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  
•       •       •

5060 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 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 09:54:49 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.
 
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