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.

(NPR)   Proof that Obama wasted time getting aid to the people in Benghazi, told them to stand down, and refused to send troops or air support. Oh, except he didn't, didn't, and didn't   (npr.org) divider line 374
    More: Obvious, President Obama, heavy machine gun, Military of Libya, Andrews Air Force Base, u.s. consulate, Libya, Predator drone, civilian casualties  
•       •       •

5056 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-02 02:24:17 PM
Oh come on now, be a sport. The Derp Squad really wants to impeach the President and force the Sec of State to resign because of this.
 
2012-11-02 02:28:01 PM
Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad. Really bad.
 
2012-11-02 02:30:29 PM

Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad blah. Really bad blah.


There. That's for accuracy.
 
2012-11-02 02:30:52 PM
I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.

Reagan Years:
1983:
Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. Same year and place, suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Kuwait: shiate truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1985:
Rome: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986:
Greece: A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988:
Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel.

Reagan death toll: Quite a few deaths but no major attacks.

George HW Bush:

Well...pretty much zero. None cited that I saw. Good job!

Bush Sr. Death toll: Excellent, no major terror attacks.

Clinton:
1993:
New York: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.

1995
Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort.
Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.

1998
Kenya and Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500.

2000
Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed.

Death toll: Plenty (most so far...but wait!)

Bush Jr:
2001
9/11: 2992 people killed

2002
Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.

2003
Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.

2004
Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.

2008
Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians.
India: Mumbai attacks. 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.

Bush death toll: Congrats, you win the death toll prize! Maybe next time you won't sit on intel from the previous president.

Obama:
2009-2011: A bunch of failed terror plots.

2012
Benghazi, Libya: OMG 4 people die!

Obama death toll: basically 4 farking people.

Oh and he farking got Bin Laden. So STFU about Benghazi you asshats.
 
2012-11-02 02:31:29 PM
i heard they were all too busy watching some youtube video and nationalizing the means of production to craft any kind of meaningful response to benghazi. apparently we wouldn't have even heard about the whole thing except that patriotic members of the US military reached out to romney for real leadership and he told the world.
 
2012-11-02 02:36:15 PM

bdub77: I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.


Their narrative is that this time it was an ambassador which magically made it the worse thing in decades. Or that was their narrative until it didn't stick. Now it's just vague he did something bad.
 
2012-11-02 02:36:21 PM
One of our ballistic missile subs could have had 16 one megaton warheads raining down on Benghazi in mere minutes! That would have certainly saved the lives of the consulate staff and not caused any long-term political or diplomatic ramifications! 0bongo has farted his last Socialistic!
 
2012-11-02 02:41:26 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: One of our ballistic missile subs could have had 16 one megaton warheads raining down on Benghazi in mere minutes! That would have certainly saved the lives of the consulate staff and not caused any long-term political or diplomatic ramifications! 0bongo has farted his last Socialistic!


You forgot your WHHARRRGARRBLLL at the end there. :)
 
2012-11-02 02:44:24 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-02 02:44:58 PM
Excellent article.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-02 02:59:44 PM
I thought he personally armed and led the attackers and killed the Ambassador by garroting him with his Kenyan socialist birth certificate while singing Negro spirituals.
 
2012-11-02 03:00:36 PM

bdub77: Reagan Years:
1983:
Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. Same year and place, suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Kuwait: shiate truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.



And Reagan bravely decides to cut and run.

Message to terrorists: ATTACK US AND WE'LL RUN AWAY!!

But Goddam that man looked good in a cowboy hat!
 
2012-11-02 03:03:05 PM
It doesn't matter. It's like trying to explain the facts of that whole Fast and Furious farce. So long as these gibbering half-wits FEEL that something is amiss, the truth just doesn't belong in their rocky, little heads.
 
2012-11-02 03:08:37 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.


? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:11 PM
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-02 03:15:43 PM

sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 300x450]


You forgot "Study it out"
 
2012-11-02 03:21:29 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.


yah, the rocket repelling super soldiers were busy at 6 Flags over Yefren that day.
 
2012-11-02 03:21:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.


The article pointed out the Americans were heavily armed and supported by Lybian forces. What were you expecting us to have in Lybia? The Seventh Calvary? The 82nd Airborne?

/I'm not fond of armchair generals.
 
2012-11-02 03:23:28 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya?


Oh now we demand to know why there's no boots on the ground in Libya. H'okay.
 
2012-11-02 03:41:49 PM
Subby lies! I have TONS of FW:FW:FW:FW:FW evidence!
 
2012-11-02 03:53:41 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh now we demand to know why there's no boots on the ground in Libya. H'okay.


The decision was made to go in. You go in. You don't leave people and material in harms way with help > 6 hours away. And yes, they could know it was going to take 6 hours when the shiat hit the fan. But you send what you got when the alarm rings.

Glad to see that they did reject the idea of bombing the bee-jujubes out of them.

AirForceVet: The article pointed out the Americans were heavily armed and supported by Lybian forces. What were you expecting us to have in Lybia? The Seventh Calvary? The 82nd Airborne?


The ambassador to the Queen in England has a full detachment of Marines to protect him. And that's in England. I would expect more protect than that for an ambassador in Libya.

AirForceVet: /I'm not fond of armchair generals.


Sorry but that's all I've got. I cant begin to get into details about tactics or exact weapons to be used. However I can tell you that Libya is more dangerous than England for our ambassadors. If it helps dont think of me as an armchair general. Think of me as an armchair logistics guy.
 
2012-11-02 03:54:47 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And yes, they couldn't know it was going to take 6 hours

 
2012-11-02 03:55:35 PM
a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)
 
2012-11-02 04:00:52 PM

sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 300x450]


24.media.tumblr.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-02 04:05:45 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh now we demand to know why there's no boots on the ground in Libya. H'okay.

The decision was made to go in. You go in. You don't leave people and material in harms way with help > 6 hours away. And yes, they could know it was going to take 6 hours when the shiat hit the fan. But you send what you got when the alarm rings.

Glad to see that they did reject the idea of bombing the bee-jujubes out of them.

AirForceVet: The article pointed out the Americans were heavily armed and supported by Lybian forces. What were you expecting us to have in Lybia? The Seventh Calvary? The 82nd Airborne?

The ambassador to the Queen in England has a full detachment of Marines to protect him. And that's in England. I would expect more protect than that for an ambassador in Libya.

AirForceVet: /I'm not fond of armchair generals.

Sorry but that's all I've got. I cant begin to get into details about tactics or exact weapons to be used. However I can tell you that Libya is more dangerous than England for our ambassadors. If it helps dont think of me as an armchair general. Think of me as an armchair logistics guy.


There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.
 
2012-11-02 04:09:24 PM

Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)


ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 04:19:19 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The decision was made to go in. You go in. You don't leave people and material in harms way with help > 6 hours away. And yes, they could know it was going to take 6 hours when the shiat hit the fan. But you send what you got when the alarm rings.


They did send help, within 24 minutes. Say so right in the article.
 
2012-11-02 04:20:28 PM

vpb: There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.


it's that rocket repelling thing. it's one of the marine superpowers.
 
2012-11-02 04:21:11 PM

cannotsuggestaname: Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)

ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.


I just saw a similar pic on Facebook.
I think I'm going to start copy/pasting bdub77's post when I see similar shiat.
 
2012-11-02 04:22:09 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.


This will work and your team will win. Keep at it.
 
2012-11-02 04:23:12 PM

bdub77: I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.

Reagan Years:
1983:
Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. Same year and place, suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
...snip...
Reagan death toll: Quite a few deaths but no major attacks.


Does an attack that kills 241 US Marines not count as a major attack?
 
2012-11-02 04:27:08 PM
It's pretty pathetic how you dolts are desperately trying to parlay this into a scandal. If is the worst dirt you can get Obama, maybe you should give up. Or, of course, just make up a bunch of sh*t.
 
2012-11-02 04:27:33 PM

vpb: There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.


Truly I have no idea what goes into the training of a BDS agent. I used Marines only because that's what I've seen at the embassies and consulates I've visited around the world. Yeah, I'm that guy. If I go to a foreign country I check in. And I saw more guards (that happen to be Marines) at the consulate in Lithuania then were in Libya. Unless one BDS agent is worth 5 Marines in a fire fight then someone really really messed up in Libya.

Plus having help 6+ hours out.
 
2012-11-02 04:28:54 PM
Mittens Rmoney is about to lose the elec ... BENGHAZI!
 
2012-11-02 04:29:05 PM
Oh great now you've summoned the cult of BANGHAZI.

/this is why we can't have nice things
 
2012-11-02 04:32:32 PM

Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad black. Really bad black.


FTFF
 
2012-11-02 04:33:03 PM

Carn: Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad black. Really bad black.

FTFF


wow good thing nobody else thought of that joke
 
2012-11-02 04:33:10 PM
Fox / AM radio nuts will not care about your stupid facts.
 
2012-11-02 04:33:54 PM
I will not allow your facts to contradict my reality.
 
2012-11-02 04:35:10 PM
And this article doesn't make note of it, but others have:

Glen Doherty, one of the casualties, was part of the relief force sent from Tripoli to Benghazi.


He didn't ask for help which never came. He was the help that came.
 
2012-11-02 04:35:25 PM

Jackson Herring: Carn: Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad black. Really bad black.

FTFF

wow good thing nobody else black thought of that joke


FTFY
 
2012-11-02 04:35:32 PM

Tigger: This will work and your team will win. Keep at it.


I'm guessing you mean winning as winning the election. Benghazi isn't going to affect the election.
 
2012-11-02 04:35:54 PM
Quick: Obama is competently handling a natural disaster using the same administration that Romney wanted to shut down, and Bush sat on and did nothing with. Find something!

"Fast and Furious"? No, old and busted.

College Records? No, we tested it with Trump and it flopped.

Benghazi? What does Mr. Ghazi have to do with this?

What, it's a city? Hell, just run with it.
 
2012-11-02 04:35:55 PM
Benghazi is Republican Libyan arabic for Got Nothing.
 
2012-11-02 04:36:13 PM
Facebook is derped up with Fox News informed morons about this. Thanks, NPR. It's nice to have a reasoned view of the attack and the response.

Bad? Yes. Worse than any other Embassy attack? No. But are they herping to the derp? yep.
 
2012-11-02 04:39:23 PM
Who gives a shiat. He certainly didn't waste time getting aid to us in NY/NJ, and that's what really counts.
 
2012-11-02 04:39:36 PM

Krieghund: bdub77: I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.

Reagan Years:
1983:
Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. Same year and place, suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
...snip...
Reagan death toll: Quite a few deaths but no major attacks.


Does an attack that kills 241 US Marines not count as a major attack?


It doesn't count as terrorism
 
2012-11-02 04:39:53 PM
Sure, the facts may be on Obama's side, but that doesn't automatically make him right.

Checkmate, libtards.
 
2012-11-02 04:40:31 PM
Benghazi meme is forced meme.

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 04:41:16 PM
It's amazing that people think the President has instantaneous knowledge about everything that happens in the world and can respond to everything personally.

There's delegation, people. I'd presume Obama didn't know anything about Benghazi until after everything was too late to make a difference.
 
2012-11-02 04:41:22 PM

cannotsuggestaname: Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)

ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.

[img.photobucket.com image 640x682]


I whittle the derpers off of my news feed. I didn't have the heart to unfriend my racist aunt even after she wrote a screed about blacks on welfare. Difficulty: my aunt has 4 children by different fathers and has spent much of her life on welfare.
 
2012-11-02 04:41:40 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Tigger: This will work and your team will win. Keep at it.

I'm guessing you mean winning as winning the election. Benghazi isn't going to affect the election.


I know it isn't but that doesn't stop the idiots who think it will bringing it up and being farkwits about it at every possible opportunity.
 
2012-11-02 04:41:42 PM

bdub77: I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.

Reagan Years:
1983:
Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. Same year and place, suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Kuwait: shiate truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1985:
Rome: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986:
Greece: A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988:
Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel.

Reagan death toll: Quite a few deaths but no major attacks.

George HW Bush:

Well...pretty much zero. None cited that I saw. Good job!

Bush Sr. Death toll: Excellent, no major terror attacks.

Clinton:
1993:
New York: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.

1995
Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort.
Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.

1998
Kenya and Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injurin ...



You realize the presidents above shows the course of 2 terms (outside of original Bush)
 
2012-11-02 04:43:45 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com 

Yea, nothing like that could ever happen if Romney was on watch.
 
2012-11-02 04:43:51 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The decision was made to go in. You go in. You don't leave people and material in harms way with help > 6 hours away. And yes, they could know it was going to take 6 hours when the shiat hit the fan. But you send what you got when the alarm rings.

They did send help, within 24 minutes. Say so right in the article.


That doesn't count because it wasn't the massive show of force the GOP thinks we needed for some reason.

I get the feeling they are trying to hype this up to get some impeachment stuff rolling. They also want to paint Obama as weak on defense or anti-US-GI's by denying them help. It's an invented narrative with no basis in reality.
 
2012-11-02 04:45:46 PM

Antimatter: I get the feeling they are trying to hype this up to get some impeachment stuff rolling.


They already have grounds for that. Obama came out just last week in favor of Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon. Yu-Gi-Oh isn't in the farking constitution.
 
2012-11-02 04:46:37 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: It doesn't count as terrorism


Oh? Why not, pray tell?
 
2012-11-02 04:46:54 PM

Rapmaster2000: I didn't have the heart to unfriend my racist aunt even after she wrote a screed about blacks on welfare. Difficulty: my aunt has 4 children by different fathers and has spent much of her life on welfare.


Bring that up in a comment to her screed and she'll probably do the unfriending for you!
 
2012-11-02 04:47:08 PM

TheBigJerk: Benghazi meme is forced meme.

[i75.photobucket.com image 640x640]


dude. loose the homophobia.
 
2012-11-02 04:48:33 PM
Took almost two months for Obama to bribe the entire CIA into lying and covering for him. Maybe he would've gotten it done sooner and gotten his lie out to America if he wasn't busy creating a hurricane and sabotaging our soldiers' weapons overseas.

/trickster president
 
2012-11-02 04:51:04 PM

cannotsuggestaname: Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)

ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.

[img.photobucket.com image 640x682]


Dude/Dudette,
Life's too short to put up with crazy people. Purge!!

/Fox on Benghazi is like some tweeker on Walt's stuff obsessing over the inner workings of a toaster.
 
2012-11-02 04:51:06 PM
The freepers have taken to calling Obama "The Butcher of Benghazi".
 
2012-11-02 04:51:13 PM

Zapruder: Took almost two months for Obama to bribe the entire CIA into lying and covering for him.


I know you're trolling but part of me is frightened to think how many people actually believe this.
 
2012-11-02 04:51:26 PM

Taylor Mental: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 410x324] 

Yea, nothing like that could ever happen if Romney was on watch.


He would get out to sea through Syria.
 
2012-11-02 04:51:40 PM

Kazan: TheBigJerk: Benghazi meme is forced meme.

[i75.photobucket.com image 640x640]

dude. loose the homophobia.


Don't ever go to 4chan man....
 
2012-11-02 04:52:05 PM

BMulligan: Holocaust Agnostic: It doesn't count as terrorism

Oh? Why not, pray tell?


generally terrorism targets non-combatants.
 
2012-11-02 04:52:05 PM

Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad black. Really bad black.



FTFY
 
2012-11-02 04:52:20 PM

sprawl15: Antimatter: I get the feeling they are trying to hype this up to get some impeachment stuff rolling.

They already have grounds for that. Obama came out just last week in favor of Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon. Yu-Gi-Oh isn't in the farking constitution.


it is however in the magna carta and on the rosetta stone
 
2012-11-02 04:52:48 PM

FarkedOver: Kazan: TheBigJerk: Benghazi meme is forced meme.

[i75.photobucket.com image 640x640]

dude. loose the homophobia.

Don't ever go to 4chan man....


no shiat, why would i wade in that cesspool.
 
2012-11-02 04:52:59 PM

ilambiquated: The freepers have taken to calling Obama "The Butcher of Benghazi".


That's hilarious.
/Someone 'shop up Obama-as-Texas-Chainsaw-guy and we're rolling
 
2012-11-02 04:53:40 PM
Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.
 
2012-11-02 04:55:21 PM
Oh come on. NPR? All they have is Libfacts™.
 
2012-11-02 04:55:29 PM

Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.


The right way for him to word it would've been "The video sparked a riot, and that riot led to confusion and a smoke screen that the attackers saw as an opportunity. Then they struck."

Unfortunately, he didn't build that speech.
 
2012-11-02 04:55:32 PM

Kazan: FarkedOver: Kazan: TheBigJerk: Benghazi meme is forced meme.

[i75.photobucket.com image 640x640]

dude. loose the homophobia.

Don't ever go to 4chan man....

no shiat, why would i wade in that cesspool.


For the lulz of course.
 
2012-11-02 04:55:43 PM

Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.


The riots gave the terrorists the cover they needed. Obama always called it an act of terror, and as more details came to light the rest of the state department came to agree with that assessment.

The GOP is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, while refusing to take similar responsibility for attacks under GOP administrations.
 
2012-11-02 04:55:48 PM

BMulligan: Holocaust Agnostic: It doesn't count as terrorism

Oh? Why not, pray tell?


