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.

(CNN)   Sec. State Clinton falls on Obama's sword over the Benghazi consulate attack   (cnn.com) divider line 288
    More: Obvious, Benghazi, diplomats, Hillary Rodham Clinton  
•       •       •

1928 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2012 at 4:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-15 11:55:57 PM  
TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?
 
2012-10-15 11:58:06 PM  
Reminding everyone that her office is, in reality, responsible for these things, not the WH != falling on any sword.

Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed. Then again, even if they were, they likely wouldn't have had money to cover it, since Rep. Issa - the same guy running an "investigation" into all of this - voted multiple times to cut their security budget by more than 25%.
 
2012-10-16 12:00:19 AM  

Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?


Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?
 
2012-10-16 12:07:33 AM  
So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?
 
2012-10-16 12:08:40 AM  
FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.
 
2012-10-16 12:09:23 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Reminding everyone that her office is, in reality, responsible for these things, not the WH != falling on any sword.


To be fair, for conservatives acknowledging reality can be fatal.
 
2012-10-16 12:09:34 AM  
You know how I know that subby is not in upper management? Clinton herself would not be involved in day to day security decisions with something the size of the Baghdad embassy much less a podunk consulate in Libya.
 
2012-10-16 12:10:45 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed.


It also might have helped if the Benghazi post had actually requisitioned for more security. The recent hearings have made it clear that all the requests from Libya were for Tripoli, on the other side of the country,
 
2012-10-16 12:12:54 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


Yup. In 2013.
According to her schedule.
 
2012-10-16 12:16:32 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?


First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain
 
2012-10-16 12:17:56 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


Since she's retiring.... yes. She's stated she is done with politics after 2013.

I didn't actually believe that, but since she is pretty much falling on her sword here maybe it is true.
 
2012-10-16 12:18:34 AM  

cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain


Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.
 
2012-10-16 12:19:10 AM  

cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain


But I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business? Now I'm all confused...
 
2012-10-16 12:19:28 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.


Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.
 
2012-10-16 12:19:37 AM  

gilgigamesh: CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?

Since she's retiring.... yes. She's stated she is done with politics after 2013.

I didn't actually believe that, but since she is pretty much falling on her sword here maybe it is true.


She could run in 2016 and this would be long gone from the issue log. Hell, voters can't remember what Romney said 2 hours ago, so they'll never remember this in four years.
 
2012-10-16 12:20:46 AM  

fusillade762: cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

But I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business? Now I'm all confused...


If you are implying that I have ever said something to that effect I would like for you to refresh my memory
 
2012-10-16 12:21:34 AM  

fusillade762: To be fair, for conservatives acknowledging reality can be fatal.


tha f*ck are you talking about?

the point of my post is that this is how it works. Clinton didn't "fall on her sword". She took responsibility for what is her responsibility. And if Obama is running some butf*cked State Dept, then he'll be held responsible. People will judge for themselves, and clearly most people don't think that this was something Obama should have foreseen.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.


Thanks for making my point. You're right - this is a non-story. But if it were, Obama is responsible for the State dept's actions regardless of how detailed it is. If there was negligence, he will be held responsible, regardless of whether Clinton "takes responsibility" for it.

Point is that nobody's ducking responsibility. Good lord, I hope Romney walks into a trap like that.
 
2012-10-16 12:22:03 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: gilgigamesh: CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?

Since she's retiring.... yes. She's stated she is done with politics after 2013.

I didn't actually believe that, but since she is pretty much falling on her sword here maybe it is true.

She could run in 2016 and this would be long gone from the issue log. Hell, voters can't remember what Romney said 2 hours ago, so they'll never remember this in four years.


Quite true.
 
2012-10-16 12:22:24 AM  

cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.


Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.
 
2012-10-16 12:24:44 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.

Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.


If Captain Kirk was real he would give you a mighty fine ass woppin' over a remark like that.

You are responsible for the actions of your crew. Thats how it is and that is how it will always be.

Obama takes responsibility for allowing Clinton to slip. It is his job to make sure she is doing her job.
 
2012-10-16 12:26:50 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.


You have to admit this is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility from Obama in a hotly contested election. Whether or not he had any knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi -- and I personally doubt he did -- he is getting hammered on this issue at a time when his presidency is hanging by a thread.

It is the very definition of falling on your sword.
 
2012-10-16 12:27:01 AM  

Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?


So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.
 
2012-10-16 12:30:00 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished


That's because those responsible for CO discipline will factor in the distance between the CO and the error.

Whose fault is it that the mechanic didn't tighten the bolt enough? It depends. If it wasn't in the training, then you blame the traininer. If it was in the training, but not the manual, then you blame manual writers. Did the Lt in charge of bolt tightening issue potentially contravening order? Then it's the LT's fault. Did the CO give the orders leading to the LT's orders? Finally, it might be the CO's fault,
 
2012-10-16 12:30:20 AM  

propasaurus: CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?

Yup. In 2013.
According to her schedule.


Yeah, that's not really falling on any sort of sword. They might as well point to Jimmy the page in the corner and say he farked it up. In my imagination, they don't tell him they're going to blame him ahead of time and all the cameras in the press conference suddenly swing to him. Of course, he'd actually pose his position rather than being allowed to keep on until he decided to quit.
 
2012-10-16 12:30:40 AM  
I'd actually be surprised if Clinton had any specific knowledge of how imminent the problem was. She's been a highly competent secretary of state.
 
2012-10-16 12:30:56 AM  

quickdraw: So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.


Your handle. So appropriate. Try reading the thread, friend-o.
 
2012-10-16 12:32:48 AM  

gilgigamesh: It is the very definition of falling on your sword.


How is taking responsibility for what happens in the organization of which you are responsible "falling on your sword"?
 
2012-10-16 12:34:48 AM  

quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.


Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.
 
2012-10-16 12:35:23 AM  

Babwa Wawa: fusillade762: To be fair, for conservatives acknowledging reality can be fatal.

tha f*ck are you talking about?

the point of my post is that this is how it works. Clinton didn't "fall on her sword". She took responsibility for what is her responsibility. And if Obama is running some butf*cked State Dept, then he'll be held responsible. People will judge for themselves, and clearly most people don't think that this was something Obama should have foreseen.


Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you. It was a clumsy attempt at equating stating the obvious with something dangerous.


cman: fusillade762: cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

But I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business? Now I'm all confused...

If you are implying that I have ever said something to that effect I would like for you to refresh my memory


Not saying YOU ever said that, it's just a popular conservative refrain.
 
2012-10-16 12:35:27 AM  

gilgigamesh: he is getting hammered on this issue at a time when his presidency is hanging by a thread.


Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

The reality is employment is up, Obamacare is kicking in, and even housing prices have stabilized. Meanwhile the GOP decided to pander to FOX viewers while alienating women, people of color, college students.....

On top of that is the sad fact that Romney is about as compelling a speaker as Al Gore was when he was running for Pres... I really wish somebody would take Obama to task on his shortcomings but apparently that job is left to us libby lib libs.
 
2012-10-16 12:36:26 AM  

Babwa Wawa: gilgigamesh: It is the very definition of falling on your sword.

How is taking responsibility for what happens in the organization of which you are responsible "falling on your sword"?


I'd assume if you don't actually face any consequences we've already changed the definition enough. Let's not try to put too fine a point on it now.
 
2012-10-16 12:38:35 AM  

Babwa Wawa: quickdraw: So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

Your handle. So appropriate. Try reading the thread, friend-o.


"friend-o?" Were you trying to call me Frodo or something?
 
2012-10-16 12:40:07 AM  

Babwa Wawa: gilgigamesh: It is the very definition of falling on your sword.

How is taking responsibility for what happens in the organization of which you are responsible "falling on your sword"?


As I explained, its her reasons for doing it at this point. Obama is in political trouble, and she is providing him cover because he is vulnerable on this issue right now.

The administration has not handled this issue well, at least the aftermath. Ambassadors get killed. It's a dangerous job, and it happens. That is not anyone's fault.

But for some reason they tried to play down the fact that this was a terrorist attack with the bizarre cover story of a protest gone awry, and they have been paying the price for that.

That is why Clinton is doing this. And that is why I say she is falling on her sword.
 
2012-10-16 12:45:47 AM  

quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.


No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.
 
2012-10-16 12:47:11 AM  

cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.


Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.
 
2012-10-16 12:52:40 AM  
It's been reported that the attacks may involve or even been led by Sufyan bin Qumu who spent 5 years in Gitmo and was let out. LINK Guy was allegedly Bin Laden's personal driver. So my question is, how does a guy like that get out of Gitmo? Possible answer - Agree to double-agent? The intelligence services may be hip deep in this thing, but I doubt we'll ever know.
 
2012-10-16 12:54:02 AM  

gilgigamesh: quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.


Hunh - I'm just really not seeing this as a major issue. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a problem. I know plenty of people who are unhappy with Obama but everyone seems to agree that tragedies happen sometimes and that blame in this case rests squarely on the people who perpetrated the violence and no one else.

I suppose people who already weren't planning to vote for Obama can add this to their list of grievances but its hard to take those people seriously since they also spend a lot of time ranting about birth certificates and secret muslims.
 
2012-10-16 12:55:25 AM  

Triumph: It's been reported


citation?
 
2012-10-16 12:58:31 AM  

quickdraw: cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.


I ain't putting all of the blame at the Obama admin feet. There were people on the ground who did not do their job properly. Funding or no a diplomat was killed because of shiatty planning. As for the funding question, I really don't think that adding one or two more tote security detail would have made a difference in this instance. Manpower is only one part of the battlefield. If you don't have a good battle plan, you are gonna get your ass kicked. Google Boudica to see what I mean
 
2012-10-16 12:58:39 AM  

quickdraw: gilgigamesh: quickdraw: Only if you pay attention to the networks who need to make this seem like a close race so they can sell ad space.

No, this was a genuine farkup. Probably not the attack itself, but the aftermath has been grossly mishandled. The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.

If they had just owned up that this was a terrorist attack we probably wouldn't still be talking about this. Its the age old adage that what kills you isn't the initial offense, its the cover-up.

Hunh - I'm just really not seeing this as a major issue. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a problem. I know plenty of people who are unhappy with Obama but everyone seems to agree that tragedies happen sometimes and that blame in this case rests squarely on the people who perpetrated the violence and no one else.

I suppose people who already weren't planning to vote for Obama can add this to their list of grievances but its hard to take those people seriously since they also spend a lot of time ranting about birth certificates and secret muslims.


Well, you need to look past your personal experience. The proof is in the pudding: why else would Clinton need to come out several weeks after this incident and proclaim responsibility if the administration wasn't taking heat for it?
 
2012-10-16 12:59:31 AM  
"The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-16 12:59:45 AM  

cman: quickdraw: cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.

I ain't putting all of the blame at the Obama admin feet. There were people on the ground who did not do their job properly. Funding or no a diplomat was killed because of sh ...


To the, not tote. Auttocorrect fail
 
2012-10-16 01:02:50 AM  

quickdraw: Triumph: It's been reported

citation?


Go back and re-read the post -what part of "LINK" don't you understand?
 
2012-10-16 01:37:18 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?


Obama certainly knew very quickly that the entire incident in Libya was the result of a spontaneous protest to a vid on youtube, so he was briefed.

And the assholes kept on lying about that for over 2 weeks.

So where does that all fit into your org chart?
 
2012-10-16 02:02:28 AM  
The Obamas already owed the Clintons much. Now this.
 
2012-10-16 04:59:43 AM  
Fools! This is all part of a diabolical Clinton plot. Yes........yes, I can see it clearly in my mind now. The Clinton cabal headed by James Carville has somehow determined that Obama will not win the reelection. Romney takes office and the economy sails off the cliff. The United States becomes mired in another deep recession and the people will wail and gnash their teeth.

From off in the distance trumpets cry. On the horizon, emerging from the mist, sun at her back, spear clenched in her fist comes the reborn Brünnhilde, er....Hillary. She who has admitted her errors. She who placed the yoke of failure upon herself in order to shield a doomed administration. She who should have rightly been elected in 2008 will now ascend to the throne. It will be the second coming of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. The masses will cry and be swooned. She will serve eight years. Her administration will survive the scandal surrounding Bill's death from asphyxiation after he and Monica reunited and she tried to queen him one night in the Lincoln bedroom. Sometime during her reign the dollar will have finished its death spiral. The debt will be monatorized. The citizens will all be given a "living wage". There shall be free healthcare for all. There will be new deals and old deals. Levitating magnetic trains will crisscross the country. The ocean currents will have been harnessed for energy. The Philadelphia Eagles will have won back to back super bowls.

Then......one day, after we are all dead and gone, the history will be written. Somewhere in DC a plot of land will be picked out. Arguments will commence, plans drawn......only to be ripped to shreds and discarded, the process repeated dozens of times. Until the fateful day when the design of the Clinton Memorial will be agreed upon. And there, future generations of Americans will flock, humbly, silently, seeking counsel. They will gaze upon the alabaster face of Hillary Clinton. The practiced determined gaze
forever set in stone, with no presence of Bill to disturb the cathedral like atmosphere. She will be remembered by the ages. Our first female president.
 
2012-10-16 05:01:34 AM  

Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?


So if a marine rapes a child, the POTUS is responsible?
 
2012-10-16 05:03:51 AM  
So, who fell on Bush's sword after 9/11?

/I don't blame Obama for Benghazi or Bush for 9/11 because I'm not an idiot.
//But, as a certain Mormon presidential candidate says, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
2012-10-16 05:10:16 AM  
Taking responsibility != Falling on a sword.

I refuse to let the RW media make this into something it's not.

I can certainly understand why some are having problems with the concept. 

Anyone who supported Bush after 9/11 who thinks Hills should resign or whatever over this should prolly just punch themselves in the face until they achieve a state of bloody unconsciousness.
 
2012-10-16 05:10:25 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


She'll be the next POTUS.

