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 97
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-02 02:30:52 PM
16 votes:
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 07:26:38 PM
6 votes:
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 04:35:10 PM
5 votes:
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 06:54:44 PM
4 votes:
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 03:21:56 PM
4 votes:

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 06:14:35 PM
3 votes:

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 05:24:35 PM
3 votes:

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 05:13:43 PM
3 votes:

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 05:10:10 PM
3 votes:

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 05:01:10 PM
3 votes:
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 04:46:54 PM
3 votes:

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 04:35:54 PM
3 votes:
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 04:19:19 PM
3 votes:

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 11:34:17 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-02 09:13:57 PM
2 votes:

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 07:38:18 PM
2 votes:

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 07:26:06 PM
2 votes:

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 06:35:24 PM
2 votes:

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 06:34:04 PM
2 votes:
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 06:29:19 PM
2 votes:
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 06:13:13 PM
2 votes:

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 06:04:16 PM
2 votes:

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 05:29:16 PM
2 votes:

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 05:07:22 PM
2 votes:

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 05:06:36 PM
2 votes:

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 05:02:38 PM
2 votes:

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 04:55:43 PM
2 votes:

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 04:41:16 PM
2 votes:
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 03:23:28 PM
2 votes:

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 03:00:36 PM
2 votes:

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 02:30:29 PM
2 votes:

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


There. That's for accuracy.
2012-11-03 02:09:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:58:02 PM
1 votes:

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 11:37:30 AM
1 votes:
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 10:32:37 AM
1 votes:

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 03:36:21 AM
1 votes:
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 12:18:24 AM
1 votes:

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 12:16:33 AM
1 votes:

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 12:03:16 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-02 10:48:27 PM
1 votes:

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 10:00:09 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:48 PM
1 votes:

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 09:10:33 PM
1 votes:

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 09:06:01 PM
1 votes:

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 08:14:01 PM
1 votes:
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 07:57:27 PM
1 votes:
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 07:32:44 PM
1 votes:

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 07:29:17 PM
1 votes:

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 07:15:16 PM
1 votes:

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 07:10:23 PM
1 votes:
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 07:08:29 PM
1 votes:
this thread is really good for getting new derptard socketpuppets into the red background.

fark you "Team before country" asshats.
2012-11-02 07:04:24 PM
1 votes:

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 07:03:55 PM
1 votes:

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 07:03:20 PM
1 votes:
2012-11-02 06:54:37 PM
1 votes:

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 06:50:31 PM
1 votes:

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 06:49:29 PM
1 votes:
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 06:46:40 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:30 PM
1 votes:
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 06:40:44 PM
1 votes:

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 06:40:43 PM
1 votes:
www.bitlogic.com
2012-11-02 06:36:22 PM
1 votes:
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 06:34:47 PM
1 votes:

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 06:11:23 PM
1 votes:

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 06:04:16 PM
1 votes:

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 05:53:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:44:52 PM
1 votes:

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 05:40:37 PM
1 votes:
"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 05:35:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:23:47 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:27 PM
1 votes:
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 05:15:47 PM
1 votes:

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 05:14:24 PM
1 votes:
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 05:13:36 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:49 PM
1 votes:
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 05:10:32 PM
1 votes:

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 05:10:30 PM
1 votes:

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


raventao.files.wordpress.com
2012-11-02 05:09:35 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:10 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:50 PM
1 votes:

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


Typical Freeper, can't even spell Ni**er right.
2012-11-02 04:59:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:07 PM
1 votes:
Now the cries of "Obama is leaking information for political purposes" in 3... 2... 1...
2012-11-02 04:56:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:13 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:53 PM
1 votes:
Sure, the facts may be on Obama's side, but that doesn't automatically make him right.

Checkmate, libtards.
2012-11-02 04:39:23 PM
1 votes:
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 04:36:13 PM
1 votes:
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 04:35:55 PM
1 votes:
Benghazi is Republican Libyan arabic for Got Nothing.
2012-11-02 04:27:08 PM
1 votes:
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 04:22:09 PM
1 votes:

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 04:20:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-02 04:05:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:03:05 PM
1 votes:
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 02:44:58 PM
1 votes:
Excellent article.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report