should we do now?"
"We should paint the administration that killed OBL, didn't start new wars, pulled us out of unpopular ones on schedule and generally restored America's positive image as being bad at foreign policy."
"Hm, I think it could work, but we'll need zingers."

Who the fark is in charge at Rmoney HQ?

[i39.tinypic.com image 380x303]


I was going to say SkinnyHead but that image works as well.
 
2012-10-01 06:14:35 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-01 06:19:20 PM
You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.
 
2012-10-01 06:21:22 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

/No, this is not Poes law in action. I am being facetious
 
2012-10-01 06:21:40 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


i.imgur.com

Agrees.
 
2012-10-01 06:34:58 PM

Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.


i45.tinypic.com

"Wait'll they get a load of our fully functional Zinger Star."
 
2012-10-01 06:35:54 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


Well, that's it, then. Last one out turn the light off.
 
2012-10-01 06:42:01 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


Nicely done. Don't know if I missed any.
 
2012-10-01 06:45:01 PM

Coco LaFemme: Nicely done. Don't know if I missed any.


"Cash you" is the only other one I can find.
 
2012-10-01 06:46:08 PM

GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?


A secwet pwan to fight inflation?
 
2012-10-01 06:46:55 PM
GAWD, OBAMA BLAMES EVERYTHING ON BUSH, WHY IS HE SO FOCUSED ON THE PAST.


ZOMG, OBAMA = CARTER OBAMA = CARTER OBAMA = CARTER
 
2012-10-01 06:48:18 PM

RedPhoenix122: GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?

A secwet pwan to fight inflation?


Damn autocorrect, I said infwation
 
2012-10-01 06:49:54 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


Did I miss any? Hazel might be a stretch... isn't it hazelnut?
 
2012-10-01 06:51:19 PM
So the latest news is that maybe this whole "zinger" thing is just a "head fake". He's not actually going to spend the debate flinging zingers.

Apparently they just wanted to make Obama waste his time trying to come up with snappy replies to zingers.


Seriously, I am not making this shiat up. And yes, this man is actually running as candidate from one of the two major political parties for the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth.
 
2012-10-01 06:53:38 PM

Coco LaFemme: AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.

Nicely done. Don't know if I missed any.


Lol... guess I should have reloaded the page.
 
2012-10-01 06:59:42 PM

Kimothy: AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.

Did I miss any? Hazel might be a stretch... isn't it hazelnut?


2 moar
 
2012-10-01 07:01:14 PM

Hollie Maea: So the latest news is that maybe this whole "zinger" thing is just a "head fake". He's not actually going to spend the debate flinging zingers.


Point one: "flinging zingers" is now my favorite phrase in the English language.

Point two: Mitt Romney should make his zingers about the Middle East, two birds and all that.

"Mr. Obama here says eee-ran. Well he did run from our allies in Israel! When they needed our help, I-ran to Jerusalem, Mr. President!"
 
2012-10-01 07:02:35 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Hollie Maea: So the latest news is that maybe this whole "zinger" thing is just a "head fake". He's not actually going to spend the debate flinging zingers.

Point one: "flinging zingers" is now my favorite phrase in the English language.

Point two: Mitt Romney should make his zingers about the Middle East, two birds and all that.

"Mr. Obama here says eee-ran. Well he did run from our allies in Israel! When they needed our help, I-ran to Jerusalem, Mr. President!"


I ran so far away?
 
2012-10-01 07:05:02 PM
I think Mitt Romney's best bet on Wednesday is to just take the fifth for every question.
 
2012-10-01 07:07:45 PM

GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?


Bring me the purse of C J Craig!
 
2012-10-01 07:08:07 PM
img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com
 
2012-10-01 07:08:40 PM
Jimmy Carter? Damnit! Why didn't we see this coming???
 
2012-10-01 07:08:52 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Point two: Mitt Romney should make his zingers about the Middle East, two birds and all that.


The Romney campaign has pivoted to attack Obama on foreign policy. Interestingly enough, the debate on Wednesday is about domestic policy. What should be Romney's strength. Do you think they'll pivot back to the economy after this debate as they approach the on on foreign policy? Will the heat shield hold?
 
2012-10-01 07:09:39 PM
Really.

Your angle with Barack "I helped pass and author 'the surge' bill" "Osama bin Laden is dead" "I don't need international permission to support rebels in Lybia" "There's a US crewman on that ship? Hey, what are the marine snipers doing at the moment?" "drone strikes for the win" "targets terrorists even if they're US citizens" "didn't try very hard to close Gitmo" "has further expanded PATRIOT powers" "actually brought the Iraq war to a more-or-less successful conclusion" "this virus that killed Iran's reactor has some fingerprints of CIA projects" "Iranian scientists mysteriously disappear" Obama is to say he's weak on defense?

Yeeeeeah, that's gonna work. You go with that one. Please.
 
2012-10-01 07:11:03 PM

Nadie_AZ: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Point two: Mitt Romney should make his zingers about the Middle East, two birds and all that.

The Romney campaign has pivoted to attack Obama on foreign policy. Interestingly enough, the debate on Wednesday is about domestic policy. What should be Romney's strength. Do you think they'll pivot back to the economy after this debate as they approach the on on foreign policy? Will the heat shield hold?


In what alternative universe is domestic policy Romney's strength?
 
2012-10-01 07:11:46 PM
imageshack.us

Weak on defense? Get real. The Republicans had almost 8 years to catch this guy and attacked Iraq instead.
 
2012-10-01 07:12:12 PM
Stay the course, Republicans, and remind everyone just how weak Barack Obama is on terrorism and foreign policy. There is no possible way that using such a plan against the guy who sent ninjas to put Osama Bin Laden down like a rabid, syphilitic dog could ever backfire on you in a manner so cartoonishly epic that it will be talked about for decades, if not centuries.
 
2012-10-01 07:12:39 PM
In other words: "Oh shiat, the economy is slowly getting better!
 
2012-10-01 07:13:24 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?


"well don't you know it was you and me?"
 
2012-10-01 07:14:00 PM
1. One very dead bin Laden
2. Drone attacks in Pakistan against terrorist targets
3. One very toppled Qaddaffi

Yeah, that's some weak foreign policyin' right there.
 
2012-10-01 07:15:38 PM

whither_apophis: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

"well don't you know it was you and me?"


"Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name."
 
2012-10-01 07:16:18 PM
If only the Democrats could come up with a counter example....
i.telegraph.co.uk

Or two...

www.sadanduseless.com
 
2012-10-01 07:16:27 PM
i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-01 07:16:38 PM
This is turning into one of those dumb-criminal stories that ends with the suspect pantsless, drunk and wondering why the gas he's siphoning tastes like urine.
 
2012-10-01 07:17:20 PM
that's weird because i actually feel safer under President Obama's administration than i ever did under He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned's admin.

funny that.
 
2012-10-01 07:17:30 PM
That's alot of balls coming from the party responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen after passing up on repeated warnings/chances to intervene and let Bin Laden play them like a fiddle.
 
2012-10-01 07:18:53 PM
FTA: He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence.


simplicimus: dugitman: The source declined to reveal the names of the GOP operatives who were present. But he said, "These were the top guys in the party. It was a private, unguarded planning conversation." He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence... The source said that "there was quite a bit more" to the operation than simply revealing the intelligence regarding Libya. He declined to discuss what he described as the second phase of the operation. 
 
So according to an an anonymous source,  un-named people with high level security clearances are giving top secret intel to random rich civilians? Who was in charge of this meeting?
 
[img.youtube.com image 480x360]
 
It's not news, it's political gossip on salon.com

Anyway this isn't treason or some criminal offense?


That jumped out at me too. IDK what offense it might be or what organization (CIA, NSA, etc) they're with, but there is no one at all in the intelligence community who could throw them under enough buses should their names come out. IIRC, Romney and possibly some of his highest advisors get some sort of security brief every day or two now, but there are good reasons we don't know what's in it.

I clicked the link in TFA on the intelligence, and it makes it clear that we know who did it and have not shot them because we think they'll lead us to more of them. If this is true, well, think of what it means for the enemy to know this. We lose not only future targets, but possibly the triggermen themselves if they go deep enough.
 
2012-10-01 07:19:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?


Ronald Reagan. Obama only ordered the death of a bin Laden clone, who was implanted in a complicated scheme to end up our highest source of intel on the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama decided that keeping his real birth certificate a secret was more important than defending America, so he killed one of our greatest national defense assets and obtained original copies of his actual birth documentation, throwing them into the ocean.
 
2012-10-01 07:19:52 PM
Hey, Obama. Would you kindly stop blowing the fark out of everyone in al-Qaeda long enough to check out Mitt's new plan on defeating you?
 
2012-10-01 07:20:34 PM
Its the economy U.S. foreign policy in Libya stupid.

Yeah, ok. Good luck Mittens
 
2012-10-01 07:20:52 PM

Lando Lincoln: The source described the Republicans as chortling with glee that the Obama administration "definitely had intel" about the attack before it happened.

That reminds me of a similar situation. Can't quite remember it though. And I was told never to forget it on many different occasions, too.


There's "definitely" a whitey video.
 
2012-10-01 07:20:56 PM
i234.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-01 07:21:35 PM

simplicimus: Nadie_AZ: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Point two: Mitt Romney should make his zingers about the Middle East, two birds and all that.

The Romney campaign has pivoted to attack Obama on foreign policy. Interestingly enough, the debate on Wednesday is about domestic policy. What should be Romney's strength. Do you think they'll pivot back to the economy after this debate as they approach the on on foreign policy? Will the heat shield hold?

In what alternative universe is domestic policy Romney's strength?


This was supposed to be his strength. A giant in business. He could turn a bad economy to good just like he could turn a bad business to good.

Then people began to look at, you know, his history and stance (which is pretty narrow) on things
 
2012-10-01 07:21:45 PM

Lord Dimwit: 1. One very dead bin Laden
2. Drone attacks in Pakistan against terrorist targets
3. One very toppled Qaddaffi

Yeah, that's some weak foreign policyin' right there.


And not just not weak... balanced, focused, and appropriately scaled and directed for those specific incidences. How novel.
 
2012-10-01 07:21:46 PM
This is the plan? The masterstroke? They think they're going to do anything other than sicken and turn away anyone who wasn't already going to vote for them anyway?
 
2012-10-01 07:21:51 PM
So the "surprise" is that they are going to do the same thing they always do, and the same thing that has failed the Romney campaign up to this point?

I'm concerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrned.
 
2012-10-01 07:21:55 PM

Darth_Lukecash: AdolfOliverPanties: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

Seal Team 6, acting on retroactive orders from George W Bush, based on the policies of George W Bush, in whose name I swear.

Yeah, the same guy who said "I don't care where Osama Bin Laden is...: 
But yeah, Seal Team 6 deserves the credit.


Obama had multiple command decisions to make. The sort of decisions only the president can make. Decisions that make all the difference - just ask "Dalton Fury" about Tora Bora.
 
2012-10-01 07:21:59 PM

for good or for awesome: Hey, Obama. Would you kindly stop blowing the fark out of everyone in al-Qaeda long enough to check out Mitt's new plan on defeating you?


Mitt's plan appears to continue to involve communication, which means Obama is winning by default here. Back to bombing.

obamaxboxcontroller.jpg
 
2012-10-01 07:22:58 PM

ghare: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

He also changed the recommendations and insisted on the spare helicopter that ensured its success.


It's almost as though he's capable of learning from other peoples' mistakes.

And this is the context in which the GOP is trying to turn Obama into Carter II.

i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-01 07:23:03 PM

Personally, I think Romney needs to step up his game, or we're all going to be staring down the Reaper. Man has, through countless ages, fought back against the monstrous regiment of evil that is socialism. By jingo, if we don't take back this country now, the results could be catastrophic, even if they are yet unseen. Academicals of all sorts are trying to run the country with their lefty liberalism under the guise of equal rites. It's just a ruse, a maskerade, as they *truly* simply desire to rule us like lords and ladies, to simply treat us as something to be slaughtered for their goals, some sort of hog.

Father, who art in heaven, deliver us from the mortifying future that I see spread before us. Do not let us go quietly into this dark night. Watch over us, protect us from their evil, and let each of us act as though we are the last hero. When the time comes for them to strike against us, give them feet of clay and make them stick in their place. Let them not be men at arms, but people willing to finally see the truth, who will choose the peaceful, true capitalistic path of making money, as opposed to going postal.

Amen.

I admit I used this theme before, but I feel I did it better this time...

 
2012-10-01 07:23:08 PM
will try to paint it to look like Obama had advance knowledge of the attack and is weak on terrorism

Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

www.gwu.edu
 
2012-10-01 07:23:28 PM

Nadie_AZ: simplicimus: Nadie_AZ: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Point two: Mitt Romney should make his zingers about the Middle East, two birds and all that.

The Romney campaign has pivoted to attack Obama on foreign policy. Interestingly enough, the debate on Wednesday is about domestic policy. What should be Romney's strength. Do you think they'll pivot back to the economy after this debate as they approach the on on foreign policy? Will the heat shield hold?

In what alternative universe is domestic policy Romney's strength?

This was supposed to be his strength. A giant in business. He could turn a bad economy to good just like he could turn a bad business to good.

Then people began to look at, you know, his history and stance (which is pretty narrow) on things


oh, it's quite a wide stance indeed.
 
2012-10-01 07:25:32 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?



George W Bush and torturing terror suspects did!!

/this is what conservatives actually believe
 
2012-10-01 07:25:48 PM

TwoHead: Perhaps they could suggest that in Romney's desperation to appear Reaganesque he armed the people who attacked our consulate. If treason was enough to win one for the Gipper why not try it again?


FUN FACT: The week after the 'win one for the Gipper' game, Notre Dame lost 27-7 to what is now Carnegie Mellon. They ended with a 5-4 record.

It was the pre-AP-poll days, but Sports Referenceestimates Notre Dame would have been ranked 40th in 1928, compared to Carnegie Mellon's 9th.
 
2012-10-01 07:26:15 PM

mrshowrules: Look at him. This is probably the same face he had when he ordered the weapons distributed outside the consulate.


Black? Yeah, probably.
 
2012-10-01 07:29:35 PM
So, by October Surprise you mean "doubling down on all the bullshiat that hasn't really gone anywhere for the past three months despite our best efforts."

I'm sure you'll get him this time! Oooh, talk about the economy! Or how about ACORN?
 
2012-10-01 07:29:45 PM
That looks photoshopped, I've can see the pixels
media.salon.com
 
2012-10-01 07:30:04 PM
If this is really the best they got for an October Surprise, that's just sad.

Obama will be able to easily play it off and turn it around on Mitt.

1) Obama already has a big lead in the 'who do you trust with crises/foreign policy more' question.
2) Obama can point out the Iraq/drone strikes/Osama/Gaddafi etc.
3) Obama can say he was waiting for more information/running a sensitive operation etc. and had good reasons for waiting and/or witholding information.
4) Obama can slam Mitt for speaking out and misrepresenting the facts about Stevens' death before he had the whole story.

And that just off the top of my head....
 
2012-10-01 07:32:31 PM

fusillade762: will try to paint it to look like Obama had advance knowledge of the attack and is weak on terrorism

Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

[www.gwu.edu image 300x257]


This.

Do they REALLY want to go there?
 
2012-10-01 07:32:33 PM
You almost get the feeling that the Romney campaign gathers together in a treehouse, and every Saturday Mitt climbs up the rope and says "what'dya got for me this time fellows... Timmy, you go first! heh heh heh..."
 
2012-10-01 07:32:44 PM

Felgraf: Personally, I think Romney needs to step up his game, or we're all going to be staring down the Reaper. Man has, through countless ages, fought back against the monstrous regiment of evil that is socialism. By jingo, if we don't take back this country now, the results could be catastrophic, even if they are yet unseen. Academicals of all sorts are trying to run the country with their lefty liberalism under the guise of equal rites. It's just a ruse, a maskerade, as they *truly* simply desire to rule us like lords and ladies, to simply treat us as something to be slaughtered for their goals, some sort of hog.

Father, who art in heaven, deliver us from the mortifying future that I see spread before us. Do not let us go quietly into this dark night. Watch over us, protect us from their evil, and let each of us act as though we are the last hero. When the time comes for them to strike against us, give them feet of clay and make them stick in their place. Let them not be men at arms, but people willing to finally see the truth, who will choose the peaceful, true capitalistic path of making money, as opposed to going postal.

Amen.

I admit I used this theme before, but I feel I did it better this time...


Discworld novels! Awesome.
 
2012-10-01 07:33:03 PM

Jim_Callahan: "There's a US crewman on that ship? Hey, what are the marine snipers doing at the moment?"


People convenient forget that one. And after the snipers took out the pirates, Rush started screaming how Obama was murdering children. Had the snipers failed, can you imagine what the right wing would have been like the next day? "OMG, he can't even rescue one guy from a bunch of would-be amateur pirates!!"
 
2012-10-01 07:33:08 PM
So the neo conservatives call up some Saudi friends, and they get their buddies in Africa to attack embassies and kill an American all so they can hope to spin the election their way? Gee it sounds like the Reagan October Surprise all over again. Their disgusting greed and power tripping knows no ends.

/this is why Obama has been tough on terror and using drones, liberals may not like it, but a Democrat has to be even stronger on enemies than the GOP just to stop an discussion of the old and tired narrative of Democrats "weak on defense"
 
2012-10-01 07:34:12 PM

jasimo: If this is really the best they got for an October Surprise, that's just sad.

Obama will be able to easily play it off and turn it around on Mitt.

1) Obama already has a big lead in the 'who do you trust with crises/foreign policy more' question.
2) Obama can point out the Iraq/drone strikes/Osama/Gaddafi etc.
3) Obama can say he was waiting for more information/running a sensitive operation etc. and had good reasons for waiting and/or witholding information.
4) Obama can slam Mitt for speaking out and misrepresenting the facts about Stevens' death before he had the whole story.

And that just off the top of my head....


5) Obama could say something salacious about Romney's mom
 
2012-10-01 07:35:56 PM

Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.


They shouldn't need a secret plan due to Obama's staggering incompetence. As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.
 
2012-10-01 07:36:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: jasimo: If this is really the best they got for an October Surprise, that's just sad.

Obama will be able to easily play it off and turn it around on Mitt.

1) Obama already has a big lead in the 'who do you trust with crises/foreign policy more' question.
2) Obama can point out the Iraq/drone strikes/Osama/Gaddafi etc.
3) Obama can say he was waiting for more information/running a sensitive operation etc. and had good reasons for waiting and/or witholding information.
4) Obama can slam Mitt for speaking out and misrepresenting the facts about Stevens' death before he had the whole story.

And that just off the top of my head....

5) Obama could say something salacious about Romney's mom


I was taking it for granted that Obama would lead off with a few "Mitt Romney's mom is so fat...." jokes.
 
2012-10-01 07:37:18 PM
Republicans please oh please don't give Obama an excuse to bring up talking about Bin Laden again and again. PLEASE DON'T!!
 
2012-10-01 07:37:39 PM

jasimo: If this is really the best they got for an October Surprise, that's just sad.


Seriously. It's not even an October Surprise. A real October Surprise would be trotting out a bunch of White House staff members who will testify that Obama keeps slapping their asses as he walks by. If no dirt has been found in the frothiness of the past four years on the guy, it's unlikely there's anything. So they've got to hope for something terrible to happen to the country. Republicans: actively praying for another major terror strike against American interests.
 
2012-10-01 07:37:40 PM

cman: Even the most jaded Liberal has to admit that this strategy is probably the best one the GOP has. Problem is....


... the world changed almost beyond recognition since then, traditional media and letters to the editor are no longer the only means of participatory discussion, the ploy was original last time hence the 'surprise', and the two-term Republican president who apparently cannot be named did much worse.
Forge full steam ahead with the business plan Mittens.
 
2012-10-01 07:38:24 PM
So is the rumor still going around that Ryan refers to Romney as stench? If so, Obama should just work stench into what he's saying as much as possible
 
2012-10-01 07:38:57 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: mrshowrules: Look at him. This is probably the same face he had when he ordered the weapons distributed outside the consulate.