You fail upwards in Gov.
 
2012-10-16 05:13:53 AM  
Well, good on her. I mean, at least Eric Holder wasn't in charge of the State Department or our people would have been killed by guns that he sold them. At least Obama has that going for him.
 
2012-10-16 05:19:37 AM  

WaffleStomper: Well, good on her. I mean, at least Eric Holder wasn't in charge of the State Department or our people would have been killed by guns that he sold them. At least Obama has that going for him.


Yeah. He had nothing to do with handing Libya to the Taliban.
 
2012-10-16 05:22:50 AM  
It is appropriate for Hilary to feel like she's the one that farked this up. It's not appropriate for Obama to feel like he farked it up, because he has Hilary. Hilary Clinton, who wanted to be president, was supposed to be handling this shiat and something she didn't know about slipped past her. I don't see it really as her fault, either, but more hers than Obama's, i guess, on job duties.
 
2012-10-16 05:34:36 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


I'm not going to defend Mrs. Clinton... if it turns out she was negligent in her duties she should be held responsible. It's just funny to see those who cheered the invasion of Iraq clamoring for someone to be held responsible for a foreign policy screw up. Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are still free citizens. How come your "hold people responsible for their actions" policy - which I support, by the way - doesn't apply to Republicans?
 
2012-10-16 05:37:57 AM  

Somacandra: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed.

It also might have helped if the Benghazi post had actually requisitioned for more security. The recent hearings have made it clear that all the requests from Libya were for Tripoli, on the other side of the country,


Benghazi, Tripoli...same country, right?

/LA, New York...same country, right?
 
2012-10-16 05:38:55 AM  
It's called taking responsibility, Subbo.
 
2012-10-16 05:50:40 AM  
You know who else fell on the President's sword?

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-10-16 05:53:29 AM  
This is what's known as the "Janet Reno move". Get someone killed. Take "full responsibility". Nothing.
 
2012-10-16 06:02:08 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.



Bears repeating. I guess when it happens then its a tragic mistake (especially a Republican president). When it happens to Obama? Hang the bastard.
 
2012-10-16 06:18:06 AM  

Old enough to know better: Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.

Bears repeating. I guess when it happens then its a tragic mistake (especially a Republican president). When it happens to Obama? Hang the bastard.


The fact that the GOP don't actually give a flying fark about the death of Ambassador Stevens or any of the others was made manifest in one smirky "Nailed it" moment with Romney.

Their concern on display here is duly noted.
 
2012-10-16 06:25:41 AM  

spamdog: You know who else fell on the President's sword?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 240x320]


I came looking for the mental image I did not need.

/Leaving... somewhat nauseous,
 
2012-10-16 06:31:56 AM  
Obama is responsible when the coffee maker at the social security office in Cheyenne breaks down for a week. WHER COFFEE 0BAMA WHE
 
2012-10-16 06:41:14 AM  

indylaw: Obama is responsible when the coffee maker at the social security office in Cheyenne breaks down for a week. WHER COFFEE 0BAMA WHE


Don't be silly. Bootstrappy Red States don't have Social Security offices because they don't need the government teat to get by, and even if they did have a Social Security office it wouldn't give out free coffee.
 
2012-10-16 06:43:03 AM  

MeinRS6: Obama certainly knew very quickly that the entire incident in Libya was the result of a spontaneous protest to a vid on youtube, so he was briefed.

And the assholes kept on lying about that for over 2 weeks.


From Obama's speech on 9/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Yeah, he was really running away from classifying the attack as a terror attack.

September 18th:

"Here's what happened," Obama told David Letterman. "We had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character - an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya"

Extremists and terrorists used it as "an excuse," not as a direct cause.

Rice characterized the attack at Benghazi soon after it happened as appearing to be a demonstration followed by an attack. As Glenn Beck's The Blaze quotes her (under, of course, an extremely misleading headline but one that was typical of all media sources, including ABC):

"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to - or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo," Rice said. "And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons... And it then evolved from there."

They were also kind enough to include her Meet the Press interview in which she prefaces the above with statements that the FBI is investigating and that her comments are not in any way intended to be the final word.

Get it? The administration, from the beginning, had been acknowledging that there were protests throughout the region at the time and have made efforts to stem some of the anger by pointing out that the video was not endorsed by American officials. They have ALSO said that we value free speech and that's why a video like that can exist without US government endorsement. That's for the region as a whole because they're killing EACH OTHER over this. In addition, they have been saying that the attackers at the consulate were NOT part of the protests and, at best, used the protests as an excuse and, it initially appeared, as cover and confusion for the actual attack.

But that's too much for a soundbite, I guess. Better to just run with the "Obama said Christopher Stevens died and youtube killed him" narrative.
 
2012-10-16 06:50:00 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


No, she'll remove herself. Then she'll start working on her 2016 run for the White House.
 
2012-10-16 06:51:49 AM  
I'm glad the standards are increasing.

First bush lost 3000+ people on 9/11, and then he was quickly fired.

Now you can fire Obama for losing 4

The next president will be fired if anyone dies in America.

Soon no one will ever die, and I think we can all agree that's pretty sweet.
 
2012-10-16 06:55:07 AM  
It's nearly impossible to fortify an area in a foreign country, and expect to have adequate on going intelligence in so many locations. If locals are determined to uproot you they will find a way. That being we should do what we can with security, but this attack has been over politicized due to the election in my view.
 
2012-10-16 06:58:09 AM  
the libyan people's response to the militias following the attack is worthy of note.

would be good if there was discussion of improving the kurdish people's situation tonight, too
 
2012-10-16 07:09:19 AM  

Somacandra: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if State Dept. internal comm. was better, such that their requests for long term help were properly routed.

It also might have helped if the Benghazi post had actually requisitioned for more security. The recent hearings have made it clear that all the requests from Libya were for Tripoli, on the other side of the country,


Also, you know what also happened at the same time as the Benghazi attack? The attack on Bastion in Afghanistan. If the boatload of Marines at Bastion didn't prevent a four farking hour firefight inside the base, then I'm really curious how having more Marines in Benghazi would have prevented a mortar strike. Does the GOP think that the Marines would have caught the mortars and thrown them back?

/Actually, they probably do.
 
2012-10-16 07:24:37 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: So, who fell on Bush's sword after 9/11?

/I don't blame Obama for Benghazi or Bush for 9/11 because I'm not an idiot.
//But, as a certain Mormon presidential candidate says, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


When did Bush ever in any way even remotely claim responsibility for 9/11?

He didn't have someone fall on the sword for him, he chucked the damned sword at Clinton.
 
2012-10-16 07:28:08 AM  

cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain


Yes! You hold the captain responsible. How about the Admiral back in the US? How about his boss at the Petagon? Or His boss in the White House? Yeah, didn't think so.

Private industry is different though. When someone dies after a worker goes crazy and shoots up one of the mega corps locations, of course the CEO resigns. Because even though increased security was never requested and the CEO is not a security expert, he is responsible. Amiright?

Romney surges and all the GOP can do is harp on this? Maybe he's still more behind than we think.
 
2012-10-16 07:29:08 AM  
Issa will never lay a glove on Obama.
 
2012-10-16 07:32:39 AM  

Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?


It worked really well for GW when the WTC was attacked on his watch. His approval skyrocketed.
 
2012-10-16 07:38:56 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: So, who fell on Bush's sword after 9/11?


Bush stabbed Bill Clinton with it.
 
2012-10-16 07:39:08 AM  

ryarger: When did Bush ever in any way even remotely claim responsibility for 9/11? He didn't have someone fall on the sword for him, he chucked the damned sword at Clinton.


... Erm, yes, that was my point. I was being snarky; this is Fark, after all. :P
 
2012-10-16 07:40:23 AM  

cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.


One of those things is not like the other.
 
2012-10-16 07:47:52 AM  
You know who is really ultimately responsible for the safety of the consulate?

Jesus.

And I want to know what he plans to do about this. Why doesn't he make bad things stop happening?

Way to drop the ball Jesus, we were all counting on you. 

/See if I vote for him again.
//The Great Electron. 2016
 
2012-10-16 07:49:20 AM  

The Why Not Guy: CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?

I'm not going to defend Mrs. Clinton... if it turns out she was negligent in her duties she should be held responsible. It's just funny to see those who cheered the invasion of Iraq clamoring for someone to be held responsible for a foreign policy screw up. Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are still free citizens. How come your "hold people responsible for their actions" policy - which I support, by the way - doesn't apply to Republicans?


because 9/11
 
2012-10-16 08:01:59 AM  
Hillary should resign and take a few of the people she feels are also responsible with her. After all, if this was a republican administration that is what the democrats would be demanding. Hillary's life in politics should be over.

Now who is responsible for making up the "Its all started because of a Youtube video" story and sending Ambassador Rice out to the Sunday talk shows? Libya was never that, we now have sworn testimony along with live audio and video showing it was never that. Who is responsible for trying to cover up this act of terrorism and the security blunder that left Americans vulnerable that Hillary is falling on her sword over? It came from the White House people, no Ambassador gets sent out to do 5 Sunday shows on the same day without an approved or written script from the current administration, doesn't happen.
This is a cover up we all know it. It was a blatant lie told to the American people, repeated at the UN and still no real journalist is asking the right questions.. or maybe they aren't being allowed to. Maybe tonight.
 
2012-10-16 08:07:30 AM  
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-16 08:08:29 AM  
Hey, let's use the death of Americans in Libya for political gain! After all, there's a black man in the White House!
/sick of this shiat
 
2012-10-16 08:11:25 AM  
All you right-leaning folk, did you call on Bush to take responsibility when the Abu Ghraib tortures and beatings were made public? Didn't think so; everyone said "Oh it's just some misguided, overzealous soldiers", a couple of higher ups got in trouble in the Army, but no one in Bush's Cabinet got touched.

Clinton took responsibility for the lack of security; it probably didn't even make it to her desk for that matter. Someone below her probably made the initial call on security amounts, and they were for Tripoli anyway.

/Conservatives have to have their stalking horses though 
//Clinton only "fell on her sword" if she offered to resign, btw
 
2012-10-16 08:16:28 AM  

Bendal: All you right-leaning folk, did you call on Bush to take responsibility when the Abu Ghraib tortures and beatings were made public?


Did Bush make up a story and send out an Ambassador to repeat the made up story? Did Bush go to the UN and tell the made up story?
 
2012-10-16 08:18:46 AM  
Funny how the people voting to cut budgets for things like embassy security are the most vociferous in calling for heads to roll over the embassy attacks in Libya...
 
2012-10-16 08:19:39 AM  

Tyee: Did Bush go to the UN and tell the made up story?


No, he had Colin Powell do that for him a short while after...
 
2012-10-16 08:20:36 AM  

Tyee: Bendal: All you right-leaning folk, did you call on Bush to take responsibility when the Abu Ghraib tortures and beatings were made public?

Did Bush make up a story and send out an Ambassador to repeat the made up story? Did Bush go to the UN and tell the made up story?


About Iraq? Bush made up a LOT of stories about Iraq, actually....
 
2012-10-16 08:25:05 AM  
Meanwhile in the Freeperverse Hillary is planning to stab Obama in the back...
 
2012-10-16 08:25:13 AM  
Babwa Wawa: Did the CO give the orders leading to the LT's orders? Finally, it might be the CO's fault,

mimg.ugo.com

Kendrick ordered the code red, didn't he? Because that's what you told Kendrick to do.


badatsports.com
 
2012-10-16 08:27:41 AM  
When she goes to jail to protect Obama, she'll know how Webster Hubbell felt.
 
2012-10-16 08:28:33 AM  
yep, nothing is ever Obama's responsibility.
 
2012-10-16 08:29:23 AM  
There was nothing requested by, or denied to, the Libyan consulate and embassy staff that would have prevented or mitigated what happened at the Benghazi consulate. Absolutely, positively, nothing.

It is quite possible that there were legitimate reasons not to play up the terror attack angle, probably because Libya was using the time in question to actually round up and arrest at least 50 people involved in the attack, and broadcasting that this was a planned terror attack and they were looking for a terror cell and not a spontaneous demonstration and they were looking for demonstrators would hamper those efforts.

Finally, for a planned attack, we should be eternally grateful that the number of American casualties was so low. Our security is apparently so sound throughout the world, that, after all the demonstrations and attacks on 9/11/12, no one has been able to pull off a terror attack of the magnitude of Khobar Towers, The African Embassy bombings, The 9/11/01 attacks, or the Islamabad Marriot Attack. Even the U.S.S. Cole bombing killed 17 American sailors. It's an unfortunate fact of life that we have to deal with terror. And, since 2009, we've been quite successful in mitigating its worst aspects.
 
2012-10-16 08:29:48 AM  
"We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.

"However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he
bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

"Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did."--Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte.
 
2012-10-16 08:32:33 AM  
Since this is reality there will be an investigation and those actually responsible for the fark-up (if indeed there was a fark-up) will be quietly shown the door.  
 
Hillary won't resign or be fired and anyone asking for that is trying to make political points for the election and has no interest in the actual work of the Secretary of State.
 
2012-10-16 08:33:29 AM  

keylock71: Funny how the people voting to cut budgets for things like embassy security are the most vociferous in calling for heads to roll over the embassy attacks in Libya...


You know, if the made up cover up story would have worked you wouldn't be talking about budget cuts to embassies. But ask yourself this; why does the embassy near great shopping in safe old Paris, the french Paris that isn't in the dangerous mid east and hasn't just had a violent revolution in country, why does it have so much security compared to Libya?
Why aren't you asking that?
 
2012-10-16 08:33:51 AM  
3 statisticals:

1. The extra security the embassy requested would not have prevented an attack of this scale
2. Republicans voted down additional funding for embassy security
3. Move on to the next scandal.
 
2012-10-16 08:34:02 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-16 08:34:02 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.


QFT.

