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

(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 373
    More: Obvious, President Obama, heavy machine gun, Military of Libya, Andrews Air Force Base, u.s. consulate, Libya, Predator drone, civilian casualties  
•       •       •

5062 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 4:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report