Because words have meanings. However vile the perpetrators goals or methods, targets don't actually get any more legitimate than "a bunch of marines"
 
2012-11-02 04:56:07 PM

Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.


That's a good question. And one that the Bengahzi derpers can't seem to answer.

Maybe you can help us.
 
2012-11-02 04:56:07 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Oh come on. NPR? All they have is Libfacts™.


Nope, SOP for finding out about a possible unstable situation is to immediately launch all missiles in all directions. Gut Feelings will guide them on the right path!
 
2012-11-02 04:56:22 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Oh come on. NPR? All they have is Libfacts™.


NPR and liberals are all about those damn Realfacts. Conservatives prefer Goodfacts.
 
2012-11-02 04:57:33 PM
I got in a FB argument with my cousin's aunt about this. She ended up calling me stupid and fleeing the thread. And now I'm posting this there, mostly so my cousin sees it and doesn't fall for the derp attack of her aunt.
 
2012-11-02 04:58:07 PM
Now the cries of "Obama is leaking information for political purposes" in 3... 2... 1...
 
2012-11-02 04:58:20 PM

Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.


Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.
 
2012-11-02 04:58:59 PM

Empty Matchbook: Pants full of macaroni!!: Oh come on. NPR? All they have is Libfacts™.

Nope, SOP for finding out about a possible unstable situation is to immediately launch all missiles in all directions. Gut Feelings will guide them on the right path!


You mean to shoot first and aim later?
 
2012-11-02 04:59:05 PM

Zapruder: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

The right way for him to word it would've been "The video sparked a riot, and that riot led to confusion and a smoke screen that the attackers saw as an opportunity. Then they struck."

Unfortunately, he didn't build that speech.


Yes, that would have been a better speech. Straight talk. But that is not the type of man he is. He likes to avoid any issues that may in the slightest have negative consequences FOR HIM. Once again, he voted present and people got hurt.
 
2012-11-02 04:59:50 PM

ilambiquated: The freepers have taken to calling Obama "The Butcher of Benghazi".


Typical Freeper, can't even spell Ni**er right.
 
2012-11-02 05:01:01 PM

DeathBySmiley: Benghazi? What does Mr. Ghazi have to do with this?


On Fox and Friends tomorrow morning... evidence mounts that radical Islamist Ben Ghazi is Obama's real father.
 
2012-11-02 05:01:09 PM

Bag of Hammers: ilambiquated: The freepers have taken to calling Obama "The Butcher of Benghazi".

Typical Freeper, can't even spell Ni**er right.


You could've just stopped there.
 
2012-11-02 05:01:10 PM
The LA Times had an article debunking the Republican campaign's "Oh Mittgosh! Benghazi Is the Worst Thing EVAR and Chrysler's Shipping Jobs to China" tour a couple of weeks ago. Since then, there have been articles with the CIA debunking the OMBITWTEACSJTC tour. There have been articles with State Department officials, generals, and Condoleezza Rice debunking the OMBITWTEACSJTC tour at various times. (And Chrysler did some debunking, too.) It doesn't matter. Unless all the press unites in constantly pointing out Mitt's constant lies, they are complicit with Mitt.
 
2012-11-02 05:01:10 PM

Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.


They didn't know what the situation was. Hardly surprising that they didn't have 100% accurate intelligence half a world away as it was happening.

Even if they HAD, and Obama actually lied about the movie instead of simply being mistaken, the Americans were already dead by that point, so who exactly would be the Americans that died due to that particular lie?

/Much better if the faulty intelligence had led you into a decade long war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack right?
 
2012-11-02 05:01:48 PM

jasimo: /Fox on Benghazi is like some tweeker on Walt's stuff obsessing over the inner workings of a toaster.


It's nothing like that at all. The tweeker might actually be trying to understand the toaster.
 
2012-11-02 05:02:35 PM

miscreant: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

They didn't know what the situation was. Hardly surprising that they didn't have 100% accurate intelligence half a world away as it was happening.

Even if they HAD, and Obama actually lied about the movie instead of simply being mistaken, the Americans were already dead by that point, so who exactly would be the Americans that died due to that particular lie?

/Much better if the faulty intelligence had led you into a decade long war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack right?


What I don't get is what incentive did Obama have to lie about the cause of the attack?
 
2012-11-02 05:02:38 PM

AirForceVet: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

The article pointed out the Americans were heavily armed and supported by Lybian forces. What were you expecting us to have in Lybia? The Seventh Calvary? The 82nd Airborne?

/I'm not fond of armchair generals.


And a number of Libyans died defending the consulate. And then a mob of angry Libyans went after the militias and tried to get the Ambassador medical aid.

To me the whole thing sounds like a preplanned choice to avoid a heavy security apparatus and the feeling that Americans were occupying/forcing their will on a section of Benghazi. That's not a bad choice right there and honestly it appears to have worked in the long term given the backlash the religious militias faced after tearing up the consulate. Sadly in the process four Americans died. That sucks, but had we pissed off the locals and had them setting IEDs for our diplomatic convoys, likely more people die.

/state building messy and people die
 
2012-11-02 05:02:47 PM

thurstonxhowell: jasimo: /Fox on Benghazi is like some tweeker on Walt's stuff obsessing over the inner workings of a toaster.

It's nothing like that at all. The tweeker might actually be trying to understand the toaster.


Or at least not interrupting it while it's talking.
 
2012-11-02 05:04:16 PM

Agneska: Zapruder: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

The right way for him to word it would've been "The video sparked a riot, and that riot led to confusion and a smoke screen that the attackers saw as an opportunity. Then they struck."

Unfortunately, he didn't build that speech.

Yes, that would have been a better speech. Straight talk. But that is not the type of man he is. He likes to avoid any issues that may in the slightest have negative consequences FOR HIM. Once again, he voted present and people got hurt.


What on earth are you talking about? He avoided conclusive statements because the smoke hadn't cleared and no one knew exactly what had happened. Only a fool speaks in absolutes that early.

How would a different speech had saved lived that died the previous day?
 
2012-11-02 05:04:20 PM

Mrtraveler01: What I don't get is what incentive did Obama have to lie about the cause of the attack?


He wanted to look more foolish later on to give Romney a fighting chance.
 
2012-11-02 05:04:55 PM
Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.
 
2012-11-02 05:05:00 PM

FarkedOver: Kazan: FarkedOver: Kazan: TheBigJerk: Benghazi meme is forced meme.

[i75.photobucket.com image 640x640]

dude. loose the homophobia.

Don't ever go to 4chan man....

no shiat, why would i wade in that cesspool.

For the lulz of course.


For teh lulz: the only reason anyone ever did anything.
 
2012-11-02 05:06:17 PM

miscreant: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

They didn't know what the situation was. Hardly surprising that they didn't have 100% accurate intelligence half a world away as it was happening.

Even if they HAD, and Obama actually lied about the movie instead of simply being mistaken, the Americans were already dead by that point, so who exactly would be the Americans that died due to that particular lie?

/Much better if the faulty intelligence had led you into a decade long war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack right?


But why the lies? The obfuscation? If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this. This story isn't finished. There's more to it. You libbies criticized right wingers for marching along with George Bush like sheep. Now go look in the mirror.
 
2012-11-02 05:06:36 PM

Antimatter: What on earth are you talking about? He avoided conclusive statements because the smoke hadn't cleared and no one knew exactly what had happened. Only a fool speaks in absolutes that early.


That would've explained why Mitt Romney spoke in absolutes hours after the attack happened.
 
2012-11-02 05:06:36 PM

Mrtraveler01: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

That's a good question. And one that the Bengahzi derpers can't seem to answer.

Maybe you can help us.



The meme does not work, it should be Americans died, Obama tried to understand the chaotic situation in a short period of time and was pressed for a response.

But good question Agneska. Must have something to do with his goal of destroying america. Although blaming it on the Mohamed video does not go with the apeasing Muslims angle or trying to turn america into a Muslim state.

What are your speculation?
 
2012-11-02 05:07:10 PM

Jackson Herring: Carn: Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad black. Really bad black.

FTFF

wow good thing nobody else thought of that joke


I'm just not trying hard enough today.
 
2012-11-02 05:07:22 PM

cchris_39: Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.


No, it said we responded quickly with what we had. the GOP seems to have wanted us to bomb everything, resulting in mass casualties. That's no were near the proper response.

Turns out, your options are limited when you can't tell friend from foe, and forces are hundreds of miles away. What exactly do you expect should have happened?
 
2012-11-02 05:07:58 PM
"Oh, except he didn't, didn't, and didn't ..."

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-02 05:08:16 PM

cchris_39: state sponsored media NPR


Even I didn't think you were that stupid.

If you really think that NPR is a propaganda piece of the government, you obviously haven't been outside the US.
 
2012-11-02 05:08:40 PM
Sadly, NPR is offering facts to intellectual giants like this:

"The buddhists are coming to take our religious freedoms".
 
2012-11-02 05:09:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: Antimatter: What on earth are you talking about? He avoided conclusive statements because the smoke hadn't cleared and no one knew exactly what had happened. Only a fool speaks in absolutes that early.

That would've explained why Mitt Romney spoke in absolutes hours after the attack happened.


Romney only cared about political points with his base, he doesn't give a damn about who died or why. The GOP cannot empathize with others, so they don't see a problem with their hypocrisy and lack of understanding. Hell, to them, it's a positive trait. This is why losing 3,000 was a time to come together and blame no one, while losing five is a horrible thing that requires the President to resign.
 
2012-11-02 05:09:42 PM

alizeran: Sadly, NPR is offering facts to intellectual giants like this:

"The buddhists are coming to take our religious freedoms".


Ashoka said to know you out.
 
2012-11-02 05:09:57 PM
This article will never convince my crazy cousin on FB either.

NPR? Really? If the souce isn't something like stinker or freeper it's obviously librul lies. But I'll give it a shot anyway as he's getiing tired of all my fark-meme "beating a dead horse" pictures but still hasn't given up.
 
2012-11-02 05:10:10 PM

hbk72777: bdub77: I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.
...
You realize the presidents above shows the course of 2 terms (outside of original Bush)


And, outside of original Bush, every single one had multiple attacks that significantly surpassed the Benghazi death toll, including at least one per President with death tolls with three or more digits, IN THEIR FIRST TERM.
 
2012-11-02 05:10:15 PM

Agneska: miscreant: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

They didn't know what the situation was. Hardly surprising that they didn't have 100% accurate intelligence half a world away as it was happening.

Even if they HAD, and Obama actually lied about the movie instead of simply being mistaken, the Americans were already dead by that point, so who exactly would be the Americans that died due to that particular lie?

/Much better if the faulty intelligence had led you into a decade long war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack right?

But why the lies? The obfuscation? If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this. This story isn't finished. There's more to it. You libbies criticized right wingers for marching along with George Bush like sheep. Now go look in the mirror.


Oh yes thank you Fox news for helping us to realize that apples aren't oranges.
 
2012-11-02 05:10:30 PM

Agneska: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this.


raventao.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 05:10:32 PM

Agneska: Zapruder: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

The right way for him to word it would've been "The video sparked a riot, and that riot led to confusion and a smoke screen that the attackers saw as an opportunity. Then they struck."

Unfortunately, he didn't build that speech.

Yes, that would have been a better speech. Straight talk. But that is not the type of man he is. He likes to avoid any issues that may in the slightest have negative consequences FOR HIM. Once again, he voted present and people got hurt.


All the "Obama and his time machine" jokes aside, you do realize that the deaths occurred before Obama's supposed lies, right? If you're unclear on the whole cause and effect thing, I can probably find some episodes of Sesame Street that might help you learn.
 
2012-11-02 05:11:19 PM
Step right up, Farklibs, and get another glass of KoolAid! Now flavored with Obamaballs! Gargle them up!
 
2012-11-02 05:11:55 PM

Mrtraveler01: cchris_39: state sponsored media NPR

Even I didn't think you were that stupid.

If you really think that NPR is a propaganda piece of the government, you obviously haven't been outside the US.


What does that have to do with NPR being a taxpayer funded arm of the DNC?
 
2012-11-02 05:12:49 PM
Remember back in the days when the GOP used to be good at Swiftboating the Democrats in the 11th hour of Presidential elections? Damn, y'all lost your mojo. This Benghazi hilaritiy is like watching Michael Jordan play with the Wizzards.
 
2012-11-02 05:13:01 PM

shotglasss: Mrtraveler01: cchris_39: state sponsored media NPR

Even I didn't think you were that stupid.

If you really think that NPR is a propaganda piece of the government, you obviously haven't been outside the US.

What does that have to do with NPR being a taxpayer funded arm of the DNC?


You obviously have never listened to NPR.
 
2012-11-02 05:13:36 PM

Teufelaffe: Agneska: Zapruder: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

The right way for him to word it would've been "The video sparked a riot, and that riot led to confusion and a smoke screen that the attackers saw as an opportunity. Then they struck."

Unfortunately, he didn't build that speech.

Yes, that would have been a better speech. Straight talk. But that is not the type of man he is. He likes to avoid any issues that may in the slightest have negative consequences FOR HIM. Once again, he voted present and people got hurt.

All the "Obama and his time machine" jokes aside, you do realize that the deaths occurred before Obama's supposed lies, right? If you're unclear on the whole cause and effect thing, I can probably find some episodes of Sesame Street that might help you learn.


How long until the GOP starts arguing that since time appears to crystalize from higher than the fifth dimension, causality can flow in multiple directions thus Obama is responsible for all those things we jokingly blame his Time Machine on.
 
2012-11-02 05:13:43 PM

Agneska: But why the lies? The obfuscation? If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this. This story isn't finished. There's more to it. You libbies criticized right wingers for marching along with George Bush like sheep. Now go look in the mirror.


What lies? They made a mistake about the motivation, and then came out and admitted that mistake. I've yet to hear a former member of the Bush administration admit their intelligence on Iraq was all BS. The Obama administration is already a million miles ahead in accountability and transparency. Fox and the right wing are trying to make something out of this because there is an election. If there had been a republican in the white house when it happened, you wouldn't be hearing a peep from them.

/Also... anyone who uses the term libbies is either an obvious partisan idiot or a troll
 
2012-11-02 05:14:24 PM
If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this

You no longer have any credibility on any topic you comment on ever again.
 
2012-11-02 05:15:47 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.

Truly I have no idea what goes into the training of a BDS agent. I used Marines only because that's what I've seen at the embassies and consulates I've visited around the world. Yeah, I'm that guy. If I go to a foreign country I check in. And I saw more guards (that happen to be Marines) at the consulate in Lithuania then were in Libya. Unless one BDS agent is worth 5 Marines in a fire fight then someone really really messed up in Libya.


There's no American consulate in Lithuania. Are you sure you saw guards at a non-existant place?
 
2012-11-02 05:17:37 PM

Tigger: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this

You no longer have any credibility on any topic you comment on ever again.


churchandstate.org.uk
 
2012-11-02 05:18:01 PM

hbk72777: bdub77: I posted this in an earlier thread:

Let's look at major terror attacks under the past several administrations, shall we? Negating Iraq/Afghanistan which are war zones.

Reagan Years:
1983:
Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. Same year and place, suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Kuwait: shiate truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1985:
Rome: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986:
Greece: A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988:
Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel.

Reagan death toll: Quite a few deaths but no major attacks.

George HW Bush:

Well...pretty much zero. None cited that I saw. Good job!

Bush Sr. Death toll: Excellent, no major terror attacks.

Clinton:
1993:
New York: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others.

1995
Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort.
Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.

1998
Kenya and Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and ...


You realize the presidents above shows the course of 2 terms (outside of original Bush)



Okay, would you like to divide those numbers by two? Or better yet just focus on the first terms? I think you'll see significantly ... NO DIFFERENCE.
 
2012-11-02 05:18:27 PM
It seemed pretty clear to me from the day after the attack that there was CIA in Benghazi. The President can't really talk about that. So he didn't.
 
2012-11-02 05:18:27 PM

TheBigJerk: FarkedOver: Kazan: FarkedOver: Kazan: TheBigJerk: Benghazi meme is forced meme.

[i75.photobucket.com image 640x640]

dude. loose the homophobia.

Don't ever go to 4chan man....

no shiat, why would i wade in that cesspool.

For the lulz of course.

For teh lulz: the only reason anyone ever did anything.


Here y'are biatchcakes:

i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 05:18:35 PM
If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this.
dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-11-02 05:18:57 PM

Tigger: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this

You no longer have any credibility on any topic you comment on ever again.


I'm heart broken. I really am.

CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc are not touching this hot potato even though it's one of the biggest stories in 2012. They're covering Obama's ass, as usual. Open your mind, grasshopper, and play with the Fox.
 
2012-11-02 05:19:07 PM
I liked Ben Ghazi in all those Cassavetes movies.
 
2012-11-02 05:19:28 PM

Mrtraveler01: shotglasss: Mrtraveler01: cchris_39: state sponsored media NPR

Even I didn't think you were that stupid.

If you really think that NPR is a propaganda piece of the government, you obviously haven't been outside the US.

What does that have to do with NPR being a taxpayer funded arm of the DNC?

You obviously have never listened to NPR.