And Reagan's men were killed with the arms we funneled to them.
 
2012-10-16 08:36:03 AM  

Whodat: yep, nothing is ever Obama's responsibility.


shiat happens. Dems take responsibility and work to fix any problems.

shiat happens. GOP deny any problem or responsibility.

The "nothing is ever Obama's fault" argument is never made by anyone on the left it is a projection by the right to try to cover up for their patently ridiculous "everything Obama does is wrong" narrative.

Does that help?
 
2012-10-16 08:38:04 AM  
I knew as soon as I saw this on the news that the derping point from our right-wing friendsmorons was going to be "OMG Obamalamafartdongomabingbongmabango is throwing the Secretary of State under the bus for failures at the Department of State!"

But, then, I'll care what these idiots think about this issue when they stop falling all over themselves to rhetorically beat-off Paul Ryan, a man who voted to cut $1.2 billion in State dept. funding which included money for several hundred security positions.

Not to say the administration doesn't share some blame in this failure, but it's that whole stones and glass houses and what-not, you know....
 
2012-10-16 08:41:32 AM  
Issa's ridiculous public hearings revealed that the consulate was a CIA black site. The State Dept.had to consult with the CIA on security arrangements, and the CIA would not have wanted a huge show of force, because it would have attracted attention. The Republicans are keeping this story in the news, because the Democrats can't use classified information to defend themselves, even though the Republicans already leaked that information through sheer incompetence.

But yeah, both sides are the same, right?
 
2012-10-16 08:44:12 AM  
How is this a failure, btw?

Yes, people were killed.

Dozens of armed men attacked a compound with significant firepower.

There is no perfect security in this world there are only hardened targets.

Show me a PDB saying "AQ terrorists determined to strike in Bengazi" or STFU.
 
2012-10-16 08:45:27 AM  

CPennypacker: 3. Move on to the next scandal.


OK.
Why did the White House make up a story about a video and send an Ambassador out to all the Sunday morning talk shows (five of them)? Why did the President go to the UN and tell that fake made up story?
We all now know that some video had nothing to do with the attack, US intelligence has known that all along, it was a terrorist planned attack! Why did the white house start that cover up? Why did the white house want the world to think it was a matter of free speech gone too far?.
 
2012-10-16 08:45:50 AM  

Felgraf: Tyee: Bendal: All you right-leaning folk, did you call on Bush to take responsibility when the Abu Ghraib tortures and beatings were made public?

Did Bush make up a story and send out an Ambassador to repeat the made up story? Did Bush go to the UN and tell the made up story?

About Iraq? Bush made up a LOT of stories about Iraq, actually....


That's the joke. I think.
 
2012-10-16 08:47:09 AM  

quatchi: shiat happens. GOP deny any problem or responsibility.


Since when has the GOP owned any failures? It's never their fault. The vanguard of investigative journalism, Katie farking Couric was responsible for making Palin look like the the dumb twat she is. Polls are skewed, except when they favor Romney. Biden delivers a beatdown? 20 YEAR AGO HE ATTENDED WEDDING, or some sh*t.

I swear, I've never seen such a large group of weeping p*ssies. Yes, you're all a bunch of sissies. You make me want to vomit.
 
2012-10-16 08:47:54 AM  

gilgigamesh: The administration got it stuck in their heads that they couldn't afford the political fallout of a terrorist attack on 9-11 in an election year, and so they tried to pass off the bizarre fiction of a protest that went south. There was no way they could keep that lie alive, and they should have known it.


You do know that this isn't actually true, right? There wasn't a "Bizarre fiction," it just turned out that Obama isn't psychic (despite what everybody seems to require from him) and they had to investigate before they could say for sure. Sure, he jumped the gun in announcing that it wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
 
2012-10-16 08:48:02 AM  

cman: Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.


Well then I assume you were calling for George W. Bush's resignation from September 2001 until the end of his term, right?
 
2012-10-16 08:48:24 AM  
Democrats are such spineless dumbasses, this issue is all manufactured outrage from fox news and the derper legion. Instead of calling them out for politicizing and cheering for the deaths of Americans and shaming them democrats play into it like the wimps they are and legitimize it as something people should be concerned about.
 
2012-10-16 08:49:45 AM  

quatchi: How is this a failure, btw?

Yes, people were killed.

Dozens of armed men attacked a compound with significant firepower.

There is no perfect security in this world there are only hardened targets.

Show me a PDB saying "AQ terrorists determined to strike in Bengazi" or STFU.


Exactly. It's something bad that happened while Obama happened to be in office. That's literally the only connection based on all the information available thus far. If Obama is somehow "responsible" for this, then you might as well be blaming him for the Aurora massacre and Giffords shooting too.
 
2012-10-16 08:52:15 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.


None of them blamed the attacks on a video. None of them through the intelligence community under the bus when administration excuses write revealed as lies. None spent more energy deflecting blame than they did investigating.
 
2012-10-16 08:53:55 AM  

cman: Obama takes responsibility for allowing Clinton to slip. It is his job to make sure she is doing her job.


You can't be farking serious.
 
2012-10-16 08:54:18 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


I bet thats what she wants to happen I bet she hates her job.

It's a shame Obama can't man up to it he lets Hilary take the fall.
 
2012-10-16 08:54:34 AM  

Tyee: CPennypacker: 3. Move on to the next scandal.

OK.
Why did the White House make up a story about a video and send an Ambassador out to all the Sunday morning talk shows (five of them)? Why did the President go to the UN and tell that fake made up story?
We all now know that some video had nothing to do with the attack, US intelligence has known that all along, it was a terrorist planned attack! Why did the white house start that cover up? Why did the white house want the world to think it was a matter of free speech gone too far?.


Why do you think they would make that up. Seriously, what would they have to gain? If they really knew it was a terrorist attack why would they lie, and not just get on the stage and say "This was a terrorist attack and we will find those responsible and bring them to justice?" It can't be a cover up, because there is nothing to gain from a cover up. Can't say they were avoiding the appearance of not properly securing the embassy, because it looks like that anyway. In fact it looks worse that they couldn't protect is from a bunch of protesters. At least the terrorists are somewhat organized.

Seriously, please tell me, in your warped worldview, what possible reason they could have had for making up a story like this?
 
2012-10-16 08:54:53 AM  

GentlemanJ: -Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte.




You want to know what really pisses me off? The 9/11 Commission to investigate the causes of the 9/11 World Trade Center bombing and gave a number of recommendations to improve security. It passed 60 to 38, with two people not voting. Let's look at the people who wanted to improve security based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and those that didn't:

110th Congress - 1st Session Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 4 As Amended )
March 13, 2007, 05:11 PM
Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 4 (Improving America's Security Act of 2007 )
Measure Title: A bill to make the United States more secure by implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to improve homeland security, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:

YEAs 60
NAYs 38
Not Voting 2

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---60

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---38

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)

Oh, wait, where's John McCain?


Not Voting - 2

Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)

So, screw you guys. Right in the ear.
 
2012-10-16 08:57:42 AM  

dickfreckle: quatchi: shiat happens. GOP deny any problem or responsibility.

Since when has the GOP owned any failures? It's never their fault. The vanguard of investigative journalism, Katie farking Couric was responsible for making Palin look like the the dumb twat she is. Polls are skewed, except when they favor Romney. Biden delivers a beatdown? 20 YEAR AGO HE ATTENDED WEDDING, or some sh*t.

I swear, I've never seen such a large group of weeping p*ssies. Yes, you're all a bunch of sissies. You make me want to vomit.


Remember this classic gem from 2004?...

QUESTION: Sir, you've shown a remarkable spirit of candor in the last couple of weeks in your conversations, speeches about Iraq. And I'm wondering if, in that spirit, I might ask you a question that you didn't seem to have an answer for the last time you were asked.
And that is: What would you say is the biggest mistake you've made during your presidency, and what have you learned from it?
BUSH: Answering Dickerson's question. [Laughter]
The last time those questions were asked, I really felt like it was an attempt for me to say it was a mistake to go into Iraq.
And it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. It was the right decision to make.


Good times, good times.
 
2012-10-16 08:58:08 AM  

Babwa Wawa: gilgigamesh: It is the very definition of falling on your sword.

How is taking responsibility for what happens in the organization of which you are responsible "falling on your sword"?


I don't think liberals get it. The cover-up is worse than the lapse. The administration spent 2 weeks attempting to blame a video. The heart of attacks is due to that. Clinton helped propagate that myth, but Obama dId too. Hillary might be blamed for requested security lapse, but the administration is blamed for deflecting to a video fir apparent campaign reasons.
 
2012-10-16 08:59:06 AM  
Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Here's the difference: in Benghazi, Obama is the figurehead. With Bin Laden, he is actually the decision-maker.

Not saying I disagree with your larger point, but the two events are not the same.
 
2012-10-16 08:59:36 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: There wasn't a "Bizarre fiction," it just turned out that Obama isn't psychic (despite what everybody seems to require from him) and they had to investigate before they could say for sure. Sure, he jumped the gun in announcing that it wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.


OH B/S!
The State Dept testified that they had a live video and audio feed during the terrorist attack and they knew all along there was no protest period.
They deflected and made up a story. They demonized, and even had an American arrested like he was to blame. Before this video lie unraveled the white house even inferred that a tenant of American values, "freedom of speech" was the real problem rather than a planned terrorist attack!
 
2012-10-16 09:00:24 AM  

MyRandomName: The cover-up is worse than the lapse.


considering it is a complete fiction created for outrage you'd hope they dreamed up something that would make derpers angry angrier.
 
2012-10-16 09:01:37 AM  

MyRandomName: Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.

None of them blamed the attacks on a video. None of them through the intelligence community under the bus when administration excuses write revealed as lies. None spent more energy deflecting blame than they did investigating.


Remember after 9/11 (yeah, that one) when we invaded Iraq? Yeah, good times. Good times.
 
2012-10-16 09:01:44 AM  

Tyee: CPennypacker: 3. Move on to the next scandal.

OK.
Why did the White House make up a story about a video and send an Ambassador out to all the Sunday morning talk shows (five of them)? Why did the President go to the UN and tell that fake made up story?
We all now know that some video had nothing to do with the attack, US intelligence has known that all along, it was a terrorist planned attack! Why did the white house start that cover up? Why did the white house want the world to think it was a matter of free speech gone too far?.


Because the Libyans wanted us to hide the fact that they were on the hunt for the terror cell involved, and broadcasting that we knew there was a terror cell involved would have made it more difficult for the Libyans to hunt them down. The cover story was to throw the terrorists off, make them think we were only looking for a couple of rowdy protestors. And it worked. Libya has already arrested 50+ terrorists involved in the attack. Stop second-guessing when tactics work. Unless you want terrorists to escape. Do you also want the government to tell you what terror cells we have under supervision and when we plan to attack them as well? Would you like to know when D-Day is? Loose lips sink ships, bub.
 
2012-10-16 09:02:36 AM  

Triumph: It's been reported that the attacks may involve or even been led by Sufyan bin Qumu who spent 5 years in Gitmo and was let out. LINK Guy was allegedly Bin Laden's personal driver. So my question is, how does a guy like that get out of Gitmo? Possible answer - Agree to double-agent? The intelligence services may be hip deep in this thing, but I doubt we'll ever know.


Faux News, folks - don't bother.
 
2012-10-16 09:03:40 AM  

TIKIMAN87: It's a shame Obama can't man up to it he lets Hilary take the fall.


The fall for what?

What did Clinton or Obama specifically do wrong in your muddled, insane opinion? 

Getting rather tired of hearing Rtards cry out for firings/impeachments all the time when they spent 8 plus years defending war criminals.

/Not as tired as I am of the Dems falling for the trick, of course. 
 
2012-10-16 09:03:53 AM  

MyRandomName: None of them through the intelligence community under the bus when administration excuses write revealed as lies.


Could you type this again in English?
 
2012-10-16 09:04:04 AM  

cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain


Ahhh... so now you agree that Obama should get credit for Bin Laden then?
 
2012-10-16 09:06:37 AM  

MeinRS6: ...


Gah, I thought you were farking gone. Go back wherever you were tats.
 
2012-10-16 09:07:06 AM  

MyRandomName: Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.

None of them blamed the attacks on a video. None of them through the intelligence community under the bus when administration excuses write revealed as lies. None spent more energy deflecting blame than they did investigating.


I hope you know that nobody actually cares. Whatever happened to running on the economy, btw?

Seriously though. Outside of this little circle of friends we call the internet, people are more interested in that little girl who went missing on her way to school and now they are looking for the murderer.

The biggest advantage Romney has in this election is that farking Halo4 comes out on Nov. 6th. That's how little the GOP has left in its arsenal these days.
 
2012-10-16 09:09:28 AM  

RyogaM: Loose lips sink ships, bub.


And based on the Plame thing and them outing the CIA base the last people you want to tell would be republicans.
 
2012-10-16 09:09:51 AM  
Albright never took responsibility for the Kenya .. Tanzania bombings.
 
2012-10-16 09:10:56 AM  

Tyee: Fluorescent Testicle: There wasn't a "Bizarre fiction," it just turned out that Obama isn't psychic (despite what everybody seems to require from him) and they had to investigate before they could say for sure. Sure, he jumped the gun in announcing that it wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

OH B/S!
The State Dept testified that they had a live video and audio feed during the terrorist attack and they knew all along there was no protest period.
They deflected and made up a story. They demonized, and even had an American arrested like he was to blame. Before this video lie unraveled the white house even inferred that a tenant of American values, "freedom of speech" was the real problem rather than a planned terrorist attack!


"Other government agency," or "OGA," is a common euphemism in Washington for the CIA. This "other government agency," the lawmakers' questioning further revealed, was in possession of a video of the attack but wasn't releasing it because it was undergoing "an investigative process."