Black? Yeah, probably.


I posted this in the wrong thread. It made more sense in the thread about Obama being responsible for arming the Libyan terrorists.
 
2012-10-01 07:39:09 PM
Using Libya against Obama is what started Mittens' downward slide in the polls. Keep choking that chicken, though.

This guy isn't going to be painted as weak on terrorism:

imageshack.us

It hasn't worked, and it will not work.
 
2012-10-01 07:39:20 PM

brigid_fitch: Jim_Callahan: "There's a US crewman on that ship? Hey, what are the marine snipers doing at the moment?"

People convenient forget that one. And after the snipers took out the pirates, Rush started screaming how Obama was murdering children. Had the snipers failed, can you imagine what the right wing would have been like the next day? "OMG, he can't even rescue one guy from a bunch of would-be amateur pirates!!"


To be fair, that was one of the reasons it was pretty much universally regarded as the right call. Because if the operation had failed he'd have been politically in so much shiat that he'd likely not even be bothering to run now. So he clearly wasn't making the decision to score political points, but because he genuinely regards safeguarding the lives of US citizens as his job.

So... yeah, that's actually the foreign-policy bit I'd run on if I were him. The Bin Laden thing can more easily be explained away as a chance to gain politically with few real downsides save cost to the taxpayer, the Somali pirates were a statement of his beliefs on the proper course of action, straight-up.
 
2012-10-01 07:39:21 PM

sammyk: That is the best they can come up with? I almost feel sorry for our recently silent Fark Independents. Well I would if they weren't such tools.

Its just sad that this is considered a serious campaign.


They have gone MIA for a number of threads now. cman is trying, but I'm not sure he caucuses with the Fark independents. He seems his own man.

Maybe some of us could change affiliation for a few posts?

I'm willing to learn how to smirk. But, I won't smirk at dead US ambassadors and our embassy workers. And, I won't smirk at reputable health care workers. And, I won't smirk at teachers. And, I won't smirk at scientists. OK. It was a crappy idea.
 
2012-10-01 07:40:11 PM
Don't fire 'til you see the whites of their lies.
 
2012-10-01 07:40:14 PM

simplicimus: In what alternative universe is domestic policy Romney's strength?


The alternative universe where Romney has relentlessly hammered away at how slow the economic recovery has been for months now, exhibiting the discipline to avoid a relentless drumbeat of missteps, each of which has frittered away precious campaign time while undermining his own credibility.

That alternative universe.

Or perhaps he means that relative to foreign policy, it's a strength. Don't forget Romney's spectacular summer tour that was supposed to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
 
2012-10-01 07:40:14 PM
I love how "leaking classified intelligence" is only bad when 0bama or another Democrat does it. When Bush, Romney, or anyone else does, it's patriotic.
 
2012-10-01 07:40:20 PM

Felgraf: Personally, I think Romney needs to step up his game, or we're all going to be staring down the Reaper. Man has, through countless ages, fought back against the monstrous regiment of evil that is socialism. By jingo, if we don't take back this country now, the results could be catastrophic, even if they are yet unseen. Academicals of all sorts are trying to run the country with their lefty liberalism under the guise of equal rites. It's just a ruse, a maskerade, as they *truly* simply desire to rule us like lords and ladies, to simply treat us as something to be slaughtered for their goals, some sort of hog.

Father
, who art in heaven, deliver us from the mortifying future that I see spread before us. Do not let us go quietly into this dark night. Watch over us, protect us from their evil, and let each of us act as though we are the last hero. When the time comes for them to strike against us, give them feet of clay and make them stick in their place. Let them not be men at arms, but people willing to finally see the truth, who will choose the peaceful, true capitalistic path of making money, as opposed to going postal.

Amen.

I admit I used this theme before, but I feel I did it better this time...


Pretty good. Thanks
 
2012-10-01 07:40:37 PM
I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically
 
2012-10-01 07:43:16 PM

ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.


And shouldered all of the political risk. If people want to talk about Jimmy Carter, well there you go. I'm sorry, but what Obama did took balls even if he wasn't the one with the firearms. Lesser men would have ignored the intelligence for political expediency. Had that mission failed, there's no telling what fallout would have occurred.

This is why I genuinely respect the man, even as I don't always agree with him. Plus, he's a master troll and let's face it - who doesn't enjoy watching the right's media machine explode in apoplectic b*tch-fits because of some sly remark he made? Problem?

FartNambla has more balls and guile in his pinky than the entire Republican party. Search your feelings. You know this to be true.
 
2012-10-01 07:43:28 PM
Listening to derp radio as I do to look into the dark abyss that is the mind of the enemy. They had all recieved talking points from derp central going over and over again about how this was a huge failure on Obummer's part, but what was weird was they had two narratives going. One was has definitive proof that Obama had pulled back troops from defending the embassy to allow the attack to kill the ambassador, then seconds later they would note that the ambassador Mr. Stevens was probably the g-word and liked boys and stuff and Obama was forcing that gayness all over the middle-east when all they wanted was some good gay hatin' an' stuff.

It made no sense. So Obama is using gay ambassadors to gay up the world, but now he secretly wants to kill them?
 
2012-10-01 07:43:45 PM
... and Romney still polls at over 45%.

/seriously. wtf
//who the fark would vote for him?
 
2012-10-01 07:46:52 PM
If that's their October Surprise... a failed theory that colonpow's been selling for over a week now... I've got an October surprise for the Romney campaign...

Surprise!!!! You're down 8% in the popular vote leading into November!!!
 
2012-10-01 07:47:46 PM
This sounds too dumb to be true, but with the campaign Romney has run thus far, I can believe it.
 
2012-10-01 07:48:00 PM
So all of the people who were so hopped-up about getting rid of Gaddafi are now complaining about how it provided an opening for al-Qaeda in Libya. The same people arguing for US intervention in Syria where the anti-Assad forces include al-Qaeda. The situation is the Arab countries is very complex and fluid and beyond our control. I think trying to score points over the death of a US ambassador could backfire. But at least this article helps explain why Fox news has been going all out on Libya for days now while most of the nation has other more important issues to deal with. As tragic as the events were, the situation in Libya does not really threaten the US.
 
2012-10-01 07:48:52 PM

simplicimus: dugitman: The source declined to reveal the names of the GOP operatives who were present. But he said, "These were the top guys in the party. It was a private, unguarded planning conversation." He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence... The source said that "there was quite a bit more" to the operation than simply revealing the intelligence regarding Libya. He declined to discuss what he described as the second phase of the operation. 
 
So according to an an anonymous source,  un-named people with high level security clearances are giving top secret intel to random rich civilians? Who was in charge of this meeting?
 
[img.youtube.com image 480x360]
 
It's not news, it's political gossip on salon.com

Anyway this isn't treason or some criminal offense?


Yes, it is. In fact, as I recall, leaking classified information that results in the deaths of Americans is punishable by death.
 
2012-10-01 07:48:56 PM

Mercutio74: If that's their October Surprise... a failed theory that colonpow's been selling for over a week now... I've got an October surprise for the Romney campaign...

Surprise!!!! You're down 8% in the popular vote leading into November!!!


That's only because the evil lib press, led by FoxNews, halved the lead and swapped Obama's name for Romney. You lib pukes are gonna be so mad!
 
2012-10-01 07:49:42 PM

gameshowhost: ... and Romney still polls at over 45%.

/seriously. wtf
//who the fark would vote for him?


The white religious right wing. Which is incredibly weird, because, other than being white, Romney has nothing in common with them.
 
2012-10-01 07:50:31 PM

runwiz: So all of the people who were so hopped-up about getting rid of Gaddafi are now complaining about how it provided an opening for al-Qaeda in Libya. The same people arguing for US intervention in Syria where the anti-Assad forces include al-Qaeda. The situation is the Arab countries is very complex and fluid and beyond our control. I think trying to score points over the death of a US ambassador could backfire. But at least this article helps explain why Fox news has been going all out on Libya for days now while most of the nation has other more important issues to deal with. As tragic as the events were, the situation in Libya does not really threaten the US.


The other thing I can't figure out is that the very nature of going on the attack means that to some extent the Romney campaign would be able to choose the battlefield. So what do they choose? Romney's weakest, foreign policy. I guess they think they get a better draft pick if they lose by a lot.
 
2012-10-01 07:50:32 PM

armoredbulldozer: Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.

They shouldn't need a secret plan due to Obama's staggering incompetence. As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.


That Obama only lives in your head.
 
2012-10-01 07:50:54 PM
NPR had a quick story about an op-ed that Romney wrote about the need for a change in our foreign policy. Something about how America is reacting to events in the Middle East instead of controlling them. The phrase that stuck out to me was that Romney "offered no specifics" about what, exactly, should be changed.
 
2012-10-01 07:51:25 PM
I'm in my thirties.

Jimmy Carter was out of the White House before I was born.

I do remember George W. Bush for all of my adult life, though.
 
2012-10-01 07:52:13 PM
Of course they had intelligence about a potential attack. They didn't move the ambassador to a safe house in Benghazi for shiats and giggles.

Look, something really farked up happened in Libya on 9/11. I'd like to see a careful, thorough investigation into what happened.

But Romney should just shut the fark up about it already. That god damn clown should display the smallest shred of dignity and class on this. If he doesn't have even that decency, then the evening of November 6th when that slimeball crawls back into obscurity can't come soon enough.
 
2012-10-01 07:52:22 PM

Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Apparently, the GOP is under the impression Pres. Bush killed him with a fart, from his private residence in Texas.

 
2012-10-01 07:52:42 PM
Even if Obama was weak on foreign policy, who can take this guy seriously:

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-01 07:53:08 PM
I thought Wednesday's debate was all about domestic policy? Have the Republicans given up already?
 
2012-10-01 07:53:35 PM

cman: Even the most jaded Liberal has to admit that this strategy is probably the best one the GOP has. Problem is, no one can ever be worse than Carter (talking about leadership abilities here, not about political positions). Carter was a lovable man who was too good for Washington. He was a man of integrity, and integrity and politics are at most times opposite of each other. Because of his kindness and his refusal to play the political game, he got his ass run over by everybody.


The main problem the GOP has in using this strategy is that currently nothing is going on in Libya or Egypt. The thing Carter had to deal with wasn't "looking weak on terrorism" it was the awkward fact that 53 Americans were STILL BEING HELD HOSTAGE during the entire election. Carter's "weakness" stemmed not from any foreign policy deficiencies of the kind Romney is attempting to hang on Obama, but the simple fact that 53 Americans were in the hands of Iranian students and he was seen as "not doing anything" about it.

In this case, no matter what the GOP can or cannot prove, it happened a month ago. There are no Americans in harm's way. By election day, it will be a fading memory in the minds of the typical salt-of-the-earth common-clay American. Coming up with facts about something that happened last month will only impress Romney's supporters--it will not sway Obama supporters. Again, the Republicans are a day late and a dollar short, and thinking they're miles ahead of the curve.
 
2012-10-01 07:54:11 PM

moralpanic: Even if Obama was weak on foreign policy, who can take this guy seriously:

[imageshack.us image 616x480]


Almost 40% of the electorate.
 
2012-10-01 07:54:35 PM

The Martian Manhandler: unseen. Academicals


Missing at least two! But yes. I admit I probably do pratchett things too much!
 
2012-10-01 07:55:37 PM

quizzical: NPR had a quick story about an op-ed that Romney wrote about the need for a change in our foreign policy. Something about how America is reacting to events in the Middle East instead of controlling them. The phrase that stuck out to me was that Romney "offered no specifics" about what, exactly, should be changed.


I hear that there was a group called Project for a New American Century that had some ideas about how the middle east could be controlled... I wonder if they ever succeeded with any of those ideas...
 
2012-10-01 07:55:57 PM
FTFA: "My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."

The source described the Republicans as chortling with glee that the Obama administration "definitely had intel" about the attack before it happened. "Intelligence can be graded in different ways," he added, "and sometimes A and B don't get connected. But [the Romney campaign] will try to paint it to look like Obama had advance knowledge of the attack and is weak on terrorism."

GO FARK YOURSELVES GOP

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-01 07:56:33 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


Well, Lemmy see here.
Allow me to be frank. Bellow all you want, Republicans but you're going to flop like a limp piece of spaghetti. Lee Atwater ain't coming through that door any time soon kids. Flee to Canada after the election if you want, but that won't change anything. When a man can such endorsers as LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney, its obvious your days are numbered. And if you think Romney has a chance, obviously you don't know Jack. Bruce Campbell's chin hairs would stand a better chance.
You republicans, you think you're some great American Heroes, like John Paul Jones, or George Washington, but you're not. And no strey gunn lobby is going to help either, so don't go crying to the NRA. This isn't a time for your 2nd amendment solutions.
And has anyone said anything nice about Mitt while on mike? Inez his housekeeper doesn't count. I'm looking for someone who doesn't work for him.
It is my sincere hope that when the polls open on that tuesday in November, Americans will realize what we're facing and won't put us over a cliff. Burdon's on you, Nation.
 
2012-10-01 07:56:53 PM
By this point in Clinton's presidency they had the assassination of Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewatergage, and apparently 80 people murdered by the Arkansas Mafia to cover up drug shipments orchestrated by Roger Clinton (a guy who probably couldn't orchestrate a barbecue).

It's got to be tough to be a conspiracy minded right winger in the age of Obama. He gives you so little you're left with complaining about his wife's garden.
 
2012-10-01 07:57:13 PM

Delay: moralpanic: Even if Obama was weak on foreign policy, who can take this guy seriously:

[imageshack.us image 616x480]

Almost 40% of the electorate.


That remains to be seen. Romney dramatically underperformed in the primaries, and is laughably underperforming now.

/underperformed is a great word to describe him for it contains the word derp
 
2012-10-01 07:57:48 PM
He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president and to equate the tragedy in Libya with President Carter's failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980. "They are so excited about it," he said. "Over and over again they talked about how it would be just like Jimmy Carter's failed raid. They feel it is going to give them a last-minute landslide in the election."

Yeah, people will think of Eagle Claw rather than Neptune Spear.

The "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" PDB was declassified on 4/10/04 and reported in the 9/11 Commission Report on 7/22/04. That's how John Kerry got that landslide victory the following November.
 
2012-10-01 07:59:27 PM
Ctrl-F + "You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway" ... was not disappointed.
 
2012-10-01 07:59:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yes. Let us discuss previous Presidents.


I'll do that.

If George W. Bush had not normalized relations and coddled the TERRORIST Qaddafi, the embassy wouldn't have been there to be attacked.

The GOP is again projecting its weaknesses.
 
2012-10-01 08:01:02 PM

Corvus: If only the Democrats could come up with a counter example....
[i.telegraph.co.uk image 460x288]

Or two...

[www.sadanduseless.com image 435x600]


Mr. Muammar Gaddafi was a "key US ally"; his death therefore is an illustration of the current Administration's poor record of foreign policy.
 
2012-10-01 08:01:37 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yes. Let us discuss previous Presidents.

I'll do that.

If George W. Bush had not normalized relations and coddled the TERRORIST Qaddafi, the embassy wouldn't have been there to be attacked.

The GOP is again projecting its weaknesses.


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-01 08:01:53 PM

Aarontology: TwoHead: Aarontology: Of course, Romney won't say his source should he do this, which will let the Democrats create a narrative in which Romney, out of sheer desperation, lied to the American people and used the deaths of four people for his political benefit.

Perhaps they could suggest that in Romney's desperation to appear Reaganesque he armed the people who attacked our consulate. If treason was enough to win one for the Gipper why not try it again?

Oh man. Can you imagine the craziness if that happened?


You forgot the part where Romney uses the money from arms sales to Iran to murder nuns in Central America.
 
2012-10-01 08:02:16 PM
And Mitt's Stuka dive towards the Mondale Line with his electoral vote total continues unabated.
 
2012-10-01 08:02:22 PM

PonceAlyosha: That remains to be seen. Romney dramatically underperformed in the primaries, and is laughably underperforming now.


I think this bears repeating. For half the primaries, the first half, Romney scored 0% (by the GOP's own metrics) against a group of idiots. My assumption is Romney will be sedated and wired for the debate.
 
2012-10-01 08:02:32 PM
M'kay. Obama, if you or any of your campaign staff are reading this - if Romney is suicidal enough to bring up the attacks in Libya during the debates, you don't have to say a word. Instead, just hold up a piece of paper with this printed on it:

s3.amazonaws.com

That, right there, is all that anybody needs to know about Romney's version of foreign policy.
 
2012-10-01 08:03:23 PM

Mercutio74: runwiz: So all of the people who were so hopped-up about getting rid of Gaddafi are now complaining about how it provided an opening for al-Qaeda in Libya. The same people arguing for US intervention in Syria where the anti-Assad forces include al-Qaeda. The situation is the Arab countries is very complex and fluid and beyond our control. I think trying to score points over the death of a US ambassador could backfire. But at least this article helps explain why Fox news has been going all out on Libya for days now while most of the nation has other more important issues to deal with. As tragic as the events were, the situation in Libya does not really threaten the US.

The other thing I can't figure out is that the very nature of going on the attack means that to some extent the Romney campaign would be able to choose the battlefield. So what do they choose? Romney's weakest, foreign policy. I guess they think they get a better draft pick if they lose by a lot.


They must use the Dogbert method of turning their negatives into perceived positives. For example, the war in Iraq: we know it made America safer because over 4,000 Americans died in it.
 
2012-10-01 08:04:25 PM
Oh yeah, foreign policy is where Romney wants to attack Obama. Mitt has extensive knowledge in this area, just ask him about Switzerland or the Cayman Islands - he knows sooo much about those places. They're foreign, right? Ha! I bet Obama doesn't even have any off-shore bank accounts, so how can he have any sort of retort to this brilliant strategy?

/2009 amnesty for the win, Alex!
 
2012-10-01 08:05:15 PM
RCP Polling averages show Obama as +6 in New Hampshire, +6.7 in Wisconsin, +5.5 in Ohio, and +4 in Nevada.

unless Obama gaffes all over himself in the debates, its over.
 
2012-10-01 08:05:35 PM

vernonFL: Marcus Aurelius: Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

SEAL Team 6.

0bambi had nothing to do with it.


In the same way that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11?
 
2012-10-01 08:06:16 PM

SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.

Well, Lemmy see here.
Allow me to be frank. Bellow all you want, Republicans but you're going to flop like a limp piece of spaghetti. Lee Atwater ain't coming through that door any time soon kids. Flee to Canada after the election if you want, but that won't change anything. When a man can such endorsers as LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney, its obvious your days are numbered. And if you think Romney has a chance, obviously you don't know Jack. Bruce Campbell's chin hairs would stand a better chance.
You republicans, you think you're some great American Heroes, like John Paul Jones, or George Washington, but you're not. And no strey gunn lobby is going to help either, so don't go crying to the NRA. This isn't a time for your 2nd amendment solutions.
And has anyone said anything nice about Mitt while on mike? Inez his housekeeper doesn't count. I'm looking for someone who doesn't work for him.
It is my sincere hope that when the polls open on that tuesday in November, Americans will realize what we're facing and won't put us over a cliff. Burdon's on you, Nation.


I like. Probably lots I missed.
 
2012-10-01 08:07:18 PM

sno man: Lord Dimwit: 1. One very dead bin Laden
2. Drone attacks in Pakistan against terrorist targets
3. One very toppled Qaddaffi

Yeah, that's some weak foreign policyin' right there.

And not just not weak... balanced, focused, and appropriately scaled and directed for those specific incidences. How novel.


i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-01 08:07:47 PM
Also, the Republicans have been trying to paint Obama as Carter 2.0 for about three years now, and it still hasn't stuck. I find it really unlikely that THIS TIME it will all work according to plan.
 
2012-10-01 08:08:07 PM

sammyk: That is the best they can come up with? I almost feel sorry for our recently silent Fark Independents. Well I would if they weren't such tools.

Its just sad that this is considered a serious campaign.


This campaign was never about anything but the NE 'Rockefeller' wing of the GOP putting the brakes on the Derp Brigades. The Teahadists and Jesus Freaks cost them the Senate in 2010 and then very nearly destroyed the USA as a global ecomomic force. They've had enough stupid.
 