It's more of the Republican inability to see things in more than black and white. If they aren't spewing Republican propaganda 24/7, they're dirty liberals.
 
2012-11-02 05:21:49 PM
And yet there are still plenty of farkwads who believe the initial cover story about the Youtube video.
 
2012-11-02 05:22:58 PM

LordJiro: Mrtraveler01: shotglasss: Mrtraveler01: cchris_39: state sponsored media NPR

Even I didn't think you were that stupid.

If you really think that NPR is a propaganda piece of the government, you obviously haven't been outside the US.

What does that have to do with NPR being a taxpayer funded arm of the DNC?

You obviously have never listened to NPR.

It's more of the Republican inability to see things in more than black and white. If they aren't spewing Republican propaganda 24/7, they're dirty liberals.


I know.

But they have guests on that spew GOP Propaganda but never get called out for any falsehoods of it.

That's why when I hear people say that NPR is liberal propaganda, I can't help but laugh right in front of their face.
 
2012-11-02 05:23:36 PM
The Federal Government. Providing accurate information on administration embarrassments since 1966.

/I would have said 1972 to point out Watergate, but the official Vietnam briefings beg to be included.
 
2012-11-02 05:23:47 PM

ilambiquated: The freepers have taken to calling Obama "The Butcher of Benghazi".


melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com 

The image doesn't show, but it says: "Obama" "Killed Him"
Just for fun, notice the dead guy on the right is actually Gaddafi.
 
2012-11-02 05:24:20 PM

propasaurus: I liked Ben Ghazi in all those Cassavetes movies.


I was never really into Bollywood cinema.
 
2012-11-02 05:24:35 PM

Agneska: Tigger: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this

You no longer have any credibility on any topic you comment on ever again.

I'm heart broken. I really am.

CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc are not touching this hot potato even though it's one of the biggest stories in 2012. They're covering Obama's ass, as usual. Open your mind, grasshopper, and play with the Fox.


Awesome teleological error you've got there.

You only think it's one of the biggest stories of 2012 because it's on Fox a lot.

Just to be clear: Even the conservatives on this site now think you're an idiot.
 
2012-11-02 05:25:08 PM

Jackson Herring: Still though, you have to admit that Omaba bad. Really bad.


LOL! I was gonna say "fat dog bad", but I see you've got it covered in spades.

/spades? Wait... what?
 
2012-11-02 05:25:15 PM
Agneska: miscreant: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

They didn't know what the situation was. Hardly surprising that they didn't have 100% accurate intelligence half a world away as it was happening.

Even if they HAD, and Obama actually lied about the movie instead of simply being mistaken, the Americans were already dead by that point, so who exactly would be the Americans that died due to that particular lie?

/Much better if the faulty intelligence had led you into a decade long war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack right?

But why the lies? The obfuscation? If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this. This story isn't finished. There's more to it. You libbies criticized right wingers for marching along with George Bush like sheep. Now go look in the mirror.


Perhaps you are correct--particularly with NDAA. And liberals certainly did attack Bush, the difference being on stances that had another side, not some absolutely ludicrous orgy of straw grasping. If conservatives wanted to attack Obama like liberals attacked Bush, go after civil liberty restrictions like NDAA. That's where we cared with Bush where we don't seem to be now. There you are right.

But you idiots love NDAA. So have fun wit Benghazi.
 
2012-11-02 05:25:38 PM
It's a fun little experiment to see how far a manufactured story can go.
 
2012-11-02 05:27:08 PM

rillettes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.

Truly I have no idea what goes into the training of a BDS agent. I used Marines only because that's what I've seen at the embassies and consulates I've visited around the world. Yeah, I'm that guy. If I go to a foreign country I check in. And I saw more guards (that happen to be Marines) at the consulate in Lithuania then were in Libya. Unless one BDS agent is worth 5 Marines in a fire fight then someone really really messed up in Libya.

There's no American consulate in Lithuania. Are you sure you saw guards at a non-existant place?


You're right...it's an embassy.

Please note, I am NOT agreeing with The Stealth Retardapottamus here. Just pointing out that while he/she/it may not realize the difference between a consulate and an embassy and just made an assumption about what it is they saw, there is something there to be seen.
 
2012-11-02 05:28:12 PM

rillettes: There's no American consulate in Lithuania. Are you sure you saw guards at a non-existant place?


I have pictures of me in that non-existent place. It was there in 1998, 2006 and 2011 can't tell you if there is one there now.
 
2012-11-02 05:29:16 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: rillettes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.

Truly I have no idea what goes into the training of a BDS agent. I used Marines only because that's what I've seen at the embassies and consulates I've visited around the world. Yeah, I'm that guy. If I go to a foreign country I check in. And I saw more guards (that happen to be Marines) at the consulate in Lithuania then were in Libya. Unless one BDS agent is worth 5 Marines in a fire fight then someone really really messed up in Libya.

There's no American consulate in Lithuania. Are you sure you saw guards at a non-existant place?

You're right...it's an embassy.

Please note, I am NOT agreeing with The Stealth Retardapottamus here. Just pointing out that while he/she/it may not realize the difference between a consulate and an embassy and just made an assumption about what it is they saw, there is something there to be seen.


A lot of the story seems based on that misunderstanding. Consulates are not as often as well defended as true embassy are.
 
2012-11-02 05:30:00 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Please note, I am NOT agreeing with The Stealth Retardapottamus here. Just pointing out that while he/she/it may not realize the difference between a consulate and an embassy and just made an assumption about what it is they saw, there is something there to be seen.


I know but it's been bugging the crap out of me that people keep mistaking a consulate for an embassy when it comes to Libya.
 
2012-11-02 05:35:11 PM

cchris_39: Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.


it wasn't considered a hot theater of operations by the military or intelligence agencies, because it hadn't been for eons. the fact that we had scant resources in the area sorta makes sense from that context if you, you know, THINK ABOUT IT.
 
2012-11-02 05:35:42 PM
KEEP F*CKING THAT CHICKEN REPUBLICANS!!!

You've failed to peddle your conspiratorial outrage about this crap for over 7 weeks now, but it should really catch on by Tuesday!!
 
2012-11-02 05:38:11 PM
Agneska:

I like them French fried potaters.
 
2012-11-02 05:38:42 PM

alizeran: Sadly, NPR is offering facts to intellectual giants like this:

"The buddhists are coming to take our religious freedoms".


Thanks for the depression. That's even too much stupid for a Friday night.
 
2012-11-02 05:39:11 PM
I haven't been buying into the hysteria generated by Fox and others but I'm still irked by the mixed messages coming out of the White House and administration.

If the attacks were being so closely monitored and all options so carefully considered why was the "spontaneous demonstrations" and "anti-Muhammad film" crap still being pitched days after?

Obama cited an "act of terror" but that lacked the specificity of a coordinated attack by terrorists. In fact, he, Hillary and others in the administration kept pointing at the film.

All that seems even more deceptive in light of this story.
 
2012-11-02 05:40:37 PM
"So Abu, how did the attack on the consulate go?"
"Oh well, enough, we killed a bunch of people, but I'm still not sure it was jusitified."
"Of course it was. Why according to the repub investigation in Congress, there was a CIA operation going on in the same building!"
"Really? Of course we suspected but we had no way to verify the situation."
"Worry no more! The repubs and this Fox News operation seems intent on providing us all the intelligence we could possibly need."
"Thank God our fellow terrorists control the House of Representatives in America!"
 
2012-11-02 05:40:53 PM

Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.


Because the attack was in response to the video.

Ansar al Shariah, the group responsible, said that from day one, and continued to say that up until they were bombed/arrested out of existence last week, without a 10 year ground war or a patriot act or nothing.
 
2012-11-02 05:41:45 PM

Agneska: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this.


You are an excellent, patriotic consumer. Have a cookie.

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-02 05:44:52 PM

Kazan: cchris_39: Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.

it wasn't considered a hot theater of operations by the military or intelligence agencies, because it hadn't been for eons. the fact that we had scant resources in the area sorta makes sense from that context if you, you know, THINK ABOUT IT.


Give it up. Anyone with an IQ over 30 (and I know that leaves out the tea baggers) knows that an embassy is protected by the host country. You don't arm it like a military base. There is a reason why diplomats are sometimes called "soldiers without guns".
 
2012-11-02 05:47:35 PM
So now that this information is out, what's the angle that fox news is going to take. Just igonore it and keep going the way they have been?
 
2012-11-02 05:47:46 PM

GameSprocket: Kazan: cchris_39: Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.

it wasn't considered a hot theater of operations by the military or intelligence agencies, because it hadn't been for eons. the fact that we had scant resources in the area sorta makes sense from that context if you, you know, THINK ABOUT IT.

Give it up. Anyone with an IQ over 30 (and I know that leaves out the tea baggers) knows that an embassy is protected by the host country. You don't arm it like a military base. There is a reason why diplomats are sometimes called "soldiers without guns".


So what are the marines at embassies doing there? Are they for decoration?

I'm currently on the fence between 'not sure if serios' and 'not sure if tard'
 
2012-11-02 05:49:35 PM
So what they're saying is that they actually knew about the attacks, planned responses to them, and sent help?

Sending aid to a consulate? Definitely an impeachable offense.
 
2012-11-02 05:49:49 PM

Blowmonkey: Just igonore it and keep going the way they have been?


Let's ask Ken Starr.
 
2012-11-02 05:52:15 PM
I would still like to see whats in Mitt Romneys Tax Returns!
 
2012-11-02 05:52:48 PM

Mikey1969: So what they're saying is that they actually knew about the attacks, planned responses to them, and sent help?


Then went on TV the next day and made some shiat up.
 
2012-11-02 05:53:19 PM

Tigger: GameSprocket: Kazan: cchris_39: Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.

it wasn't considered a hot theater of operations by the military or intelligence agencies, because it hadn't been for eons. the fact that we had scant resources in the area sorta makes sense from that context if you, you know, THINK ABOUT IT.

Give it up. Anyone with an IQ over 30 (and I know that leaves out the tea baggers) knows that an embassy is protected by the host country. You don't arm it like a military base. There is a reason why diplomats are sometimes called "soldiers without guns".

So what are the marines at embassies doing there? Are they for decoration?

I'm currently on the fence between 'not sure if serios' and 'not sure if tard'


Doesn't matter in this case, since it was a consulate in Benghazi, not an embassy. Consulates are much smaller than embassies, and generally only include the diplomatic staff. Security and protection for a consulate is up to the host country.
 
2012-11-02 05:53:35 PM
'we watched in horror but did not have time to react'

holy farking shiat are the lies getting deep

We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

People died, Obama lied

You are all trolls, right, how can anyone believe the crap coming out of the whitehouse.
 
2012-11-02 05:54:08 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.


It's a foreign farking country, not Fort Farking Bragg. Where the Hell were they supposed to put all of the troops in your masturbatory fantasy?
 
2012-11-02 05:54:46 PM
c438342.r42.cf2.rackcdn.com

Fugazi you say?


3.bp.blogspot.com

Nahh...it's pronounced Fugayzi.


images.hellokids.com

Actually, it's Bengali. 


dontdrinkbeer.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 05:56:52 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: BMulligan: Holocaust Agnostic: It doesn't count as terrorism

Oh? Why not, pray tell?

Because words have meanings. However vile the perpetrators goals or methods, targets don't actually get any more legitimate than "a bunch of marines"


But they were a noncombatant peacekeeping force. Now, if we want to exclude such a target from the definition of terrorism that's fine, but when the Cole was attacked I was assured that Clinton had allowed an act of terrorism on his watch.
 
2012-11-02 05:57:48 PM

pxsteel: 'we watched in horror but did not have time to react'

holy farking shiat are the lies getting deep

We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

People died, Obama lied

You are all trolls, right, how can anyone believe the crap coming out of the whitehouse.


Th official line from the Whitehouse for the last couple of weeks was "We didnt know" now its "We were on top of it the whole time".
 
2012-11-02 05:58:08 PM
President Obama and his entire national security team monitored what was going on half a world away.

I thought he was a party or sumptin when all that went down. Yeah--he was partying. Didn't even care. That's what I heard.
 
2012-11-02 05:59:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Mittens Rmoney is about to lose the elec ... BENGHAZI!




You called?
 
2012-11-02 06:00:06 PM

pxsteel: 'we watched in horror but did not have time to react'

holy farking shiat are the lies getting deep

We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

People died, Obama lied

You are all trolls, right, how can anyone believe the crap coming out of the whitehouse.


This is getting sad. It really shouldn't be necessary to repeatedly remind some of you that Tom Clancy novels are fiction.
 
2012-11-02 06:00:27 PM

shotglasss: Mrtraveler01: cchris_39: state sponsored media NPR

Even I didn't think you were that stupid.

If you really think that NPR is a propaganda piece of the government, you obviously haven't been outside the US.

What does that have to do with NPR being a taxpayer funded arm of the DNC?


NPR is "liberal" only to the extent that objective reality has a liberal bias.
 
2012-11-02 06:02:24 PM

I alone am best: Th official line from the Whitehouse for the last couple of weeks was "We didnt know" now its "We were on top of it the whole time"


Yeah, no.
 
2012-11-02 06:02:54 PM

pxsteel: You are all trolls


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-02 06:04:16 PM

Agneska: Tigger: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this

You no longer have any credibility on any topic you comment on ever again.

I'm heart broken. I really am.

CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc are not touching this hot potato even though it's one of the biggest stories in 2012. They're covering Obama's ass, as usual. Open your mind, grasshopper, and play with the Fox.


None of the other networks are touching this because Fox is essentially broadcasting what even they admit to be unconfirmed rumor and conjecture as fact, and most other MSM sources have internal editorial policies against this.
 
2012-11-02 06:04:16 PM

I alone am best: Mikey1969: So what they're saying is that they actually knew about the attacks, planned responses to them, and sent help?

Then went on TV the next day and made some shiat up.


The lie they decided to go with is more damning than the cover-up:

"These idiots went all retarded because of what this guy had to say. But don't worry, we threw him in jail."

Talk about your first amendment chills.
 
2012-11-02 06:06:21 PM

neenerist: alizeran: Sadly, NPR is offering facts to intellectual giants like this:

"The buddhists are coming to take our religious freedoms".

Thanks for the depression. That's even too much stupid for a Friday night.


I think we may have found footage of Agneska in the wild...

/granted this was about as far as I could watch
 
2012-11-02 06:08:12 PM

Polly Ester: "These idiots went all retarded because of what this guy had to say. But don't worry, we threw him in jail."

Talk about your first amendment chills


Here's a guy who doesn't understand what a probation violation is. Or what was actually happening that day.
 
2012-11-02 06:08:34 PM
I want a president who doesn't use information on a tragedy like Benghazi as a hole card.
He doesn't release it, people speculate on sparse details, then he goes "HA see you were wrong" at a politically opportune time.
Maybe it would have turned out more optimal if someone had looked at all those requests for more security and decided to station assets close enough to respond to this sort of thing. Yeah I know Obama probably had no idea about those requests, but Democrats never ever roll heads.
 
2012-11-02 06:10:15 PM
Gee, great job there NPR. Pretty much zero citations for everything vomited onto the page, most of which countered by actual facts....things like official emails. Official cables. People testifying in Congress. First, belittle and ignore the story for weeks. Then grudgingly acknowledge it, followed by spin and lying. Media WIN!

And they forgot THE VIDEO?? Now you know it's B.S. if they didn't mention the video which is responsible for the whole thing!
 
2012-11-02 06:11:23 PM

dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.


I wasn't surprised, but very disappointed when so much of the FOX and Limbaugh crowd were obsessing over an "ism" not being at the end of a word. It was just...pathetic. Were Obama a Republican, I just can't imagine moderates and liberals getting so worked up over whether or not it was called an act of terror. Sure, there might have been a peep here and there, but I doubt the rest of us would have hour-long talk shows dedicated to the subject.

When you target such weaksauce scandal, it belies how desperate you are to smear a man. These people don't care about Benghazi. They care about anything that could possibly be used against the president.
 
2012-11-02 06:12:13 PM

HeartBurnKid: HotIgneous Intruder: Mittens Rmoney is about to lose the elec ... BENGHAZI!



You called?


Apparently, I can't post pics today. Never mind.
 
2012-11-02 06:13:13 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: rillettes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: There were BDS agents, but I guess only Marines count because armchair derpsters don't know what the BDS is or what they or the Marines actually do.

Truly I have no idea what goes into the training of a BDS agent. I used Marines only because that's what I've seen at the embassies and consulates I've visited around the world. Yeah, I'm that guy. If I go to a foreign country I check in. And I saw more guards (that happen to be Marines) at the consulate in Lithuania then were in Libya. Unless one BDS agent is worth 5 Marines in a fire fight then someone really really messed up in Libya.

There's no American consulate in Lithuania. Are you sure you saw guards at a non-existant place?

You're right...it's an embassy.

Please note, I am NOT agreeing with The Stealth Retardapottamus here. Just pointing out that while he/she/it may not realize the difference between a consulate and an embassy and just made an assumption about what it is they saw, there is something there to be seen.


I considered that possibility, but noticed that he points out that he's "that guy" who visits embassies & consulates wherever he goes.
I don't want to come across as cherry-picking, but his statement about seeing a lot of Marines at some Baltic consulate seemed farfetched. Did research and couldn't find any reference to an American consulate.
I could be wrong, but really think SH used a false affirmation to prove his point.
 