There is a video, but it belongs to the CIA. They're reviewing it and investigating internally. The administration cannot comment on it, so all they can say is that it's being investigated, and we'll get to the bottom of it. The Republicans are swinging away on Benghazi, because the administration can't defend itself without revealing classified information. This is yet another clear-cut case of Republicans putting party before country.
 
2012-10-16 09:12:07 AM  

Tyee: CPennypacker: 3. Move on to the next scandal.

OK.
Why did the White House make up a story about a video and send an Ambassador out to all the Sunday morning talk shows (five of them)? Why did the President go to the UN and tell that fake made up story?
We all now know that some video had nothing to do with the attack, US intelligence has known that all along, it was a terrorist planned attack! Why did the white house start that cover up? Why did the white house want the world to think it was a matter of free speech gone too far?.


citation, please.
 
2012-10-16 09:13:12 AM  

Tyee: even had an American arrested like he was to blame


You do know what he was arrested for, right?
 
2012-10-16 09:13:34 AM  

BalugaJoe: Albright never took responsibility for the Kenya .. Tanzania bombings.


I don't think she actually did those bombing so that's not a problem.
 
2012-10-16 09:13:35 AM  

quickdraw: cman: quickdraw: Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?

So... you think that the POTUS is omniscient and omnipresent? Because I just don't think Obama has those kinds of supernatural powers.

I dunno the whole thing seems pretty grasping. Like claiming that it was Bush's fault Cheney shot somebody in the face.

Let me put it in a different light.

In May 2011, Obama approved of a mission to kill Bin Laden. He signed the order authorizing troops to enter a country we were not at war with to take out a high value target. If Obama failed this could have been a SIGNIFICANT blow to his administration. He would have had to take all the flak for its failure. Since it was a success he can take it and put it in his win column. He didnt plan the raid. He didnt conduct the raid. All he did was approve the raid. For that he deserves credit.

Someone didn't do their job and an American diplomat was killed. Obama is the President of the United States. He is our figurehead. He is also responsible for ensuring the cabinet members can do their damn job. Obama shares both the glory and the defeat in instances like this.

Well that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it. Obama cant be all things to all people and he cant be everywhere at once. He did need to oversee the assassination of bin laden directly. And lets face it - it all could have gone wrong and then he would have had to take responsibility for that.

But you cant expect POTUS to personally attend to every detail. Micromanaging is not an effective strategy. And there is only so much he can do. If the GOPpers in Congress refuse to cut loose of the funds to increase security then POTUS can't just override that. You can't blame POTUS for budgetary decisions that congress made unless they voted they way he wanted them to.


What the fark are you talking about? Security funds are up 80% since 2009. Nobody who testified before congress said lack of funds played a role. Your talking point is just that. First a movie is blamed bow the attempt is to say lack of funds when at near historic funding rates?
 
2012-10-16 09:14:21 AM  

Headso: Democrats are such spineless dumbasses, this issue is all manufactured outrage from fox news and the derper legion. Instead of calling them out for politicizing and cheering for the deaths of Americans and shaming them democrats play into it like the wimps they are and legitimize it as something people should be concerned about.


See my previous post. Nobody cares. And the administration clearly knows that Benghazi isn't going to be a central issue in this election. There is no clear choice related to the incident, and that choice has been both campaigns' narratives for a while now (which is why Lehrer tried so hard for them to make that choice clear by asking for contrast).

So, options for the Obama Admin:
1. Say absolutely nothing. Let the GOP carry the narrative. It might get traction in the press, but probably with little impact.
2. Do as you say and challenge them on everything. Hand a narrative of irresponsibility to the "party of personal responsibility." THIS gets traction because it offers a "clear choice". 'the Obama admin refuses to take personal responsibility for its failures.' vs. 'A republican offers decisive leadership in a time when it's most critical. Vote for Mitt. Vote for integrity.'

or my favorite

3. Don't worry about the election. Allow an investigation. Take responsibility as an organization by attempt to minimize the personal impacts it has on individual members of the organization. Be sincere, but unapologetic. Don't. Politicize. This. You rob the GOP of *any* narrative and squash the story while still managing to do right by the victims of your possible negligence.
 
2012-10-16 09:14:45 AM  

CPennypacker: Seriously, please tell me, in your warped worldview, what possible reason they could have had for making up a story like this?


That is a very good question, but it is obvious that they did, think about it and speculate why they did it.

Possible answers include but are not limited to.
a. Obama now has a recent terrorist attack on American soil (an embassy) and he would have liked us all to believe he has Al Queda so decimated they are now ineffective. But now just weeks before the election...
that hurts.
b. Obama's foreign, mideast policy is now proven to be a weak, a failure and ineffective as because we have been attacked rather than a minor protest just got out of hand. Exposed to have a naive, weak, ineffective foreign policy weeks before an election could lead to a lose.
c. The timing of this attack was key to the cover up. Had this happened any other time than just before the national election you probably could have expected truth out of the white house, but they screwed this lie up and it will blow up now, just what they were trying to avoid.
 
2012-10-16 09:15:09 AM  
I knew this sounded familiar:
 
2012-10-16 09:15:42 AM  
Bush lied, 4000 Americans died, let's reelect him

4 Americans died, Obama should not be reelected

It's exactly the same.
 
2012-10-16 09:16:27 AM  
I knew this sounded familiar:

www.brunswick.k12.me.us

/FTFM
 
2012-10-16 09:18:42 AM  

Tyee: CPennypacker: Seriously, please tell me, in your warped worldview, what possible reason they could have had for making up a story like this?

That is a very good question, but it is obvious that they did, think about it and speculate why they did it.

Possible answers include but are not limited to.
a. Obama now has a recent terrorist attack on American soil (an embassy) and he would have liked us all to believe he has Al Queda so decimated they are now ineffective. But now just weeks before the election...
that hurts.
b. Obama's foreign, mideast policy is now proven to be a weak, a failure and ineffective as because we have been attacked rather than a minor protest just got out of hand. Exposed to have a naive, weak, ineffective foreign policy weeks before an election could lead to a lose.
c. The timing of this attack was key to the cover up. Had this happened any other time than just before the national election you probably could have expected truth out of the white house, but they screwed this lie up and it will blow up now, just what they were trying to avoid.


a. Again, how is this worse than not being able to handle a protest that got out of hand
b. Weak and ineffective even though he is basically, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist leader assassin compared to his predecessors
c. Again, its a screw up either wya, and probably worse if it was a protest

Stop trying to make scandals where there are none. Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and now this. Give it up and go back to the racist dog whistles, they work better.
 
2012-10-16 09:21:29 AM  

BalugaJoe: Albright never took responsibility for the Kenya .. Tanzania bombings.


And you know why?

The Republicans in Congress did not give a shiat about those attacks. At all. There's an interview with John McCain in Mother Jones magazine about one month after the bombings where he talks about the Clinton administrations response to the attack, which was to shoot missiles into terror camps in Afghanistan where OBL was supposed to be. Basically, he said, Osama? Who's that? No big deal. Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/8b6cusm

Just read it for yourself and understand what Clinton was dealing with in the late 1990s. No one took Osama seriously, at all. No one called for what should have been called for, an all out, balls to the wall, response to A.Q. That's why no one called for Albright's head. No one gave a damn about terror back then. It was all political.

Plus, dead Africans? Who gives a shiat. A little racism involved as well.
 
2012-10-16 09:23:15 AM  
c. The timing of this attack was key to the cover up. Had this happened any other time than just before the national election you probably could have expected truth out of the white house the political opposition


FTFY
 
2012-10-16 09:24:09 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Bush lied, 4000 Americans died, let's reelect him

4 Americans died, Obama should not be reelected

It's exactly the same.


Bush attacked Iraq - he is a war criminal

Obama attacked Libya - he is a hero who should be re-elected

sfbayview.com

/it's exactly the same
 
2012-10-16 09:26:01 AM  
So rather than the White House truthfully saying "we have a lot intelligence on this matter and we're investigating the attack, we can and will bring those responsible to justice". Instead they decided a better approach would be; American freedom of speech has gotten out of hand and this insignificant and unwatched video produced by someone nobody has ever heard of brought about the death of an American Ambassador and other citizens.

Is this second scenario what you want me/us to believe?
 
2012-10-16 09:27:35 AM  

quatchi: TIKIMAN87: It's a shame Obama can't man up to it he lets Hilary take the fall.

The fall for what?

What did Clinton or Obama specifically do wrong in your muddled, insane opinion? 

Getting rather tired of hearing Rtards cry out for firings/impeachments all the time when they spent 8 plus years defending war criminals.

/Not as tired as I am of the Dems falling for the trick, of course. 


Obama claimed several times and even at the UN it was the video that caused 4 deaths. It had nothing to do with the video.

Weather he lied about the video or actually thought it was the cause, blaming the terrorist attack on something before knowing tha facts is just incompetence.

He has jumped to wrong conclusions on many occasions.

Tryvon Martin
"The police acted stupidly" after they arrested the professor in Mass.
The army base shooting saying it was a "workplace shooting" when it was a terrorist attack
 
2012-10-16 09:27:47 AM  

Babwa Wawa: /Chain of Command. How does it work?


It was well phrased as a question, because you obviously have no idea.
 
2012-10-16 09:30:13 AM  
Yes it is Hillary's fault. It has been since day 1 and the President has acted to protect his senior officials up to this point. Handled poorly from top to bottom.
 
2012-10-16 09:30:17 AM  

BeesNuts: or my favorite

3. Don't worry about the election. Allow an investigation. Take responsibility as an organization by attempt to minimize the personal impacts it has on individual members of the organization. Be sincere, but unapologetic. Don't. Politicize. This. You rob the GOP of *any* narrative and squash the story while still managing to do right by the victims of your possible negligence.


that sounds like a smart and logical response to this issue to you and me but we both live in a world where extremist rhetoric and unanswered hyperbole has us on a constant march to the right. Taking the high road don't work.
 
2012-10-16 09:31:13 AM  

CPennypacker: Give it up and go back to the racist


You know nothing about me but call me racist. Last grasp of failure.

~good luck to you~
 
2012-10-16 09:35:09 AM  

Tyee: You know nothing about me


No, we know you're an idiot who thinks arresting a person for a clear parole violation is the same thing as suppressing free speech.
 
2012-10-16 09:35:47 AM  

Tyee: CPennypacker: Seriously, please tell me, in your warped worldview, what possible reason they could have had for making up a story like this?

That is a very good question, but it is obvious that they did, think about it and speculate why they did it.

Possible answers include but are not limited to.
a. Obama now has a recent terrorist attack on American soil (an embassy) and he would have liked us all to believe he has Al Queda so decimated they are now ineffective. But now just weeks before the election...
that hurts.
b. Obama's foreign, mideast policy is now proven to be a weak, a failure and ineffective as because we have been attacked rather than a minor protest just got out of hand. Exposed to have a naive, weak, ineffective foreign policy weeks before an election could lead to a lose.
c. The timing of this attack was key to the cover up. Had this happened any other time than just before the national election you probably could have expected truth out of the white house, but they screwed this lie up and it will blow up now, just what they were trying to avoid.


Nonsense.

1. AQ is decimated. They used to pull off attacks that killed hundreds and thousands. This terror cell, which is more like a local gang than a terror group and is not the same as the Bin Laden A.Q., only killed 4, after careful planning and with over 50 people involved. That's shows how weak they really are. Hell, the L.A. drug gangs are more dangerous than that.

2. Libya is so afraid of Obama's pimp hand that they allowed us to park two ships off their coast, fly drones in their airspace, and have arrested over 50 people involved, and abjectly apologized for THEIR failure to protect the consulate as the host country. And Egypt has done nearly the same, after Obama's "Well, maybe you are a friend, and maybe not."

3. Timing is nothing. The real reason we don't know everything is because Libya asked us to. As I already stated, the Libyans wanted us to hide the fact that they were on the hunt for the terror cell involved, and broadcasting that we knew there was a terror cell involved would have made it more difficult for the Libyans to hunt them down. The cover story was to throw the terrorists off, make them think we were only looking for a couple of rowdy protestors. And it worked. Libya has already arrested 50+ terrorists involved in the attack. Stop second-guessing when tactics work.

I'm beginning to think you want the terrorists to win. For fark's sake, you and the Republicans are treating this piss-poor terror attack, this weak, ineffective, minor attack as if it is some huge terror win! You and the Republicans are telling the terrorists that, instead of trying to scare us by having to pull off huge mass casualty attacks, all the terrorist have to do is murder a couple of Americans and we will piss ourselves, pull down our government, and treat them like terror masterminds! You're giving as much play to an attack that killed 4 as an attack that killed 3000! Knock it off, you are doing exactly what the terrorists want.
 
2012-10-16 09:37:44 AM  

TIKIMAN87: Weather he lied about the video or actually thought it was the cause, blaming the terrorist attack on something before knowing tha facts is just incompetence.


Weather? If you were capable of hearing the words spoken over the roar of your open mouth wheezing you'd already know they were very carefully phrased statements making it clear it was the best information available at the time. This was no "Iraq attacked the World Trade Center" you partisan hack, bombers aren't flying over Libya. Which is probably what pisses you of the most, the lost opportunity to have others die so you can get it up.
 
2012-10-16 09:38:46 AM  
Q. What does Barry get from Hillary that Bill doesn't get?
A. Lip service
 
2012-10-16 09:42:22 AM  
So since some believe that the GOP do not take responsibility for their screw ups it is perfectly fine for Obama not to take responsibility for his. Now that we have that settled....
 
2012-10-16 09:43:44 AM  

neenerist: Which is probably what pisses you of the most, the lost opportunity to have others die so you can get it up.


just a little over a year ago republicans were cheering for Quaddafi and his army against ours and allied forces, now they want us to attack with the same army they were praying would fail. Flip flop Mitt is in good company with his constituency.
 
2012-10-16 09:51:05 AM  
1) Is it true or not that security at the consulate was outsourced to a British firm, based upon their willingness to abide by a "weapon-free" policy insisted upon by the administration?