2012-10-01 08:08:20 PM

dumbobruni: RCP Polling averages show Obama as +6 in New Hampshire, +6.7 in Wisconsin, +5.5 in Ohio, and +4 in Nevada.

unless Obama gaffes all over himself in the debates, its over.


Your perspective is limited. An unexpected economic crash or military disaster may also substantially alter the probability of the election outcome.
 
2012-10-01 08:09:12 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.

Well, Lemmy see here.
Allow me to be frank. Bellow all you want, Republicans but you're going to flop like a limp piece of spaghetti. Lee Atwater ain't coming through that door any time soon kids. Flee to Canada after the election if you want, but that won't change anything. When a man can such endorsers as LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney, its obvious your days are numbered. And if you think Romney has a chance, obviously you don't know Jack. Bruce Campbell's chin hairs would stand a better chance.
You republicans, you think you're some great American Heroes, like John Paul Jones, or George Washington, but you're not. And no strey gunn lobby is going to help either, so don't go crying to the NRA. This isn't a time for your 2nd amendment solutions.
And has anyone said anything nice about Mitt while on mike? Inez his housekeeper doesn't count. I'm looking for someone who doesn't work for him.
It is my sincere hope that when the polls open on that tuesday in November, Americans will realize what we're facing and won't put us over a cliff. Burdon's on you, Nation.

I like. Probably lots I missed.


You missed at least three.
 
2012-10-01 08:09:34 PM

fusillade762: sno man: Lord Dimwit: 1. One very dead bin Laden
2. Drone attacks in Pakistan against terrorist targets
3. One very toppled Qaddaffi

Yeah, that's some weak foreign policyin' right there.

And not just not weak... balanced, focused, and appropriately scaled and directed for those specific incidences. How novel.

[i46.tinypic.com image 600x450]


It just so happens we are appeasing Khorne, the Blood God, so his slumber continues.

/ten thousand years of war!
//and socialized medicine for all!
 
2012-10-01 08:11:37 PM

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?

No, that's not what it is. That's not what it is. Except, yes, that's exactly what it is.


I have a secret plan to fight inflation?

It was a joke! I was kidding!
 
2012-10-01 08:11:48 PM
But [the Romney campaign] will try to paint it to look like Obama had advance knowledge of the attack and is weak on terrorism."

Will they be channeling BinLaden's ghost to talk about this aspect of Obama's administration? YOu know, the really quite successful part?

I guess this means that they figured out that the economy isn't really in the shiatter?
 
2012-10-01 08:13:07 PM
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-01 08:13:23 PM

Dimensio: dumbobruni: RCP Polling averages show Obama as +6 in New Hampshire, +6.7 in Wisconsin, +5.5 in Ohio, and +4 in Nevada.

unless Obama gaffes all over himself in the debates, its over.

Your perspective is limited. An unexpected economic crash or military disaster may also substantially alter the probability of the election outcome.


the first scenario is less likely than you getting struck by lightning tomorrow.
 
2012-10-01 08:14:08 PM

Greil: FTA: He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence.


simplicimus: dugitman: The source declined to reveal the names of the GOP operatives who were present. But he said, "These were the top guys in the party. It was a private, unguarded planning conversation." He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence... The source said that "there was quite a bit more" to the operation than simply revealing the intelligence regarding Libya. He declined to discuss what he described as the second phase of the operation. 
 
So according to an an anonymous source,  un-named people with high level security clearances are giving top secret intel to random rich civilians? Who was in charge of this meeting?
 
[img.youtube.com image 480x360]
 
It's not news, it's political gossip on salon.com

Anyway this isn't treason or some criminal offense?

That jumped out at me too. IDK what offense it might be or what organization (CIA, NSA, etc) they're with, but there is no one at all in the intelligence community who could throw them under enough buses should their names come out. IIRC, Romney and possibly some of his highest advisors get some sort of security brief every day or two now, but there are good reasons we don't know what's in it.

I clicked the link in TFA on the intelligence, and it makes it clear that we know who did it and have not shot them because we think they'll lead us to more of them. If this is true, well, think of what it means for the enemy to know this. We lose not only future targets, but possibly the triggermen themselves if they go deep enough.


Wow...This bothers me as well, knowing that Romney/Ryan started getting security briefings last week. Makes me wonder if their 'leaker' has just done them a huge favor, and saved them a treason charge, or two.
 
2012-10-01 08:14:50 PM
libertywar.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-01 08:15:26 PM

dumbobruni: the first scenario is less likely than you getting struck by lightning tomorrow.


True, but I wouldn't put it beyond the GOP to attempt to jumpstart the second one.

Hell, they've already tried to jumpstart the first one (that was the reason for the whole debt ceiling fiasco).
 
2012-10-01 08:15:35 PM

MrEricSir: [imageshack.us image 234x349]

Weak on defense? Get real. The Republicans had almost 8 years to catch this guy and attacked Iraq instead.


Well, the Republicans gave up on him. Literally. They said he didn't matter, that they didn't care to get him. He wasn't a priority. 9/11, which had we had intel that said it was going to go down, not only killed 3,000 directly, wounded and killed thousands more via invasions of other countries, but Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him", the very person that was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

No loss of life should ever be trivialized, but if Republicans are getting on Obama's back because there is the chance of someone dropping the ball on intel which caused the death and harm of a few of our citizens overseas, then they better farking goddamn start committing suppuku for how they handled the aftermath of 9/11 and their priorities thereafter. They don't have a farking leg to stand on, let alone be able to balance themselves with as they shove someone else for possibly making a mistake.
 
2012-10-01 08:16:45 PM

Aarontology: TwoHead: Aarontology: Of course, Romney won't say his source should he do this, which will let the Democrats create a narrative in which Romney, out of sheer desperation, lied to the American people and used the deaths of four people for his political benefit.

Perhaps they could suggest that in Romney's desperation to appear Reaganesque he armed the people who attacked our consulate. If treason was enough to win one for the Gipper why not try it again?

Oh man. Can you imagine the craziness if that happened?


Doesn't he have a Blackwater exec on his campaign team?
 
2012-10-01 08:17:03 PM
Hey GOP remember who was president when this happened? Beirut Bombing

And remember how he reacted Grenada Invasion


oh and the country where the U.S. Marines were killed There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans besides a few shellings
 
2012-10-01 08:19:55 PM

dumbobruni: Dimensio: dumbobruni: RCP Polling averages show Obama as +6 in New Hampshire, +6.7 in Wisconsin, +5.5 in Ohio, and +4 in Nevada.

unless Obama gaffes all over himself in the debates, its over.

Your perspective is limited. An unexpected economic crash or military disaster may also substantially alter the probability of the election outcome.

the first scenario is less likely than you getting struck by lightning tomorrow.


I did not suggest otherwise.
 
2012-10-01 08:20:18 PM
I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.
 
2012-10-01 08:24:53 PM

ManateeGag: some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.


So, in other words....Obama has still done tons more than Romney, or the the idiot known as GW Bush.
 
2012-10-01 08:25:09 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.



Coool boobie time that I was able to figure out the theme in one of these.
 
2012-10-01 08:26:27 PM
they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

The chicken's long dead, the pulp of blood and feathers have fallen away. All that's left by now are desperate Republicans thrusting into a moulding pelvic bone.
 
2012-10-01 08:27:22 PM
Next phase: Bibi and the Israeli chickenhawk brigade explaining how Iran is a few weeks away from wiping Israel off the map* and only Obama's stubborn Muslim sympathies are standing in the way...

* they've been a few weeks away since 1990 but thus time it's serious.
 
2012-10-01 08:27:39 PM

eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.


Ya think?
 
2012-10-01 08:28:46 PM

eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.


You sound concerned. Have you thought of finding a different chicken?
 
2012-10-01 08:30:06 PM
The Jimmy Carter approach? Romney is going to sell weapons to Iran?
 
2012-10-01 08:30:07 PM

eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.


Obama seems to have a pretty good foreign intelligence team, fairly tight-lipped too. I wouldn't be surprised if the message put out by the administration was a little misleading...you don't want to tip off your enemies, you know. Time will tell, now won't it. It certainly is conceivable that the info leaked to the Republicans is not 100% correct. Maybe it has a falsehood inserted to identify the leaker.
 
2012-10-01 08:31:29 PM
Osama bin Laden.

Good night.
 
2012-10-01 08:32:06 PM

hiker9999: ManateeGag: some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

So, in other words....Obama has still done tons more than Romney, or the the idiot known as GW Bush.


I have never understood why the GOP cant even let Obama have that one. Obama ordered our troops into a country we were not at war with to take out a major terrorist. There could have been significant backlash against the President if it all went wrong. You bet your ass the GOP would be there with the blame if shiat went wrong.
 
2012-10-01 08:32:09 PM

SilentStrider: Well, Lemmy see here.
Allow me to be frank. Bellow all you want, Republicans but you're going to flop like a limp piece of spaghetti. Lee Atwater ain't coming through that door any time soon kids. Flee to Canada after the election if you want, but that won't change anything. When a man can such endorsers as LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney, its obvious your days are numbered. And if you think Romney has a chance, obviously you don't know Jack. Bruce Campbell's chin hairs would stand a better chance.
You republicans, you think you're some great American Heroes, like John Paul Jones, or George Washington, but you're not. And no strey gunn lobby is going to help either, so don't go crying to the NRA. This isn't a time for your 2nd amendment solutions.
And has anyone said anything nice about Mitt while on mike? Inez his housekeeper doesn't count. I'm looking for someone who doesn't work for him.
It is my sincere hope that when the polls open on that tuesday in November, Americans will realize what we're facing and won't put us over a cliff. Burdon's on you, Nation.

 
2012-10-01 08:32:22 PM

Mikey1969: I guess this means that they figured out that the economy isn't really in the shiatter?


no. The rich guys funding the GOP figured out that the national polls showed Rmoney is in the shiatter.
 
2012-10-01 08:34:16 PM

vernonFL: Marcus Aurelius: Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

SEAL Team 6.

0bambi had nothing to do with it.


If that mission had failed or resulted in deaths of SEAL Team Six, would you say "0bambi had nothing to do with it"?

Didn't think so. Now GTFO, you disingenuous twit.
 
2012-10-01 08:36:36 PM
If romney hadn't jumped the gun immediately after the embassy/consulate attacks and simply withheld comment, he could have been scoring points slowly and steadily gaining from the, let's call it what it was, the failure. But instead, romney smirked and smiled his way through his 'golden opportunity' and is even now trying to recapture that lost opportunity.
 
2012-10-01 08:36:45 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-01 08:37:12 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: SilentStrider: Well, Lemmy see here.
Allow me to be frank. Bellow all you want, Republicans but you're going to flop like a limp piece of spaghetti. Lee Atwater ain't coming through that door any time soon kids. Flee to Canada after the election if you want, but that won't change anything. When a man can such endorsers as LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney, its obvious your days are numbered. And if you think Romney has a chance, obviously you don't know Jack. Bruce Campbell's chin hairs would stand a better chance.
You republicans, you think you're some great American Heroes, like John Paul Jones, or George Washington, but you're not. And no strey gunn lobby is going to help either, so don't go crying to the NRA. This isn't a time for your 2nd amendment solutions.
And has anyone said anything nice about Mitt while on mike? Inez his housekeeper doesn't count. I'm looking for someone who doesn't work for him.
It is my sincere hope that when the polls open on that tuesday in November, Americans will realize what we're facing and won't put us over a cliff. Burdon's on you, Nation.


Still missing two.
 
2012-10-01 08:37:17 PM

cman: hiker9999: ManateeGag: some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

So, in other words....Obama has still done tons more than Romney, or the the idiot known as GW Bush.

I have never understood why the GOP cant even let Obama have that one. Obama ordered our troops into a country we were not at war with to take out a major terrorist. There could have been significant backlash against the President if it all went wrong. You bet your ass the GOP would be there with the blame if shiat went wrong.


I once had a conversation about that with my father, who was a Vietnam-era vet.(He never got sent over); Dad repeated the claim that the boots on the ground were soley responsible for the entire operation....the President had absolutely nothing to do with it- and he deserved no credit for it.

I asked him, by that definition, then, if it was true that JFK, LBJ and Nixon deserved no blame for the CF that was Vietnam-- that it was all soldiers on the ground in the Nam that screwed things up royally.

Dad never made that arguement again.
 
2012-10-01 08:37:55 PM
"The new GOP super-secret "October Surprise" plan to defeat Obama is out and online. In true GOP fashion they fail at the whole "super-secret" part as well as the "surprise" part. Hey, at least it IS October"

i need fact check on that october part, not convinced yet...
 
2012-10-01 08:38:54 PM

ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.


Obama is an Executive Admin.
 
2012-10-01 08:40:09 PM

Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically


Whoa, dude, you just blue my mind!
 
2012-10-01 08:40:21 PM
Romney starts getting intelligence briefings, then does this? Can't imagine a counter at all...

Mr. Romney, why are you leaking information from classified briefs? Have you, at last, no shame sir?
 
2012-10-01 08:40:52 PM
"I knew Chris Stevens. I appointed Chris Stevens. Chris Stevens was a friend of mine. Governor , when in the pursuit of a few points in the polls you are willing -- on September 11th of all days -- to gleefully make a political issue out of a US diplomat who gave his life in service to his country, it reveals that you are willing to say anything as part of your increasingly desperate campaign to attain the highest office in the land -- a position you have been seeking for the last six years, and a position in which you have already declared your intent to ignore half of this nation's population because they had the audacity to not earn enough money to pay any federal income tax."
 
2012-10-01 08:43:17 PM

Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.


An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.
 
2012-10-01 08:45:16 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Well, as long as it was confirmed by an unnamed source, that's enough for me.
 
2012-10-01 08:45:27 PM
/pats head.

You're adorable.
 
2012-10-01 08:45:52 PM

armoredbulldozer: Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.

They shouldn't need a secret plan due to Obama's staggering incompetence. As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.


Yes, yes, Obama is STAGGERINGLY incompetent because it's taken more than 3 years to get out of one of the worst depressions in U.S. history with an entire political party working to undermine everything he does. His staggering incompetence lead to, and made key decisions in, the successful raid on the bin Laden compound, which not only killed the most-wanted terrorist in the world, but yielded untold amounts of intelligence.

He's so incompetent... and yet the Republican Party look like the goddamn Three Stooges and have damaged their image so much that polls are making 10-20 points swings in favor of Democrats, even in Red States. They're losing among women by 20 points, among Hispanics by over 40, and have 0% of the black vote.
 
2012-10-01 08:46:52 PM

KushanMadman: Romney starts getting intelligence briefings, then does this? Can't imagine a counter at all...

Mr. Romney, why are you leaking information from classified briefs? Have you, at last, no shame sir?


you known it was Ryan.
 
2012-10-01 08:46:57 PM

Rapmaster2000: By this point in Clinton's presidency they had the assassination of Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewatergage, and apparently 80 people murdered by the Arkansas Mafia to cover up drug shipments orchestrated by Roger Clinton (a guy who probably couldn't orchestrate a barbecue).

It's got to be tough to be a conspiracy minded right winger in the age of Obama. He gives you so little you're left with complaining about his wife's garden.


Ahhh, the Clinton death list. I remember that gem. I also remember the Obama death list that got circulated in 2008. I remember Googling the first supposed victims and the only other match found was someone with the same exact name had been murdered, in the same exact place, in the exact same way by the Clinton mafia several years ago! Weird coincidence, huh?
 
2012-10-01 08:48:22 PM
This isn't the real October surprise. The real October surprise is that Romney is going to convert to Christianity and donate his entire fortune to charity, then challenge Obama to do the same.
 
2012-10-01 08:48:23 PM

Dan the Schman: armoredbulldozer: Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.

They shouldn't need a secret plan due to Obama's staggering incompetence. As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.

Yes, yes, Obama is STAGGERINGLY incompetent because it's taken more than 3 years to get out of one of the worst depressions recessions in U.S. history with an entire political party working to undermine everything he does. His staggering incompetence lead to, and made key decisions in, the successful raid on the bin Laden compound, which not only killed the most-wanted terrorist in the world, but yielded untold amounts of intelligence.

He's so incompetent... and yet the Republican Party look like the goddamn Three Stooges and have damaged their image so much that polls are making 10-20 points swings in favor of Democrats, even in Red States. They're losing among women by 20 points, among Hispanics by over 40, and have 0% of the black vote.


FTFY, and agree completely with your sentiment.
 
2012-10-01 08:48:56 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military;


Wow that's stupid. The military can't "over rule" the president. And your "proof" was a right winger derp site and an unnamed source is not "confirmation".

And that's why he was in the room because they kidnapped him there too to make him watch?
 
2012-10-01 08:49:17 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Seems legit.
 
2012-10-01 08:49:31 PM

armoredbulldozer: Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.

They shouldn't need a secret plan due to Obama's staggering incompetence. As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.


Well, yes, the result of the 2010 mid-term election certainly constitutes a powerful argument in favor of this view.

/But it's still wrong.
 
2012-10-01 08:50:17 PM
I will be tough on terror like President Bush, instead of ignoring intel that could have prevented an attack, like President Bush.
 
2012-10-01 08:50:30 PM

Corvus: Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military;

Wow that's stupid. The military can't "over rule" the president. And your "proof" was a right winger derp site and an unnamed source is not "confirmation".

And that's why he was in the room because they kidnapped him there too to make him watch?


Also this. Civilian control of the military, mother$@&#er, can you speak it?
 
2012-10-01 08:50:55 PM
"October Surprise" is what you get around Halloween when you think this super-slutty cop and her sexy-ass friends all want you, and then you find out well into the orgy that they're trannies and this is just a normal night for them.
 
2012-10-01 08:51:10 PM

pudding7: DamnYankees: GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?

No, that's not what it is. That's not what it is. Except, yes, that's exactly what it is.

I have a secret plan to fight inflation?

It was a joke! I was kidding!


So not only did you invent a secret plan to fight inflation, but now you're against it?
 
2012-10-01 08:52:09 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Atlasshrugs2000 eh? I'm just curious, because today is apparently Poe's Law day here on Fark. Are you being serious when you quote that site, or are you mocking the stupidity of the people that write and comment over there?

/serious question
 
2012-10-01 08:52:52 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Wow this was actually a military coup where the president was overthrown by the US military and forced to watch the operation he was against. Who knew?

static.guim.co.uk

Or the "atlasshrugs2000" blog's "unnamed source" is full of shiat. I wonder which I am going to believe?
 
2012-10-01 08:53:14 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Your blog sucks.
 
2012-10-01 08:53:25 PM
Corvus: And that's why he was in the room because they kidnapped him there too to make him watch?

Actually he was playing XBOX and they all busted in and changed the channel. He looks so stressed cuz he was well on his way to an epic kill streak and his staff farking ruined it.
 
2012-10-01 08:53:31 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

You sound concerned. Have you thought of finding a different chicken?


Sigh. What a surprise. Accusations of concern-trolling. Obama's not perfect, you know. The Democratic Party isn't perfect. You can criticize it without being a pants-shiatting Teabagger. More and more, Fark is becoming a left-wing version of Free Republic or WND. No critical thinking, all echo chamber.
 
2012-10-01 08:53:31 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.

 
An unnamed source providing information to atlasshrugs.com? Sounds about as legit as this salon article's unnamed source witnessing high level security personnel giving top secret intel to civilian douchebags in super pacs.

 
 
2012-10-01 08:53:40 PM

ultraholland: "October Surprise" is what you get around Halloween when you think this super-slutty cop and her sexy-ass friends all want you, and then you find out well into the orgy that they're trannies and this is just a normal night for them.

 
2012-10-01 08:54:18 PM

DarkJohnson: That looks photoshopped, I've can see the pixels
[media.salon.com image 460x307]


Great, have the birthers switched to "Obama is actually the son of Jimmy Carter and not Frank Marshall Davis OR Barack Obama Sr."?
 
2012-10-01 08:56:31 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-01 08:56:48 PM

gameshowhost: ... and Romney still polls at over 45%.