2012-11-02 06:13:13 PM

Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)


It's on NPR. It means nothing. Part of the socialist agenda.

Cletus C.: f the attacks were being so closely monitored and all options so carefully considered why was the "spontaneous demonstrations" and "anti-Muhammad film" crap still being pitched days after?


for christ sake, one more time--the attack was related to the movie. There were some rumors floating around about a planned attack on Benghazi, but nobody was organized enough to do it yet. Then the riots started in Egypt on 9/11, because that crappy movie had suddenly (coincidentally, I'm sure) started making the rounds in the Arab world. The terrorists, or angry mob, or whoever they were, decided to go for it in Libya because they saw the riots in Egypt going on. There was no attack on the embassy in Libya planned for 9/11.
 
2012-11-02 06:13:25 PM

I alone am best: Th official line from the Whitehouse for the last couple of weeks was "We didnt know" now its "We were on top of it the whole time".


It's all about "context". They knew about before they didn't know about it. It was the fog of war n stuff.
 
2012-11-02 06:13:50 PM
Good thing Fox is doing all the investigation that is finding that Obama did nothing wrong...unless they ignore the facts and go with rumors.

:-\
 
2012-11-02 06:14:03 PM
So, in other words, after blaming a youtube video for the attack and arresting a man on a technicality of violating his parole while spitting on the 1st amendment, after a month the administration has gotten its lies straight.

Oh, and they did nothing for 7 hours.
 
2012-11-02 06:14:35 PM

pxsteel: 'we watched in horror but did not have time to react'

holy farking shiat are the lies getting deep

We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

People died, Obama lied

You are all trolls, right, how can anyone believe the crap coming out of the whitehouse.


Didn't you read the article? Reinforcements were sent 25 minutes in.

The fact is that no diplomatic facility is built to withstand an organized attack from 150+ armed men, and if it was, it wouldn't be a diplomatic facility. It would be a military facility.
 
2012-11-02 06:16:30 PM

udhq: Agneska: Tigger: If Fox wasn't asking questions and doing research, we wouldn't know any of this

You no longer have any credibility on any topic you comment on ever again.

I'm heart broken. I really am.

CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc are not touching this hot potato even though it's one of the biggest stories in 2012. They're covering Obama's ass, as usual. Open your mind, grasshopper, and play with the Fox.

None of the other networks are touching this because Fox is essentially broadcasting what even they admit to be unconfirmed rumor and conjecture as fact, and most other MSM sources have internal editorial policies against this.


Kind of frightening really.

These people put themselves in a position where Fox news is viewed as the only credible source. So now Fox can say anything it wants, and they have to believe it because no one else is trustworthy.

The possibility that a corporation owned by a foreign national could be lying to them is never considered. They give blind faith a single source of information. They trust Fox News more than they trust their bibles.
 
2012-11-02 06:17:05 PM

beta_plus: arresting a man on a technicality of violating his parole while spitting on the 1st amendment


So people who violate their parole shouldn't be arrested?

I thought Conservatives were supposed to be tough on crime.
 
2012-11-02 06:17:28 PM
So now the conservative tow line is going to be to attack the administration for inconsistency between what they said/what actually happened and the narrative the GOP created. Why do these people hate reality SO MUCH?
 
2012-11-02 06:18:41 PM

pxsteel: We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.


So we should have just bombed the shiat out of Benghazi? Do we have bombs smart enough to kill only bad guys, now? And leave all the civilians and Americans alive? What exactly would your cunning plan have achieved?

Remind me not to vote for your dumb ass
 
2012-11-02 06:19:52 PM
What they said which time?
It's always evolving w/ this guy.
 
2012-11-02 06:20:27 PM

Hickory-smoked: neenerist: alizeran: Sadly, NPR is offering facts to intellectual giants like this:

"The buddhists are coming to take our religious freedoms".

Thanks for the depression. That's even too much stupid for a Friday night.

I think we may have found footage of Agneska in the wild...

/granted this was about as far as I could watch


Considering how emotional that old lady was in that short interview, she's probably going to have a heart attack when Obama gets re-elected.
 
2012-11-02 06:21:34 PM
I mean this was almost 2 months ago.
 
2012-11-02 06:21:42 PM

Tigger: GameSprocket: Kazan: cchris_39: Wow.

Even for state sponsored media NPR, that was pretty daming.

The article openly admits that we knew damn well what was happening even at it happened, but had no resources or clue how to respond.

it wasn't considered a hot theater of operations by the military or intelligence agencies, because it hadn't been for eons. the fact that we had scant resources in the area sorta makes sense from that context if you, you know, THINK ABOUT IT.

Give it up. Anyone with an IQ over 30 (and I know that leaves out the tea baggers) knows that an embassy is protected by the host country. You don't arm it like a military base. There is a reason why diplomats are sometimes called "soldiers without guns".

So what are the marines at embassies doing there? Are they for decoration?

I'm currently on the fence between 'not sure if serios' and 'not sure if tard'


The primary mission of the MSG is to provide security, particularly the protection of classified information and equipment vital to the national security of the United States at American diplomatic posts.

Of course, how to respond to a threat to such information may change. My friends in State always recommended grabbing the nearest locked file cabinet and hope the Marines carry both of you to safety...

That said, one hopes the local guard force and host country forces keep the mobs out
 
2012-11-02 06:22:26 PM

cryinoutloud: Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)

It's on NPR. It means nothing. Part of the socialist agenda.

Cletus C.: f the attacks were being so closely monitored and all options so carefully considered why was the "spontaneous demonstrations" and "anti-Muhammad film" crap still being pitched days after?

for christ sake, one more time--the attack was related to the movie. There were some rumors floating around about a planned attack on Benghazi, but nobody was organized enough to do it yet. Then the riots started in Egypt on 9/11, because that crappy movie had suddenly (coincidentally, I'm sure) started making the rounds in the Arab world. The terrorists, or angry mob, or whoever they were, decided to go for it in Libya because they saw the riots in Egypt going on. There was no attack on the embassy in Libya planned for 9/11.


You need to study up a little more. This attack was not spontaneously planned on 9/11.
 
2012-11-02 06:22:52 PM

alizeran: Sadly, NPR is offering facts to intellectual giants like this:

"The buddhists are coming to take our religious freedoms".


I just saw that over at Wonkette. It's farking painful to watch. He's a Muslim atheist who attended a radical Christian church for 20 years! Communist!

It's no wonder people like this are Republicans. The GOP is the party that tens to trade of propaganda more than facts, and that's most efficiently applied to morans. Please note that I'm not claiming that all liberals are smart. Just that our rallies seem to have a higher median IQ.

/yes, you can provide me a clip of some libtard making an ass of himself. But every conservative rally I've ever seen has a disturbingly large "Mooslin usurper" crowd.
 
2012-11-02 06:24:49 PM

beta_plus: So, in other words, after blaming a youtube video for the attack and arresting a man on a technicality of violating his parole while spitting on the 1st amendment, after a month the administration has gotten its lies straight.

Oh, and they did nothing for 7 hours.


Look who didn't read the article!
 
2012-11-02 06:28:07 PM

Aldon: Good thing Fox is doing all the investigation that is finding that Obama did nothing wrong...unless they ignore the facts and go with rumors.

:-\


"People are saying" that Obama is having a romantic affair with one of the Benghazi assailants. Could this be true? More after the break."

And that's exactly what they do, the "people are saying" bullsh*t. Even if the rest of segment doesn't demonstrate any truth, they put the idea out there to stick in viewer's heads. It's aggravating to watch.
 
2012-11-02 06:28:07 PM

Cletus C.: I haven't been buying into the hysteria generated by Fox and others but I'm still irked by the mixed messages coming out of the White House and administration.

If the attacks were being so closely monitored and all options so carefully considered why was the "spontaneous demonstrations" and "anti-Muhammad film" crap still being pitched days after?

Obama cited an "act of terror" but that lacked the specificity of a coordinated attack by terrorists. In fact, he, Hillary and others in the administration kept pointing at the film.

All that seems even more deceptive in light of this story.


Deceptive of what?

If this was a cover, what exactly was it covering? That we had a base there? That the libyans attacked the militants?

I think that the only thing that will come out of this whole incident, is that it will be a teaching moment. We clearly had an intelligence failure in not detecting the attack. Procedures need to be revised and adjusted to prevent a future attack. Saying that shiat happens.
 
2012-11-02 06:29:19 PM
The crux of this story is that the right doesn't know what an effective response to a terror attack looks like.

Nearly everyone involved had been arrested within 6 weeks of the attack, the responsible group has been effectively dismantled. No 10 year ground war, no massive roll back of civil liberties.
 
2012-11-02 06:30:18 PM

Lionel Mandrake: beta_plus: So, in other words, after blaming a youtube video for the attack and arresting a man on a technicality of violating his parole while spitting on the 1st amendment, after a month the administration has gotten its lies straight.

Oh, and they did nothing for 7 hours.

Look who didn't read the article!


Look who you're talking to.

When has he said anything remotely relevant to the topic at hand?
 
2012-11-02 06:32:28 PM

shotglasss: What does that have to do with NPR being a taxpayer funded arm of the DNC?


"Arm of the DNC?" Are you farking retarded? Please demonstrate for me how NPR is in any way similar to FOX News, but for the left. Difficulty: Just because NPR doesn't specifically endorse conservative causes do not make it "liberal." It makes it factual, and that is all.

You need to turn off the AM radio, son. It's making you dumber every day.
 
2012-11-02 06:34:04 PM
I didn't think it possible, but I now have less respect for conservatives than before this whole Benghazi thing. Damn you people are slower than the heat death of the universe. PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!
 
2012-11-02 06:34:08 PM
A consulate did not have a carrier group and 5 SEAL teams stationed within 5 minutes of it. Welcome to Obama's America.

/Benghazi is so fetch
 
2012-11-02 06:34:47 PM

Cletus C.: You need to study up a little more. This attack was not spontaneously planned on 9/11.


When was it planned? I mean, what day exactly did the first person with the idea to attack the consulate in BG meet with the second person who he told the idea to and who agreed with it? Who were these people? Who else was involved with the planning? Where did they procure their weapons? From whom? When and where were 50 additional attackers recruited from? Why, with 50 attackers and prior planning were they unable to stage the type of spectacular terror attack we've seen in the past like in the African embassy bombing, the Khobar Towers, 9/11, the Hotel attacks? Why no major bombs? 50 attackers, prior planning and they only net 4 American dead?


Seems people like to think they know a lot more about what happened than they really do.

We should be calling this what it really is: a piss-poor terror attack not worthy of prolonged navel-gazing or threats to remove the president in charge. We are sending the message to the terrorists that American have no balls, that killing 4 is the same as killing 700 or 3000. It's ridiculous.
 
2012-11-02 06:35:24 PM

pxsteel: We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario.


I used to work in one of those units. We were called the QRF, or Quick Reactionary Force. I worked in such a unit in the Balkans in 2002 and in Iraq in 2004.

I'll tell you from a first hand account, those units can become useless if they have a useless commander. In Iraq, there was a situation where we were called out. A transport unit had ran over a IED and were under gunfire attack at the same time. My job was to drive out there and fight back, protecting the transport unit. I was in the driver's seat, my gunner was in the hatch, my TC in the passenger seat, and two more soldiers in the back seat. I was the first HMMWV in a group of 5 trucks. We were sitting there, waiting to go, listening to the attack not only on the radio, but I could hear the gunfire - it was less than a mile away. My commander wouldn't release us.

Finally when the gunfire died down and the word came over the radio that the attack stopped, we were allowed to go out. We ended up transporting the wounded to the hospital. I was mechanized infantry, and I ended up becoming an ambulance because I wasn't allowed to do my job.
 
2012-11-02 06:36:22 PM
The word Benghazi isn't a place, it's a Musim word meaning 'those that grasp at straws'.

As in - Hey look, here comes a Benghazi, don't make eye contact!
 
2012-11-02 06:38:47 PM

mgshamster: pxsteel: We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario.

I used to work in one of those units. We were called the QRF, or Quick Reactionary Force. I worked in such a unit in the Balkans in 2002 and in Iraq in 2004.

I'll tell you from a first hand account, those units can become useless if they have a useless commander. In Iraq, there was a situation where we were called out. A transport unit had ran over a IED and were under gunfire attack at the same time. My job was to drive out there and fight back, protecting the transport unit. I was in the driver's seat, my gunner was in the hatch, my TC in the passenger seat, and two more soldiers in the back seat. I was the first HMMWV in a group of 5 trucks. We were sitting there, waiting to go, listening to the attack not only on the radio, but I could hear the gunfire - it was less than a mile away. My commander wouldn't release us.

Finally when the gunfire died down and the word came over the radio that the attack stopped, we were allowed to go out. We ended up transporting the wounded to the hospital. I was mechanized infantry, and I ended up becoming an ambulance because I wasn't allowed to do my job.


All too true, and it could be any link in the chain of command.
 
2012-11-02 06:38:54 PM
Why am I not surprised that all you farking PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAs are continuing to disregard objective observable reality in favor of your "Obama bad" narrative?
 
2012-11-02 06:39:16 PM

Lionel Mandrake: So we should have just bombed the shiat out of Benghazi? Do we have bombs smart enough to kill only bad guys, now? And leave all the civilians and Americans alive?


We should have fired up HAARP and sank the city into the sea.
 
2012-11-02 06:40:43 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-11-02 06:40:44 PM

Tigger: So what are the marines at embassies doing there? Are they for decoration?


Mostly. At least, in Europe primary job was to stand around in Alphas, Charlies or, depending on post, Blues. Not really equipped for combat in that mode. None of my freinds got stuck in shiatholes, so I can't say what they'd do in, say, N. Africa or the ME. The point isn't to have a large force, the point is to have a display. You don't fight battles from your embassy; even the training is almost exclusively centered on protocols and not being a jackass in public.

Depending on where you can be assigned, its a great gig. But, I can assure you, you don't expect Infantry-level combat skills when you pick up Marines from 1st MAW or other administrative posts. They're not training room-clearing and aren't up on most tactics.
 
2012-11-02 06:41:44 PM
Well I'm glad they've not got their narrative mostly in line with what we've been saying about the Benghazi attack for days now. Their point of contention now is that there was nothing that could be done and to what degree certain assets were available. Now they just need to address how the ambassador asked for security before the attack as he felt the situation was growing worse and an attack was bound to happen and they wouldn't be able to defend it. It's getting kind of obvious the trajectory the info is taking. I give it 1-2 months before almost everything that's been claimed so far has been admitted. By then the defense will be that they made the right call because if they did anything to repel the attack on the annex it would have killed innocents and it's not worth angering Libyans to defend Americans.

And no one within 6 hours of Benghazi? Hmmm...okay. I'll just let that speak for itself.
 
2012-11-02 06:43:15 PM

I alone am best: pxsteel: 'we watched in horror but did not have time to react'

holy farking shiat are the lies getting deep

We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

People died, Obama lied

You are all trolls, right, how can anyone believe the crap coming out of the whitehouse.

Th official line from the Whitehouse for the last couple of weeks was "We didnt know" now its "We were on top of it the whole time".


Knowing that an attack is underway and seeing people running around =/= knowing who the attackers are or what their motivation is.
 
2012-11-02 06:44:30 PM
Sounds good to me. I dislike BO with a white-hot passion, but facts are facts.

I choose to think of the last few days as a little DERP, of which I partook, helped make sure information was released. I actually had a little hope deep down I was wrong. I really don't want my President, even one I despise, to specifically delay or ignore a rescue mission.

/My DERP was reserved for here. Out in the wild I've been saying "Is (outrage du jour) based on fact or opinion?" for years now.
 
2012-11-02 06:46:15 PM
So why was a SEAL painting a target? For fun?
 
2012-11-02 06:46:40 PM

Tigger: So what are the marines at embassies doing there? Are they for decoration?


Yes.

The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. Link
 
2012-11-02 06:49:29 PM
FTFA
Could The U.S. Military Come To Their Aid?

The officials had little time to respond. There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries. So dozens of special operations forces and CIA guards from Tripoli were sent by aircraft to Benghazi, 480 miles to the east. They could not get there in time to help defend the consulate.


Apparently this General has never heard of the constant standby QRF at Vicenza, Italy... Even though it is one of the most competitive postings in the Army. They could have had a jump team in air within an hour. (as is the max response time for the QRF Battalion)...

That's why people are having problems with this narrative. Anyone who has served and performed that duty knows damned well some bullshiat is being pushed.
 
2012-11-02 06:49:35 PM

Cletus C.: You need to study up a little more. This attack was not spontaneously planned on 9/11.


It was BOTH spontaneous and something that might have had some planning behind it. That's what I said. I got my information from the Washington Post, three different stories, a couple of them after the investigation was done. Where'd you get your information? Oh, you haven't provided any. figures.
 
2012-11-02 06:50:31 PM

pxsteel: We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.


Ok, but the damage was done and the ambassador was dead in the first hour. Your quick strike team would arrive in time for the second attack, but would be at the wrong place. Wiping out the whole city would certainly kill the bad guys, and the good guys, and all the innocent civilians.

