Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, October Surprise, GOP, Obama administration, human beings, President Carter, Bob Corker, Dan Senor  
•       •       •

11704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 6:59 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 642 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report