/seriously. wtf
//who the fark would vote for him?


i.imgur.com

They have to make the choice of their own free will. Otherwise, system doesn't work.
 
2012-10-01 08:56:56 PM

DeltaPunch: I will be tough on terror like President Bush, instead of ignoring intel that could have prevented an attack, like President Bush.


You are ignoring the greatest failure of preventing the 9/11 attacks: complete incompetence of civil servants and cabinet members. A President is only as good as his advisors, and Bush had pretty shiatty advisors.
 
2012-10-01 08:57:17 PM

eddiesocket: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

You sound concerned. Have you thought of finding a different chicken?

Sigh. What a surprise. Accusations of concern-trolling. Obama's not perfect, you know. The Democratic Party isn't perfect. You can criticize it without being a pants-shiatting Teabagger. More and more, Fark is becoming a left-wing version of Free Republic or WND. No critical thinking, all echo chamber.


ah yes, because we seem to think sanity and facts are important, we're liberal. You sound...tired.
 
2012-10-01 08:58:00 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Dude, seriously? Take that weak-ass tinfoil hattery somewhere else.
 
2012-10-01 08:58:10 PM
"We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me." No more."


/just felt like it.
 
2012-10-01 09:00:49 PM
How Obama will defuse this if its brought up in one sentence:

"I'm sorry but I can't comment on ongoing operations."
 
2012-10-01 09:02:20 PM

cman: DeltaPunch: I will be tough on terror like President Bush, instead of ignoring intel that could have prevented an attack, like President Bush.

You are ignoring the greatest failure of preventing the 9/11 attacks: complete incompetence of civil servants and cabinet members. A President is only as good as his advisors, and Bush hadchose pretty shiatty advisors.


FTFY

And then the national security advisor who failed to advise him got promoted to Sec. of State.
 
2012-10-01 09:02:24 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: gameshowhost: ... and Romney still polls at over 45%.

/seriously. wtf
//who the fark would vote for him?

[i.imgur.com image 800x600]

They have to make the choice of their own free will. Otherwise, system doesn't work.


Racists?
Short sighted rich people?
Religious fundamentalists who believe in a theocratic rule.
Mormons.

Oh I might of repeated the last one twice.
 
2012-10-01 09:03:57 PM

eddiesocket: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

You sound concerned. Have you thought of finding a different chicken?

Sigh. What a surprise. Accusations of concern-trolling. Obama's not perfect, you know. The Democratic Party isn't perfect. You can criticize it without being a pants-shiatting Teabagger. More and more, Fark is becoming a left-wing version of Free Republic or WND. No critical thinking, all echo chamber.



Yes, it's possible to criticize Obama and the Democrats fairly. Too bad you didn't do that.

(Hint: Changing a report based on new information =/= "weasely," "misleading," or "lying.")
 
2012-10-01 09:06:04 PM

hiker9999: cman: hiker9999: ManateeGag: some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

So, in other words....Obama has still done tons more than Romney, or the the idiot known as GW Bush.

I have never understood why the GOP cant even let Obama have that one. Obama ordered our troops into a country we were not at war with to take out a major terrorist. There could have been significant backlash against the President if it all went wrong. You bet your ass the GOP would be there with the blame if shiat went wrong.

I once had a conversation about that with my father, who was a Vietnam-era vet.(He never got sent over); Dad repeated the claim that the boots on the ground were soley responsible for the entire operation....the President had absolutely nothing to do with it- and he deserved no credit for it.

I asked him, by that definition, then, if it was true that JFK, LBJ and Nixon deserved no blame for the CF that was Vietnam-- that it was all soldiers on the ground in the Nam that screwed things up royally.

Dad never made that arguement again.


Oo...harsh.
 
2012-10-01 09:06:58 PM

ghare: eddiesocket: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

You sound concerned. Have you thought of finding a different chicken?

Sigh. What a surprise. Accusations of concern-trolling. Obama's not perfect, you know. The Democratic Party isn't perfect. You can criticize it without being a pants-shiatting Teabagger. More and more, Fark is becoming a left-wing version of Free Republic or WND. No critical thinking, all echo chamber.

ah yes, because we seem to think sanity and facts are important, we're liberal. You sound...tired.


Um...what? The facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days, before finally acknowledging otherwise. They even had Ambassador Rice doing the rounds on cable, insisting that that was the case. (Oh course, she was sure to add "to the best of our knowledge" before declaring quite insistently that it was spontaneous). Pretending that didn't happen is not factual. Yes, it's fun to mock idiots who think Obama didn't want to kill bin laden and was overruled by the military and that's he's a super-sekrit muslim gay socialist Nazi who will destroy us all. But just because those idiots exist (and seem to have largely taken over the GOP) doesn't mean everything Obama does is peachy keen. There's a reason why they misled us for eight days. Maybe it's for a good reason, like they didn't want to tip off Al-Quieda about what they know. As a liberal myself, I hope that's the reason. But I think it's reasonable to be nervous (or concerned, if you prefer), that Obama or the military dropped the ball on this one.
 
2012-10-01 09:07:19 PM
If Romney ran as a progressive republican he would probably have a good shot at winning. But it's too late now. The problem is if he ran as a progressive republican he wouldn't have any chance of winning the primary and now if he switches over the tea party republicans will call for his head.
 
2012-10-01 09:09:21 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.



i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-01 09:09:46 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: gameshowhost: ... and Romney still polls at over 45%.

/seriously. wtf
//who the fark would vote for him?

[i.imgur.com image 800x600]

They have to make the choice of their own free will. Otherwise, system doesn't work.


Are some members of the Republican Party now wishing that they had voted for Dismemberment Goblins?

/I am interested in the fact that not even Ronald the Intern chose Mitt.
//Why is "Witches" on the board when Christine O'Donnell did not run in the primary?
 
2012-10-01 09:09:49 PM

Somacandra: How Obama will defuse this if its brought up in one sentence:

"I'm sorry but I can't comment on ongoing operations."


Of course he could say that with 100% honesty, he doesn't attend the intelligence briefings on a regular basis...
 
2012-10-01 09:10:48 PM

eddiesocket: Um...what? The facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days, before finally acknowledging otherwise.


I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.
 
2012-10-01 09:10:51 PM

Cyclometh: Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.

Dude, seriously? Take that weak-ass tinfoil hattery somewhere else.


Are you questioning the integrity and the impartiality of Pamela Gellar?

/If you are not, why are you not?
 
2012-10-01 09:11:06 PM
If they had anything, they'd have blown their load already.

And while the political rules regarding national security are different for Republicans and Democrats (link pops), the "he knew in advance" thing didn't stick when Michael Moore and others did it to George W. Bush for two reasons: 1) It's so horrible, no one wants to believe it, and 2) The level of anger at the actual attackers leaves little room for any other debate.
 
2012-10-01 09:11:49 PM

Corvus: If Romney ran as a progressive republican he would probably have a good shot at winning. But it's too late now. The problem is if he ran as a progressive republican he wouldn't have any chance of winning the primary and now if he switches over the tea party republicans will call for his head.


Are you forgetting the Etch A Sketch episode?
 
2012-10-01 09:12:06 PM

eddiesocket: The facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days


Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.
 
2012-10-01 09:15:07 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: You libs are going to cry after the debates as you pine away for the days when Obummer led this race. It doesn't matter how much cash you donate or if ACORN will steal the election this time. Romney has what it takes. Pe can win this election with both hands tied behind his back. Come Christmas, when you libs are crying while roasting your chestnuts, he'll be sitting back with a nice decaffeinated kola, his beautiful hazel eyes glowing, laughing his ass off soy much! Al Monday long I've been telling my friends not to worry. Obummer can have Chavez's endorsement. What do we need with Brazil anyway? I wouldn't be scared even if Obummer promised everyone who votes for him a new Mac! Academia is for morans anyway. Romney has this thing sewn up. You libs are cookoo for coconuts anyway.


easy, but made me LOL
 
2012-10-01 09:15:23 PM

eddiesocket: The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie.


Hmmm...this seems to be pinging my bullshiat meter, I wonder why? Let's read what Obama said the day after:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi.

As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.


OK, so maybe it was Hillary who implied "that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie," let's see what the US Secretary of State had to say:

It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the death of four American personnel in Benghazi, Libya yesterday. Among them were United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Information Management Officer, Sean Smith. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. Our hearts go out to all their families and colleagues.

A 21 year veteran of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Stevens died last night from injuries he sustained in the attack on our office in Benghazi.

I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He spoke eloquently about his passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people. This assignment was only the latest in his more than two decades of dedication to advancing closer ties with the people of the Middle East and North Africa which began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco. As the conflict in Libya unfolded, Chris was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started. Chris was committed to advancing America's values and interests, even when that meant putting himself in danger.

Sean Smith was a husband and a father of two, who joined the Department ten years ago. Like Chris, Sean was one of our best. Prior to arriving in Benghazi, he served in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal, and most recently The Hague.

All the Americans we lost in yesterday's attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

America's diplomats and development experts stand on the front lines every day for our country. We are honored by the service of each and every one of them.


Ah, that would be why your post triggered my bullshiat meter: it was, in fact, bullshiat.
 
2012-10-01 09:15:40 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.

 
2012-10-01 09:15:44 PM

eddiesocket: derp.


You are just adorable.
 
2012-10-01 09:16:21 PM

soy_bomb: Somacandra: How Obama will defuse this if its brought up in one sentence:

"I'm sorry but I can't comment on ongoing operations."

Of course he could say that with 100% honesty, he doesn't attend the intelligence briefings on a regular basis...


Thanks, that was a good read. You can almost tell that the author is on the verge of tears from being fact-checked by a big meanie.
 
2012-10-01 09:17:32 PM

Somacandra: eddiesocket: The facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days

Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.


Funny. The administration didn't "know" it for 8 days.

Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous.


Not from the administration, you didn't.

Even the Daily Beast, by all accounts a left-leaning blog, has taken Obama to task for this. Link
 
2012-10-01 09:17:35 PM

Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.


Not sure you're quite getting that reference there duder...
 
2012-10-01 09:18:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 600x339]


farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-01 09:18:53 PM
They sure have been riding this line hard on the radio the last couple of weeks. Every time I flick over to the Limbaugh/Hannity/etc they're going on and on about the embassy attach, and why the liberal media won't cover it and why oh why won't Obama go on TV and tell everyone exactly what they know regardless of the fact it would also let Al Queda also know what we know.

I just assumed it was because these folks are absolute pants wetting cowards who are scared out of their minds about AQ and are in desperate need for mommy to come and tell them that everything is going to be OK and the monsters under the bed won't be able to hurt them.

Turns out it's also the core of their election strategy.
 
2012-10-01 09:19:08 PM
The Romney campaign has to stop thinking in terms of some gimick or stunt. Remember when he sent his campaign bus to an Obama event to honk its horn in the parking lot?

Nobody is impressed by that stuff.
 
2012-10-01 09:19:23 PM

soy_bomb: Of course he could say that with 100% honesty, he doesn't attend the intelligence briefings on a regular basis..


That's because the intelligence briefings are brought to him wherever he is via secure communication. The Presidency travels with the President. You didn't know that?
 
2012-10-01 09:19:52 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


www.guyanagraphic.com
 
2012-10-01 09:20:41 PM

SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: SilentStrider: ...spaghetti. Lee Atwater....

Still missing two.

 
2012-10-01 09:21:33 PM

eddiesocket: ghare: eddiesocket: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

You sound concerned. Have you thought of finding a different chicken?

Sigh. What a surprise. Accusations of concern-trolling. Obama's not perfect, you know. The Democratic Party isn't perfect. You can criticize it without being a pants-shiatting Teabagger. More and more, Fark is becoming a left-wing version of Free Republic or WND. No critical thinking, all echo chamber.

ah yes, because we seem to think sanity and facts are important, we're liberal. You sound...tired.

Um...what? The facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days, before finally acknowledging otherwise. They even had Ambassador Rice doing the rounds on cable, insisting that that was the case. (Oh course, she was sure to add "to the best of our knowledge" before declaring quite insistently that it was spontaneous). Pretending that didn't happen is not factual. Yes, it's fun to mock idiots who think Obama didn't want to kill bin laden and was overruled by the military and that's he's a super-sekrit muslim gay socialist Nazi who will destroy us all. But just because those idiots exist (and seem to have largely taken over the GOP) doesn't mean everything Obama does is peachy keen. There's a reason why they misled us for eight days. Maybe it's for a good reason, like they didn't want to tip off Al-Quieda about what they know. As a liberal myself, I hope that's the reason. But I think it's reasonable to be nervous (or concerned, if you prefer), that Obama or the military dropped the ball on this one.


Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.
 
2012-10-01 09:21:46 PM

soy_bomb: Somacandra: How Obama will defuse this if its brought up in one sentence:

"I'm sorry but I can't comment on ongoing operations."

Of course he could say that with 100% honesty, he doesn't attend the intelligence briefings on a regular basis...


Yet he's still managed to be vastly more effective than his predecessor at killing terrorists, instead of creating them like Bush.
 
2012-10-01 09:22:20 PM

imontheinternet: 1. Smirk at dead Americans
2. Smirk harder

2. collect magic underpants 
3. ?????????????
4. Inauguration
 
2012-10-01 09:24:02 PM

eddiesocket: Not from the administration, you didn't.


The Obama administration made no formal statements as to the cause, as its been pointed out earlier. Nor should they have. Its up to you to show Obama or Clinton making some definitive statement or admit you're just bullshiatting people.
 
2012-10-01 09:24:17 PM

Somacandra: eddiesocket: The facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days

Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.


Within three days of the attack:

We had three warships on the Libyan coast.
We had authorization to fly drones over Libya and did so
We had the Libyan government pledging to help us find those responsible

Within two weeks:

The Libyan government had arrested at least 50 suspects in the attack
The Libyan people overran the headquarters of the group believed responsible

And those are the things we know about. Who knows what's going on in Libya we don't know about.

Due to the above, I think I'll trust the administration to give us only the information that serves are best military interest in the region, for the time being.
 
2012-10-01 09:24:23 PM

The Iconoclast: Wonder if Romney will use the word "fetch" any time during the dabate?


Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.
 
2012-10-01 09:24:33 PM

Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie.

Hmmm...this seems to be pinging my bullshiat meter, I wonder why? Let's read what Obama said the day after:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi.

As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

OK, so maybe it was Hillary who implied "that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie," let's see what the US Secretary of State had to say:

It is with profound sadness that ...


Dude. Seriously? It's not even up for debate. Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary Sept 16th: "Based on information that we-our initial information, and that includes all information-we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Sept 16th: On ABC, saying that the violence "was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response [...] to this very offensive video that was disseminated."
 
2012-10-01 09:25:21 PM

SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: SilentStrider: ... LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney...

Still missing two.

 
2012-10-01 09:26:07 PM
Hey, SilentStrider.

I enjoy the heady rush of eating fine Italian, but too much spaghetti leaves me nearly comatose.
 
2012-10-01 09:27:08 PM

Legroom: Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.


Where did the Obama Administration actually state that the movie was the cause of the Ambasaddor Stevens death?
 
2012-10-01 09:27:32 PM

Dimensio: Are you questioning the integrity and the impartiality of Pamela Gellar?


Ha!
 
2012-10-01 09:27:44 PM
when is fartbongoloid gonna pass "the strong public option"
 
2012-10-01 09:27:55 PM

Somacandra: eddiesocket: Not from the administration, you didn't.

The Obama administration made no formal statements as to the cause, as its been pointed out earlier. Nor should they have. Its up to you to show Obama or Clinton making some definitive statement or admit you're just bullshiatting people.


WH Press Secretary doesn't count?
Or the US Ambassador?

If Carney and Rice were speaking out without permission or approval from the administration, then they should be fired immediately, no?
 
2012-10-01 09:28:34 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


Sounds like a load of shiat, bro. Is there no depth you won't stoop to?
 
2012-10-01 09:29:34 PM

Dimensio: Are you questioning the integrity and the impartiality of Pamela Gellar?

/If you are not, why are you not?


Oh, so you're just being tounge-in-cheeck / lightly trolling.
 
2012-10-01 09:29:36 PM

eddiesocket: Dude. Seriously? It's not even up for debate. Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary Sept 16th: "Based on information that we-our initial information, and that includes all information-we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Sept 16th: On ABC, saying that the violence "was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response [...] to this very offensive video that was disseminated."


So when you said "weasely misled" and "imply", what you actually meant was, "directly stated, based on the information they had available." In short, your characterization of what the administration did say was inaccurate and, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-10-01 09:29:42 PM

Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.


Give it up. He lives in Republican Bizarro World, wherein the ONLY acceptable response would have been an all-out nuclear strike within minutes of the riots and damn any subsequent consequences.

The idea that the DEMONSTRATION was spontaneous and the ATTACK was planned--and that they were two separate events--is just too complex and nuanced a thought for the denizens of Bizarro World.
 
2012-10-01 09:29:56 PM
Jimmy Carter DID legalize home brewing of beer.

Jimmy Carter DID NOT send a cake and a bible to Tehran to trade arms for hostages.

See the difference? See?
 
2012-10-01 09:30:21 PM

Diogenes: DammitIForgotMyLogin: "My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."


Wait, what?

They hate us for our intelligence? That sentence sounds like it was constructed by Ralph Wiggum or Sarah Palin.


Sir, we have critically important intelligence for you. Your cat's breath smells like cat food.
 
2012-10-01 09:30:23 PM

Somacandra: Legroom: Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.

Where did the Obama Administration actually state that the movie was the cause of the Ambasaddor Stevens death?


I don't think they did. I think people and the news are mixing up some statements being made and making this into a much bigger deal then it is.

Serious is this something we supposed to kick Obama out because he wasn't 100% clear on the first day what exactly had happened. Holy shiat it took Bush years and 3000 lives to figure Iraq was a mistake.
 
2012-10-01 09:30:36 PM

RyogaM: Who knows what's going on in Libya we don't know about. Due to the above, I think I'll trust the administration to give us only the information that serves are best military interest in the region, for the time being.


I agree. I didn't try to second guess the Bush admin operations in Afghanistan until it became obvious weeks after Tora Bora that they let Bin Laden get away there. I don't expect to know about ongoing operations and I expect the GOP not to ask for that kind of info.
 
2012-10-01 09:31:36 PM

Gyrfalcon: hiker9999: cman: hiker9999: ManateeGag: some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

So, in other words....Obama has still done tons more than Romney, or the the idiot known as GW Bush.

I have never understood why the GOP cant even let Obama have that one. Obama ordered our troops into a country we were not at war with to take out a major terrorist. There could have been significant backlash against the President if it all went wrong. You bet your ass the GOP would be there with the blame if shiat went wrong.

I once had a conversation about that with my father, who was a Vietnam-era vet.(He never got sent over); Dad repeated the claim that the boots on the ground were soley responsible for the entire operation....the President had absolutely nothing to do with it- and he deserved no credit for it.

I asked him, by that definition, then, if it was true that JFK, LBJ and Nixon deserved no blame for the CF that was Vietnam-- that it was all soldiers on the ground in the Nam that screwed things up royally.

Dad never made that arguement again.

Oo...harsh.


Don't get me wrong- I'm in uniform daily, myself. I'm certainly not one to blame the troops unjustly....but that arguenemnt just bugs me.
 
2012-10-01 09:31:38 PM

phaseolus: SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: SilentStrider: ...spaghetti. Lee Atwater....

Still missing two.


one more i don't think anyone's gotten
 
2012-10-01 09:31:57 PM
If Romney was part of this discussion that involved people with 'high-level national security intelligence' talking about classified details of the attack on the embassy in Libya and/or classified information from which they deduced that Obama was pre-warned of the attack, then Romney himself has committed a crime - violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e).

Since no other news sources have been able to 'figure out' that Obama knew about the attacks ahead of time (and neither can Salon, even knowing that supposedly he did), I assume that these GOP'ers needed classified information to connect those dots.

Romney recently started receiving the daily security briefings that the President receives - right after the GOP communication, IIRC - a tradition that helps ensure a smooth transition on critical issues if the incumbent loses. Presumably Romney received his clearance at some point prior to that.