You're thinking, I like that, but your tactics are surmised and would be realistically ineffectual.
 
2012-11-02 06:50:32 PM

maudibjr: Cletus C.: I haven't been buying into the hysteria generated by Fox and others but I'm still irked by the mixed messages coming out of the White House and administration.

If the attacks were being so closely monitored and all options so carefully considered why was the "spontaneous demonstrations" and "anti-Muhammad film" crap still being pitched days after?

Obama cited an "act of terror" but that lacked the specificity of a coordinated attack by terrorists. In fact, he, Hillary and others in the administration kept pointing at the film.

All that seems even more deceptive in light of this story.

Deceptive of what?

If this was a cover, what exactly was it covering? That we had a base there? That the libyans attacked the militants?

I think that the only thing that will come out of this whole incident, is that it will be a teaching moment. We clearly had an intelligence failure in not detecting the attack. Procedures need to be revised and adjusted to prevent a future attack. Saying that shiat happens.


I'm talking only about the bullshiat Obama and the administration were feeding the public after the attacks. It seemed like a game of shells for a long while. What was the point of all that?
 
2012-11-02 06:51:09 PM

earthwirm: So why was a SEAL painting a target? For fun?


Probably. You don't paint a target in large crowd because that causes problems such as civilian casualties which you probably don't care about because OBAMA BAD.
 
2012-11-02 06:52:27 PM

Spaz-master: pparently this General has never heard of the constant standby QRF at Vicenza, Italy... Even though it is one of the most competitive postings in the Army. They could have had a jump team in air within an hour. (as is the max response time for the QRF Battalion)...


How far away is Italy? If the Marines couldn't get there from Tripoli in time, what makes you think these Army guys could have gotten there quicker from further away?
 
2012-11-02 06:52:50 PM

RyogaM: Cletus C.: You need to study up a little more. This attack was not spontaneously planned on 9/11.

When was it planned? I mean, what day exactly did the first person with the idea to attack the consulate in BG meet with the second person who he told the idea to and who agreed with it? Who were these people? Who else was involved with the planning? Where did they procure their weapons? From whom? When and where were 50 additional attackers recruited from? Why, with 50 attackers and prior planning were they unable to stage the type of spectacular terror attack we've seen in the past like in the African embassy bombing, the Khobar Towers, 9/11, the Hotel attacks? Why no major bombs? 50 attackers, prior planning and they only net 4 American dead?


Seems people like to think they know a lot more about what happened than they really do.

We should be calling this what it really is: a piss-poor terror attack not worthy of prolonged navel-gazing or threats to remove the president in charge. We are sending the message to the terrorists that American have no balls, that killing 4 is the same as killing 700 or 3000. It's ridiculous.


Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.
 
2012-11-02 06:53:38 PM

Cletus C.: I'm talking only about the bullshiat Obama and the administration were feeding the public after the attacks. It seemed like a game of shells for a long while. What was the point of all that?


Mainly the point was "hey, this attack looks similar to all those other riots that occurred on the same day, notably in Egypt"
 
2012-11-02 06:54:37 PM

Spaz-master: FTFA
Could The U.S. Military Come To Their Aid?

The officials had little time to respond. There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries. So dozens of special operations forces and CIA guards from Tripoli were sent by aircraft to Benghazi, 480 miles to the east. They could not get there in time to help defend the consulate.

Apparently this General has never heard of the constant standby QRF at Vicenza, Italy... Even though it is one of the most competitive postings in the Army. They could have had a jump team in air within an hour. (as is the max response time for the QRF Battalion)...

That's why people are having problems with this narrative. Anyone who has served and performed that duty knows damned well some bullshiat is being pushed.


It's 1000 miles from Vicenza to Benghazi. Anyone who has looked at a map knows damned well some bullshiat is being pushed.
 
2012-11-02 06:54:44 PM
I understand the people who are upset about there not being enough security at the consulate, I really do. Beefed-up security might have prevented this from happening, and if calls for it were indeed ignored (I've yet to see any real evidence of this, but I won't rule out that it happened), it was a tragic mistake and a string of people should probably be fired.

But all of this about the SEALs not being allowed to engage the attackers? The people who are wailing about how our soldiers didn't start shooting into the crowd? How nuts can you really be? This is where the importance of the "movie protest" thing comes in - the whole planet initially thought that the movie was the reason behind the attack. Do any of these idiots not see at least the possibility that the intent behind the attack was to exploit the protests and wind up getting a bunch of "peaceful demonstrators" killed by American soldiers? But no, of course not, because going out to the Arab world and saying "no, no, we swear they were actually terrorists" tooootally would have worked.

Honestly, it's awful to say considering that four people died, but the fact that we didn't end up killing anyone is probably going to turn out to be a big foreign policy win for us compared to what could have happened.
 
2012-11-02 06:55:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Spaz-master: pparently this General has never heard of the constant standby QRF at Vicenza, Italy... Even though it is one of the most competitive postings in the Army. They could have had a jump team in air within an hour. (as is the max response time for the QRF Battalion)...

How far away is Italy? If the Marines couldn't get there from Tripoli in time, what makes you think these Army guys could have gotten there quicker from further away?


How long was the time-frame of the attacks. Was it more than an hour?

/honest question
 
2012-11-02 06:56:37 PM

miscreant: Fox and the right wing are trying to make something out of this because there is an election. If there had been a republican in the white house when it happened, you wouldn't be hearing a peep from them.


If it had happened when a Republican was in the White House, it would have been a news footnote that might have stayed in the news cycle for a couple of days, then it would be generally forgotten. Like the half-dozen or so worse attacks that occurred while Bush was President.
 
2012-11-02 06:57:53 PM

Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.


Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?
 
2012-11-02 06:58:45 PM

Neeek: miscreant: Fox and the right wing are trying to make something out of this because there is an election. If there had been a republican in the white house when it happened, you wouldn't be hearing a peep from them.

If it had happened when a Republican was in the White House, it would have been a news footnote that might have stayed in the news cycle for a couple of days, then it would be generally forgotten. Like the half-dozen or so worse attacks that occurred while Bush was President.


Throughout both W.'s and Clinton's presidencies, embassy attacks were so frequent that we collectively went "Well that's too bad, launch some cruise missiles at a training camp." It was barely worth a mention in the media.
 
2012-11-02 07:02:07 PM

cryinoutloud: Cletus C.: You need to study up a little more. This attack was not spontaneously planned on 9/11.

It was BOTH spontaneous and something that might have had some planning behind it. That's what I said. I got my information from the Washington Post, three different stories, a couple of them after the investigation was done. Where'd you get your information? Oh, you haven't provided any. figures.


I think he watches FOX to keep infromed.
 
2012-11-02 07:03:20 PM
 
2012-11-02 07:03:26 PM

Mrtraveler01: How long was the time-frame of the attacks. Was it more than an hour?

/honest question



The attack at the consulate started at roughly 9:44PM (local time). The attack at the CIA annex started some time after 4AM.
 
2012-11-02 07:03:34 PM

Spaz-master: ....


MAPS, MOTHERfarkER - EVER HEARD OF THEM?

www.welt-atlas.de



note the scale.
 
2012-11-02 07:03:41 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Throughout both W.'s and Clinton's presidencies, embassy attacks were so frequent that we collectively went "Well that's too bad, launch some cruise missiles at a training camp." It was barely worth a mention in the media.


If you want some really WTF material, look at this Link. This is an interview with John McCain one month after the two African Embassy bombings under Clinton and check out his take on Osama. The contrast between then and now is amazing.
 
2012-11-02 07:03:47 PM

earthwirm: So why was a SEAL painting a target? For fun?


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-02 07:03:55 PM

Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)


Just like Fast & Furious the only thing that will make them let go of their psychotic outrage is something new to be outraged about. Come Wednesday morning they'll forget about this and be outraged at how Obama stole the election. And likely that New York & New Jersey (states they usually wouldn't give a fark about) haven't yet been returned to their pre-Sandy condition.
 
2012-11-02 07:04:24 PM

Cletus C.: I'm talking only about the bullshiat Obama and the administration were feeding the public after the attacks. It seemed like a game of shells for a long while. What was the point of all that?


It was basically "we don't know exactly what happened yet and only morans think that we should know every single farking detail about every second during a completely chaotic encounter in a country in comparative turmoil just a few hours after it happened and we don't want to say anything that might make things worse even though we know the right wing douchebags back at home are going to make it out to seem like we don't know what we're doing."
 
2012-11-02 07:06:32 PM

RyogaM: Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure.


They agreed to disband but the core of the group remains. They weren't "rolled".

Link
 
2012-11-02 07:06:40 PM

earthwirm: So why was a SEAL painting a target? For fun?


Was he using spray paint or watercolors?
 
2012-11-02 07:08:29 PM
this thread is really good for getting new derptard socketpuppets into the red background.

fark you "Team before country" asshats.
 
2012-11-02 07:10:21 PM

Mrbogey: RyogaM: Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure.

They agreed to disband but the core of the group remains. They weren't "rolled".

Link


Ah... so clearly the attack was a success since the core remains in a remote region while being blockaded.
 
2012-11-02 07:10:23 PM
Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Get in front of these BS stories before they gain any more steam.
 
2012-11-02 07:10:29 PM

RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?


Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.
 
2012-11-02 07:12:55 PM

Mrbogey: RyogaM: Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure.

They agreed to disband but the core of the group remains. They weren't "rolled".

Link


I stand corrected.
 
2012-11-02 07:15:16 PM

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.


So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?
 
2012-11-02 07:15:55 PM

RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?


They overran the compound and killed four people, including the ambassador. Only, as you say. I doubt they were expecting to find thousands, hundreds or even dozens of Americans inside. But to you it was all just a bump in the road, right?
 
2012-11-02 07:16:33 PM
This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.
 
2012-11-02 07:17:19 PM

theknuckler_33: Mrbogey: RyogaM: Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure.

They agreed to disband but the core of the group remains. They weren't "rolled".

Link

Ah... so clearly the attack was a success since the core remains in a remote region while being blockaded.


You mistake a sound strategy with battlefield success. Clearly their attack succeeded. How do we know this? Well the targets dead. Was it a smart idea? Not particularly. The 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack was a success... yet Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has shed tons of upper echelon leaders during the past 11 years. Was the 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack not a success?
 
2012-11-02 07:17:35 PM

jasimo: Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Get in front of these BS stories before they gain any more steam.


Carried by the librul media that is in Obama's back pocket? Yea, THAT'LL carry a lot of weight. Benghazi is the Obama's birth certificate.
 
2012-11-02 07:17:38 PM

theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?


No. Never.
 
2012-11-02 07:18:33 PM

DeathBySmiley: Quick: Obama is competently handling a natural disaster using the same administration that Romney wanted to shut down, and Bush sat on and did nothing with. Find something!


The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story) was the result of a power pissing match by the governor of Louisanna. The Feds were ready to go when they said they were ready to go, the governor tried a power grab.

"Fast and Furious"? No, old and busted.

Not old and busted. People are still dying as a result of Obama's failed ATF cluster-fark.

College Records? No, we tested it with Trump and it flopped.

Don't care.

Benghazi? What does Mr. Ghazi have to do with this?

What, it's a city? Hell, just run with it.


Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.
 
2012-11-02 07:19:57 PM

theknuckler_33: jasimo: Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Get in front of these BS stories before they gain any more steam.

Carried by the librul media that is in Obama's back pocket? Yea, THAT'LL carry a lot of weight. Benghazi is the Obama's birth certificate.


If we could marginalize the "Benghazi-gate" people to the same extent that birthers are marginalized, I'd be happy.
 
2012-11-02 07:21:50 PM

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.


Uh, wait. The "no" applies to whether I ever bought into the denied help, could have prevented it, or the SEALS crap. No, I never bought that. And yes, I am complaining about the statements in the immediate hours, several days and even weeks after the attack. Or chaos, as you call it.
 
2012-11-02 07:23:08 PM

a_bilge_monkey: This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.


I think if Republicans go nuclear, with either impeachment, a government shutdown, or failing to raise the debt ceiling, there will be a swift and merciless backlash. Not from their constituents, but the rest of the country. If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.
 
2012-11-02 07:25:12 PM

Mrbogey: theknuckler_33: Mrbogey: RyogaM: Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure.

They agreed to disband but the core of the group remains. They weren't "rolled".

Link

Ah... so clearly the attack was a success since the core remains in a remote region while being blockaded.

You mistake a sound strategy with battlefield success. Clearly their attack succeeded. How do we know this? Well the targets dead. Was it a smart idea? Not particularly. The 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack was a success... yet Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has shed tons of upper echelon leaders during the past 11 years. Was the 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack not a success?


I went off half-cocked there, I admit. But clearly success is in the eyes of the beholder. Are the attackers just trying to be guerillas and be part of a "death by a thousand paper cuts" strategy or do they hope to cause major change with a single act? Clearly the Benghazi attackers could not have been expecting the latter if they really just initiated the attack, at that particular time, on a motivation of spur of the moment opportunism.

I suspect that they are really no more than a fringe right-wing nutty militia with some heavy weaponry that went off half-cocked on their own. Was it a success in their eyes? I hardly think they even had a notion of what success was before they began the attack. I'm sure those that are still 'free' are slapping themselves on the back because, after all, it MUST have been a success regardless of the unintended consequences because their motivation was 'pure'. If the sole motivation was to kill Americans, then yea, in that limited scope, the attack was a success. If that was their sole motivation, then we really have nothing to fear from them as far as international politics/relations are concerned, they are just nuts that want to kill Americans. That's not going to garner much support from anyone in and of itself.
 
2012-11-02 07:25:21 PM

OgreMagi: The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story)


This is where I stopped reading your post.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:06 PM

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

They overran the compound and killed four people, including the ambassador. Only, as you say. I doubt they were expecting to find thousands, hundreds or even dozens of Americans inside. But to you it was all just a bump in the road, right?


Absolutely. We are treating this in a manner that is way over-blown. Go back to the other attacks on American interests we have suffered over the past decade and ask yourself this: how much time and attention did we pay to them. Go back to the Mother Jones interview I just posted above with McCain which occurred right after the African embassy bombings. We used to send the message that if you wanted to harm America, you would have to pull off spectacular attacks. I believe there was one interview with one of the 9/11 bigwigs who said that, after 9/11, Osama refused to okay more terror attacks because they would not be able to surpass the 9/11 terror attacks and would show AQ to be the threat they were thought to be. We've just, in the past 2 months, completely destroyed that. We've now just told the terrorists that they can tie us all in knots, and make us turn on the president, if they just manage to kill four of us. That's bad. That's really, really bad.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:38 PM
And as someone who used to be in the military, I'm greatly displeased by the behavior of the conservatives who are trying their best to make us look ineffective and weak just so they can score points against the President. Some truly bad-ass members of the military laid down their life in an attempt to save the Ambassador, and many others risked life and limb to get who they could out of there. I'm so damn sick of hearing from FOX News about how badly they bungled it when they did not.

Those two men died heroes, and there were others there that night, saving lives. And FOX News wants to turn them into a propaganda tool to hurt the President.

Damn them to Hell.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:54 PM

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.


So, can you articulate what your complaint is with the administration on this issue? Please don't just say "misleading statements", you just said that those statements were NOT your complaint.
 
2012-11-02 07:28:33 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: a_bilge_monkey: This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.

I think if Republicans go nuclear, with either impeachment, a government shutdown, or failing to raise the debt ceiling, there will be a swift and merciless backlash. Not from their constituents, but the rest of the country. If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.


'tis a conclusion devoutly to be wish'd.
 
2012-11-02 07:29:12 PM
So far, I've never gotten an answer to my question. Maybe one of the right wingers so ardently protesting here can finally answer it. The biggest complaint seems to have been, and still is, that Obama did not call the attack on the Libyan Consulate a "terrorist attack" on the day of the attack. So here's my question:

What would have been gained if he had done so? What was lost by not calling it a "terrorist attack"? Even assuming he knew that it was a terrorist attack, why was it so important that it be designated as such?

After all, most of the rhetoric aimed at Obama seems to be centered around this one complaint: That he did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" in his speech condemning the attacks on 9/12. Everyone seems furious that "he knew but didn't SAY so." Why is this? This has nothing to do with whether or not aid was requested, or whether or not anyone died--the attacks were over, and the Ambassador and the others were dead by that point. However, the details were still sketchy and nobody really knew what was happening. Why is it so necessary in your minds that Obama SAY it was a terrorist attack?

What would have been gained? What was lost? Why is it such a "lie" that those specific words were not said at that specific moment? Can anyone give me a straight answer?
 
2012-11-02 07:29:17 PM

OgreMagi: DeathBySmiley:

Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.



Have you not read the article in question and the timeline?

Here is the timeline of events, as provided by the senior intelligence official:

- Around 9:40 p.m. (local time) the annex receives the first call that the mission is under attack.

- Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the annex for the mission.

- Over the next 25 minutes, the team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons and make their way onto the compound in the face of enemy fire.

- At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound.

- By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire.

- Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m.

- At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating the ambassador and tries to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital.

- It's still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

- They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating.

- Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.
 
2012-11-02 07:30:39 PM

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story)

This is where I stopped reading your post.