2) Does Congress really conduct a line-item vote on the State Departments expenses? If so, how can they justify cutting security to a bare shadow in a war zone, yet record amounts of hand-outs at home?
 
2012-10-16 09:51:19 AM  

neenerist: TIKIMAN87: Weather he lied about the video or actually thought it was the cause, blaming the terrorist attack on something before knowing tha facts is just incompetence.

Weather? If you were capable of hearing the words spoken over the roar of your open mouth wheezing you'd already know they were very carefully phrased statements making it clear it was the best information available at the time. This was no "Iraq attacked the World Trade Center" you partisan hack, bombers aren't flying over Libya. Which is probably what pisses you of the most, the lost opportunity to have others die so you can get it up.


lol wut
 
2012-10-16 09:52:18 AM  

Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?



Yeah, and if a janitor at a post office in Altoona, Alabama forgets to mop the floor, that too is Obama's fault.

religiousfreaks.com

OBAMA! WHY DIDN'T YOU MOP MY FLOOR!
 
2012-10-16 09:53:40 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Except for the SEVEN attacks under Bush II

And the THREE under Carter

And the THREE under Reagan

And the ONE each under Clinton and Bush I

shiat, Reagan lost 241 Americans with 60 injured in a single attack in Beirut in in 1983. And then he cut and ran. Nevertheless, Lindsay Graham is still sucking the Gipper's ghostly dick. Wringing your hands over less than 10 people? Bullshiat, Graham.


But did any of those other presidents lie about the attack for a week for political purposes?
 
2012-10-16 09:54:54 AM  
You can get a good look at your butcher...
 
2012-10-16 09:55:17 AM  

TIKIMAN87: He has jumped to wrong conclusions on many occasions.

Tryvon Martin.


Was killed by a vigilante wannabe.

The right's continued insistence that TM was a thug is a constant reminder of their issues with race

Think you're the one who jumped to the wrong conclusion there not Obama.

"The police acted stupidly" after they arrested the professor in Mass.

They arrested a guy who was trying to get into his own house.

Are you trying to claim that was smart?

The army base shooting saying it was a "workplace shooting" when it was a terrorist attack

It was both.

All you do is repeat RW soundbytes like they're important or real

Protip: They're neither.
 
2012-10-16 09:57:18 AM  
You can't fall on someone else's sword. The metaphor does not work like that.
 
2012-10-16 09:57:26 AM  

Headso: just a little over a year ago republicans were cheering for Quaddafi and his army against ours and allied forces....


i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-16 09:59:06 AM  

TIKIMAN87: lol wut


It's "whether".
 
2012-10-16 09:59:36 AM  

Epoch_Zero: You can't fall on someone else's sword. The metaphor does not work like that.


Finally, thank you. This is a clear case of jumping on a grenade, not falling on a sword.
 
2012-10-16 10:00:59 AM  
What can I say other than you've all convinced me. It was so much smarter for the White House not to truthfully say "we have a lot intelligence on this matter and we're investigating the attack, we can and will bring those responsible to justice". Thankfully the white house instead took this better approach; American has no real fricken idea what happened because we are so weak in the middle east, and almost the rest of the world for that matter, and have no way of receiving any sort of intelligence, we have come to believe this insignificant and unwatched video produced by someone nobody has ever heard of, has brought about the protests that led to the death of an American Ambassador and other citizens .

Then repeat this over and over and over telling everyone including the UN. Brilliant! Unless everyone realizes this is an incompetent cover up of concomitant mideast policy before the election happens. If only the ruse could have held for another six weeks.

What was the back up made up story? A lightning strike on the embassy would have been more believable and harder to disprove than this failed bull shiat.
 
2012-10-16 10:01:09 AM  

weezbo: MeinRS6: Obama certainly knew very quickly that the entire incident in Libya was the result of a spontaneous protest to a vid on youtube, so he was briefed.

And the assholes kept on lying about that for over 2 weeks.

From Obama's speech on 9/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Yeah, he was really running away from classifying the attack as a terror attack.

September 18th:

"Here's what happened," Obama told David Letterman. "We had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character - an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya"

Extremists and terrorists used it as "an excuse," not as a direct cause.

Rice characterized the attack at Benghazi soon after it happened as appearing to be a demonstration followed by an attack. As Glenn Beck's The Blaze quotes her (under, of course, an extremely misleading headline but one that was typical of all media sources, including ABC):

"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to - or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo," Rice said. "And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons... And it then evolved from there."

They were also kind enough to include her Meet the Press interview in which she prefaces the abo ...


Why would the GOP acknowledge the truth now? They've suckered the morons in this country with easy soundbites and a smirk.

My Freshman know more about International Relations than Romney and Eddie Munster put together.
 
2012-10-16 10:06:12 AM  

Tyee: concomitant


How that got there I'm not sure, but there are protests going on outside my house...
 
2012-10-16 10:06:18 AM  
Well. Can't get much more fake outragey than this.
 
2012-10-16 10:07:29 AM  

pdee: But did any of those other presidents lie about the attack for a week for political purposes?


Well, one used an attack to resume a war...
 
2012-10-16 10:08:52 AM  

Tyee: It was so much smarter for the White House not to truthfully say "we have a lot intelligence on this matter and we're investigating the attack, we can and will bring those responsible to justice".


you want to be outraged and give Obama shiat but you don't want to sound like a total conspiracy nutter buffoon so you are down to being mad for over a month at the verbiage they used at a presser right after the attack. That's a reasonable response...
 
2012-10-16 10:12:00 AM  

weezbo: From Obama's speech on 9/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Yeah, he was really running away from classifying the attack as a terror attack.

September 18th:

"Here's what happened," Obama told David Letterman. "We had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character - an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya"

Extremists and terrorists used it as "an excuse," not as a direct cause.

Rice characterized the attack at Benghazi soon after it happened as appearing to be a demonstration followed by an attack. As Glenn Beck's The Blaze quotes her (under, of course, an extremely misleading headline but one that was typical of all media sources, including ABC):

"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to - or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo," Rice said. "And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons... And it then evolved from there."

They were also kind enough to include her Meet the Press interview in which she prefaces the above with statements that the FBI is investigating and that her comments are not in any way intended to be the final word.

Get it? The administration, from the beginning, had been acknowledging that there were protests thro ...


So you mean the right wing has been lying through their teeth for over a month? I am utterly surprised.
 
2012-10-16 10:12:23 AM  

Tyee: Thankfully the white house instead took this better approach; American has no real fricken idea what happened because we are so weak in the middle east, and almost the rest of the world for that matter, and have no way of receiving any sort of intelligence, we have come to believe this insignificant and unwatched video produced by someone nobody has ever heard of, has brought about the protests that led to the death of an American Ambassador and other citizens .


You really think that the only thing the government knows about what is going on the the Middle-East, or the whole world for that matter, is what they tell us? You don't think that maybe there is a shiat-ton of things the government is doing on our behalf that they don't tell us because to tell us will hamper military operations? You really believe that the government does not lie to us so that we can accomplish military goals which would be impossible without those lies?

Well, good luck to you. You have a disappointing life ahead of you.
 
2012-10-16 10:18:01 AM  

HairyOne: Meanwhile in the Freeperverse Hillary is planning to stab Obama in the back...


I bet there's a large contingent that still thinks Obama's going to get primaried and/or kick Biden off of the ticket.
 
2012-10-16 10:20:08 AM  

beta_plus: Bush attacked Iraq - he is a war criminal

Obama attacked Libya - he is a hero who should be re-elected

/it's exactly the same


A) US never put troops in Libya
B) Obama never lied about Libya (Iraq was based on a lie)
C) Scale (1:100)
D) one operation was successful (Iraq was a failure)
E) one saved lives the other cost 100's of thousands of lives (Iraq)
F) one multilateral the other was unilateral (Iraq)

Take everything done wrong in Iraq and do it right, and you have Libya.
 
2012-10-16 10:23:10 AM  

gilgigamesh: CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?

Since she's retiring.... yes. She's stated she is done with politics after 2013.

I didn't actually believe that, but since she is pretty much falling on her sword here maybe it is true.


I see this very differently. By taking responsibility she looks like the adult in the room(administration). It could be she is hedging her bets in case Obama looses. If O wins she will likely keep her job and no one will remember. If O looses and she runs in 2016 she can claim the white house pressured her not to reinforce the embassies for political reasons.
 
2012-10-16 10:23:56 AM  
What exactly is she taking responsibility for? I thought there were still many questions to be answered, investigations to be conducted and reports to be analyzed.

Also Muhammed movie.
 
2012-10-16 10:25:35 AM  

neenerist: [i48.tinypic.com image 450x328]


Y'know, you could probably post that in every single thread on the politics tab and have it be appropriate every time.
 
2012-10-16 10:28:33 AM  

pdee: gilgigamesh: CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?

Since she's retiring.... yes. She's stated she is done with politics after 2013.

I didn't actually believe that, but since she is pretty much falling on her sword here maybe it is true.

I see this very differently. By taking responsibility she looks like the adult in the room(administration). It could be she is hedging her bets in case Obama looses. If O wins she will likely keep her job and no one will remember. If O looses and she runs in 2016 she can claim the white house pressured her not to reinforce the embassies for political reasons.


She would run on throwing a Democratic president under the bus?

I hope nobody pays you for this analysis.
 
2012-10-16 10:28:37 AM  

pdee: But did any of those other presidents lie about the attack for a week for political purposes?



Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said, "We condemn the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and equally condemn the economic sanctions that made Imperial Japan feel the need to attack Pearl Harbor with a rag tag mob organized as if by magic from the unhappy masses in Japan's homeland."
 
2012-10-16 10:32:19 AM  
President Washington, "Those people out there protesting the whiskey taxes are really just unhappy they are compared to terrorists who would drop tea in the harbor.  We need to empathize with their pain, even in these tough budgetary times.  I shall ride out at the head of the army and explain how we feel their pain."
 
2012-10-16 10:33:42 AM  
Abraham Lincoln, on Fort Sumter, "Jesus people.  Chill.  If we weren't so mean to the South and their economic model, they'd be much nicer to us.  We, as Americans, should condemn any man who abuses free speech to complain about slavery as it might make the Southerners madder."
 
2012-10-16 10:34:01 AM  
The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.

Bush is directly responsible for 9/11, according to the GOP.
 
2012-10-16 10:35:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.

Bush is directly responsible for 9/11, according to the GOP.


And links aren't working for me for some reason. I'm guessing Obama is knows or should have known that.
 
2012-10-16 10:35:20 AM  
John F. Kennedy, "Cuban missile crisis?  No.  This is a time for Americans to ask themselves not what Cuba can do for us, but what Americans can do for Cuba.  What?  No I don't have Cuban cigars on my desk!"
 
2012-10-16 10:36:55 AM  

beta_plus: I knew this sounded familiar:

[www.brunswick.k12.me.us image 385x573]

/FTFM


So, Hillary is going to kill convince Bill to kill Obama in his sleep, then take over the Presidency?

/I guess Biden is Banquo?
 
2012-10-16 10:37:30 AM  
Lyndon B. Johnson, "The VC are just like you and me.  They hate bombs.  We hate bombs. "
 
Okay.  This one kinda works considering that ill fated war.
 
2012-10-16 10:37:45 AM  

fusillade762: cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

But I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business? Now I'm all confused...


You misunderstood him. You blame the captain of the ship, Clinton. Not the Admiral of the fleet, Obama.
 
2012-10-16 10:38:51 AM  

Cletus C.: What exactly is she taking responsibility for? I thought there were still many questions to be answered, investigations to be conducted and reports to be analyzed.

Also Muhammed movie.


She taking responsibility for the death of these people.
 
2012-10-16 10:39:14 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.

Bush is directly responsible for 9/11, according to the GOP.


IOKIYAR
 
2012-10-16 10:41:45 AM  

LarryDan43: fusillade762: cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

But I thought we were supposed to be running government like a business? Now I'm all confused...

You misunderstood him. You blame the captain of the ship, Clinton. Not the Admiral of the fleet, Obama.


Naval analogies kind of break down when one of the people involved is actually in the naval chain of command, there have been recent collisions, and that person hasn't been blamed for them.
 
2012-10-16 10:45:29 AM  
I_C_Weener:

Remember that these rules are non-negotiable and Farkback will not embark on a protracted debate over so-called grey areas. These rules apply to link submissions AND user profiles as well. To that end, here they are:

-Don't post repetitively.
 
2012-10-16 10:48:18 AM  

Tyee: American has no real fricken idea what happened because we are so weak in the middle east


This is when I stopped taking your post seriously. 

Just because we're not blowing up countries right and left DOESN'T MAKE US WEAK DIPshiat!!!
 
2012-10-16 10:52:11 AM  
And the Muslims, "Ghengis isn't so bad.  He likes horses.  We like horses."
 
2012-10-16 10:54:28 AM  

Mrtraveler01: This is when I stopped taking your post seriously.


That is when my tongue was firmly in my cheek. Sometimes sarcasm doesn't work well in print.
 
2012-10-16 10:56:30 AM  

I_C_Weener: pdee: But did any of those other presidents lie about the attack for a week for political purposes?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said, "We condemn the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and equally condemn the economic sanctions that made Imperial Japan feel the need to attack Pearl Harbor with a rag tag mob organized as if by magic from the unhappy masses in Japan's homeland."


Seriously? I mean.... seriously? You're actually going to compare the public response of a President talking about an attack by a group of extremists and terrorists on a consulate in an occupied country that killed four people with the response of a President to an attack by three hundred and fifty three military aircraft on US soil that damaged eight battleships (sinking four of them), three cruisers, three destroyers, and a minelayer, killed 2402 Americans, and wounded almost 1300 more?

Your implication that Obama's was somehow weak, or apologetic, or just not good enough is based on the fact that the Presidential response to the latter was more forceful and less diplomatic than the Presidential response to the former?

