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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 647 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report