Which is why you remain ignorant. Before the hurricane the Feds said it could take as much as 72 hours for them to enter the disaster areas after the storm cleared enough to proceed. They were there well within that 72 hours, but the news outlets went "OMG they took longer than a day!", completely ignoring that they said they would take longer than a day.
 
2012-11-02 07:31:23 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: a_bilge_monkey: This may be a cynical observation on my part, but thinking back to the Clinton administration, the House Repubs knew that getting a beej from a chubby intern wasn't criminal, but lying about it to a special prosecutor was. Hence we had the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. It's unlikely that President Obama did anything illegal re: Benghazi, but if the GOP can accuse him of perjury, they can tie him up in testimony long enough to blow his agenda out the side door.

I think if Republicans go nuclear, with either impeachment, a government shutdown, or failing to raise the debt ceiling, there will be a swift and merciless backlash. Not from their constituents, but the rest of the country. If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.


I think they're headed to disaster anyway. The demographic shifts in this country simply won't support an anti-black, anti-immigration, anti-woman, anti-non-Christian platform for much longer. The Christian Fundamentalists and their xenophobic faux-libertarian allies will not go quietly. I would not put a budget disaster past them just as a desperate measure.
 
2012-11-02 07:32:13 PM

beenjammin: And as someone who used to be in the military, I'm greatly displeased by the behavior of the conservatives who are trying their best to make us look ineffective and weak just so they can score points against the President. Some truly bad-ass members of the military laid down their life in an attempt to save the Ambassador, and many others risked life and limb to get who they could out of there. I'm so damn sick of hearing from FOX News about how badly they bungled it when they did not.

Those two men died heroes, and there were others there that night, saving lives. And FOX News wants to turn them into a propaganda tool to hurt the President.

Damn them to Hell.


Indeed. Those bastards who went from the CIA building to the consulate were bad ass mofo's. farkin' A, I think about what it must have been like being in an urban center like that in a country in relative turmoil with chaos going on a few miles away and racing there to who-knows-what... that's farking bad-ass. I don't even believe in a god, but God bless those guys. After the devaluation of the word hero the past 10 years or so, you are 100% correct that they died heros. It is terrible what happened, but I think the Americans there showed what makes our country great in every way.
 
2012-11-02 07:32:35 PM

OgreMagi: Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.


Stop watching Fox News.

Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.
 
2012-11-02 07:32:44 PM

Mrbogey: You mistake a sound strategy with battlefield success. Clearly their attack succeeded. How do we know this? Well the targets dead. Was it a smart idea? Not particularly. The 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack was a success... yet Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has shed tons of upper echelon leaders during the past 11 years. Was the 9-11 WTC/Pentagon attack not a success?


Big deference, huge difference. Obama and al Qaeda has become a cult, a code word. Every two-bit terrorist worth his salt adopts the Al Qaeda name because the name has powerful connotations, even if they have absolutely no connection with the AQ that attacked us on 9/11. People don't forget it took us 10 years to get Osama. That was a major success for AQ, because it made us look weak and ineffectual. No one is going to look on this new group and adopt it's name, because they have been weakened tremendously and only carried out a minor attack. If we were smart, we would have treated this attack like the nuisance it was, instead of treating it as some sort of major tragedy in which we pillory the president. We are projecting cowardice.
 
2012-11-02 07:33:25 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Gee, great job there NPR. Pretty much zero citations for everything vomited onto the page, most of which countered by actual facts....things like official emails. Official cables. People testifying in Congress. First, belittle and ignore the story for weeks. Then grudgingly acknowledge it, followed by spin and lying. Media WIN!

And they forgot THE VIDEO?? Now you know it's B.S. if they didn't mention the video which is responsible for the whole thing!


Citation needed.
 
2012-11-02 07:36:32 PM

vygramul: The Christian Fundamentalists and their xenophobic faux-libertarian allies will not go quietly. I would not put a budget disaster past them just as a desperate measure.


I'm trying hard to prepare for that, but I'm worried i won't have time.
 
2012-11-02 07:37:01 PM

chuggernaught: pxsteel: We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

Ok, but the damage was done and the ambassador was dead in the first hour. Your quick strike team would arrive in time for the second attack, but would be at the wrong place. Wiping out the whole city would certainly kill the bad guys, and the good guys, and all the innocent civilians.

You're thinking, I like that, but your tactics are surmised and would be realistically ineffectual.


I think pxsteel knows a thing or two about being ineffectual. I would defer to him on this subject because he's proved himself a master of it on Fark.
 
2012-11-02 07:38:18 PM

a_bilge_monkey: If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.

'tis a conclusion devoutly to be wish'd.


We say that every time. THIS time the American people are going to see the GOP for the intransignent farks they really are. And every time we instead get false equivalence and 'both sides the same' from the so-called liberal media. The GOP aint gonna be shuffling off this mortal coil with a bare bodkin any time soon.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:38 PM
Remember when Israel attacked the U.S. ship that was listening to communication around the area? And someone high up in the local military prevented help from being sent to blow them f*cking Israeli pirate boats out of the water? And dozens of Americans died?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]


/f*cking people are so ignorant to vote republican in this paranoid and nuclear age.
//romney/ryan 2012: If you want to be nuclear vapor 2 days after his inauguration.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:39 PM

kevinfra: Citation needed


You wont get it. That third butt cheek - it's called an asshat.
 
2012-11-02 07:44:31 PM

IoSaturnalia: a_bilge_monkey: If every time they don't like the affiliation of the president they impeach him for pointless matters, for the second time in a row, I think the backlash will be swift and devastating. It may even fracture the GOP itself.

'tis a conclusion devoutly to be wish'd.

We say that every time. THIS time the American people are going to see the GOP for the intransignent farks they really are. And every time we instead get false equivalence and 'both sides the same' from the so-called liberal media. The GOP aint gonna be shuffling off this mortal coil with a bare bodkin any time soon.


Precisely why:
Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Then, the Republicans will have to drop this thing because the American people will have seen for themselves the story is full of shiat.
 
2012-11-02 07:46:05 PM
PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!
 
2012-11-02 07:46:15 PM

HeartBurnKid: OgreMagi: Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.

Stop watching Fox News.

Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.


It's still real to him dammit.
 
2012-11-02 07:56:33 PM

theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?

Read this CNN timeline. Link It seems straightforward with no political comment or motive. The administration was all over the place with shadows and mirrors on this attack. Including several references, finally, to it being a planned, coordinated attack.

This story makes it clear the administration knew almost immediately what was happening and how it was in no way spontaneous or a reaction to some film.

That's all I'm saying. I never bought into the rest of the derp. Just the misleading statements coming from the White House.

So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.

So, can you articulate what your complaint is with the administration on this issue? Please don't just say "misleading statements", you just said that those statements were NOT your complaint.


I did clarify later what I meant by No. Never.
 
2012-11-02 07:57:06 PM

Som Tervo: PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!


He met with foreign leaders without kicking them in the balls. Now they see us as weak.
 
2012-11-02 07:57:27 PM
So Benghazi is the new Truther 9/11? It doesn't matter what proof the agencies provide it's still a cover-up. Conspiracy theorists are adorable.
 
2012-11-02 07:59:38 PM

Zapruder: Took almost two months for Obama to bribe the entire CIA into lying and covering for him. Maybe he would've gotten it done sooner and gotten his lie out to America if he wasn't busy creating a hurricane and sabotaging our soldiers' weapons overseas.

/trickster president


You saying the president is a sort of low key, lie-smith?
 
2012-11-02 08:05:30 PM

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: So, you're upset about the statements from the white house in the immediate aftermath? That's it? No "Obama denied help", or "Obama could have prevented it, but he sucks so he didn't", or "SEALs ordered to 'stand down'"? You are complaining about the statements in the immediate hours after chaos?

Really?

No. Never.

So, can you articulate what your complaint is with the administration on this issue? Please don't just say "misleading statements", you just said that those statements were NOT your complaint.

I did clarify later what I meant by No. Never.


Found it. I gotta say I'm having a hard time understanding your reaction to that. I mean, does it really make a difference if they came out 2 hours after the attack and said "terrorism, no doubt!" vs. what they did say at the time? Does that really make a difference to you? I mean, it's a word and has no effect on events. I just don't get it. If you don't believe they denied help, or could have otherwise prevented the deaths, then what difference does it make what they said in the immediate hours afterwards (or even days)? Why does that matter to you? I really just don't get it.
 
2012-11-02 08:06:56 PM
So the GOP is really going to go with "but Benghazi!" as their campaign death-rattle?

Ask 10 republicans what "Benghazi" is:
4 think it's the name of a terrorist organization
3 think it's the name of a green energy company
1 thinks it's Obama's real first name
1 thinks it's the name of a drone-strike aircraft
1 believes Romney is responsible for Bin Laden's death
 
2012-11-02 08:08:35 PM

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 300x300]


A+. Smarted, funnied, and bookmarked for future threads.
 
2012-11-02 08:10:16 PM

GameSprocket: Som Tervo: PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!

He met with foreign leaders without kicking them in the balls. Now they see us as weak.


www.patrickrobinson.com

I wish he would just kicked me in the balls
 
2012-11-02 08:14:01 PM
The most salient points of the timeline:

Attack begins at 9:40p.m.

25 minutes after being notified, backup was on the way from the annex to the compound

1:21 after being requested (11:11 p.m.) drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound

1:50 after the attack began (11:30 p.m.) all U.S. personnel, except for Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission

- Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m. (The first attack ended after about 3:20)

- At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating the ambassador and tries to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital. (AT APPROXIMATELY 1a.m. -- LESS THAN THREE HOURS FROM WHEN THE WORD FIRST GOT OUT, DOZENS OF SPECIAL FORCES AND CIA AGENTS HAD ARRIVED FROM TRIPOLI, 480 MILES AWAY)

- It's still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

- They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating. (THIS ATTACK OCCURRED 4 HOURS AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK HAD STOPPED AND ONLY LASTED 11 MINUTES.)

- Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.


Let me repeat this one bit:

AT APPROXIMATELY 1a.m. -- LESS THAN THREE HOURS FROM WHEN THE WORD FIRST GOT OUT -- DOZENS OF SPECIAL FORCES AND CIA AGENTS HAD ARRIVED FROM TRIPOLI, 480 MILES AWAY. That's fast.

To sum up:
Short of sending in jets to kill everyone (which could have killed our backup as they fought their way in and allied Libyan soldiers) around the compound/annex they did everything they could.

There, that should satisfy everyone.
 
2012-11-02 08:14:37 PM
Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.
 
2012-11-02 08:15:22 PM
We've lost 2000 troops in Afghanistan. 4500 in Iraq.

I think 4 people pales in comparison to the heavy handed monumental f*ckup Bush caused by invading two countries, Iraq in particular.

This is all a political assault derpfest 4 days before an election, intended as Fox's October Surprise, when the hard truth is that Romney is Bush 2.0 and the casualties inflicted on Benghazi will pale in comparison to four years of Romney.
 
2012-11-02 08:16:16 PM

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


What praytell is that?
Please lay it out in timeline form as I did above.
 
2012-11-02 08:17:52 PM

Mantour: GameSprocket: Som Tervo: PLEASE ONE OF YOU MORONS EXPLAIN WHAT OBAMA DID THAT CAUSED ANYTHING BAD TO HAPPEN!!!

None of you have shiat do you? Just b-b-b-b-b-but fox news says they heard it from their friends uncle that something something!

He met with foreign leaders without kicking them in the balls. Now they see us as weak.



I wish he would just kicked me in the balls


I would think that would have been just as effective. If he knew that special forces could find him at any time and kick him in the nads, he would be too freaked out (and sore) to cause more trouble.
 
2012-11-02 08:19:19 PM
i.imgur.com

'Benghazi is not a meme' is now a meme
 
2012-11-02 08:21:51 PM
Correction:
The CIA and Special Forces guys arrived approx. 3:20 after attacks began, not "less than three hours."
 
2012-11-02 08:24:05 PM

AirForceVet: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

The article pointed out the Americans were heavily armed and supported by Lybian forces. What were you expecting us to have in Lybia? The Seventh Calvary? The 82nd Airborne?

/I'm not fond of armchair generals.


Armchair general? He's an armchair moron.
 
2012-11-02 08:24:59 PM

Rapmaster2000: cannotsuggestaname: Metalupis: a few people I know on FB keep harping on this story, maybe this will get them to calm down (probably not)

ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.

[img.photobucket.com image 640x682]

I whittle the derpers off of my news feed. I didn't have the heart to unfriend my racist aunt even after she wrote a screed about blacks on welfare. Difficulty: my aunt has 4 children by different fathers and has spent much of her life on welfare.


This reminds me of several people I went to high school with. They are all single mothers with multiple children and have all been on Medicaid and welfare, but they sure do bash Obama over all the blacks he helps with welfare.
 
2012-11-02 08:27:34 PM

HeartBurnKid: Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.


He said he is frightened, which certainly is true.

/It's getting to the point where we may need primate biologist to study the mating habits of Republicans to determine if a state of fear is a mating signal.
//Never mind, Republicans hate sex
 
2012-11-02 08:29:27 PM

EngineerAU: /It's getting to the point where we may need primate biologist to study the mating habits of Republicans to determine if a state of fear is a mating signal.


It certainly is for the women involved.
 
2012-11-02 08:32:06 PM

OgreMagi: DeathBySmiley: Quick: Obama is competently handling a natural disaster using the same administration that Romney wanted to shut down, and Bush sat on and did nothing with. Find something!

The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story) was the result of a power pissing match by the governor of Louisanna. The Feds were ready to go when they said they were ready to go, the governor tried a power grab.

"Fast and Furious"? No, old and busted.

Not old and busted. People are still dying as a result of Obama's failed ATF cluster-fark.

College Records? No, we tested it with Trump and it flopped.

Don't care.

Benghazi? What does Mr. Ghazi have to do with this?

What, it's a city? Hell, just run with it.

Somebody farked up. What happened was no surprise. The ambassord and the security people had asked for additional security over a month before the attack. They predicted that kind of attack. So failure #1, before it happened. Who ultimately refused the needed security?

During the SEVEN HOUR attack, help was refused, help that was only two hours away. That's failure #2. Who refused the help during the attack?

After the attack, Obama and his people repeated the lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstrationg over a bad movie that no one saw. They knew this was not true yet they repeated that lie for weeks. That's failure #3 and that is directly Obama's fault.

People pretending that Benghazi is a nonissue are capable of allowing Obama to make any farking mistake in the world. I find that not only pathetic, but rather frightening.


You're repeating a lot of bad information here. Please read this analysis from snopes.

To paraphrase: help was never refused, Obama never said there was a demonstration, and the video was the stated motivation for the attack from day 1.

Any obfuscation of those simple facts came from the media, although Fox News was the only outlet on record that went to air with *most* of the now-debunked conjecture that you mention.
 
2012-11-02 08:34:28 PM

OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: The delay after Katrina (which wasn't much of a delay but the media ran with that story)

This is where I stopped reading your post.

Which is why you remain ignorant. Before the hurricane the Feds said it could take as much as 72 hours for them to enter the disaster areas after the storm cleared enough to proceed. They were there well within that 72 hours, but the news outlets went "OMG they took longer than a day!", completely ignoring that they said they would take longer than a day.



In fairness, the feds knew beforehand that Katrina would strike and could have entered the areas before the hurricane made landfall.
 
2012-11-02 08:42:00 PM

Cletus C.: Uh, wait. The "no" applies to whether I ever bought into the denied help, could have prevented it, or the SEALS crap. No, I never bought that. And yes, I am complaining about the statements in the immediate hours, several days and even weeks after the attack. Or chaos, as you call it.


What statements? Obama went before the press on the day of the attack and called it an attack, and an act of terror. He never once even implied that it could have been a riot or a demonstration that became violent.
 
2012-11-02 08:50:57 PM

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know want to believe about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


FTFY
 
2012-11-02 09:01:05 PM
Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.
 
2012-11-02 09:06:01 PM

thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.


When did he lie about the people behind the attack? The White House blamed Ansar al Sharia on day one, and from what I've read, that has never changed.
 
2012-11-02 09:10:05 PM

thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO


Once you write something like this, the rest of what you say can safely be ignored.
 
2012-11-02 09:10:33 PM

thrgd456: Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.


lol. you try to distance yourself from the derp, then immediately carry on with the same old accusation.
 
2012-11-02 09:11:20 PM

udhq: thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.

When did he lie about the people behind the attack? The White House blamed Ansar al Sharia on day one, and from what I've read, that has never changed.


The derp cannot be questioned. Obama lied, people died. Don't you get it?
 
2012-11-02 09:11:55 PM

jasimo: Precisely why:
Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Then, the Republicans will have to drop this thing because the American people will have seen for themselves the story is full of shiat.


Which will never be seen by the people who would benefit the most because Fox News won't cover the press conference. And then Fox will continue their "investigation" as if nothing had happened.

This, unfortunately, is why I am so pessimistic about the future. I don't see how we can ever heal if 40% of out country live in an alternate reality that's not based on fact, but rather whatever narrative the right wing media has cooked up.
 
2012-11-02 09:12:03 PM

udhq: When did he lie about the people behind the attack? The White House blamed Ansar al Sharia on day one, and from what I've read, that has never changed.