So even if Romney didn't disclose the classified information regarding the 'fore-knowledge' of the attack himself, he knowingly participated in a discussion with both cleared and uncleared people that was blatantly classified (the article stated that only some people present were cleared, so I'm assuming that some / most of the participants were not). That's a crime as well - facilitating the release of classified information to uncleared personnel - espionage. The other possibility is that Romney himself found out about this from his own daily security briefing, and reported the information to this group. Either way he's farked up pretty solidly.

Any normal person who did this would at an absolute minimum lose their clearance for life, and almost certainly do some time. It's more serious to release the information to a foreign entity, but they don't mess around with this stuff. I'm sure that the courts would be less than amused that classified information, in many cases retrieved by Americans whose lives are literally in danger, was being bandied about to help Mr. Willard ChickenHawk Romney get elected.

It seems to me that if it's true that Obama did have information that there would be attacks ahead of time, and if Romney, his campaign staff and GOP leadership did have a conversation about it which has at it's centerpiece classified information, then there is no way that Romney is in the clear on this one.

It's definitely far uglier if Romney received the information from the briefing that Obama provides him with, but either way - if this Carter-ization of Obama based on this supposed intelligence occurs, then it seems pretty clear that Romney inappropriately used and disclosed classified information.
It's far more likely that this whole story is bullsh*t though.

\It would be cool if Obama put this intelligence into the Romney report as a honey pot...
\\And it would be just like Romney to broadcast classified information to help himself while knowing it puts American lives at risk (Plume anyone?) 
\\\I would imagine that some classified information is so specific that just the knowledge that it exists is sufficient for the 'bad guys' to figure out who the spy is.
 
2012-10-01 09:32:07 PM

Gyrfalcon: The idea that the DEMONSTRATION was spontaneous and the ATTACK was planned--and that they were two separate events--is just too complex and nuanced a thought for the denizens of Bizarro World.


Yeah holy shiat is this too complicated for people. They did use the demonstration for cover but yeah.
 
2012-10-01 09:32:14 PM

phaseolus: SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: SilentStrider: ... LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney...

Still missing two.


never mind, that was it.
 
2012-10-01 09:33:24 PM

eddiesocket: WH Press Secretary doesn't count?
Or the US Ambassador?


You'll need to provide actual citations and genuine context before you'll be taken seriously. You have a tendency to argue in bad faith.
 
2012-10-01 09:33:36 PM

Introitus: This is as good a strategy as linking Obama to Vince Foster's 'suicide'


Fartbongo bin Muslin had Vince Foster killed. Foster saw Fartbongo while they were both on hadj. Foster was going to tell the world that Farbongo shouted "Take that, Ronnie" when he threw stones at the devil.

/Yes, that's right. Fartbongo's secret Muslin name is Fartbongo bin Muslin al Hadji
 
2012-10-01 09:34:02 PM

eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.


When did they ever say that? Within a day, the media was reporting that intelligence officials believed the attack was too organized to have been spontaneous. What exactly did the Administration do that constitutes lying, and why in the world would they be motivated to lie about something like this anyway?
 
2012-10-01 09:34:10 PM

Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: Dude. Seriously? It's not even up for debate. Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary Sept 16th: "Based on information that we-our initial information, and that includes all information-we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Sept 16th: On ABC, saying that the violence "was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response [...] to this very offensive video that was disseminated."

So when you said "weasely misled" and "imply", what you actually meant was, "directly stated, based on the information they had available." In short, your characterization of what the administration did say was inaccurate and, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.


Okay, you choose to believe it really was the best information they had a the time. That's your right, I suppose. I remain skeptical.

Somacandra: Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.


Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.


I guess I'm not the only one.

Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.


I think it would have been preferable to say they don't know either way yet, if that was truly the case.
 
2012-10-01 09:35:13 PM
Holy shiat, don't declare something a terroist attack until you are more sure it's true, Obama is the world worst monster. He should make accusations right away instead before getting all the information. That worked out so well in Iraq.
 
2012-10-01 09:35:20 PM

hiker9999: Gyrfalcon: hiker9999: cman: hiker9999: ManateeGag: some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

So, in other words....Obama has still done tons more than Romney, or the the idiot known as GW Bush.

I have never understood why the GOP cant even let Obama have that one. Obama ordered our troops into a country we were not at war with to take out a major terrorist. There could have been significant backlash against the President if it all went wrong. You bet your ass the GOP would be there with the blame if shiat went wrong.

I once had a conversation about that with my father, who was a Vietnam-era vet.(He never got sent over); Dad repeated the claim that the boots on the ground were soley responsible for the entire operation....the President had absolutely nothing to do with it- and he deserved no credit for it.

I asked him, by that definition, then, if it was true that JFK, LBJ and Nixon deserved no blame for the CF that was Vietnam-- that it was all soldiers on the ground in the Nam that screwed things up royally.

Dad never made that arguement again.

Oo...harsh.

Don't get me wrong- I'm in uniform daily, myself. I'm certainly not one to blame the troops unjustly....but that arguenemnt just bugs me.


Myself I am former Army. I have no problem with President Obama taking credit for this success. Hell, he earned this success as per my prior postings in this thread. Obama took a big chance with the raid, and for that credit is due. Yes, the SEALS carried out the mission, and yes, they deserve credit, too; but to say that Obama deserves none whatsoever is insulting, disrespectful, and right out wrong.

And this is coming from a man who doesnt like Obama.
 
2012-10-01 09:37:13 PM

eddiesocket: Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.


It did take awhile before the officially declared it a "terrorist attack". Wow making sure it was a terrorist attack before making allegations, seems like a good idea to me.
 
2012-10-01 09:38:12 PM

eddiesocket: I think it would have been preferable to say they don't know either way yet, if that was truly the case.


So in your world the only two possibilities are that they knew it was a planned attack and lied, or they had no clue and tried to cover it by blaming the riots?
 
2012-10-01 09:39:28 PM
Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?
 
2012-10-01 09:39:37 PM
2010-10-01: the day themed wordfinder posts truly jumped the shark
 
2012-10-01 09:39:59 PM

Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.


You're just yankin' our chain, right? I mean...Pamela Geller? You're leg-pulling, aren't you?
 
2012-10-01 09:40:17 PM

Corvus: eddiesocket: Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

It did take awhile before the officially declared it a "terrorist attack". Wow making sure it was a terrorist attack before making allegations, seems like a good idea to me.


The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong. If the Obama admin said something to the effect of "We are still investigating this, and we will have more information for you later" you would have a point.
 
2012-10-01 09:40:28 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Somehow "chortling with glee" over the death of an American ambassador doesn't seem very Presidential to me.


yeah, saying that that death along with the three others was just a bump in the road was really callous and not Presidential.
 
2012-10-01 09:40:55 PM
I really did just miss the date by two years.
 
2012-10-01 09:41:27 PM

DoctorCal: 2010-10-01: the day themed wordfinder posts truly jumped the shark


Really? That was two years ago, today. What happened then?
 
2012-10-01 09:41:31 PM

Somacandra: eddiesocket: WH Press Secretary doesn't count?
Or the US Ambassador?

You'll need to provide actual citations and genuine context before you'll be taken seriously. You have a tendency to argue in bad faith.


You're getting pretty farking ponderous. It is in no way debatable. At this point, I should tell you to get bent, because you're clearly way too ignorant to be debating with, but just this once, I'll google it for you.
Link
Link
 
2012-10-01 09:41:33 PM

eddiesocket: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: Dude. Seriously? It's not even up for debate. Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary Sept 16th: "Based on information that we-our initial information, and that includes all information-we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Sept 16th: On ABC, saying that the violence "was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response [...] to this very offensive video that was disseminated."

So when you said "weasely misled" and "imply", what you actually meant was, "directly stated, based on the information they had available." In short, your characterization of what the administration did say was inaccurate and, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.

Okay, you choose to believe it really was the best information they had a the time. That's your right, I suppose. I remain skeptical. Somacandra: Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.

Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.

I think it would have been preferable to say they don't know either way yet, if that was truly the case.


Isn't that what they basically said? Something along the lines of "As far as we know it was a spontaneous attack, but we're still investigating"? Or would have been more preferable to just come out right away and say they don't know who did it? Cuz it seems that everyone who's complaining about this expected him to come out and say it was terrorism with 100% confidence right after it happened.
 
2012-10-01 09:42:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?


Man, if you think Romney/Ryan are desperate now, just wait 5 minutes...then another 5 minutes for even more desperation, another 5 minutes, etc....for the next five weeks.
 
2012-10-01 09:45:08 PM

dickfreckle: FartNambla has more balls and guile in his pinky than the entire Republican party. Search your feelings. You know this to be true.


Man, I really love your posts sometimes. Well, most of the times, but this was enough to make a solid chortle.
 
2012-10-01 09:47:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?


Yeah I remember when that was disproved by Romney by releasing those 10 years.
 
2012-10-01 09:47:06 PM

Legroom: eddiesocket: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: Dude. Seriously? It's not even up for debate. Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary Sept 16th: "Based on information that we-our initial information, and that includes all information-we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Sept 16th: On ABC, saying that the violence "was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response [...] to this very offensive video that was disseminated."

So when you said "weasely misled" and "imply", what you actually meant was, "directly stated, based on the information they had available." In short, your characterization of what the administration did say was inaccurate and, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.

Okay, you choose to believe it really was the best information they had a the time. That's your right, I suppose. I remain skeptical. Somacandra: Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.

Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.

I think it would have been preferable to say they don't know either way yet, if that was truly the case.

Isn't that what they basically said? Something along the lines ...


9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.
 
2012-10-01 09:47:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Somehow "chortling with glee" over the death of an American ambassador doesn't seem very Presidential to me.

yeah, saying that that death along with the three others was just a bump in the road was really callous and not Presidential.


Only in the Republican mind can the President's reference to future challenges be interpreted as a statement about things that have already happened. You do realize that the whole "Obama has a time machine" thing is a joke, right?
 
2012-10-01 09:48:10 PM

NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?

Yeah I remember when that was disproved by Romney by releasing those 10 years.


To be fair burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant
 
2012-10-01 09:49:18 PM

mrshowrules: Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.

[www.guyanagraphic.com image 385x331]


C'mon...who are you gonna believe? An anonymous source on a wingnut site or some stupid "Admiral" who was actually there?
 
2012-10-01 09:49:22 PM
Will the real Mitt Romney please  stand up?

Mitt turns right, then turns so far right it makes you think he is going to turn left, but continues to turn right. 

/not ricky
 
2012-10-01 09:49:25 PM

cman: Corvus: eddiesocket: Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

It did take awhile before the officially declared it a "terrorist attack". Wow making sure it was a terrorist attack before making allegations, seems like a good idea to me.

The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong. If the Obama admin said something to the effect of "We are still investigating this, and we will have more information for you later" you would have a point.


Oh, good lord. For fark's sake people, sometimes an administration has strategic purposes for not laying all the cards on the table, like, oh, I don't know, trying to not tip off the terrorists that we have them in our sights and plan to do many terrible things to them. Christ, you people would be pissed that we didn't tell the American people when D-Day was scheduled.
 
2012-10-01 09:50:58 PM

phaseolus: DoctorCal: 2010-10-01: the day themed wordfinder posts truly jumped the shark

Really? That was two years ago, today. What happened then?


Ian Buxton died. Duh.
 
2012-10-01 09:51:12 PM

Mentat: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

When did they ever say that? Within a day, the media was reporting that intelligence officials believed the attack was too organized to have been spontaneous. What exactly did the Administration do that constitutes lying, and why in the world would they be motivated to lie about something like this anyway?


Failing to prevent a planned terrorist attack looks worse and hurts our credibility a lot more than failing to prevent a spontaneous, unpredictable event. And no, no intelligence officials said any such thing "within a day" or within eight days.
 
2012-10-01 09:51:54 PM

RyogaM:

Oh, good lord. For fark's sake people, sometimes an administration has strategic purposes for not laying all the cards on the table, like, oh, I don't know, trying to not tip off the terrorists that we have them in our sights and plan to do many terrible things to them. Christ, you people would be pissed that we didn't tell the American people when D-Day was scheduled.


But the American people have a right to know! Screw all the agents and informants on the ground - live tweet all US intelligence information.
 
2012-10-01 09:53:39 PM

cman: NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?

Yeah I remember when that was disproved by Romney by releasing those 10 years.

To be fair burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant


Not when the defendant has access to the evidence that can easily disprove the accuser wrong, evidence which the accuser does not have access to. If the defendant refuses to offer this evidence, he essentially concedes the truth of the accusation.

/This is the court of public opinion, not law
 
2012-10-01 09:53:40 PM

eddiesocket: Legroom: eddiesocket: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: Dude. Seriously? It's not even up for debate. Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary Sept 16th: "Based on information that we-our initial information, and that includes all information-we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Sept 16th: On ABC, saying that the violence "was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response [...] to this very offensive video that was disseminated."

So when you said "weasely misled" and "imply", what you actually meant was, "directly stated, based on the information they had available." In short, your characterization of what the administration did say was inaccurate and, quite frankly, pants-on-head retarded.

Okay, you choose to believe it really was the best information they had a the time. That's your right, I suppose. I remain skeptical. Somacandra: Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.

Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.

I think it would have been preferable to say they don't know either way yet, if that was truly the case.

Isn't that what they basically said? Something along the lines ...

9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.


All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?
 
2012-10-01 09:53:51 PM
I really don't think the Republicans have thought their cunning plan through. By continuing to focus on the Libya attack they run the risk of igniting the "Rally Round the Flag Effect." Support for the President usually increases when Americans feel threatened from abroad. Am I the only one who remembers Bush II's 90% approval rating after 9-11?

Of course, the difference between 2001 and 2012 is that Republicans are criticizing Obama relentlessly (behavior that the Bush administration would have called traitorous). Judging by the reaction after Romney's Libya statement, I don't think the Reps are going to have much luck selling their narrative to the electorate.
 
2012-10-01 09:54:02 PM
The most important lesson in logic for the GOP and Tea Party probably involves the True Scotsman fallacy.
They are convinced that all right thinking Americans will see things their way, and if "they" don't, the problem is that "they" are either unAmerican or not "right-thinking". To be fair, lots of people of all stripes fall for that sort of nonsense but within the inner circles it seems to be endemic.

There are broader repercussions. It does tend to lead to rhetoric that is highly effective with people who already think like you do. This leads to further polarization. Interestingly, when a side feels like it is losing, it tends to gravitate even more towards the inward facing yes-men because it is desperate for positive messages.

Learn to recognize the phenomenon. The fundamental failings are human ones, not inherently associated with particular political parties or businesses. It can happen anywhere. But currently, it is consuming the GOP.
 
2012-10-01 09:54:04 PM
Since nobody else seems to realise this, Dimensio was being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure that Eddiesocket's just an idiot, though.

/PhoneFarking.
 
2012-10-01 09:54:34 PM
The GOP can never forgive Obama for ordering the death of their favorite Osama Bin Boogeyman.
 
2012-10-01 09:54:51 PM

eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.


You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server
: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"
 
2012-10-01 09:55:32 PM

vernonFL: Marcus Aurelius: Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

SEAL Team 6.

0bambi had nothing to do with it.




"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours." - Mitt Romney in 2007, on whether he would order US forces to enter Pakistan to get Bin Laden.
 
2012-10-01 09:55:39 PM
This article makes it clearer why Republicans are trying the foreign policy angle.

There were two groups with connections to al Qaeda making calls to each other before, during, and after the attack. The CIA's initial report left this out of their briefing to Congress and the President. These calls were "a conversation between a group with an affinity to al Qaeda and a manager of an al-Qaeda affiliate," which, the author argues, is grounds for an immediate declaration of war under the Sept. 14, 2001 resolution.

Perhaps most interesting about the article is that "a coordinated Qaeda attack on the anniversary of 9/11 undermines a theme of President Obama's reelection campaign that the killing of Osama bin Laden has diminished the threat from the group," which is really where they're trying to take this. They want to cut the legs out from under the fact that Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden. They're really going to push the story that killing the mastermind behind 9/11 is completely meaningless. Good luck with that, guys. Can't possibly see a way that could backfire.
 
2012-10-01 09:56:37 PM

RyogaM: cman: Corvus: eddiesocket: Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

It did take awhile before the officially declared it a "terrorist attack". Wow making sure it was a terrorist attack before making allegations, seems like a good idea to me.

The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong. If the Obama admin said something to the effect of "We are still investigating this, and we will have more information for you later" you would have a point.

Oh, good lord. For fark's sake people, sometimes an administration has strategic purposes for not laying all the cards on the table, like, oh, I don't know, trying to not tip off the terrorists that we have them in our sights and plan to do many terrible things to them. Christ, you people would be pissed that we didn't tell the American people when D-Day was scheduled.


Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.
 
2012-10-01 09:57:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Somehow "chortling with glee" over the death of an American ambassador doesn't seem very Presidential to me.

yeah, saying that that death along with the three others was just a bump in the road was really callous and not Presidential.


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-01 09:57:41 PM

Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"


At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.
 
2012-10-01 09:57:56 PM

Surool: The GOP can never forgive Obama for ordering the death of their favorite Osama Bin Boogeyman.


You fool! Mr. Primrose's eczema was putting you through med school.
 
2012-10-01 09:57:58 PM

RyogaM: cman: NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?

Yeah I remember when that was disproved by Romney by releasing those 10 years.

To be fair burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant

Not when the defendant has access to the evidence that can easily disprove the accuser wrong, evidence which the accuser does not have access to. If the defendant refuses to offer this evidence, he essentially concedes the truth of the accusation.

/This is the court of public opinion, not law


That kind of bullshiat thinking is why people are always screaming "BERTH SERTIFIKATE" and "SHOW WE MICROFILN"
 
2012-10-01 09:58:28 PM

cman: RyogaM: cman: Corvus: eddiesocket: Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

It did take awhile before the officially declared it a "terrorist attack". Wow making sure it was a terrorist attack before making allegations, seems like a good idea to me.

The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong. If the Obama admin said something to the effect of "We are still investigating this, and we will have more information for you later" you would have a point.

Oh, good lord. For fark's sake people, sometimes an administration has strategic purposes for not laying all the cards on the table, like, oh, I don't know, trying to not tip off the terrorists that we have them in our sights and plan to do many terrible things to them. Christ, you people would be pissed that we didn't tell the American people when D-Day was scheduled.

Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.


WAT
 
2012-10-01 09:59:36 PM

Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?


I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?
 
2012-10-01 10:00:25 PM

Legroom: cman: RyogaM: cman: Corvus: eddiesocket: Corvus: I heard on day one people saying that they didn't think they were spontaneous. I think you and the media are getting to things confused. Part of the riots were spontaneous but they were used for an attack on that was not spontaneous. They were saying day one they didn't have all the facts but by the weapons they were using they knew it was more than just the riot.

I guess I'm not the only one.

It did take awhile before the officially declared it a "terrorist attack". Wow making sure it was a terrorist attack before making allegations, seems like a good idea to me.

The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong. If the Obama admin said something to the effect of "We are still investigating this, and we will have more information for you later" you would have a point.

Oh, good lord. For fark's sake people, sometimes an administration has strategic purposes for not laying all the cards on the table, like, oh, I don't know, trying to not tip off the terrorists that we have them in our sights and plan to do many terrible things to them. Christ, you people would be pissed that we didn't tell the American people when D-Day was scheduled.

Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

WAT


I was being sarcastic in my first sentence saying that the left took great offense when the truth came out about Bush and his Iraq body count yet they are saying that Obama should be given a pass on this
 
2012-10-01 10:00:46 PM

cman: Even the most jaded Liberal has to admit that this strategy is probably the best one the GOP has. Problem is, no one can ever be worse than Carter (talking about leadership abilities here, not about political positions). Carter was a lovable man who was too good for Washington. He was a man of integrity, and integrity and politics are at most times opposite of each other. Because of his kindness and his refusal to play the political game, he got his ass run over by everybody.