Yeah. Well done. This doesn't make you look like toughguy wingnut chickenhawk at all.
 
2012-10-16 10:56:39 AM  

cman: First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain


Exactly. The captain of the ship.

Not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff back in Washington.

Glad you see it my way.
 
2012-10-16 10:56:54 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Just because we're not blowing up countries right and left DOESN'T MAKE US WEAK DIPshiat!!!



True enough.  And Libya is interesting in that, unlike Egypt and elsewhere, the government and people like us.  It wasn't Libya attacking the embassy like in Egypt.  It was a terror group.  So proceeding carefully there makes sense.  But I'm still baffled by the desire to link the Libya attack to the video when as more information becomes clear, no one thought that or should have thought that after 24 hours after the attack.  In fact, it seems clear that those on the ground in Libya knew immediately as, unlike Egypt, a fast strike support team was sent immediately, along with a drone that video taped the end of it (sending that to the satellite, the State Department, and ultimately we hope to the President or his advisers), and in the immediate aftermath...which showed more investigation by CNN than the State Department.
 
2012-10-16 11:00:58 AM  
So, Obama deserves blame for the consolate attack in Benghazi by the same logic that Clinton deserves blame for 9/11 and Bush deserves credit for killing Osama bin Laden, right?

Never mind the fact two of the assholes front-and-center on this fiasco's witch hunt (Issa and Ryan) both voted to cut funding for embassy and consulate security, apparently can't tell the difference between a consulate and an embassy, and apparently have no idea that Tripoli and Benghazi are two entirely different cities on opposite sides of a country.
 
2012-10-16 11:04:09 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Your implication that Obama's was somehow weak, or apologetic, or just not good enough is based on the fact that the Presidential response to the latter was more forceful and less diplomatic than the Presidential response to the former?


Obama should have immediately dispatched the Enterprise and the Hornet to the Mediterranean.
 
2012-10-16 11:05:15 AM  

that bosnian sniper: So, Obama deserves blame for the consolate attack in Benghazi by the same logic that Clinton deserves blame for 9/11 and Bush deserves credit for killing Osama bin Laden, right?



My only point is Obama deserves blame for blaming a video and deflecting the truth.  The State Department probably has the fault of not enough security, but I'd like to hear more about why the ambassador was there before saying that.  But Obama knew, or should have known, that Libya was not the same as Egypt of Yemen, yet went out and made that comparison and that is my problem.
 
2012-10-16 11:08:09 AM  
I_C_Weener

Is that you, Captain Hindsight?
 
2012-10-16 11:09:15 AM  
Responsibility is more than just words. If she doesn't resign, its just meaningless.

Now, who is responsible for lying to the American people about blaming the attack on a stupid You Tube video when they knew perfectly well it was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack?
 
2012-10-16 11:10:18 AM  

I_C_Weener: My only point is Obama deserves blame for blaming a video and deflecting the truth.


Oh this talking point again...
 
2012-10-16 11:10:20 AM  

Biological Ali: I_C_Weener

Is that you, Captain Hindsight?



A drone...on site...in time to see the end of the fighting.  I'm pretty sure if the president wanted to know, hell even if he didn't want to know, he'd be shown or told that this was not a crowd.  Someone was monitoring and flying that drone. 
 
That is just one piece.  Not to mention that the State Departement never said it was a riot.  The White House did.
 
Hindsight?  Not unless you count the entire public knowing these things within days and yet the admin of Obama still spinning it different. 
 
2012-10-16 11:12:44 AM  
s3-ak.buzzfed.com
Michelle was right

www.moneyandshit.com
 
2012-10-16 11:12:45 AM  
Alot of Fark Cons are confused. A government official accepting responsibility?

Gone are the days of Rumsfeld and Alberto "I do not recall" Gonzales.
 
2012-10-16 11:12:56 AM  

I_C_Weener: Biological Ali: I_C_Weener

Is that you, Captain Hindsight?


A drone...on site...in time to see the end of the fighting.  I'm pretty sure if the president wanted to know, hell even if he didn't want to know, he'd be shown or told that this was not a crowd.  Someone was monitoring and flying that drone. 
 
That is just one piece.  Not to mention that the State Departement never said it was a riot.  The White House did.
 
Hindsight?  Not unless you count the entire public knowing these things within days and yet the admin of Obama still spinning it different.


I didn't know the US had drones that could read the minds of people at ground level. I think you may be revealing classified information here.
 
2012-10-16 11:13:44 AM  
the president has a 9/11 albatross hanging around his neck.
it don't look too good on him either.
it will cost him the election.
you heard it here first.

you may begin weeping now.
 
2012-10-16 11:14:26 AM  

LargeCanine: Responsibility is more than just words. If she doesn't resign, its just meaningless.


Why would she resign when she didn't do anything wrong?

LargeCanine: Now, who is responsible for lying to the American people about blaming the attack on a stupid You Tube video when they knew perfectly well it was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack?


I think that's the GOP. They're the ones who have been lying to the American people, saying the administration blamed the attack on a stupid youtube video and knew perfectly well it was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack, when they actually didn't know that "perfectly well" and are in fact still hashing out the details of what actually occurred.
 
2012-10-16 11:17:11 AM  

I_C_Weener: But I'm still baffled by the desire to link the Libya attack to the video when as more information becomes clear, no one thought that or should have thought that after 24 hours after the attack.


Or that they used the resulting riots as an attack of opportunity.
 
2012-10-16 11:17:58 AM  
Remember when playing the "blame game" was a bad thing/
 
2012-10-16 11:18:17 AM  

Biological Ali: I didn't know the US had drones that could read the minds of people at ground level. I think you may be revealing classified information here.



Kind of you to mention that unlike you, I paid attention to the testimony in the hearings last week.
 
2012-10-16 11:18:45 AM  

bikerific: Remember when playing the "blame game" was a bad thing/


I remember a lot of people saying that as I grew up, but never actually acting on it.
 
2012-10-16 11:18:46 AM  

Fart_Machine: I_C_Weener: But I'm still baffled by the desire to link the Libya attack to the video when as more information becomes clear, no one thought that or should have thought that after 24 hours after the attack.

Or that they used the resulting riots as an attack of opportunity.



So, you are saying the riots in Libya was a cover?  What riots?
 
2012-10-16 11:19:39 AM  
I'm still baffled that a fark moderator can't even read the actual thread, never mind actually acknowledge objective observable reality.
 
2012-10-16 11:19:41 AM  

I_C_Weener: Fart_Machine: I_C_Weener: But I'm still baffled by the desire to link the Libya attack to the video when as more information becomes clear, no one thought that or should have thought that after 24 hours after the attack.

Or that they used the resulting riots as an attack of opportunity.


So, you are saying the riots in Libya was a cover?  What riots?



Or maybe you say the Egypt riots were cover for Libya?  Not what the intellgience experts are saying in their testimony (though to be fair they may be linked).
 
2012-10-16 11:23:28 AM  

I_C_Weener: Biological Ali: I didn't know the US had drones that could read the minds of people at ground level. I think you may be revealing classified information here.


Kind of you to mention that unlike you, I paid attention to the testimony in the hearings last week.


Why, did somebody testify that the drone flight somehow, in and of itself, brought back enough information to determine the motivations of people fighting on the ground? I must have missed that.
 
2012-10-16 11:23:33 AM  

Jackson Herring: I'm still baffled that a fark moderator can't even read the actual thread, never mind actually acknowledge objective observable reality.


I'm still baffled that one of the lamest trolls on Fark is a moderator.
 
2012-10-16 11:24:00 AM  
What I still don't get is what advantage did Obama have to lie about the cause of a terror attack?

/Doesn't believe he did, just figured that everyone was speculating based on what happened in Egypt
 
2012-10-16 11:25:18 AM  

I_C_Weener: Fart_Machine: I_C_Weener: But I'm still baffled by the desire to link the Libya attack to the video when as more information becomes clear, no one thought that or should have thought that after 24 hours after the attack.

Or that they used the resulting riots as an attack of opportunity.


So, you are saying the riots in Libya was a cover?  What riots?


Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover in their deadly attack on the US Consulate, screaming "God is great!" as they scaled its outer walls and descended on the main building, a witness and a senior Libyan security official said Thursday.
 
2012-10-16 11:28:13 AM  
We value nothing more highly.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-16 11:28:51 AM  
If the president says, "Oh, we know it was a terror attack," it invites the following questions:

Who attacked us? If he declines to answer the question, it alerts the terrorists that we know who they are.

Why did they attack us? Same as above.

What are you going to do about it? Well, golly what terrorist wouldn't want us to tell them we're coming.

How do you know? Which causes us to reveal sources of intelligence.

The Libyans did not want us to tell the world they were looking for terrorists, because it would tell the terrorists that they were being hunted. This is not a hard thing to understand. Imagine if the day before the bin Laden raid, the president was asked, "Do you know where OBL is?" You really think he would say, "Sure!"

And the lie was effective. It allowed Libya to capture 50+ terrorists involved in the attack. Stop second-guessing effective tactics.
 
2012-10-16 11:29:14 AM  
So Obama is hiding behind Hillary's skirt. heh.
 
2012-10-16 11:33:35 AM  

CreamFilling: So I'm assuming shell be removed/relieved/replaced, right?


Are any generals replaced if someone dies on their watch?

You people need to get your heads examined.
 
2012-10-16 11:35:37 AM  
you can't really blame obama, since he doesn't attend the intel briefings.
how's he supposed to know about this sort of thing?
 
2012-10-16 11:39:04 AM  
I don't recall Powell or Rice resigning over the attacks that occurred on their watch.
 
2012-10-16 11:43:24 AM  

Biological Ali: I_C_Weener: Biological Ali: I didn't know the US had drones that could read the minds of people at ground level. I think you may be revealing classified information here.


Kind of you to mention that unlike you, I paid attention to the testimony in the hearings last week.

Why, did somebody testify that the drone flight somehow, in and of itself, brought back enough information to determine the motivations of people fighting on the ground? I must have missed that.



No. But it was clear that the fighting wasn't a mob gone wild.  You did miss that.
 
2012-10-16 11:44:38 AM  

Fart_Machine: Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover in their deadly attack on the US Consulate, screaming "God is great!" as they scaled its outer walls and descended on the main building, a witness and a senior Libyan security official said Thursday.



Is that the same as the Libyan President saying this wasn't a protest or riot, but an attack?  And as I said, is the President supposed to rely on that statement, or what the State Department knew?
 
2012-10-16 11:48:38 AM  

Fart_Machine: I don't recall Powell or Rice resigning over the attacks that occurred on their watch.


You're forgetting that 9/11 changed everything (for republican politicians), much like being dipped in the river styx changed everything (for Achilles).
 
2012-10-16 11:51:03 AM  

I_C_Weener: Fart_Machine: Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover in their deadly attack on the US Consulate, screaming "God is great!" as they scaled its outer walls and descended on the main building, a witness and a senior Libyan security official said Thursday.


Is that the same as the Libyan President saying this wasn't a protest or riot, but an attack?  And as I said, is the President supposed to rely on that statement, or what the State Department knew?


I see we're moving the goal posts again. So there were indeed riots and the attackers used the chaos as cover to attack the embassy.
 
2012-10-16 11:53:10 AM  

I_C_Weener: Biological Ali: I_C_Weener: Biological Ali: I didn't know the US had drones that could read the minds of people at ground level. I think you may be revealing classified information here.


Kind of you to mention that unlike you, I paid attention to the testimony in the hearings last week.

Why, did somebody testify that the drone flight somehow, in and of itself, brought back enough information to determine the motivations of people fighting on the ground? I must have missed that.


No. But it was clear that the fighting wasn't a mob gone wild.  You did miss that.


And that has what to do with what, exactly?
 
2012-10-16 12:01:17 PM  
So now in order to continue trying to blame this on Obama, you have to defend Hillary Clinton. Do proceed.
 
2012-10-16 12:03:41 PM  
How Obama should of acted:

www.oilempire.us
 
2012-10-16 12:10:09 PM  

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

NateGrey: How Obama should of acted:

 

This is the visual equivalent of fingernails scraping a chalkboard.
 
2012-10-16 12:14:30 PM  

weezbo: MeinRS6: Obama certainly knew very quickly that the entire incident in Libya was the result of a spontaneous protest to a vid on youtube, so he was briefed.

And the assholes kept on lying about that for over 2 weeks.

From Obama's speech on 9/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Yeah, he was really running away from classifying the attack as a terror attack.

September 18th:

"Here's what happened," Obama told David Letterman. "We had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character - an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya"


You honestly think that is a defense of the BIG LIE about the vid that the Obama admin has pushed for weeks? You libs are funny....in a tarded kind of way.

If this was an organized terrorist attack on 9/11, then why is the guy that made the vid in jail now? You cannot run away from the narrative that the Obama admin has been pushing front and center and now pretend that the Obama team never said all of the things that it has said. You are not entitled to your own facts.
 
2012-10-16 12:16:11 PM  

MeinRS6: then why is the guy that made the vid in jail now?


Violating the terms of his probation, but you knew that.
 
2012-10-16 12:24:06 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain

Who actually loses their job or suffers the practical consequences? The first mate.

Be that as it may, the Captain also is shown the door; but hey, at least the Captain would still keep his pension.

Even in serious situations, the COs are often the last to get punished. If that wasn't the case, dozens of COs would be out of a job, with so many rapes occurring under their watches. In this case though, it's hard to blame the captain for much when the first mate was receiving incorrect orders from the navigational officers, and the provisioning people kept cutting back the resources available to the nav officer.


Keep reaching, you must have the longest arms on Fark by now.
 
2012-10-16 12:24:37 PM  

incendi: MeinRS6: then why is the guy that made the vid in jail now?

Violating the terms of his probation, but you knew that.


Make that "suspected of parole violation", but we all know that's not why he is actually in custody now.