You know this tune already.
This daring plan, months in the making, was masterminded by a resurgent Al-Qaeda, drunk off America's weakness. Obama covered it up to hide the fact that the entire Arab Spring was in fact an Al-Qaeda plot.
 
2012-11-02 09:12:51 PM

spamdog: thrgd456: Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.

lol. you try to distance yourself from the derp, then immediately carry on with the same old accusation.


Republicans are useless but gas has DOUBLED UNDER FARTBONGO!!!

/*cough* *spit* *cought*
 
2012-11-02 09:13:57 PM

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


Oh, please. You know absolutely dick about what happened outside of what the creepy underbelly of motherfarking freeeperland tells you. You make up the most insane bullshiat to match the reality you've created on your fevered little brain.

It would be really farking nice if you and the sorry sacks of shiat just like you would quit farking the corpses of honorable and dead Americans and get back to riding your chickens.

You're an insult to their memory. Go stew with the 911 truthers and imagine the next great conspiracy wherein the government kills off another pile of your countrymen for some political gain and advancement of the illuminati.

Disgust-I have it for you.
 
2012-11-02 09:14:33 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: udhq: When did he lie about the people behind the attack? The White House blamed Ansar al Sharia on day one, and from what I've read, that has never changed.

You know this tune already.
This daring plan, months in the making, was masterminded by a resurgent Al-Qaeda, drunk off America's weakness. Obama covered it up to hide the fact that the entire Arab Spring was in fact an Al-Qaeda plot.


And Obama hates Israel!1!
 
2012-11-02 09:25:45 PM

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


Was the NPR story about how there are a bunch of straw graspin' crazies all too focused on something that really isn't going to help them win this election?
 
2012-11-02 09:28:02 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.


i5.photobucket.com

Mmmm, yeah. I think there's something missing. FTFA:

"One source familiar with the events said there was a sense of urgency."

"Officials say that U.S. forces from Europe and Fort Bragg in North Carolina were dispatched in an effort to help..."

"Officials dispute a report on Fox News that there was a delay..."

"The officials had little time to respond."

"CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put."

"The source said that surveillance cameras establish what time they left the annex and what time they showed up at the consulate."

There's definitely something wrong here, I can't put my finger on it - WAIT. I've got it. The source is (cue dramatic chipmunk)...HARRY REID!!!
 
2012-11-02 09:32:41 PM

Prussian_Roulette: Mmmm, yeah. I think there's something missing. FTFA


Funny part? That story is better sourced than anything Fox News has been able to gin up.
 
2012-11-02 09:42:17 PM

randomjsa: Oh so now NPR is getting around to talking about the Benghazi thing. How nice. How unsurprising they are playing CYA for Obama as usual too.

What we already know about Benghazi is absolutely damning to this administration and that is why they are stonewalling it.


The poop ain't sticking. Nobody cares.
 
2012-11-02 09:53:39 PM
so really the bottom line is we should put Bush Sr back in the white house
 
2012-11-02 09:54:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Prussian_Roulette: Mmmm, yeah. I think there's something missing. FTFA

Funny part? That story is better sourced than anything Fox News has been able to gin up.


Let me dumb down the whole of the Benghazi Incident to ensure the Fox Demographic is not left tragically uniformed.

NPR: "Case closed - anonymous sources say administration was up all night worrying but nobody was close enough to help weakly protected ambassador who previously expressed fear on multiple occasions something bad was going to happen after attacks three months past, which prompted the British to pack their crap up and LEAVE."
 
2012-11-02 09:55:47 PM
Or uninformed. Some of them are uniformed.
 
2012-11-02 09:55:48 PM

Gyrfalcon: So far, I've never gotten an answer to my question. Maybe one of the right wingers so ardently protesting here can finally answer it. The biggest complaint seems to have been, and still is, that Obama did not call the attack on the Libyan Consulate a "terrorist attack" on the day of the attack. So here's my question:

What would have been gained if he had done so? What was lost by not calling it a "terrorist attack"? Even assuming he knew that it was a terrorist attack, why was it so important that it be designated as such?

After all, most of the rhetoric aimed at Obama seems to be centered around this one complaint: That he did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" in his speech condemning the attacks on 9/12. Everyone seems furious that "he knew but didn't SAY so." Why is this? This has nothing to do with whether or not aid was requested, or whether or not anyone died--the attacks were over, and the Ambassador and the others were dead by that point. However, the details were still sketchy and nobody really knew what was happening. Why is it so necessary in your minds that Obama SAY it was a terrorist attack?

What would have been gained? What was lost? Why is it such a "lie" that those specific words were not said at that specific moment? Can anyone give me a straight answer?


The thing is, Obama DID call it a terrorist attack, the day after it happened. So they're all raging about yet another lie that they created so they could have something to rage about.

Eleven of these happened with Bush, and the right didn't give a flying shiat. One happens with Obama, and they bay for his blood. They're upset that we didn't rain nuclear missiles all over the city, that we didn't send troops in five minutes before it happened, and that there's a black Democrat in charge. It's incredible, the amount of self-inflicted flaying-into-a-frenzy the right is doing to themselves to have something, ANYTHING with which to attack Obama with. Especially with how well he handled Sandy.
 
2012-11-02 09:57:53 PM

EngineerAU: HeartBurnKid: Seriously, there is not a goddamn thing that you said that was accurate.

He said he is frightened, which certainly is true.

/It's getting to the point where we may need primate biologist to study the mating habits of Republicans to determine if a state of fear is a mating signal.
//Never mind, Republicans hate consensual, and/or heterosexual sex


FTFY
 
2012-11-02 10:00:09 PM

thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.


Republicans cut funds for such things. How can we pay for security without money?
 
2012-11-02 10:06:22 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.

Republicans cut funds for such things. How can we pay for security without money?


Obama didn't pray enough for security.
 
2012-11-02 10:10:06 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Keizer_Ghidorah: thrgd456: Liberals blame Bush for sending a hurricane to NO, derpsters blame Obama for Muslim extremism. Same amount of validity.

Maybe Obama should have increased security in Benghazi and then not LIED about the people behind the attack.

Republicans cut funds for such things. How can we pay for security without money?

Obama didn't pray enough for security.


Considering God couldn't keep one fallen angel out of Eden, I wouldn't depend on him for security.
 
2012-11-02 10:17:16 PM

jasimo: jasimo: Let me repeat this one bit:

AT APPROXIMATELY 1a.m. -- LESS THAN THREE HOURS FROM WHEN THE WORD FIRST GOT OUT -- DOZENS OF SPECIAL FORCES AND CIA AGENTS HAD ARRIVED FROM TRIPOLI, 480 MILES AWAY. That's fast.

To sum up:
Short of sending in jets to kill everyone (which could have killed our backup as they fought their way in and allied Libyan soldiers) around the compound/annex they did everything they could.

There, that should satisfy everyone.

 

Yeah, but Obama's black. Checkmate.
 
2012-11-02 10:48:27 PM

Jerseysteve22: Who gives a shiat. He certainly didn't waste time getting aid to us in NY/NJ, and that's what really counts.


And according to "Brownie" that was the wrong move. He should have waited a few days, maybe gone on vacation and then checked back in the middle of the week.

/probably the dumbest non-rape statement made this year
 
2012-11-02 10:59:31 PM
This is nothing more than an election ploy by the anti-American GOP and their propaganda machine. It's really telling that Fox News has dedicated more time talking about Benghazi than they did talking about 9/11.
 
2012-11-02 11:03:03 PM

Prussian_Roulette: cameroncrazy1984: Prussian_Roulette: Mmmm, yeah. I think there's something missing. FTFA

Funny part? That story is better sourced than anything Fox News has been able to gin up.

Let me dumb down the whole of the Benghazi Incident to ensure the Fox Demographic is not left tragically uniformed.

NPR: "Case closed - anonymous sources say administration was up all night worrying but nobody was close enough to help weakly protected ambassador who previously expressed fear on multiple occasions something bad was going to happen after attacks three months past, which prompted the British to pack their crap up and LEAVE."


And?

If the Brits pull out their ambassadors from everywhere, are we supposed to follow suit? There's no evidence that the Ambassador wanted to pull out. There's no evidence that we knew an attack was going to happen for sure. Do you dispute the CIA timeline or not?
 
2012-11-02 11:08:06 PM
As usual.

Keiser answered my question, of course; but I already knew that.

No righty ever answered my question; and none of them ever will. Because, of course, they can't.
 
2012-11-02 11:13:43 PM

Gyrfalcon: As usual.

Keiser answered my question, of course; but I already knew that.

No righty ever answered my question; and none of them ever will. Because, of course, they can't.


Don't feel bad. I've never gotten an answer from a rightie to my question of "Why do you want an America that's misogynist, homophobic, ignorant, rich man's paradise, Christian theocracy that declares wars at Israel's beck and call?". The few who do respond either ignore it and act like children, or scream "OBAMA DICK-SUCKING LIB!!" and ignore it.
 
2012-11-02 11:15:47 PM
The GOP has gone post-truth.
 
2012-11-02 11:24:26 PM

Gyrfalcon: So far, I've never gotten an answer to my question. Maybe one of the right wingers so ardently protesting here can finally answer it. The biggest complaint seems to have been, and still is, that Obama did not call the attack on the Libyan Consulate a "terrorist attack" on the day of the attack. So here's my question:

What would have been gained if he had done so? What was lost by not calling it a "terrorist attack"? Even assuming he knew that it was a terrorist attack, why was it so important that it be designated as such?

After all, most of the rhetoric aimed at Obama seems to be centered around this one complaint: That he did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" in his speech condemning the attacks on 9/12. Everyone seems furious that "he knew but didn't SAY so." Why is this? This has nothing to do with whether or not aid was requested, or whether or not anyone died--the attacks were over, and the Ambassador and the others were dead by that point. However, the details were still sketchy and nobody really knew what was happening. Why is it so necessary in your minds that Obama SAY it was a terrorist attack?

What would have been gained? What was lost? Why is it such a "lie" that those specific words were not said at that specific moment? Can anyone give me a straight answer?


I've been asking that question ever since this stupid "scandal" started and none of these derptards have had the balls to answer me back.
 
2012-11-02 11:34:17 PM

Mrtraveler01: I've been asking that question ever since this stupid "scandal" started and none of these derptards have had the balls to answer me back.


The only time I've heard it answered, it was with something like this:

"Obama was unwilling to call it a terrorist attack because a successful terrorist attack proves that his foreign policy dealings in the Middle East have been a complete failure. Obama is lying to cover up his failure."

And that's with as little derp as possible.
Even then it ignores that the Libyans themselves rounded up most of the attackers for us, and Libyan civilians marched to show support for the US and condemn the attacks, which I consider a major foreign policy victory.
 
2012-11-03 12:03:16 AM

RyogaM: Cletus C.: Huh? Their attack was a failure? Better send them a memo.

Send Who a memo? You realize the group does not exist any longer, correct? It has been rolled up by the Libyans within weeks of the attack. An attack with 50+ men that kills only 4 Americans and which results in the group ceasing to exist? Yes, that is a failure. What is now happening is sending a message to all the other bad actors in the area that all they need to do to be a" success" is kill 4 Americans. That's stupid and short-sighted. I also notice you completely failed to answer any of the questions I posed re: the planning of the group. Why is that?


Wow, you no nothing of Libya. Prime minister, last prime minister elect both Alabama natives for 30+ years. Libya has the most American friendly government in the past 50 years. The people of Libya want us to not meddle in their affairs. This bullshiat that Fox News is pushing is feeding in to the opposition in Libya, to unseat a truly American friendly regime. Keep farking that chicken. It will pay back great dividends in the future.
 
2012-11-03 12:16:33 AM

dickfreckle: It's pretty pathetic how you dolts are desperately trying to parlay this into a scandal. If is the worst dirt you can get Obama, maybe you should give up. Or, of course, just make up a bunch of sh*t.


DAMN! ALL THIS.

I can't stand this BS from the right-wing trying to play this up as anywhere close to the abject failures of Bush and the right-wing to protect Americans AT HOME...AT HOME, and this farking idiots seem to think we have Star Trek transporters to instantly send in a battalion from Camp Pendleton and drop their ass in the MIDDLE OF farkING BENGHAZI LIBYA. Are you serious?

I mean, seriously, farking stop. Anyone trying to make this into a scandal needs to be punched in the god damn face, arrested for anti-American activities, and exposed to the farking planet as empty-headed, unpatriotic chickenhawks who'd run from a water balloon fight one day and the next proclaim they are the baddest MFer's on the block.

No matter what, Obama has cared and fought more for American interests than anyone on the GOP/right-wing. I'd stab every last one of them if I had the chance, because dancing on the graves of brave Americans so that you can reoccupy the White House and send people like me on another ill-devised adventure in some ridiculous country to fill you pockets is high treason. They've lost the privilege to call themselves Americans.
 
2012-11-03 12:18:24 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: You know this tune already.
This daring plan, months in the making, was masterminded by a resurgent Al-Qaeda, drunk off America's weakness. Obama covered it up to hide the fact that the entire Arab Spring was in fact an Al-Qaeda plot.


You know what's funny? Nobody over here can figure out what the hell is going on over there. The people who study it, the CIA and the spies and the terrorists and the citizens--they don't know what the hell is going on over there either, and it's happening all around them.

But the conservatives know everything about all of it. In hindsight. They just knew it.
 
2012-11-03 12:35:26 AM

jasimo: Once they've finished the investigation, I'd love to see Obama hold an hour-long /presentation/press conference on Benghazi, complete with timelines, charts, models, and the people who were there.

And go over, point-by-point, exactly why this Fox narrative is so chock-full of shiat.

Get in front of these BS stories before they gain any more steam.


That only elevates it as being more significant only because of the Fox narrative. A better, more appropriate response is to come out with a Rumsfeld-esque "unknown unknowns" bullshiat, since that is what the Republicans found acceptable as a public explanation when they were in charge.
 
2012-11-03 12:41:13 AM

dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.


No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.
 
2012-11-03 12:43:37 AM

SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.


Except he did treat it like a terrorist attack. For f*cks sake, look at the actual facts on the ground for once.
 
2012-11-03 12:46:06 AM

SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.


You mean calling it an act of terror the very next day.

Yes, he was terrible in going about this conspiracy.
 
2012-11-03 12:48:58 AM

SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.


The definition of a "terrorist attack" has become pretty weak in recent years. Now, a small attack against an American building combined with a flash mob is called a "terrorist attack."

Remember back when terrorist attacks were serious things? Back when they were bombings aimed at killing hundreds and actually designed to cause terror? Now everything has to be dramatized. Regular attacks and mobs become "terrorist attacks." I wonder what we'll call it next time an actual terrorist attack happens. Perhaps a full on war or a crime against humanity.

/Makes me wonder when we'll start calling attacks done by Americans a terrorist attack.
 
2012-11-03 12:51:51 AM

mgshamster: /Makes me wonder when we'll start calling attacks done by Americans a terrorist attack.


Probably Wednesday.
 
2012-11-03 01:25:00 AM
What I don't get is where have all these conservatives been hiding? Out of the rediculous crap that comes out of the right wing media (breitbart, townhall, americanthinker, etc...) This is the topic that brings them all out. I mean holy crap, are these people the 'fark independents' I always read about? They only come out when they have weeks of Fox propoganda to back them up on the issue?
 
2012-11-03 01:27:14 AM

SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.


I wish Bush would have done that during 9/11. You know how many people he would have saved?
 
2012-11-03 01:30:22 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.

Except he did treat it like a terrorist attack. For f*cks sake, look at the actual facts on the ground for once.


If the response in Bengazi is Obama's best ability to respond to a terrorist attack that went on for 7 hours, then the man is too incompetent to be Commander In Chief. Sorry.

This article (and the "proof" included) sucks balls*. I'm not reading through the thread, but I imagine everything I'm about to point out has already been expressed by others upthread ...

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, who was the regional commander for Africa, happened to be in Washington that day." - Why isn't the entirety of the Senior Executive Service and the top Military brass not at their posts on 9/11? It's the clear #1 most likely day that shiat is going to go down all year.

"Officials say that U.S. forces from Europe and Fort Bragg in North Carolina were dispatched in an effort to help, but they arrived too late." - Why didn't we dispatch U.S. Forces from our new base in Iraq? - rhetorical question

"Officials considered sending U.S. warplanes from Italy, but it was decided that dropping bombs would lead to civilian casualties." - Bad decision. Particularly since the Seal that died was lasering the mortor target.

"There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries." - Why were there no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate? Too hard to guess that an American building in Libya might come under attack some day?

"Ham, back in Washington, requested a military counterterrorism force from Europe. But they arrived in Libya the day after the attack and deployed to Tunisia two days later. A larger special operations force was sent from Fort Bragg, complete with their own helicopters and trucks. They arrived in Sigonella, Italy, too late to be any help. No American forces were denied by Washington, officials say." - they're being attacked and the grand plan was to dispatch troops from halfway around the world? How about sending something (aircraft) that might get there within the first 24 hours?