I hope that's sugar-free Kool-aide or else you're in danger of diabetes.
Carter was not a horrible leader. Ted Kennedy was a vindictive politician. For all of Ted's useful qualities, he stonewalled Carter as much as the GOP are currently stonewalling Obama except that resistance came from within his own party. You want to know why we had this pendulum swing into a conservative era? The reality is that Ted Kennedy is to blame. He handed the GOP their little fairy tale and all out of spite.
 
2012-10-01 10:04:02 PM
Republican Administration: Terrorists kill 2,977 on American Soil = Strong on Defense.
Democratic Administration: Terrorists kill 4 Americans in Africa = ZOMG! Fartbong0 can't keep America Safe!
 
2012-10-01 10:04:03 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-01 10:04:14 PM

eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.


And most people here think you are wrong.
 
2012-10-01 10:04:23 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I really don't think the Republicans have thought their cunning plan through. By continuing to focus on the Libya attack they run the risk of igniting the "Rally Round the Flag Effect." Support for the President usually increases when Americans feel threatened from abroad. Am I the only one who remembers Bush II's 90% approval rating after 9-11?

Of course, the difference between 2001 and 2012 is that Republicans are criticizing Obama relentlessly (behavior that the Bush administration would have called traitorous). Judging by the reaction after Romney's Libya statement, I don't think the Reps are going to have much luck selling their narrative to the electorate.


I think there's also the possibility that Obama may, somehow, anticipate some sort of attack along these lines and is ready with a serious smackdown if Mitt is dumb enough to bring the topic up.

Just off the top of my head:

"My opponent, through the daily intelligence briefing he receives, knows why we cannot discuss this issue of national security on live TV. He has chosen to raise this issue in the knowledge that broadcasting the information to answer my opponents question could put the lives of American servicemen and women at risk. He may be prepared to risk their lives for political gain but I am not"

'course, I'm just some farker knocking back some beers. I suspect Obama could deliver something with a lot more kick.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:01 PM

NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?

Yeah I remember when that was disproved by Romney by releasing those 10 years.


Good that you admit that.
PWC did release that Romney paid taxes each of those years.
Thanks for playing.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:16 PM
Romney's best chance is to just show 30 second ads of blondes with low necklines and big tits.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:17 PM
See this is why Obama should have had the SEAL team bring back Bin Laden's severed head. I would have love to have seen him toss it on the stage during the debates when this came up.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:22 PM

cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.


See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false
 
2012-10-01 10:06:12 PM

eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?


Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?
 
2012-10-01 10:07:05 PM

Legroom: eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?

Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?


Because SOSHULISM, duh
 
2012-10-01 10:07:08 PM

ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false


What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?
 
2012-10-01 10:07:10 PM

eggrolls: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x325]


Figures. Both the GOP and Al Q. are a bunch of religious zealots.
 
2012-10-01 10:07:14 PM

CynicalLA: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"

At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.


In what way was I wrong? I've not said one incorrect thing. You believe that the administration really thought that it was a spontaneous attack until Sept 19th and then after being contradicted by Homeland security Senate testimony magically learned exact opposite on Sept 20th. I suppose you can believe that, (even though several farkers on here already admitted to "knowing" it was a terrorist attack on day one).
I don't believe that. I think it's absurdly naive to believe that. I think that if it were Bush, none of you would believe it either.
 
2012-10-01 10:08:08 PM

Gyrfalcon: Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.

Give it up. He lives in Republican Bizarro World, wherein the ONLY acceptable response would have been an all-out nuclear strike within minutes of the riots and damn any subsequent consequences.

The idea that the DEMONSTRATION was spontaneous and the ATTACK was planned--and that they were two separate events--is just too complex and nuanced a thought for the denizens of Bizarro World.


The funny part is, if Barack and Hillary had lied to us, I wouldn't have minded a bit. We had an ally who had a new and weak government, and this attack more than anything was to fracture our relationship with them. I don't care if they were making shiat up. The top priority had to be to keep Libya from fracturing, and they succeeded. Telling us what was going on was a distant third or fourth on the priority list.
 
2012-10-01 10:08:44 PM

CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.


Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.
 
2012-10-01 10:09:45 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Romney's best chance is to just show 30 second ads of blondes with low necklines and big tits.


soo... Fox?
 
2012-10-01 10:09:51 PM

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"

At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.

In what way was I wrong? I've not said one incorrect thing. You believe that the administration really thought that it was a spontaneous attack until Sept 19th and then after being contradicted by Homeland security Senate testimony magically learned exact opposite on Sept 20th. I suppose you can believe that, (even though several farkers on here already admitted to "knowing" it was a terrorist attack on day one).
I don't believe that. I think it's absurdly naive to believe that. I think that if it were Bush, none of you would believe it either.


No, if it was Bush he would've called it a terrorist attack right away and then send our troops to Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction.
 
2012-10-01 10:10:03 PM

eddiesocket: Mentat: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

When did they ever say that? Within a day, the media was reporting that intelligence officials believed the attack was too organized to have been spontaneous. What exactly did the Administration do that constitutes lying, and why in the world would they be motivated to lie about something like this anyway?

Failing to prevent a planned terrorist attack looks worse and hurts our credibility a lot more than failing to prevent a spontaneous, unpredictable event. And no, no intelligence officials said any such thing "within a day" or within eight days.


Why? A planned attack is, by definition, planned, meaning it should be harder to thwart because thought has gone into trying to make the attack harder to defend. If an attack is planned, the attackers have time to gather weapons, scout positions, plan where the weak points in the defense is, choice the best time to attack and make sure that they have all necessary people and equipment to accomplish their goal.

Spontaneous attacks, are, by definition, not planned. They are slipshod, the participants may not all have the same goals, training, or the equipment needed to do damage in an attack. They have no idea where to attack, when to attack, what to expect if they attack. They should be as easier to repel or defend against.

The only thing that makes a planned attack able to be disrupted is if you have a person on the inside of the conspiracy willing to give information. But it is insane to assume we should have secret agents in position in every group which might be willing to do the U.S. harm.

And, guess what? For all the talk about how this was a planned terror attack, no one has ever explained how we know this, or, knowing this, how we missed a chance to disrupt it. Try it. Tell me the following:

When was the first day the attack was planned?
Where was the first meeting?
How many meetings did it take to finalize the plan?
How long did the planning take place?
Who was involved in the planning?
Who procured the weapons?
Who scouted out the location?
Why was the location chosen?
How many were involved in the actual attack?
What happened to them after the attack?

Now, since you don't know shiat about any of the above, how in the hell are you going to assume that there was ever a way to thwart the attack? For all you know, the attack was planned by one man, two days prior, he had all the weapons in his car, all the other attackers were told two hours before the attack.

The whole thing is ridiculous.
 
2012-10-01 10:10:07 PM
Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?
 
2012-10-01 10:10:56 PM

CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.


If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right
 
2012-10-01 10:11:43 PM

mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?


In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.
 
2012-10-01 10:12:42 PM

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"

At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.

In what way was I wrong? I've not said one incorrect thing. You believe that the administration really thought that it was a spontaneous attack until Sept 19th and then after being contradicted by Homeland security Senate testimony magically learned exact opposite on Sept 20th. I suppose you can believe that, (even though several farkers on here already admitted to "knowing" it was a terrorist attack on day o ...


That's your opinion and good for you. I don't see it the way you do and don't think there is some big coverup.
 
2012-10-01 10:12:48 PM

Legroom: eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?

Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?


No. The administration can't be expected to prevent a spontaneous event. If it was a planned attack, they're vulnerable to accusations (forthcoming, no doubt) that they should've stopped it. Especially, if they were warned ahead of time, as many on the right believe. Though as of yet, there's no evidence of that part, save for anonymous "sources" leaking to right-wing rags, which is probably all bullshiat. \
 
2012-10-01 10:14:58 PM

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.


Too me it sounds like a party trying to make this a lot more important than it really is in reality.
 
2012-10-01 10:16:16 PM
"My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."

That sentence is a terrorist attack on intelligence.

I wonder where Mitt Romney got this information? Could it be that he got it from the president's national security briefing he recently gained access to? If so is this legal? Weren't they just whining about Obama possibly doing something similar for political gain?
 
2012-10-01 10:17:11 PM

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right


Not really, thanks for playing though.
 
2012-10-01 10:18:00 PM

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.


Why do you find it so completely beyond the realm of possibility that Carney didn't know before his "total reversal"? Have you ever worked with government agencies? I have, and I can tell you that information can completely go 180 overnight. For example, I work for a government contractor. We have thousands of workers in the field. For years, the official policy of one of the agencies we contract with was that the field workers were absolutely, 100% forbidden from connecting to a wireless network because it was a "security issue." Then, one day, the agency tells us wireless is just fine, workers in the field can use it all they want. So, day before the policy change if someone asked me, "Can I use wireless?" my answer would have been, "Absolutely not. The government agency whose contract you work specifically prohibits it." 24 hours later, the answer becomes *GASP* a "total reversal", "Why yes, you can use wireless to connect."

Why do you find that concept so strange?
 
2012-10-01 10:19:24 PM

eddiesocket: Legroom: eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?

Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?

No. The administration can't be expected to prevent a spontaneous event. If it was a planned attack, they're vulnerable to accusations (forthcoming, no doubt) that they should've stopped it. Especially, if they were warned ahead of time, as many on the right believe. Though as of yet, there's no evidence of that part, save for anonymous "sources" leaking to right-wing rags, which is probably all bullshiat. \


Ok, this is where I agree with you. IF the Administration knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing to prevent it, then yes I would agree that they totally farked up on this one. As it stands, there is no evidence to support that accusation, so why are we even having this conversation?

P.S. even if its proven that they knew about it beforehand, there's no griffin way I'd want to hand the nuclear football to some rich asshat who thinks the "soviet union" is our biggest threat and can't even go visit our strongest ally without insulting them.
 
2012-10-01 10:19:59 PM

heavymetal: "My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."

That sentence is a terrorist attack on intelligence.

I wonder where Mitt Romney got this information? Could it be that he got it from the president's national security briefing he recently gained access to? If so is this legal? Weren't they just whining about Obama possibly doing something similar for political gain?


I assume that's a typo, and Salon meant "attack on the embassy".
At any rate, it's put up or shut up for Romney. If there was intelligence ahead of time, Romney needs to prove that before making the accusations. Time will tell, I guess.
 
2012-10-01 10:20:29 PM

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.


no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself
 
2012-10-01 10:21:28 PM

Legroom: Ok, this is where I agree with you. IF the Administration knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing to prevent it, then yes I would agree that they totally farked up on this one. As it stands, there is no evidence to support that accusation, so why are we even having this conversation?


Well said.
 
2012-10-01 10:21:30 PM

skullkrusher: no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself


just wanted to take the obvious response away from you
 
2012-10-01 10:22:18 PM

cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?


Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time
 
2012-10-01 10:23:02 PM

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself


Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.
 
2012-10-01 10:24:03 PM

RyogaM: cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?

Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time


How do we even know that was the strategy? Is this all speculation?
 
2012-10-01 10:24:06 PM

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]


That is hilariously bad. Who showed grandma how to work MSPaint?
 
2012-10-01 10:24:13 PM

Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.

Why do you find it so completely beyond the realm of possibility that Carney didn't know before his "total reversal"? Have you ever worked with government agencies? I have, and I can tell you that information can completely go 180 overnight. For example, I work for a government contractor. We have thousands of workers in the field. For years, the official policy of one of the agencies we contract with was that the field workers were absolutely, 100% forbidden from connecting to a wireless network because it was a "security issue." Then, one day, the agency tells us wireless is just fine, workers in the field can use it all they want. So, day before the policy change if someone asked me, "Can I use wireless?" my answer would have been, "Absolutely not. The government agency whose contract you work specifically prohibits it." 24 hours later, the answer becomes *GASP* a "total reversal", "Why yes, you can use wireless to connect."

Why do you find that concept so strange?


Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him
 
2012-10-01 10:24:51 PM

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself


Blah, blah, blah. No cares what you think skullcrusher and you have been put in your place many times. You never admit you are wrong and turn to name calling when you are losing. You are a immature old man that can't take being wrong. Fark off.
 
2012-10-01 10:25:22 PM

cman: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.


hehe I am not even involved in this conversation. It's just typical CynicalLA. Quite cool.
 
2012-10-01 10:26:21 PM

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Blah, blah, blah. No cares what you think skullcrusher and you have been put in your place many times. You never admit you are wrong and turn to name calling when you are losing. You are a immature old man that can't take being wrong. Fark off.


Dude, easy there.

Have a smoke, have a drink. Dont say something that you might not mean to say if you were thinking clearly on a whim.
 
2012-10-01 10:26:56 PM

eddiesocket: Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him


So, have you been buying stock in Reynolds Wrap, or what?
 
2012-10-01 10:27:18 PM

Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.


And/Or the Military did it on their ow initiative and barry had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-10-01 10:27:46 PM

skullkrusher: cman: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.

hehe I am not even involved in this conversation. It's just typical CynicalLA. Quite cool.


I have been known to lose my cool at times here. I like it when someone reminds me about it, which is why I speak up whenever I see some potential problems brewing.
 
2012-10-01 10:28:21 PM

Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically


This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.
 
2012-10-01 10:28:54 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: eddiesocket: Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him

So, have you been buying stock in Reynolds Wrap, or what?


I see we've reached the non-sequitur portion of the evening.
 
2012-10-01 10:29:01 PM

CynicalLA: No cares what you think skullcrusher and you have been put in your place many times


that's the thing... I have never been put in my place by you. Ever.
See my point?

CynicalLA: You never admit you are wrong and turn to name calling when you are losing. You are a immature old man that can't take being wrong. Fark off.


hehe, those are some big words from the peanut gallery. Just get involved in the conversation in a thread for once. Put yourself out there, state an opinion, argue a point. Problem is, you prefer jumping on the bandwagon regardless of how stupid that wagon is. Hitching yourself to the popular stupid makes you feel like a winner. Then you're not smart enough to get off. I get it.
 
2012-10-01 10:29:50 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically

This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.


Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.
 
2012-10-01 10:30:38 PM

cman: skullkrusher: cman: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.

hehe I am not even involved in this conversation. It's just typical CynicalLA. Quite cool.

I have been known to lose my cool at times here. I like it when someone reminds me about it, which is why I speak up whenever I see some potential problems brewing.


hehe I appreciate it but don't worry about it.
 
2012-10-01 10:34:28 PM

Somacandra: Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.


I think you need to look up the word "terrorism". Using an eventt "for cover" sort of negates the point of it being terrorism.
"
 
2012-10-01 10:35:43 PM

eddiesocket: Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him


So you seem to be unhappy that he wasn't contrite, and pretty much just went with, "Well, there's senate testimony that completely contradicts what I said yesterday, so yeah it's pretty obvious (a.k.a. "self evident:") that it was a planned attack."

I swear, you're approaching this like you actually expect anybody in politics to think or act like normal people.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:02 PM

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-01 10:36:07 PM

cman: DeltaPunch: I will be tough on terror like President Bush, instead of ignoring intel that could have prevented an attack, like President Bush.

You are ignoring the greatest failure of preventing the 9/11 attacks: complete incompetence of civil servants and cabinet members. A President is only as good as his advisors, and Bush had pretty shiatty advisors.


Too bad ad president you can't choose your own advisors.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:09 PM

spongeboob: Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.

And/Or the Military did it on their ow initiative and barry had nothing to do with it.


Could both scenarios not be true simultaneously?
 
2012-10-01 10:36:37 PM

eddiesocket: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically

This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.

Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.


If he's just a private citizen without access to intelligence briefings, how the FARK does he find the balls to go toe to toe with Obama on foreign policy?

As far as I know, its standard procedure for the presidential candidate to get regular intelligence briefings. Obama got those too in 2008.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:39 PM

Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.


Dude, they've spent the last year accusing Obama of killing Osama for political gain.
 
2012-10-01 10:37:28 PM

Dimensio: spongeboob: Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.

And/Or the Military did it on their ow initiative and barry had nothing to do with it.

Could both scenarios not be true simultaneously?


No.
 
2012-10-01 10:37:43 PM

eddiesocket: Failing to prevent a planned terrorist attack looks worse and hurts our credibility a lot more than failing to prevent a spontaneous, unpredictable event. And no, no intelligence officials said any such thing "within a day" or within eight days.


Almost immediately, people started noticing that the attack was more organized than you would expect from a spontaneous demonstration. The grenade launchers kind of gave it away. That information was getting out to the media almost immediately. Maybe no one went on record for a few days, but that's fine. The situation needed to be investigated. But the media was reporting on the organization of the attack within a day of the attack.
 
2012-10-01 10:38:36 PM

Mentat: eddiesocket: Failing to prevent a planned terrorist attack looks worse and hurts our credibility a lot more than failing to prevent a spontaneous, unpredictable event. And no, no intelligence officials said any such thing "within a day" or within eight days.

Almost immediately, people started noticing that the attack was more organized than you would expect from a spontaneous demonstration. The grenade launchers kind of gave it away. That information was getting out to the media almost immediately. Maybe no one went on record for a few days, but that's fine. The situation needed to be investigated. But the media was reporting on the organization of the attack within a day of the attack.


Dude, I keep a grenade launcher by my bed specifically for use in case a riot breaks out.
 
2012-10-01 10:38:39 PM

eddiesocket: Somacandra: eddiesocket: Not from the administration, you didn't.

The Obama administration made no formal statements as to the cause, as its been pointed out earlier. Nor should they have. Its up to you to show Obama or Clinton making some definitive statement or admit you're just bullshiatting people.

WH Press Secretary doesn't count?
Or the US Ambassador?

If Carney and Rice were speaking out without permission or approval from the administration, then they should be fired immediately, no?


Um, saying that there's no evidence of a preplanned attack is not the same thing as claiming that there was no preplanned attack, you know. Sometimes things don't get discovered instantly or the info doesn't make its way up the chain of command instantly. The press statement was more "calm down, we don't know what exactly happened yet" not a positive claim that something specific had happened.

It didn't help that there _was_ a legit protest going on that the terrorists seized on for cover with little, if any, notice. The protest was responding to something released literally days earlier, it wasn't actually a 9/11 protest planned in advance that either the terrorists or the security guys would have had their eye on. At least so far as I know.
 
2012-10-01 10:39:07 PM

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]


s3.amazonaws.com
Leadership
 
2012-10-01 10:40:38 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]

[s3.amazonaws.com image 550x308]
Leadership



www.aviationnews.eu
Excuses
 
2012-10-01 10:40:40 PM
Let me guess: the GOP plan consists of writing "obama is a poopy head" on a bunch of pieces of paper and then taping them all around school.
 
2012-10-01 10:40:58 PM
The only surprise they have is one of the pickle variety (not safe for work... or sanity).
 
2012-10-01 10:41:09 PM

Mentat: eddiesocket: Failing to prevent a planned terrorist attack looks worse and hurts our credibility a lot more than failing to prevent a spontaneous, unpredictable event. And no, no intelligence officials said any such thing "within a day" or within eight days.

Almost immediately, people started noticing that the attack was more organized than you would expect from a spontaneous demonstration. The grenade launchers kind of gave it away. That information was getting out to the media almost immediately. Maybe no one went on record for a few days, but that's fine. The situation needed to be investigated. But the media was reporting on the organization of the attack within a day of the attack.


And yet the WH was still saying the opposite for eight days. Hence my problem with the White House. All this has been covered. Welcome to the thread.
 
2012-10-01 10:42:26 PM

eddiesocket: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically

This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.

Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.


Well Romney and Ryan are both private citizens getting Secret Service protection now... but I digress.

My initial comment was incorrect. The report that they were going to start getting briefings came out on September 13th, two days after the Bengazi attack.

Interestingly, a search of "Romney Ryan briefed intelligence" on Google news leads us to this article, from just last Thursday, stating that Romney has been briefed twice so far, and Ryan once.

Stop and think about the timing of all of these events for a minute.
 
2012-10-01 10:43:37 PM

eddiesocket: I see we've reached the non-sequitur portion of the evening.


Translation: Stop with the conspiracy theories, you sound like a dumbass.
 
2012-10-01 10:43:40 PM

Somacandra:
Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.