If you don't know that, then you are the dumbest person on Fark.
 
2012-10-16 12:34:40 PM  

MeinRS6: Make that "suspected of parole violation", but we all know that's not why he is actually in custody now.

If you don't know that, then you are the dumbest person on Fark.


So now we're on to conspiracy theories? He probably wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't violated the terms of his probation in such a grand way that it made the news worldwide.
 
2012-10-16 12:41:25 PM  

incendi: MeinRS6: Make that "suspected of parole violation", but we all know that's not why he is actually in custody now.

If you don't know that, then you are the dumbest person on Fark.

So now we're on to conspiracy theories? He probably wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't violated the terms of his probation in such a grand way that it made the news worldwide.


Who said anything about conspiracy theories?

He was arrested because the Obama admin lied for weeks, claiming that the attack in Libya was a result of the vid this guy made.

There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody - and this guy is in jail for making a vid about islam. There is no conspiracy. That's just liberal lying and incompetence.
 
2012-10-16 12:45:37 PM  

MeinRS6: There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody -


And what do you think would happen to them if they did something that got them talked about at length by every single news organization in the country (and most worldwide) for several weeks?
 
2012-10-16 12:50:57 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody -

And what do you think would happen to them if they did something that got them talked about at length by every single news organization in the country (and most worldwide) for several weeks?


Don't you mean "What would happen if the president started lying and blaming them for something that they had nothing to do with?"
 
2012-10-16 12:54:33 PM  

MeinRS6: Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody -

And what do you think would happen to them if they did something that got them talked about at length by every single news organization in the country (and most worldwide) for several weeks?

Don't you mean "What would happen if the president started lying and blaming them for something that they had nothing to do with?"


No, I meant exactly what I said. And I noticed you dodged instead of actually answering
 
2012-10-16 01:15:06 PM  
what an actual intel failure by a POTUS might look like

theintelhub.com
 
2012-10-16 01:32:08 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody -

And what do you think would happen to them if they did something that got them talked about at length by every single news organization in the country (and most worldwide) for several weeks?

Don't you mean "What would happen if the president started lying and blaming them for something that they had nothing to do with?"

No, I meant exactly what I said. And I noticed you dodged instead of actually answering


The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador. So you can't talk about the vid or the guy without talking about the lies pouring from the Obama admin.
 
2012-10-16 01:47:35 PM  

MeinRS6: The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador.


Funny, I heard about the video supposedly causing the riots well before I heard about the ambassador being killed.
 
2012-10-16 01:52:26 PM  

incendi: MeinRS6: The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador.

Funny, I heard about the video supposedly causing the riots well before I heard about the ambassador being killed.


Sweet Mohammed on a popsicle stick. You cannot be that uninformed. Then again.....
 
2012-10-16 01:53:26 PM  

MeinRS6: What would happen if the president started lying and blaming them for something that they had nothing to do with?


If history is any indication, we'd invade Iraq.
 
2012-10-16 01:54:22 PM  

MeinRS6: Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody -

And what do you think would happen to them if they did something that got them talked about at length by every single news organization in the country (and most worldwide) for several weeks?

Don't you mean "What would happen if the president started lying and blaming them for something that they had nothing to do with?"

No, I meant exactly what I said. And I noticed you dodged instead of actually answering

The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador. So you can't talk about the vid or the guy without talking about the lies pouring from the Obama admin.


And again, you sidestep answering the question. you really suck at this, you know? I mean, it's not a complicated question. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand it. Or too much of a pussy to give an honest answer. Either way, I'm done with you here, troll
 
2012-10-16 01:56:56 PM  

MeinRS6: Sweet Mohammed on a popsicle stick. You cannot be that uninformed. Then again.....


I may have exaggerated the well before. It was a couple of hours between the threads.
 
2012-10-16 02:03:28 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: There are violent felons running all over the country violating their paroles that are not in custody -

And what do you think would happen to them if they did something that got them talked about at length by every single news organization in the country (and most worldwide) for several weeks?

Don't you mean "What would happen if the president started lying and blaming them for something that they had nothing to do with?"

No, I meant exactly what I said. And I noticed you dodged instead of actually answering

The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador. So you can't talk about the vid or the guy without talking about the lies pouring from the Obama admin.

And again, you sidestep answering the question. you really suck at this, you know? I mean, it's not a complicated question. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand it. Or too much of a pussy to give an honest answer. Either way, I'm done with you here, troll


Awww, did someone get upset when confronted with the truth. How rude of me to point out such things.

You keep worrying about the possible "parole violations" of some nobody and meanwhile totally ignore the lies pouring out of the Obama admin on this situation. I'm sure that that will work out well for you.
 
2012-10-16 02:08:44 PM  
Mein defending a video that insults Islam.

I am so..so...shocked.
 
2012-10-16 02:10:09 PM  

MeinRS6: You keep worrying about the possible "parole violations" of some nobody


Dude... you asked...

MeinRS6: then why is the guy that made the vid in jail now?

 
2012-10-16 02:11:10 PM  

MeinRS6:
The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador. So you can't talk about the vid or the guy without talking about the lies pouring from the Obama admin.


Uh no, you farking moron. it was deliberately released to the Arab world, coincidentally right around 9/11, and it caused riots all over. Just not that particular one that you're chewing the scenery about. it probably caused a riot 24 hours later somewhere else.

I can't imagine why the Obama administration might have been confused about any of this. Since you sure are.
 
2012-10-16 02:15:27 PM  

NateGrey: Mein defending a video that insults Islam.

I am so..so...shocked.


i.imgur.com


But even if I had been defending the vid, there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone interested in freedom at all should support free speech - including, but not limited to, speech that may upset muslims. I guess you don't care about freedom.
 
2012-10-16 02:19:53 PM  

cryinoutloud: MeinRS6:
The guy was only talked about by all of the media because Obama lied about the vid's role in the killing of the ambassador. So you can't talk about the vid or the guy without talking about the lies pouring from the Obama admin.

Uh no, you farking moron. it was deliberately released to the Arab world, coincidentally right around 9/11, and it caused riots all over. Just not that particular one that you're chewing the scenery about. it probably caused a riot 24 hours later somewhere else.

I can't imagine why the Obama administration might have been confused about any of this. Since you sure are.


I'm not confused about anything. And you are still trying to cover up for the OBVIOUS LIES by the Obama admin. They went on for weeks with those lies. Then we find out that they knew immediately that the killing had nothing to do with the vid.

Don't you read the news? Do you just forget the parts that you don't like?
 
2012-10-16 02:22:34 PM  

MeinRS6: They went on for weeks with those lies.


And then Republicans have been going on for weeks with this lie.
 
2012-10-16 02:53:39 PM  
Errr...except there's no lie there.

You can go look at the timeline for yourself. Look at when the murders occurred and look at when the State Dept finally started telling the truth a little.
 
2012-10-16 03:23:01 PM  

NateGrey: Mein defending a video that insults Islam.

I am so..so...shocked.


the proper thing to do would be to be-head him, correct?
bartender! shariah all around.
 
2012-10-16 03:33:20 PM  

MeinRS6: You can go look at the timeline for yourself. Look at when the murders occurred and look at when the State Dept finally started telling the truth a little.


As far as I can tell, Susan Rice's appearance was the last time anyone of significance claimed it was an entirely spontaneous, non-organized non-terrorist attack, and that was less than a week after it occurred. After that, everybody seemed to get on board with it being a terrorist attacks, although with differing ideas of just how preplanned it was.
 
2012-10-16 03:37:59 PM  
So the week following Rice's appearance on the Sunday shows, where she lied repeatedly, Jay Carney started saying that this was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11?

Try again. You've got timeline problems.
 
jvl
2012-10-16 03:42:34 PM  
It's true that Clinton is responsible, but so is Obama to an extent. Her acceptance of responsibility might be the right thing, but doing it shortly before the debate is insane. It just makes it look completely political.
 
2012-10-16 03:43:28 PM  

MeinRS6:
I'm not confused about anything. And you are still trying to cover up for the OBVIOUS LIES by the Obama admin. They went on for weeks with those lies. Then we find out that they knew immediately that the killing had nothing to do with the vid.
Don't you read the news? Do you just forget the parts that you don't like?


Just for you, dolt. Long post, get ready. I farking researched it

I went looking for an exact timeline of when this offensive movie hit the Arab world, and how much it triggered the riots, even if it did not cause the attack at Benghazi. There is not much information in the media about the time period between the original attack on 9/11 and about a week later, when there were riots going on all over the place, caused by this POS movie.

I found this in the Wall Street Journal, dated 9/12: Early Tuesday [9/11] evening in Cairo, the crowd of mostly male Islamists converged outside the heavily guarded U.S. mission. Some scaled the embassy's concrete walls but were met by rubber bullets fired by embassy guards, some witnesses reported. ....While protesters in Cairo said they understood American laws on free expression, they saw them as secondary to their religious practice. "Freedom of belief is more important than freedom of expression," said Ashraf Ibrahim, 34, who was at Tuesday's protest.

So while Obama was lying his ass off, according to conservatives, about the cause of the Libya attack, there was a riot going on in Egypt over the movie. On 9/11.

The article also says: The man who claimed to be the filmmaker, said he posted the trailer for his film on YouTube in early July. But it had largely escaped attention until recent days [that is, around when this article was posted--9/12] , when activists on Twitter pointed to clips that included actors in anachronistic costumes, near flimsy sets and often stumbling through lines. Egyptian clerics began widely condemning the footage.

Well, imagine that. The video really was seen and known of in the Arab world right about the time of the embassy attack. And not only that, it almost certainly wasn't a coincidence that it exploded around 9/11---it was deliberately disseminated right around 9/11. (Most of us with any brains figured that anyway.)

But when Obama or his administration says that the attack at Benghazi may have had something to do with that crap movie, they're not only lying--they're obstructing, they're floundering, they're unfit to lead. It seems like that if everyone was so sure of the cause of the embassy attack, they might have mentioned it before the next week--the same week that the administration came out and said that the attacks were planned ahead of time. ( And maybe they kept the information to themselves for other reasons than, you know, incompetence.)

But I guess no one else really knew what triggered that particular attack either--at least not until weeks later, when facts could be distorted and used as a political football. Now the entire GOP knows exactly how it all happened. And it just happens to be Obama's failure and cover-up. Huh. Big shock.

And most of the riots were, in fact, provoked by this movie.
 
2012-10-16 03:48:20 PM  

cryinoutloud: MeinRS6:
I'm not confused about anything. And you are still trying to cover up for the OBVIOUS LIES by the Obama admin. They went on for weeks with those lies. Then we find out that they knew immediately that the killing had nothing to do with the vid.
Don't you read the news? Do you just forget the parts that you don't like?

Just for you, dolt. Long post, get ready. I farking researched it

I went looking for an exact timeline of when this offensive movie hit the Arab world, and how much it triggered the riots, even if it did not cause the attack at Benghazi. There is not much information in the media about the time period between the original attack on 9/11 and about a week later, when there were riots going on all over the place, caused by this POS movie.

I found this in the Wall Street Journal, dated 9/12: Early Tuesday [9/11] evening in Cairo, the crowd of mostly male Islamists converged outside the heavily guarded U.S. mission. Some scaled the embassy's concrete walls but were met by rubber bullets fired by embassy guards, some witnesses reported. ....While protesters in Cairo said they understood American laws on free expression, they saw them as secondary to their religious practice. "Freedom of belief is more important than freedom of expression," said Ashraf Ibrahim, 34, who was at Tuesday's protest.

So while Obama was lying his ass off, according to conservatives, about the cause of the Libya attack, there was a riot going on in Egypt over the movie. On 9/11.

The article also says: The man who claimed to be the filmmaker, said he posted the trailer for his film on YouTube in early July. But it had largely escaped attention until recent days [that is, around when this article was posted--9/12] , when activists on Twitter pointed to clips that included actors in anachronistic costumes, near flimsy sets and often stumbling through lines. Egyptian clerics began widely condemning the footage.

Well, imagine that. The video really was seen and known of i ...


Your desperation and deflection are noted, and are not especially pretty.
 
2012-10-16 03:50:08 PM  

MeinRS6: So the week following Rice's appearance on the Sunday shows, where she lied repeatedly, Jay Carney started saying that this was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11?

Try again. You've got timeline problems.


You said state department, which is why I went looking for statements from the state department. But yes. Carney said it was terrorism on September 20th, within the week following Rice's Sunday circuit. September 21st, Clinton, who actually is state department, said it was terrorism.

Link
 
2012-10-16 03:53:08 PM  
Throwing away unfetchable URL http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html : 500 read timeout

...goddamnit...

Link
 
2012-10-16 04:06:41 PM  

colon_pow: NateGrey: Mein defending a video that insults Islam.

I am so..so...shocked.

the proper thing to do would be to be-head him, correct?
bartender! shariah all around.


I'm happy with sending a unilateral message that our freedom is messy, and that his statements do not reflect the beliefs or views of even a small minority of Americans.

But you assholes are busy defending him for some god awful reason. He's a shiatty person. He's in jail NOT for being a shiatty person, but for violating the law. These are two separate issues and if we can't treat them as such then frankly I'm left wondering if the Middle East's approach to US diplomacy isn't more intelligent than our approach to theirs.
 
2012-10-16 04:13:30 PM  
cryinoutloud:

Good post, but the troll is only interested in trolling and not the facts.
 
2012-10-16 04:28:21 PM  
And Nate is only interested in posting libby lies.
 
2012-10-16 04:33:54 PM  
MeinRS6: OMFG They put this guy in jail for making a movie that 0bama didn't like!
Adult: They put him in jail for a parole violation
MeinRS6: Oh yeah? Well there's lots of people violating parole every day, and they don't get jailed, it must be a CONSPIRACY
Adult: You think those others would go to jail if they suddenly got nationwide media attention focused on their parole violations?
MeinRS6: Look over here, Obama bad! CONSPIRACY!
Adult: Dude, you didn't answer the question
MeinRS6: 0bama bad, CONSPIRACY!
Adult: You still didn't answer the question. Meh, you're probably just a troll
MeinRS6: YOU MAD , BRO! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!1!