"American attack aircraft? An AC-130 gunship would seem to make sense." - Yup

"There were two Navy ships in the Mediterranean - the USS Laboon and the USS McFaul - but only the Laboon is equipped with a Seahawk helicopter, the Navy's version of the Black Hawk." - then why the fark didn't it immediately start flying to Libya? Hey, look at me - I didn't graduate from Annapolis, but I know the attack helicopter wasn't helping them while it was still on the ship in the middle of the sea.

"There were American warplanes based in Aviano, Italy, just across the Mediterranean, but they could not arrive in time to help with the consulate fight." - maybe true. Of course, it buries the real question which is ... could they have helped save the people who were still fighting at the annex 7 hours later? Hmm, that's left out of the story. I wonder why?

"CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the consulate." - Oh. So they were never told to "stand down" they just weren't allowed to go. But the words "stand down" were never actually uttered, so CIA-High-Up-Official-Cover-Our-Ass-Wiggle-Room-FTW. And they left within 24 minutes? Here's a question I'd like answered ... if they arrived 20 minutes earlier, is it possible (or even likely) the Ambassador wouldn't have died of smoke inhalation? Is that a reasonable question? Not addressed in the story.

"The convoy drove along an indirect route to avoid hostile militias, and the Americans and Libyans hustled along on foot for the last half mile, arriving an hour after the call for help." - it took them an hour to go how many miles? And WTF were they doing on foot?

"At the White House and the Pentagon, top officials believed the worst was over after the successful rescue mission." - Oh. So White House and Pentagon top officials farked up. Good to know. Why isn't this the headline?

"The F-16 Fighting Falcons could come to the rescue from their base in Aviano, some officials thought. But there were no clear targets, it was decided." - how about the laser we know the Seal was pointing at the source of the mortar fire? Is that clear enough? Guess not.

"Officials watched the grainy footage from the drone. It was hard to determine, among the hundreds of people, who was with a militia supporting the U.S., who was taking part in that second attack, and who was a spectator - people, as the source said, "watching a war movie in front of them." Sporadic gunfire added to the confusion about separating friend from foe." - Here's a hint ... the guys being shot at inside the building are the good guys. Everyone else? One big explosion (outside the building) would have killed some of them and dispersed the others in all directions.

"Officials eventually decided they couldn't drop large bombs in a residential neighborhood." - The lives of American officials clearly not the priority. fark up of astronomical proportions. 14 years ago I watched us shoot missiles through the window of a building on CNN in a high-tech version of Missile Command. Now we can't set off an explosion without massive civilian casualties?

"A decision was made: no close air support, not even as a show of force that could possibly disperse the fighters. The Americans, and their Libyan allies fighting with them on the ground, were on their own." - Oh, hey ... glad that's settled. Whoever made this call doesn't get to make decisions anymore. Wouldn't want "shows of force" in the middle of a 7 hour attack on American soil ... what an epic farking disaster this entire operation was.

"One mortar curled into the base and killed two Americans." - shame we didn't know the mortar fire source OUTSIDE THE farkING BUILDING that was BEING POINTED OUT BY OUR FORMER SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIER ON THE GROUND (basically giving up his own position) wasn't "the bad guy". Could have shot him with the helicopter in the Mediterranean that we never launched or the planes in Italy that were still on the runway.

"There was frustration in Washington that no more American firepower could be brought to help, according to the source." - I bet there was frustration in the annex too.

"No more troops." - where were they?

"No aircraft at all." - who made this decision? An actual journalist gets names. And if it wasn't Obama, why wasn't it Obama? And while we're on it, according to "the source" where the fark was Obama during this entire ordeal? Where was Clinton? Where was Panetta? Where was Petreaus? Who made what decisions?

Like I said, this article is dogshiat.
 
2012-11-03 01:35:40 AM
Uhhh, so. Wy wasn't the consulate guarded by 6 marines, like the one in every European Country?
The consulate was under attack since June, and the administration reduced security despite the ambassador's direct please to increase it.

Obama saw the coordinated attack by al Qaeda then lied and blamed it on a spontaneous riot sparked by some ridiculous video.
 
2012-11-03 01:41:46 AM

SunsetLament: I only believe what Fox and Glenn Beck tell me.


Yup.
 
2012-11-03 01:43:50 AM

Mrtraveler01: beta_plus: arresting a man on a technicality of violating his parole while spitting on the 1st amendment

So people who violate their parole shouldn't be arrested?

I thought Conservatives were supposed to be tough on crime.


Republicans don't try terrorists in downtown NYC.
 
2012-11-03 01:49:23 AM

udhq: The crux of this story is that the right doesn't know what an effective response to a terror attack looks like.

Nearly everyone involved had been arrested within 6 weeks of the attack, the responsible group has been effectively dismantled. No 10 year ground war, no massive roll back of civil liberties.


So, you're saying this attack in Libya was the same thing as the attack on the WTC that killed 3000 Americans. And of course we haven't been attacked in the US since, so there's that.

Couple things: Obama has enjoyed his powers under the Patriot Act for quite sometime. Second, last time I checked, we are still in Afghanistan years past when Obama said we'd be gone.
 
2012-11-03 02:01:52 AM

SunsetLament: cameroncrazy1984: SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.

Except he did treat it like a terrorist attack. For f*cks sake, look at the actual facts on the ground for once.

If the response in Bengazi is Obama's best ability to respond to a terrorist attack that went on for 7 hours, then the man is too incompetent to be Commander In Chief. Sorry.

This article (and the "proof" included) sucks balls*. I'm not reading through the thread, but I imagine everything I'm about to point out has already been expressed by others upthread ...

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, who was the regional commander for Africa, happened to be in Washington that day." - Why isn't the entirety of the Senior Executive Service and the top Military brass not at their posts on 9/11? It's the clear #1 most likely day that shiat is going to go down all year.

"Officials say that U.S. forces from Europe and Fort Bragg in North Carolina were dispatched in an effort to help, but they arrived too late." - Why didn't we dispatch U.S. Forces from our new base in Iraq? - rhetorical question

"Officials considered sending U.S. warplanes from Italy, but it was decided that dropping bombs would lead to civilian casualties." - Bad decision. Particularly since the Seal that died was lasering the mortor target.

"There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries." - Why were there no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate? Too hard to guess that an Ameri ...


It's a pity you couldn't be bothered to read the thread, where most of what isn't simply rejected as being GI Joe fantasy by yourself is simply debunked.
 
2012-11-03 02:08:03 AM

tjfly: last time I checked, we are still in Afghanistan years past when Obama said we'd be gone.


When did Obama say we would be leaving Afghanistan?
 
2012-11-03 02:41:09 AM

SunsetLament: The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.


Look at you. It's so important to you that this be the case.
 
2012-11-03 02:54:16 AM
Look people, can't we just agree that blowing the fark out of a whole bunch of Libyan civilians to maybe, possibly, kinda-sorta help save one American life should have been SOP?
 
2012-11-03 03:01:31 AM

Cletus C.: I haven't been buying into the hysteria generated by Fox and others but I'm still irked by the mixed messages coming out of the White House and administration.

If the attacks were being so closely monitored and all options so carefully considered why was the "spontaneous demonstrations" and "anti-Muhammad film" crap still being pitched days after?


Who the fark cares?!? You rightards act like the two are mutally exclusive. Or maybe you think religious fundies over there won't attack and kill over something that slanders their prophet? Of course they will - and have (see past cartoon episodes). Or maybe you think a "terrorist" attack would make Obama look bad? A far larger "terrorist" attack made the criminally negligent G.W. Bush a farking hero ffs.

In short, whether this attack was or was not prompted by the video... again... who the fark CARES?!? There is simply no "there" there in this narrative. Unfortunately, people like you just aren't smart emough to figure shiat like this out for yourself.

The corporate media decides the narrative will be "It wasn't the video, it was a terrorist attack," and their blind, desperate faithful join the chorus without even once examining whether or not the main premise behing the argument is solid. In this case, it wasn't. It was - and still is - stupid. 

/stupid
 
2012-11-03 03:07:21 AM

I alone am best: pxsteel: 'we watched in horror but did not have time to react'

holy farking shiat are the lies getting deep

We have quick strike units that are designed for this very scenario. We have the ability to reach nearly every city in the world within a couple of hours and with enough firepower to level it.

People died, Obama lied

You are all trolls, right, how can anyone believe the crap coming out of the whitehouse.

Th official line from the Whitehouse for the last couple of weeks was "We didnt know" now its "We were on top of it the whole time".


You can be "on top of something" without knowing (or not giving a fark, as the deceased won't be any less dead depending on the motive) without knowing the motivation.
 
2012-11-03 03:36:21 AM
Has any conservative ever been right about what they say about Obama? I'm no Obama fan, but I have never heard one conservative say anything even marginally intelligent in the last 12 years.
 
2012-11-03 04:08:06 AM

sprawl15: Antimatter: I get the feeling they are trying to hype this up to get some impeachment stuff rolling.

They already have grounds for that. Obama came out just last week in favor of Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon. Yu-Gi-Oh isn't in the farking constitution.


To be fair, if anyone says they like Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon, they should be kicked in the d*ck. Constitution or not.
 
2012-11-03 04:31:11 AM

schoolbread: sprawl15: Antimatter: I get the feeling they are trying to hype this up to get some impeachment stuff rolling.

They already have grounds for that. Obama came out just last week in favor of Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon. Yu-Gi-Oh isn't in the farking constitution.

To be fair, if anyone says they like Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon, they should be kicked in the d*ck. Constitution or not.


fixed
 
2012-11-03 05:00:32 AM

MurphyMurphy: schoolbread: sprawl15: Antimatter: I get the feeling they are trying to hype this up to get some impeachment stuff rolling.

They already have grounds for that. Obama came out just last week in favor of Yu-Gi-Oh over Pokemon. Yu-Gi-Oh isn't in the farking constitution.

To be fair, if anyone says they like Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon, they should be kicked in the d*ck. Constitution or not.

fixed


Hey, don't be hatin' on Pokemon. Arceus frowns upon nonbelievers.
 
2012-11-03 05:29:19 AM

Blowmonkey: So now that this information is out, what's the angle that fox news is going to take. Just igonore it and keep going the way they have been?


Why not? It's been a winning formula for most of their existence.
 
2012-11-03 07:20:19 AM

SunsetLament: dinch: Agneska: Why was the Obama admin trying to bamboozle Americans by saying that the attack was related to the video? Obama lied, Americans died.

Oh, so because Obama didn't come right out and call it a terrorist attack Americans died?

Now I get the anger.

No, it's because Obama didn't come right out and treat the situation like an impending terrorist attack (and then an on-going terrorist attack) that Americans died. The lie about the video was to just play three-card-monte with the complicit media until after the election.


Yeah, yeah - that's the ticket!
 
2012-11-03 07:33:34 AM

heap: The Stealth Hippopotamus: No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

yah, the rocket repelling super soldiers were busy at 6 Flags over Yefren that day.


Ima color you green for HILARIOUS!
 
2012-11-03 07:50:18 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.


This.
 
2012-11-03 09:09:38 AM
I forget, is NPR on the list?
 
2012-11-03 10:32:37 AM

OHDUDENESS: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

This.


Why? Do you expect the President to be clairvoyant?
 
2012-11-03 11:37:30 AM
Don't you know anything people? The president is supposed to hunker over a map of the world in the Oval Office and move military pieces all over the board - telling his military commanders how to do their job. It is up to him to figure out how to allocate our limited military resources.

/s
 
2012-11-03 11:59:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: OHDUDENESS: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

This.

Why? Do you expect the President to be clairvoyant?


Oh, FFS, don't give them any ideas...

24.media.tumblr.com

I don't think we have room on the chart for Supernatural Powers.
 
2012-11-03 12:00:02 PM

OHDUDENESS: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Excellent article.

? Unnamed sources and no time line. Yeah, gold standard article.

And the article did point out that here was basically no help around. In Libya? If there wasn't then that in and of it self was a major farking screw up. No help less then 6 hours away?! Bull-shiat.

This.


I suppose you could Google it and find out that the CIA released a detailed timeline and the story relies on official statements from the agency itself as opposed to anonymous sources and Glenn Beck.

But you truthers needed a new conspiracy theory.
 
2012-11-03 12:25:37 PM

Farkomatic: Don't you know anything people? The president is supposed to hunker over a map of the world in the Oval Office and move military pieces all over the board - telling his military commanders how to do their job. It is up to him to figure out how to allocate our limited military resources.

/s


LMAO - Remember six months ago when they fell all over themselves telling us that's exactly what he did during the Bin Laden raid? Hell, Biden was carrying on about it less than a month ago. I thought Obama was the second-coming of Patton according to liberals?
 
2012-11-03 12:58:02 PM

SunsetLament: LMAO - Remember six months ago when they fell all over themselves telling us that's exactly what he did during the Bin Laden raid? Hell, Biden was carrying on about it less than a month ago. I thought Obama was the second-coming of Patton according to liberals?


Obama had to authorize that particular raid. I'm sure he did it with much input from his military advisers, but in the end, he had to say, "OK, go ahead and do it." Not like this incident, where it was sudden and unexpected, and he probably relied on others to tell him what the best move would be. And they decided that no move was the best thing to do.

You're not too bright, are you?
 
2012-11-03 02:09:44 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: BMulligan: Holocaust Agnostic: It doesn't count as terrorism

Oh? Why not, pray tell?

Because words have meanings. However vile the perpetrators goals or methods, targets don't actually get any more legitimate than "a bunch of marines"


I dunno, I'd assume "a bunch of CIA" would be a legit target too, considering that spying for a foreign power is generally a capital crime. At least, the Republicans tell us it was a CIA facility.

/Republicans are just pissed that they didn't take hostages to hold over Obama
 
2012-11-03 03:59:27 PM
cannotsuggestaname: ugh, I keep seeing insanity spewed by my right wing friends about this. One of them just posted this insane image about 15 minutes ago. I think I may need to unfriend some people, even though I have known them for a couple of decades.

I keep em around for the sheer lulz.
 
2012-11-03 04:47:10 PM

cryinoutloud: SunsetLament: LMAO - Remember six months ago when they fell all over themselves telling us that's exactly what he did during the Bin Laden raid? Hell, Biden was carrying on about it less than a month ago. I thought Obama was the second-coming of Patton according to liberals?

Obama had to authorize that particular raid. I'm sure he did it with much input from his military advisers, but in the end, he had to say, "OK, go ahead and do it." Not like this incident, where it was sudden and unexpected, and he probably relied on others to tell him what the best move would be. And they decided that no move was the best thing to do.

You're not too bright, are you?


Looks like they're taking the "If Obama did everything with killing bin Laden (something that only right-wingers say), then he did everything with this! I don't know or care that these are two different types of situations, if it involves Obama they're 100% exactly the same and he's a demon tyrant trying to take our precious bodily guns!" route.
 
2012-11-03 07:12:22 PM
By the White House's own admission, Special Forces and an AC-130 gunship were each approximately 2 hours away. They might not have been able to get there in time to deal with the attack on the consulate, but they certainly would have been there in time to respond to the attack on the CIA headquarters. And that's assuming you believe the White House, the same White House that has now offered several versions of their actions that day and pushed the theory a bad youtube video was the cause of the attack when they know it had been planned months ahead of time.

/Voted for Obama before, but not again.
 
2012-11-03 07:34:30 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The decision was made to go in. You go in. You don't leave people and material in harms way with help > 6 hours away. And yes, they could know it was going to take 6 hours when the shiat hit the fan. But you send what you got when the alarm rings.

They did send help, within 24 minutes. Say so right in the article.


The CIA tried and failed to get larger weapons from the Libyans. The CIA went over with side-arms, i.e. pistols. Even the team from Tripoli wasn't dispatched until hours later.
 
2012-11-03 07:44:04 PM

kindasketchy: By the White House's own admission, Special Forces and an AC-130 gunship were each approximately 2 hours away. They might not have been able to get there in time to deal with the attack on the consulate, but they certainly would have been there in time to respond to the attack on the CIA headquarters. And that's assuming you believe the White House, the same White House that has now offered several versions of their actions that day and pushed the theory a bad youtube video was the cause of the attack when they know it had been planned months ahead of time.

/Voted for Obama before, but not again.


Obama said that it was an act of terror the day after it happened, and he never said otherwise. The mistake was relaying every bit of information that came in instead of waiting until they got it all sorted and straightened out.

Of course the right seized on this and began broadcasting it all as lies, deflections, and twistings in order to continue with their 3.5-year-long crusade against Obama. Which is why, more than 6 weeks later, with nearly all those responsible captured, and the video protests being used by the attackers as a smokescreen being admitted to by the attackers and common knowledge, people like you insist on being "OBAMA LIED!! AMBASSADOR SACRIFICED FOR SOME REASON!! HELP DENIED TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN!! WE SHOULD HAVE SLAUGHTERED ALL THE LIBYANS THERE INDISCRIMINATELY BECAUSE USA USA USA!!".
 
2012-11-03 07:58:00 PM

kindasketchy: /Voted for Obama before, but not again.


Of course you did.
 
2012-11-04 12:14:58 AM
The real scandal here is the GOP voting to cut embassy security funding. They are to blame.
 
2012-11-04 01:07:10 PM
It's the way Obama shot all those Polish officers in the Katyn Forest which really makes my blood boil.
 
Displayed 374 of 374 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report