If only there were a day that meant a whole lot to many Americans, and also to Muslims, a day that might signify danger or a threat, a day that could be used by our enemies against us......

RyogaM: Oh, good lord. For fark's sake people, sometimes an administration has strategic purposes for not laying all the cards on the table, like, oh, I don't know, trying to not tip off the terrorists that we have them in our sights and plan to do many terrible things to them. Christ, you people would be pissed that we didn't tell the American people when D-Day was scheduled.


Indeed. Do we really want to know everything our government is doing? Fark no. We'd hang them all in the streets. And then elect a bunch of the same the next election.
 
2012-10-01 10:44:27 PM

JAYoung: You forgot the part where Romney uses the money from arms sales to Iran to murder nuns in Central America.


Getting warmer.
 
2012-10-01 10:45:06 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Romney's best chance is to just show 30 second ads of blondes with low necklines and big tits.


Fox "News" women?
 
2012-10-01 10:45:20 PM
Nothing to add but thank you Farkers for not feeding the dairy-related troll.
 
2012-10-01 10:46:50 PM
Can Romney even name the Leader of Libya? Can he name Ahmadinejad's successor, or the current Grand Ayatollah of Iran? How about an easy one, the current leader of Japan? Britain? Mexico? Canada? Hawaii?
 
2012-10-01 10:48:14 PM

cman: RyogaM: cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?

Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time

How do we even know that was the strategy? Is this all speculation?


It's all speculation, of course. Just like you are speculating that there is no good reason to not issue a "No Comment." The administration has to choose a course of action, and, often, it's going to be based on information you and I don't and should not have. You are arguing over words, and seem to be completely ignoring the results, that we have 50 terrorists per the Libyan government in custody. I really don't get it.
 
2012-10-01 10:49:00 PM

cman: NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, so a comment from an anonymous source is now the same as a plan being "out and online".

Okay then.

Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?


A bit desperate, don't you think?

Yeah I remember when that was disproved by Romney by releasing those 10 years.

To be fair burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant


To be extra fair, nobody but Romney is in a position to release his own tax returns...
 
2012-10-01 10:49:07 PM

cman: RyogaM: cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?

Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time

How do we even know that was the strategy? Is this all speculation?


cman: The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time

How do we even know that was the strategy? Is this all speculation?


Wait, what?

The strategy was to work with the Libyan government to get the terrorists. How would I prove this to your satisfaction?

I don't know the details about the tactics they chose, nor do I expect to be told them. I do know that the strategy seemed to work pretty damn well, as there were 50 arrests and (much more importantly) Libya did not devolve into a civil war, which looked like a strong possibility to me.

Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I'm missing your point.
 
2012-10-01 10:50:05 PM

armoredbulldozer: Frau Schadenfreude: They vastly overestimate their chances.

They shouldn't need a secret plan due to Obama's staggering incompetence. As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.


cry moar
 
2012-10-01 10:51:45 PM

RyogaM: cman: RyogaM: cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?

Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time

How do we even know that was the strategy? Is this all speculation?

It's all speculation, of course. Just like you are speculating that there is no good reason to not issue a "No Comment." The administration has to choose a course of action, and, often, it's going to be based on information you and I don't and should not have. You are arguing over words, and seem to be completely ignoring the results, that we have 50 terrorists per the Libyan government in custody. I really don't get it.


I am not ignoring the 50 people in Libyan custody. At the same time, to say that the administration is responsible for their arrests because they lied is a bit forward. Libya wants to have great relations with the US; they would have taken action regardless.

/Sorta-off topic slashie: Libya wants for us to see them as friends. I think we should oblige them. Friendship with Libya will only bring nothing but positives for both of us.
 
2012-10-01 10:51:52 PM

cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.


[citation please]
 
2012-10-01 10:52:32 PM

Dimensio: An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.



Sounds legit
 
2012-10-01 10:53:21 PM

Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]


Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?
 
2012-10-01 10:53:32 PM

armoredbulldozer: As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.


So you don't want to be allowed to vote?
 
2012-10-01 10:53:44 PM

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]


graphics8.nytimes.com
Leadership
 
2012-10-01 10:53:46 PM

SilentStrider: AdolfOliverPanties: SilentStrider: Well, Lemmy see here.
Allow me to be frank. Bellow all you want, Republicans but you're going to flop like a limp piece of spaghetti. Lee Atwater ain't coming through that door any time soon kids. Flee to Canada after the election if you want, but that won't change anything. When a man can such endorsers as LeBron, Blair Underwood, and George Clooney, its obvious your days are numbered. And if you think Romney has a chance, obviously you don't know Jack. Bruce Campbell's chin hairs would stand a better chance. You republicans, you think you're some great American Heroes, like John Paul Jones, or George Washington, but you're not. And no strey gunn lobby is going to help either, so don't go crying to the NRA. This isn't a time for your 2nd amendment solutions. And has anyone said anything nice about Mitt while on mike? Inez his housekeeper doesn't count. I'm looking for someone who doesn't work for him. It is my sincere hope that when the polls open on that tuesday in November, Americans will realize what we're facing and won't put us over a cliff. Burdon's on you, Nation.

.

 
2012-10-01 10:55:06 PM

Dimensio: spongeboob: Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.

And/Or the Military did it on their ow initiative and barry had nothing to do with it.

Could both scenarios not be true simultaneously?


No they would be mutually exclusive, but the Republicans have been holding similar opinions about Obama for years
Barak is a great debator versus he needs a teleprompter to sound like an idiot. Muslim and radical black Christian, etc.

By the way if the military went against the oders of the Commander in Chiet that would be a mutiny Link
 
2012-10-01 10:55:13 PM

eddiesocket: he facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days, before finally acknowledging otherwise.



They had no evidence to prove otherwise. Then after an investigation it was found a terrorist cell in the area did indeed plan the attack. So you're making much ado about nothing. Were all you idiot right wingers this outraged at Bush for not preventing 9/11? *crickets*
 
2012-10-01 10:55:16 PM
Don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but this was apparently a meeting with the biggest fundraisers of both the Romney campaign and his SuperPAC where they explicitly outlined that they had a big revelation in the works that they couldn't give the specifics of but promised it would completely destroy the president's credibility on those issues where he has the greatest advantage in the polls?

I'm really wondering if this leak is about a genuine plan Romney's camp has or if they just wanted to have something to keep the money flowing after 2 weeks straight of stories about Romney's failure to close the lead Obama got after the conventions. Considering the stories are now popping up even on Fox that donors are thinking the White House is a long shot and that they'll get more out of trying to win more seats in Congress, it's entirely possible this was a desperate plea never meant to leave that room (other than giving the SuperPACs the thumbs up to start a whisper campaign.)
 
2012-10-01 10:57:56 PM
One unnamed Romney adviser described them as "a huge gift" to the campaign.

Sounds like they're really happy about this tragedy. What a bunch of scum.
 
2012-10-01 10:58:38 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?


Ok fine have it your way:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney


There you are wrong! They did use neutral wording like you said they didn't they said the didn't have evidence nor that it was not premeditated terrorism you were wrong.


I find it amusing you don't actually know that statement that you are referring to but you are certain it exists.

I love how you don't know
 
2012-10-01 10:58:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Is this the same source who revealed to Reid that Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years?



0bama released 2 birth certificates and many years of complete tax returns

Romney can't even release 1 full year and they admitted they stretched deductions so he would actually pay in the last year what he claimed he paid.

So you are presenting no evidence for your case.
 
2012-10-01 10:59:08 PM

cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?


Speaking of weasels, I am hoping we may hear all the back story on this video. It seems right up the GOPs alley.
 
2012-10-01 10:59:26 PM

eddiesocket: Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.


No one gets classified information without signing a non-disclosure agreement. If he violated the terms of the NDA regarding the intel briefings he was given it would look very bad for him (and technically leave him open to criminal charges).
 
2012-10-01 10:59:42 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: armoredbulldozer: As evidenced by the last election, one should be able to prove a triple digit IQ in order to vote.

So you don't want to be allowed to vote?


For just pennies a day, you too can end suffrage. Won't you help?
 
2012-10-01 11:00:14 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?


Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney


It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?
 
2012-10-01 11:00:37 PM

intelligent comment below: eddiesocket: he facts are that the Obama administration let everyone think the attacks were spontaneous and the result of the stupid movie for eight days, before finally acknowledging otherwise.


They had no evidence to prove otherwise. Then after an investigation it was found a terrorist cell in the area did indeed plan the attack. So you're making much ado about nothing. Were all you idiot right wingers this outraged at Bush for not preventing 9/11? *crickets*


you have mastered your craft.
 
2012-10-01 11:00:50 PM

skullkrusher: hehe, those are some big words from the peanut gallery. Just get involved in the conversation in a thread for once. Put yourself out there, state an opinion, argue a point. Problem is, you prefer jumping on the bandwagon regardless of how stupid that wagon is. Hitching yourself to the popular stupid makes you feel like a winner. Then you're not smart enough to get off. I get it.


I have been on this site a lot longer than you and have mostly given up on the day to day BS that goes on around here lately. This site is infested with trolls and alts. I lurk but definitely have my own opinion. You seem to enjoy pointless arguments and will go all night to prove you are right. Not my thing.
 
2012-10-01 11:02:21 PM
Corvus:

I know you're an idiot and all, but could you at least figure out how to tell if you've already replied to a post?

Jesus, it's like your gallbladder has a stutter.
 
2012-10-01 11:02:29 PM

GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?


No , it's a secret plan to put the Soviets in their place.
 
2012-10-01 11:02:58 PM

kg2095: GAT_00: Is it a secret plan to fight inflation?

No , it's a secret plan to put the Soviets in their place.


...the back of a Volkswagen?
 
2012-10-01 11:03:20 PM

James F. Campbell: The only surprise they have is one of the pickle variety (not safe for work... or sanity).


So, I'm gonna lose some sleep tonight, and I blame you.
 
2012-10-01 11:03:31 PM

cman: Have a smoke, have a drink. Dont say something that you might not mean to say if you were thinking clearly on a whim.


That is always good advice, thx.
 
2012-10-01 11:03:32 PM

sprawl15: Corvus:

I know you're an idiot and all, but could you at least figure out how to tell if you've already replied to a post?

Jesus, it's like your gallbladder has a stutter.


Hey what kind of tax did SCOTUS rule the healthcare mandate to be?
 
2012-10-01 11:03:44 PM

Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?


Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin
 
2012-10-01 11:04:07 PM

sprawl15: Corvus:

I know you're an idiot and all, but could you at least figure out how to tell if you've already replied to a post?

Jesus, it's like your gallbladder has a stutter.


Am I making you cry like last time?
 
2012-10-01 11:04:47 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin


Wait you said find a quote from the thread. Is that not good enough for you now?
 
2012-10-01 11:05:13 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Dimensio: Bathia_Mapes: ManateeGag: Marcus Aurelius: He said they were jubilant about their new strategy and said they intended to portray Obama as a helpless, Jimmy Carter-like president

Who killed Osama bin Laden again?

some dude on Seal Team 6 put a bullet in his head, but Obama green lit the mission.

Obama is an Executive Admin.

An unnamed source has already confirmed that President Obama did not actually order the strike on Mr. Osama bin Laden's compound, but was instead "overruled" by the military; in fact, President Obama issued a failed order to abort the raid. Once the raid was successful, President Obama claimed credit rather than acknowledge his inability to control the military and admit his willingness not to attack Mr. bin Laden.

You're just yankin' our chain, right? I mean...Pamela Geller? You're leg-pulling, aren't you?


A Pam Geller post based on an Ulsterman allegation, no less; right down the rabbit hole of derp!
 
2012-10-01 11:05:52 PM

Corvus: Hey what kind of tax did SCOTUS rule the healthcare mandate to be?


Mu.

I take it you're still looking for the part that says it's an excise tax?

/lol

cman: Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin


That says there's no evidence that Stevens believed he was on a hit list. That's kind of...ephemeral.
 
2012-10-01 11:06:21 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin


Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.
 
2012-10-01 11:06:23 PM

imontheinternet: Gov. Romney, after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, I don't recall Al Gore, Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat calling a press conference to criticize President Bush and pour salt on the country's open wounds. I don't recall seeing anyone smiling that day. Maybe we were all thinking more about our country and the men and women we had just lost than our own selfish ambitions.


He is no longer a governor.
 
2012-10-01 11:06:46 PM

DarkJohnson: That looks photoshopped, I've can see the pixels
[media.salon.com image 460x307]


stinky-dog.com
 
2012-10-01 11:06:56 PM

sprawl15: I take it you're still looking for the part that says it's an excise tax?


Yep and I found it. but I don't want to make you cry again.
 
2012-10-01 11:07:57 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: My initial comment was incorrect. The report that they were going to start getting briefings came out on September 13th, two days after the Bengazi attack.

Interestingly, a search of "Romney Ryan briefed intelligence" on Google news leads us to this article, from just last Thursday, stating that Romney has been briefed twice so far, and Ryan once.

Stop and think about the timing of all of these events for a minute.


That wording caught my attention too. But not even Romney is dumb enough to leak US intelligence. However.....Link
 
2012-10-01 11:08:52 PM

skullkrusher: you have mastered your craft.



Shocking, guess who shows up to thread shiat while all the other trolls are here at full derp?
 
2012-10-01 11:10:47 PM

Satanic_Hamster: eddiesocket: Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.

No one gets classified information without signing a non-disclosure agreement. If he violated the terms of the NDA regarding the intel briefings he was given it would look very bad for him (and technically leave him open to criminal charges).


Except he would not be prosecuted because the minute the DOJ started an investigation the media and the Republicans would cry politics.
 
2012-10-01 11:11:02 PM

Corvus: Yep and I found it


I thought I already told you that forbes.com isn't the Supreme Court?

Karma Curmudgeon: That wording caught my attention too. But not even Romney is dumb enough to leak US intelligence.


Eh...I really wish I had more faith in that. I get the feeling that he gets nasty when he's desperate.
 
2012-10-01 11:11:39 PM
Cman you go away? what quote are you referring to exactly? I don't want you to go "I meant a different quote" like you have already done once so far.
 
2012-10-01 11:11:56 PM
Romney should definitely do this, and make it clear that he would have immediately declared war.

Because if there's anything people are psyched for, it's another expensive, long, war where a bunch of people get killed.
 
2012-10-01 11:12:27 PM

sprawl15: Corvus: Yep and I found it

I thought I already told you that forbes.com isn't the Supreme Court?


I know they aren't. I never said they were.

Now what kind of tax did the supreme court rule it to be? I forgot you answer.
 
2012-10-01 11:13:05 PM

Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.


Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.
 
2012-10-01 11:13:25 PM

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: you have mastered your craft.


Shocking, guess who shows up to thread shiat while all the other trolls are here at full derp?


I was in here long before you decided to grace us. Here's a hint: eddiesocket? He's not even close to a right winger, you simplistic fark.
 
2012-10-01 11:14:01 PM

sprawl15: Corvus: Yep and I found it

I thought I already told you that forbes.com isn't the Supreme Court?


Does the federal government speak for the federal government? Does what it is written as law not count either?

Do only you count?

I am going to let you dig your hole deeper for awhile.
 
2012-10-01 11:14:07 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.


HTML fail. Damn iPad Link
 
2012-10-01 11:14:40 PM
This thread has it all. Trolls, alts, alt trolls, internet pissing matches. Good show gentlemen, you have truly won the internet tonight. Stay tuned for your gold medal.
 
2012-10-01 11:15:48 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.


But what is the exact quote. You first told me to use the ones in the thread. I did that and then I showed that was BS and now you are talking about many. Why can't you give me the SPECIFIC quote you are talking about instead of being vague?
 
2012-10-01 11:17:31 PM

cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link


But what is the specific quote you are referring to? You will move the goal posts like you have done already. Give me the specific one not link me to full stories that are not directly quoting Obama administration officials.
 
2012-10-01 11:18:06 PM

skullkrusher: I was in here long before you decided to grace us. Here's a hint: eddiesocket? He's not even close to a right winger, you simplistic fark.



Of course he is. His "both sides are bad" nonsense is old and tired, just like your schtick.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:28 PM

Corvus: I never said they were.


I handily provided you the ruling to back up your assertion. The portion you quoted wasn't in the ruling, but was from forbes.com. ;)

Corvus: Now what kind of tax did the supreme court rule it to be? I forgot you answer.


sprawl15: Mu.


Try to work on your attention span, it's only been like a half dozen posts.

cman: HTML fail. Damn iPad Link


That's still not an outright dismissal; they just said they don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. Note that Rice's comments were a few hours after the attack while the Libyan President's comments were a few days after.

There's also a muddling of language in terms of "the attack". The riots are separate from the attack, but there was a lot of confusion as to which was which.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:32 PM

Genevieve Marie: Romney should definitely do this, and make it clear that he would have immediately declared war.

Because if there's anything people are psyched for, it's another expensive, long, war where a bunch of peopleAmericans get killed.


FTFY
 
2012-10-01 11:19:48 PM

intelligent comment below: skullkrusher: I was in here long before you decided to grace us. Here's a hint: eddiesocket? He's not even close to a right winger, you simplistic fark.


Of course he is. His "both sides are bad" nonsense is old and tired, just like your schtick.


like I said, you've mastered your craft.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:56 PM

spongeboob: Except he would not be prosecuted because the minute the DOJ started an investigation the media and the Republicans would cry politics.


True / agreed, though I imagine a very effective course would be to strip Romney of his security clearance.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:56 PM

cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link


Ok then:

"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told me this morning on "This Week."

You are wrong again. They say NOTHING that it is not Terrorism and the are just saying it STARTED as spontaneous.

You are wrong that quote says what I have been saying not what you have.
 
2012-10-01 11:19:58 PM

Corvus: cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link

But what is the specific quote you are referring to? You will move the goal posts like you have done already. Give me the specific one not link me to full stories that are not directly quoting Obama administration officials.


There was no quote. I was generalizing what was said.
 
2012-10-01 11:20:24 PM

eddiesocket: Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.


How exactly would the GOP have intelligence information or other evidence that the event was planned ahead of time when you say the Administration itself has no such evidence? You're either implying the Republican Party has it's own intelligence gathering capabilities that has more informaiton on the matter than the Federal Government, or that some foreign intelligence service has such information and has only decided to share it with select members of one American political party. Evidence they not only have...but have decided to just sit on until it's the best moment politically for them to pull it out like a rabbit from a hat.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but the more I read that comment the more I'm like "WTF did I just read??"
 
2012-10-01 11:21:43 PM

Corvus: cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link

Ok then:

"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told me this morning on "This Week."

You are wrong again. They say NOTHING that it is not Terrorism and the are just saying it STARTED as spontaneous.

You are wrong that quote says what I have been saying not what you have.


Based upon the information they had at the present it WAS a terrorist attack.

Christ, its 1121PM, I am farking tired. Arguing semantics is something that I hate. I leave you with the last word for the night.
 
2012-10-01 11:21:52 PM

Satanic_Hamster: spongeboob: Except he would not be prosecuted because the minute the DOJ started an investigation the media and the Republicans would cry politics.

True / agreed, though I imagine a very effective course would be to strip Romney of his security clearance.


The outrage from that would be hilarious until some redneck straps a grenade launcher to his hoveround and takes out a Whole Foods.
 
2012-10-01 11:23:22 PM

cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link


This quote NEVER says it was not terrorism. This quote does not say that the later attacks portion of the attacks the part that killed people was not premeditated. It said it STARTED as spontaneously. It also said it was only based on their current assessment.

"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told me this morning on "This Week."

Are you going to move the goal posts again and switch it to a new quote like you did last time?
 
2012-10-01 11:24:16 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: My initial comment was incorrect. The report that they were going to start getting briefings came out on September 13th, two days after the Bengazi attack.

Interestingly, a search of "Romney Ryan briefed intelligence" on Google news leads us to this article, from just last Thursday, stating that Romney has been briefed twice so far, and Ryan once.

Stop and think about the timing of all of these events for a minute.

That wording caught my attention too. But not even Romney is dumb enough to leak US intelligence. However.....Link


WTF? Netenyahu calls Romney 10 minutes after he hangs up the phone with Obama?