Trolling or Stupid? From a practical standpoint, no difference.
 
2012-10-16 04:38:16 PM  

MeinRS6: Your desperation and deflection are noted, and are not especially pretty.


That's called research. You should try it sometime.

But wait, there's more:

The intelligence picture assembled so far indicates that militants had been preparing an assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi for weeks but were so disorganized that, after the battle started, they had to send fighters to retrieve heavier weapons.

U.S. intelligence officials said they think the attack was not timed to coincide with the Sept. 11, 2001, anniversary. Instead, the officials said, the assault was set in motion after protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo as part of a protest of an amateur anti-Islamic YouTube video.

Washington Post Sept. 27
 
2012-10-16 04:44:05 PM  

MeinRS6: And Nate is only interested in posting libby lies.


For whatever reason the guy laid out multiple paragraphs to refute your uninformed Republican mind.

You just responded with a one line trollish comment.

You were more interesting when you were someone else. =/
 
2012-10-16 04:49:57 PM  
I posted this in another thread, though it would be best displayed here;


8 ambassadors have died (at least that i have found on the wiki)

1950 Truman, Laurence A. Steinhardt (plane crash)
1968 LBJ, John Gordon Mein (murdered)
1973 Nixon you dolt, Cleo A. Noel, Jr. (murdered)
1974 Ford, Rodger Davies (murdered)
1976 Ford, Francis E. Meloy, Jr. (murdured)
1979 Carter, Adolph Dubs (murdered)
1988 Reagan, Arnold L. Raphel (plane crash)
2012 Obama, J. Christopher Stevens (murdered)



but the most recent one means something, more so than any other death that has ever occurred, even more that the deaths that occurred when we sent our men and women to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on our own soil.
 
2012-10-16 04:55:09 PM  

Isitoveryet: but the most recent one means something, more so than any other death that has ever occurred, even more that the deaths that occurred when we sent our men and women to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on our own soil.


jpegy.com
 
2012-10-16 04:59:59 PM  
I don't think Hillary did Obama any favor with these statements about being responsible.

He can't let her simply take the blame or he looks like a wimp. If he pushes her aside and takes the blame himself he opens himself up to questions about who authorized the "let's blame an American youtube video" for what is obviously an al-queda attack even though he supposedly "killed Osama and took out al-queda".

She pretty much just pushed all this crap onto Obama's plate and said make it go away on your own. Hillary is no one's biatch, lol.
 
2012-10-16 06:02:48 PM  

YELLOL: I don't think Hillary did Obama any favor with these statements about being responsible.

He can't let her simply take the blame or he looks like a wimp. If he pushes her aside and takes the blame himself he opens himself up to questions about who authorized the "let's blame an American youtube video" for what is obviously an al-queda attack even though he supposedly "killed Osama and took out al-queda".

She pretty much just pushed all this crap onto Obama's plate and said make it go away on your own. Hillary is no one's biatch, lol.


but she has cancles.
 
2012-10-16 06:24:37 PM  
Outside Hilleray's office...

askmissa.com

And no one is believing it.
 
2012-10-16 06:49:46 PM  

cman: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Babwa Wawa: TFA: Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

Well, subby, it is true. As is the fact that the President is responsible for the State Dept. And if there are issues with the security at the Benghazi Consulate, the President will be held responsible.

/Chain of Command. How does it work?

Hate to break it to you, but the POTUS is never fully informed on every little detail from State.

/Org charts and dispersion of job duties - how do they work?

First mate beaches a frigate. Who do they hold responsible? The Captain


They sure as heck dont blame the corporation that let him drive drunk!
 
2012-10-16 06:56:43 PM  
So riots in Libya kill an American Ambassador and its President Obama's fault.
Terrorist attack on US soil that kills 4000 civilians is not President Bush's fault.

Got it!
 
2012-10-16 07:10:40 PM  

Heraclitus: So riots in Libya kill an American Ambassador and its President Obama's fault.
Terrorist attack on US soil that kills 4000 civilians is not President Bush's fault.

Got it!


and that's exactly it.
Republican uncommon sense.
 
2012-10-16 07:54:41 PM  

Heraclitus: So riots in Libya kill an American Ambassador and its President Obama's fault.
Terrorist attack on US soil that kills 4000 civilians is not President Bush's fault.

Got it!


www.learnnc.org
 
2012-10-16 11:21:28 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MeinRS6: OMFG They put this guy in jail for making a movie that 0bama didn't like!
Adult: They put him in jail for a parole violation
MeinRS6: Oh yeah? Well there's lots of people violating parole every day, and they don't get jailed, it must be a CONSPIRACY
Adult: You think those others would go to jail if they suddenly got nationwide media attention focused on their parole violations?
MeinRS6: Look over here, Obama bad! CONSPIRACY!
Adult: Dude, you didn't answer the question
MeinRS6: 0bama bad, CONSPIRACY!
Adult: You still didn't answer the question. Meh, you're probably just a troll
MeinRS6: YOU MAD , BRO! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!1!

Trolling or Stupid? From a practical standpoint, no difference.


Talk about trolling. You just completely misrepresented everything I posted and the facts as well. You are a troll and a terrible liar. Everyone can still read what I actually posted.

I never said anything about a conspiracy.
 
2012-10-16 11:22:58 PM  

NateGrey: MeinRS6: And Nate is only interested in posting libby lies.

For whatever reason the guy laid out multiple paragraphs to refute your uninformed Republican mind.


He did no such thing. He admitted most of what I said was correct and misstated several of the facts as we know them now.
 
2012-10-17 11:37:36 AM  

MeinRS6:
You honestly think that is a defense of the BIG LIE about the vid that the Obama admin has pushed for weeks? You libs are funny....in a tarded kind of way.

If this was an organized terrorist attack on 9/11, then why is the guy that made the vid in jail now? You cannot run away from the narrative that the Obama admin has been pushing front and center and now pretend that the Obama team never said all of the things that it has said. You are not entitled to your own facts.


Yes, I happen to think that posting two different occasions within the first week after the attack in which Obama described the attack as an act of terror and then stated that the killers were extremists who used the video as an excuse, at best, is more than adequate defense against someone who hasn't provided a single quote to support his assertion that there had been lies for two weeks, let alone some kind of bizarre BIG LIE.

What, precisely, is the big lie you think was being told? And what, precisely, was said by the administration that is an example of the lie? Quote, person who said it, and the date, please.

Because I'd love to see where you think the Obama administration came out and said "we jailed this guy because he made a video that caused the attack in Libya." Or is this going to be one of those things were everything is a lie so, in your mind, the administration lied to the American public, deliberately deceiving them into believing that they, the administration, thought that the Libya attack was a direct result of the video and so, having crafted this absurd deception, were nevertheless so fooled by it themselves that they ran off to jail this guy for causing the attacks they didn't believe he caused (because they were lying when they said the video did cause them) and then went on to lie about why they jailed him so that people wouldn't think they thought his video caused the attack in Libya, even though that's totally the lie they were selling to the American people. Is that how you've cobbled the events together in your mind?

The guy who made the film is in jail because he is awaiting trial for 8 counts of violating his probation
but go on crying freedom tears for a convicted felon who was stupid enough to bring himself into the public eye in a big way while operating under an alias in violation of his probation. That's totally a winning strategy.
 
2012-10-18 09:12:07 AM  

beta_plus: Bigdogdaddy: Bush lied, 4000 Americans died, let's reelect him

4 Americans died, Obama should not be reelected

It's exactly the same.

Bush attacked Iraq - he is a war criminal

Obama attacked Libya - he is a hero who should be re-elected

[sfbayview.com image 490x337]

/it's exactly the same


Tell you what moron, show me one time, just one time I called President Bush a war criminal. I'll be waiting, but guess what, you can't.

Thanks for playing.
 
2012-10-18 08:10:05 PM  
I'll just leave this here as the final word on the Obama admin's lying that I pointed out. It's not a conspiracy. It's just lying and now pretending that they never said anything about the video. Check the transcript is right. And check the context of what Obama said on 9/12.
 
2012-10-19 02:37:53 AM  

MeinRS6: I'll just leave this here as the final word on the Obama admin's lying that I pointed out. It's not a conspiracy. It's just lying and now pretending that they never said anything about the video.


Well, congratulations, you certainly kicked the asses of anyone who said nothing was ever said about the video. Who was that, again?

And all you had to do was find a cobbled together set of quotes where they mention a video in reference to violent protests. And we all know there can be no context confusion at all because nothing happened in Cairo that same day related to the video. Or in Yemen on 9/13. Or during that two week period in Sudan, India, Indonesia, Greece, and other places.

And, if you were interested in actually being correct rather than simply winning an argument I can't recall people making ("The Obama administration never even mentioned the video," said no one ever.), you would have found quotes like this, on September 16:

GREGORY: Well, let's talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there's an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's-- that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

The claim, given as an extremely preliminary one pending investigation, was that there was a protest and extremists used the protest as cover to launch their planned attack.

But let's just go ahead and pretend you're right and there's a deliberate lie/coverup effort.

Official BIG LIE the Obama administration desperately wanted the American people to believe: There was this video, right? And the video made random protestors in Libya so angry they went home and picked up some heavy weapons they happened to have lying around, like you do, you know, then they, as a disorganized rabble, overwhelmed our crack security forces and murdered four Americans because they're such savage idiots over there and random murder is kind of just what they do.

Current information we have, thanks to noble patriots who refused to believe the BIG LIE and not at all because of the ongoing investigation Rice mentioned: A determined faction of an international terrorist organization spent weeks or months meticulously planning an operation and acquiring weaponry under a veil of absolute secrecy and then, using superior firepower and overwhelming numbers, launched a surprise attack and murdered four Americans.

So, good job, Sparky, your tireless work has made it clear that the Obama administration will never succeed in its goal of looking like buffoons who can't protect our diplomatic missions from random protestors.
 
2012-10-19 03:27:23 AM  

MeinRS6: I'll just leave this here as the final word on the Obama admin's lying that I pointed out. It's not a conspiracy. It's just lying and now pretending that they never said anything about the video.


9/14, Carney:

President Morsi again today as well as yesterday has spoken out against any violence and committed himself to protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in Egypt.

We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

Carney was talking about the wider protests (part of a response to this question: Q Jay, as you know, the unrest in the Middle East is spreading to other embassies -- U.S. embassies. The President's critics are saying this is an indictment of his handling of the Arab Spring, that this has given rise to further inflamed sentiment among Islamists. What's his response to that?), taken out of context.

9/13, Hillary Clinton. You know what? I'll give that to you as being ambiguous enough to support the idea you've been pushing:

THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT WEEK FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S AND FOR OUR COUNTRY.
00:06:30 WE HAVE SEEN THE HEAVY ASSAULT ON OUR POST IN BENGHAZI BAD TOOK LIVES OF THOSE BRAVE MEN.
00:06:40 WE HAVE SEEN RAGE AND VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT AMERICAN EMBASSIES OVER AN AWFUL INTERNET VIDEO THAT WE HAD NOTHING TO DO IT.
00:06:51 IT IS HARD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO MAKE SENSE OF THAT BECAUSE IT IS SENSELESS.

9/18, Carney. Even in the video you linked, they show and quote Carney saying that the video caused some of the unrest in Benghazi. Since the 9/16 Susan Rice roadshow was that there were protests there about the video, that qualifies as "some of the unrest."

Anyway, the full exchange there:

Q I wanted to go back to the conflict between -- the conflicting reports I guess between the administration and Libyan officials over what happened. On Friday, you seemed to cite that the videos were definitely part of it, but I get the sense that you're backing away from that a little bit today. Is there something that you've learned since?

MR. CARNEY: No, no. I think what I am making clear and what Ambassador Rice made clear on Sunday is that reaction to the video was the precipitating factor in protests in violence across the region. And what I'm also saying is that we have -- we made that assessment based on the evidence that we have, and that includes all the evidence that we have at this time.

I am not, unlike some others, going to prejudge the outcome of an investigation and categorically assert one way or the other what the motivations are or what happened exactly until that investigation is complete. And there are a lot suppositions based on the number of weapons and other things about what really happened in Benghazi and I'd rather wait, and the President would rather wait, for that investigation to be completed.

Q So you're not ruling out that --

MR. CARNEY: Of course not. I'm not ruling out -- if more information comes to light, that will obviously be a part of the investigation and we'll make it available when appropriate. But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped -- that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.

So, what Carney was talking about once again: the video inspired violent protests in the region, it appeared there was a protest in Benghazi, and there was also an attack in Benghazi but they don't know what role the video had in that, if any.

9/19, Carney:

Q So in the investigations about all the skirmishes and the initial skirmish that happened in Libya, has it been concluded that this was linked to trying to show America something on 9/11, to show anti-American sentiment on 9/11? Is that --

MR. CARNEY: April, I've had a lot of questions about what we know about what precipitated the attacks in Benghazi. And I said earlier and have said on previous days that, based on the information we have now, we don't have evidence that it was premeditated or preplanned.

It is certainly the case that there are a number of bad actors and armed groups of extremists in Libya who might take advantage of a situation that was brought about initially as a response to the video in question. But this is under active investigation and we await the results of that investigation by the FBI before we can reach any firm conclusions about what precipitated the attacks.

The 9/19 quote is still about extremists taking advantage of the protests. Still only claiming the video led to protests, not the attack.

And, finally, the real last word on your American Crossroads video claiming that the Obama administration waited two weeks to call it terrorisim.

Carney, 9/20:

MR. CARNEY: It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that's self-evident.
 
Displayed 288 of 288 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





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