And plenty of smart people have made really dumb mistakes when they were backed into a corner and desperate.
 
2012-10-01 11:25:01 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link

But what is the specific quote you are referring to? You will move the goal posts like you have done already. Give me the specific one not link me to full stories that are not directly quoting Obama administration officials.

There was no quote. I was generalizing what was said.


Well what quote is that based on?

Are you saying the Obama administration doesn't actually have to say something to be at fault, it just has to be perceived that way by you or others for them to be guilty? That makes no sense.
 
2012-10-01 11:26:29 PM

cman: HTML fail. Damn iPad Link


You say: "The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong."

Your link says:

""Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told me this morning...."

They sound completely different.
 
2012-10-01 11:27:23 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: James F. Campbell: The only surprise they have is one of the pickle variety (not safe for work... or sanity).

So, I'm gonna lose some sleep tonight, and I blame you.


Hey. I warned you.
 
2012-10-01 11:27:53 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link

Ok then:

"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told me this morning on "This Week."

You are wrong again. They say NOTHING that it is not Terrorism and the are just saying it STARTED as spontaneous.

You are wrong that quote says what I have been saying not what you have.

Based upon the information they had at the present it WAS a terrorist attack.

Christ, its 1121PM, I am farking tired. Arguing semantics is something that I hate. I leave you with the last word for the night.


You call no one saying the thing you are pretending they say is "semantics"?

Holy crap. You say they said something, you can't give me ONE single example of them saying what you have repeatedly said they said and you are calling that "arguing semantics".

That's bull shiat.
 
2012-10-01 11:28:52 PM
So let me guess, they are going to throw out a bunch of claims and accusations from "unnamed anonymous sources" without one piece of evidence to back anything up, and then claim they can't produce any evidence because the Obama administration won't release any documents and is covering everything up.
 
2012-10-01 11:28:54 PM

cman: Corvus: cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link

But what is the specific quote you are referring to? You will move the goal posts like you have done already. Give me the specific one not link me to full stories that are not directly quoting Obama administration officials.

There was no quote. I was generalizing what was said.


It sounds like you are generalizing what you heard rush limbuagh say. I have been following your exchange and I honestly didn't know for sure if the charge against Obama had any merit. At best it is a mountain out of a molehill, at worst it just more GOP bullshiat.
 
2012-10-01 11:30:09 PM

Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: Corvus: cman: The problem lies with the fact that Obama's admin didnt use neutral wording. They outright dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack calling it wrong.

[citation please]

Really? The other links in this thread from other posters was not satisfactory?

Ok so how does this statement then make it say that they are saying they are not sure it was terrorism like you said:

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

It doesn't say that at all. Or you going to start going "no no not that quote" every time I show you wrong?

Explain this, then. Last time I checked Clinton is a part of the Obama admin

Give me the exact quote you are referring to. I don't want you to move the goal posts once again like you just did.

Moving the goal posts, huh? If you reread what I said you will see that I talked bout other posters links when you asked for citations. I did not specifically mention any quote now, did I?

Link and here is another one.

HTML fail. Damn iPad Link

Ok then:

"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo," Rice told me this morning on "This Week."

You are wrong again. They say NOTHING that it is not Terrorism and the are just saying it STARTED as spontaneous.

You are wrong that quote says what I have been saying not what you have.

Based upon the information they had at the present it WAS a terrorist attack.

Christ, its 1121PM, I am farking tired. Arguing semantics is something that I hate. I leave you with the last word for the night.

You call no one saying the thing you are pretending they say is "semantics"?

Holy crap. You say they said something, you can't give me ONE single example of them saying what you have repeatedly said they ...


Fine, I withdraw my whole argument. I am a moron who gets shiat wrong a lot. I am tired. Good night and enjoy your free month of TF
 
2012-10-01 11:30:40 PM
Haha Cman at least you're a good sport unlike others!!
 
2012-10-01 11:30:59 PM
The source declined to reveal the names of the GOP operatives who were present. But he said, "These were the top guys in the party. It was a private, unguarded planning conversation." He further described participants in the meeting as consisting of well-known names tied to the big Republican super PACs and people who had access to high-level national security intelligence.

Top...guys.

Seriously though, I would've thought the GOP realized that their repeated attempts to paint Obama weak on foreign policy is falling on deaf ears with Independent voters.

Republican voters will believe whatever AM Radio and Fox News tells them so of course they buy that BS up.
 
2012-10-01 11:31:04 PM

cman:

I am farking tired.


WE KNEW IT!
 
2012-10-01 11:34:23 PM

Shrugging Atlas: eddiesocket: Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

How exactly would the GOP have intelligence information or other evidence that the event was planned ahead of time when you say the Administration itself has no such evidence? You're either implying the Republican Party has it's own intelligence gathering capabilities that has more informaiton on the matter than the Federal Government, or that some foreign intelligence service has such information and has only decided to share it with select members of one American political party. Evidence they not only have...but have decided to just sit on until it's the best moment politically for them to pull it out like a rabbit from a hat.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but the more I read that comment the more I'm like "WTF did I just read??"


What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com">
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-01 11:35:51 PM
Number of Bin ladens killed by Democrats: 1

Number of Bin ladens killed by republicans: 0


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-01 11:38:28 PM

spongeboob: What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.



Contrary to popular belief, Israel dislikes the war mongering Republicans in America mainly because they screw up their neighborhood, arming terrorists, appeasing war lords and dictators, mainly to help the people in the 2nd picture
 
2012-10-01 11:39:48 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: WTF? Netenyahu calls Romney 10 minutes after he hangs up the phone with Obama?

And plenty of smart people have made really dumb mistakes when they were backed into a corner and desperate.



Yes, but felonies are unusual. And not likely necessary.

It's not just that phone call. He was in NY last week. Plenty of opportunity for more discreet communication.
 
2012-10-01 11:40:25 PM
Yep. These debates are ALL about character.
 
2012-10-01 11:40:27 PM

intelligent comment below: this is why Obama has been tough on terror and using drones, liberals may not like it, but a Democrat has to be even stronger on enemies than the GOP


Nononononono! I'm extremely liberal, but if somebody has declared war on us, is known to use terrorist tactics, actually has the ability to harm us here or abroad, is hiding among and with the help of non-combatants, then nighttime Seal teams, drone strikes, hunter-seekers, car bombs, poison, Harkonnen Dogs, snipers, Minwanabe Dogs, Spy-Eyes, or flying farking crowbars are in play!

Now, none of that vehemence is due domestic surveillance. We're in a war for "FREEDOM"... remember your own rhetoric? Don't fark up the freedom you're fighting for while fighting for the freedom.
 
2012-10-01 11:43:01 PM

Aquapope: Nononononono! I'm extremely liberal, but if somebody has declared war on us, is known to use terrorist tactics, actually has the ability to harm us here or abroad, is hiding among and with the help of non-combatants, then nighttime Seal teams, drone strikes, hunter-seekers, car bombs, poison, Harkonnen Dogs, snipers, Minwanabe Dogs, Spy-Eyes, or flying farking crowbars are in play!

Now, none of that vehemence is due domestic surveillance. We're in a war for "FREEDOM"... remember your own rhetoric? Don't fark up the freedom you're fighting for while fighting for the freedom.



Sorry I disagree. While it may not be the best thing in terms of body count, I would rather treat it as a police action. You send in troops to arrest suspected terrorists and bring them in front of judges in courts and give them a taste of the American justice system. America is a country that used to pride itself on laws, not these extra judicial assassinations.

I also don't like domestic spying but if anything thinks Obama can dictate any policy being in such a weak political situation they are kidding themselves.
 
2012-10-01 11:43:26 PM
cman:

I am tired.


Yes, we heard you the first time.
 
2012-10-01 11:43:42 PM

intelligent comment below: spongeboob: What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.


Contrary to popular belief, Israel dislikes the war mongering Republicans in America mainly because they screw up their neighborhood, arming terrorists, appeasing war lords and dictators, mainly to help the people in the 2nd picture


Even the Likud party?
 
2012-10-01 11:47:12 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Using Libya against Obama is what started Mittens' downward slide in the polls. Keep choking that chicken, though.

This guy isn't going to be painted as weak on terrorism:

[imageshack.us image 450x491]

It hasn't worked, and it will not work.


Hey do you have the original?
 
2012-10-01 11:47:28 PM

skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: Romney's best chance is to just show 30 second ads of blondes with low necklines and big tits.

soo... Fox?


Fair and Bra-less.
 
2012-10-01 11:49:03 PM

eddiesocket: And yet the WH was still saying the opposite for eight days. Hence my problem with the White House. All this has been covered. Welcome to the thread.


I'm really sorry the White House didn't take time out of their investigation to give you a personal intelligence briefing, but that's how life goes sometimes.
 
2012-10-01 11:49:36 PM

spongeboob: intelligent comment below: spongeboob: What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.


Contrary to popular belief, Israel dislikes the war mongering Republicans in America mainly because they screw up their neighborhood, arming terrorists, appeasing war lords and dictators, mainly to help the people in the 2nd picture

Even the Likud party?


Link
 
2012-10-01 11:50:43 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: WTF? Netenyahu calls Romney 10 minutes after he hangs up the phone with Obama?

And plenty of smart people have made really dumb mistakes when they were backed into a corner and desperate.


Yes, but felonies are unusual. And not likely necessary.

It's not just that phone call. He was in NY last week. Plenty of opportunity for more discreet communication.


Well we know for a fact that Romney has committed at least one felony (false information on financial disclosure forms). What's one more if it means winning the election?
 
2012-10-01 11:51:31 PM

Felgraf: Personally, I think Romney needs to step up his game, or we're all going to be staring down the Reaper. Man has, through countless ages, fought back against the monstrous regiment of evil that is socialism. By jingo, if we don't take back this country now, the results could be catastrophic, even if they are yet unseen. Academicals of all sorts are trying to run the country with their lefty liberalism under the guise of equal rites. It's just a ruse, a maskerade, as they *truly* simply desire to rule us like lords and ladies, to simply treat us as something to be slaughtered for their goals, some sort of hog.

Father, who art in heaven, deliver us from the mortifying future that I see spread before us. Do not let us go quietly into this dark night. Watch over us, protect us from their evil, and let each of us act as though we are the last hero. When the time comes for them to strike against us, give them feet of clay and make them stick in their place. Let them not be men at arms, but people willing to finally see the truth, who will choose the peaceful, true capitalistic path of making money, as opposed to going postal.

Amen.

I admit I used this theme before, but I feel I did it better this time...


Cohen the barbarian for president!!
 
2012-10-01 11:55:36 PM

insertsnarkyusername: See this is why Obama should have had the SEAL team bring back Bin Laden's severed head. I would have love to have seen him toss it on the stage during the debates when this came up.


Close. The best thing would have been to bring it out on a silver platter at the end of the DNC and announce mission accomplished. Would have brought the house down.
 
2012-10-01 11:55:42 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: spongeboob: intelligent comment below: spongeboob: What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.


Contrary to popular belief, Israel dislikes the war mongering Republicans in America mainly because they screw up their neighborhood, arming terrorists, appeasing war lords and dictators, mainly to help the people in the 2nd picture

Even the Likud party?

Link


Obama's xmas lights are getting all sorts of tangled, aren't they? Worse than Griswold's.
 
2012-10-01 11:57:10 PM

Felgraf: Personally, I think Romney needs to step up his game, or we're all going to be staring down the Reaper. Man has, through countless ages, fought back against the monstrous regiment of evil that is socialism. By jingo, if we don't take back this country now, the results could be catastrophic, even if they are yet unseen. Academicals of all sorts are trying to run the country with their lefty liberalism under the guise of equal rites. It's just a ruse, a maskerade, as they *truly* simply desire to rule us like lords and ladies, to simply treat us as something to be slaughtered for their goals, some sort of hog.

Father
, who art in heaven, deliver us from the mortifying future that I see spread before us. Do not let us go quietly into this dark night. Watch over us, protect us from their evil, and let each of us act as though we are the last hero. When the time comes for them to strike against us, give them feet of clay and make them stick in their place. Let them not be men at arms, but people willing to finally see the truth, who will choose the peaceful, true capitalistic path of making money, as opposed to going postal.

Amen.

I love you so GODDAMN MUCH right now.

/I am certain I missed a few, tho...

I admit I used this theme before, but I feel I did it better this time...

 
2012-10-01 11:57:49 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Karma Curmudgeon: spongeboob: intelligent comment below: spongeboob: What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.


Contrary to popular belief, Israel dislikes the war mongering Republicans in America mainly because they screw up their neighborhood, arming terrorists, appeasing war lords and dictators, mainly to help the people in the 2nd picture

Even the Likud party?

Link

Obama's xmas lights are getting all sorts of tangled, aren't they? Worse than Griswold's.


His guests are starting to compliment him on his Swedish underarm crystal, though.
 
2012-10-01 11:58:44 PM

spongeboob: Even the Likud party?



Yes, they're only pandering to the small religious extremists because that's holding their coalition together. If they really wanted to attack Iran they would have long ago like they did Syria a few years ago and Iraq in the early 80's, this is all just posturing and propaganda nonsense.
 
2012-10-01 11:59:27 PM
This surprise makes more sense than the campaign plan of the Romney camp.


Also, this is the appeasement to the terrorist threat under the current administration

news.cnet.com
 
2012-10-02 12:01:30 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-02 12:04:16 AM
I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-02 12:04:17 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Obama's xmas lights are getting all sorts of tangled, aren't they? Worse than Griswold's.


Sorry, but it makes more sense than trying to use information from the intelligence briefings.
 
2012-10-02 12:05:16 AM

Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]



you sound tired
 
2012-10-02 12:07:28 AM

intelligent comment below: Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]


you sound tired


I don't even get it? Why are they smiling?
 
2012-10-02 12:07:33 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: This article makes it clearer why Republicans are trying the foreign policy angle.

There were two groups with connections to al Qaeda making calls to each other before, during, and after the attack. The CIA's initial report left this out of their briefing to Congress and the President. These calls were "a conversation between a group with an affinity to al Qaeda and a manager of an al-Qaeda affiliate," which, the author argues, is grounds for an immediate declaration of war under the Sept. 14, 2001 resolution.

Perhaps most interesting about the article is that "a coordinated Qaeda attack on the anniversary of 9/11 undermines a theme of President Obama's reelection campaign that the killing of Osama bin Laden has diminished the threat from the group," which is really where they're trying to take this. They want to cut the legs out from under the fact that Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden. They're really going to push the story that killing the mastermind behind 9/11 is completely meaningless. Good luck with that, guys. Can't possibly see a way that could backfire.


The idea that this could sway enough people to become Romney voters in any event is the backfire. Ayers, Alinsky, etc have all had their turns at being the magic bullet - this is no different. What's borderline sociopathic, is that these folks have deluded themselves that these are issues that resonate with significant numbers of voters, which is just pants on head stupid. Time is running out, and this is no more of a winner than the other ones.
 
2012-10-02 12:09:26 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Obama's xmas lights are getting all sorts of tangled, aren't they? Worse than Griswold's.

Sorry, but it makes more sense than trying to use information from the intelligence briefings.


I don't disagree. I was just trying to get someone to post that picture because it makes me laugh every time.
 
2012-10-02 12:09:41 AM

Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]


I'm not sure of the point of that cartoon. Are you trying to imply that people who vote against Obama are idiots?
 
2012-10-02 12:10:32 AM

sprawl15: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Karma Curmudgeon: spongeboob: intelligent comment below: spongeboob: What country might have intelligence that they would rather share with Republicans than Obama.


Contrary to popular belief, Israel dislikes the war mongering Republicans in America mainly because they screw up their neighborhood, arming terrorists, appeasing war lords and dictators, mainly to help the people in the 2nd picture

Even the Likud party?

Link

Obama's xmas lights are getting all sorts of tangled, aren't they? Worse than Griswold's.

His guests are starting to compliment him on his Swedish underarm crystal, though.


You have out-referenced me handily, sir.

/MST3K?
 
2012-10-02 12:12:24 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]

I'm not sure of the point of that cartoon. Are you trying to imply that people who vote against Obama are idiots?


Oh good, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that.
 
2012-10-02 12:12:28 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]

I'm not sure of the point of that cartoon. Are you trying to imply that people who vote against Obama are idiots?


Actually...

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-02 12:13:30 AM
The day after the attack, when many in the GOP were blaming the mob and demanding that we cut all foreign aid, Bill Nelson (D-Fl) said that the attack looked suspiciously like a coordinated terror attack with the riots as a smoke-screen.

Nelson said we should wait till all the facts were in before jumping to conclusions. His remarks stuck with me because he's a member of the senate Intelligence Committee.

Now, if these attacks were indeed deliberate and pre-planned, they still had to have some kind of cover; a trigger-point.

Say, for instance, a movie clip that was carefully released in areas guaranteed to send Muslim extremists running for the nearest torches and pitchforks.

Interesting timing all the way around.
 
2012-10-02 12:14:08 AM

Hickory-smoked:


Does Glenn Beck go to the same tanning place as Señor Romney?
 
2012-10-02 12:14:46 AM

Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]



This is what conservatives really think is funny.
 
2012-10-02 12:15:37 AM

Brick-House: Satanic_Hamster: Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]

I'm not sure of the point of that cartoon. Are you trying to imply that people who vote against Obama are idiots?

Actually...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 501x379]



We blocked almost everything 0bama tried to pass so vote for 4 more years of a Bush administration!

Damn are peoples memories that bad?
 
2012-10-02 12:16:02 AM
Top Republican connected to a big SuperPac. Could it be....Karl Rove?

So, is he authorized to receive classified intel or not?
 
2012-10-02 12:16:03 AM

Brick-House: ....you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer


Looser? A looser what in Obummer? The suspense is unbearable.
 
2012-10-02 12:16:42 AM

Brick-House:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]


Dear God... I just realized that creepy-ass strip was supposed to be sincerely suggesting that Obama is a poor president, rather than a snipe at Republicans for being delusional and deranged.

I'm tempted to go to the host site, but my skin is already crawling.
 
2012-10-02 12:17:40 AM

Brick-House: Satanic_Hamster: Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]

I'm not sure of the point of that cartoon. Are you trying to imply that people who vote against Obama are idiots?

Actually...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 501x379]


I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 to prove I'm not a racist. I voted for him because I thought he was the best candidate.

So I guess the sign is wrong. I'm not an idiot.

TAKE THAT SIGN!
 
2012-10-02 12:19:00 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: /MST3K?


common sense is an oxymoron: This is what conservatives really think is funny.


have you heard the one about how he is a bummer so you can change his name to obummer and give the children mirth
 
2012-10-02 12:19:43 AM

sprawl15: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: /MST3K?


imageshack.us

Now, in Technicolor.
 
2012-10-02 12:20:02 AM

Felgraf: Personally, I think Romney needs to step up his game, or we're all going to be staring down the Reaper. Man has, through countless ages, fought back against the monstrous regiment of evil that is socialism. By jingo, if we don't take back this country now, the results could be catastrophic, even if they are yet unseen. Academicals of all sorts are trying to run the country with their lefty liberalism under the guise of equal rites. It's just a ruse, a maskerade, as they *truly* simply desire to rule us like lords and ladies, to simply treat us as something to be slaughtered for their goals, some sort of hog.

Father
, who art in heaven, deliver us from the mortifying future that I see spread before us. Do not let us go quietly into this dark night. Watch over us, protect us from their evil, and let each of us act as though we are the last hero. When the time comes for them to strike against us, give them feet of clay and make them stick in their place. Let them not be men at arms, but people willing to finally see the truth, who will choose the peaceful, true capitalistic path of making money, as opposed to going postal.

Amen.

I admit I used this theme before, but I feel I did it better this time...


Bravo !
 
2012-10-02 12:20:59 AM

Mrtraveler01: intelligent comment below: Brick-House: I do feel sorry for all the Libtards here on Fark, and my god there are a lot of you. But I have to tell you, you all have hirched your wagon to such a looser in Obummer. I mean really, I'd take Carter over him.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x310]


you sound tired

I don't even get it? Why are they smiling